4.7 Article

Experimental evaluation of energy and energy efficiency of a seasonal latent heat storage system for greenhouse heating

Journal

ENERGY CONVERSION AND MANAGEMENT
Volume 46, Issue 9-10, Pages 1523-1542

Publisher

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.enconman.2004.07.001

Keywords

latent heat storage; paraffin; energy and exergy efficiency

Ask authors/readers for more resources

In the following work, a seasonal thermal energy storage using paraffin wax as a PCM with the latent heat storage technique was attempted to heat the greenhouse of 180 m(2) floor area. The system consists mainly of five units: (1) flat plate solar air collectors (as heat collection unit), (2) latent heat storage (LHS) unit, (3) experimental greenhouse, (4) heat transfer unit and (5) data acquisition unit. The external heat collection unit consisted of 27 m(2) of south facing solar air heaters mounted at a 55degrees tilt angle. The diameter and the total volume of the steel tank used as the latent heat storage unit were 1.7 m and 11.6 m(3), respectively. The LHS unit was filled with 6000 kg of paraffin, equivalent to 33.33 kg of PCM per square meter of the greenhouse ground surface area. Energy and exergy analyses were applied in order to evaluate the system efficiency. The rate of heat transferred in the LHS unit ranged from 1,22 to 2.63 kW, whereas the rate of heat stored in the LHS unit was in the range of 0.65-2.1 kW. The average daily rate of thermal exergy transferred and stored in the LHS unit were 111.2 W and 79.9 W, respectively. During the experimental period, it was found that the average net energy and exergy efficiencies were 40.4% and 4.2%, respectively. The effect of the temperature difference of the heat transfer fluid at the inlet and outlet of the LHS unit on the computed values of the energy and exergy efficiency is evaluated during the charging period. (C) 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available