• Korean Journal of Air-Conditioning and Refrigeration Engineering
• /
• v.19 no.6
• /
• pp.470-475
• /
• 2007

The present study has been conducted economic analysis through actual operation of electric heat pump (EHP) and gas engine driven heat pump (GHP) which are installed at the same building in the university. Cost items, such as initial cost, annual energy cost and maintenance cost of each system are considered to analyze life cycle cost (LCC) and economical efficiencies are compared. The initial cost is considered on the basis of actual cost, and annual energy cost is converted into the cost after measuring electricity and gas consumption a day LCC applied present value method is used to assess economical profit of both of them. Variables used to LCC analysis are electricity cost escalation rate, natural gas cost escalation rate, interest rate, and service lives when each of them are 4%, 2%, 8%, and 20 years. The result shows that EHP (148,257,306 won) is more profitable than GHP (161,239,296 won) by 8.05% (12,981,990 won).

• KIEAE Journal
• /
• v.17 no.4
• /
• pp.67-74
• /
• 2017

Purpose: As the recent climate environment changes so rapidly, environmental problems such as hot weather and fine dust have occurred, and interest in environmental policies and technology development is increasing in countries around the world. Similarly in the Architecture, researches to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and to reduce energy application are actively conducted. Looking at previous studies, it is analyzed that the electric VRF is more energy efficient than the gas engine VRF. However, energy costs have changed due to recent price hikes and discounts on gas charges due to high electricity consumption in summer. Method: In this study, the actual building of Gas Engine VRF system was modeled using SketchUp program, and EnergyPlus was used to simulate actual building. Also, Electric VRF system was simulated, and compared with Gas Engine VRF system. Result: The total secondary energy requirement of Electric VRF system was 19.6% less than that of the Gas Engine VRF system, But when analyzing with primary energy requirement, EHP used 15.8% more energy. CO2 emissions were also estimated to be 16.9% more EHP. Energy costs were 14.8% more in Electric VRF systems, because their electricity charges are 0.6 to 160% more expensive than gas charges.