ARTICLE IN PRESS

Building and Environment 42 (2007) 1503–1509

www.elsevier.com/locate/buildenv

A parametric study on the exergoeconomic assessment of a vertical

ground-coupled (geothermal) heat pump system
Onder Ozgenera,, Arif Hepbaslib, Leyla Ozgenerc
a
Solar Energy Institute, Ege University, 35100 Bornova, Izmir, Turkey
b
Department of Mechanical Engineering Ege University, 35100 Bornova, Izmir, Turkey
c
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Celal Bayar University, TR-45140 Muradiye, Manisa, Turkey
Received 12 October 2005; received in revised form 10 November 2005; accepted 7 December 2005

Abstract

An exergoeconomic model of a vertical ground-source heat pump residential heating system presented in this study uses exergy and
cost energy mass (EXCEM) methods. The data obtained from a ground-source heat pump (GSHP) residential heating system installed at
the Solar Energy Institute, Ege University, Turkey, are utilized for calculations at different reference temperature values in the range
0–25 1C. The performance of the geothermal heat pump residential heating system is evaluated to indicate how exergoecomic parameter
values change with system. We also undertake a parametric study to investigate how varying reference temperatures will affect the
exergoeconomic analysis of the GSHP system. A correlation between the ratio of thermodynamic loss rate to capital cost and reference
state temperature is developed.
r 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Geothermal energy; Energy; Exergy; Ground-source heat pump; Renewable energy; Parametric study

1. Introduction been in use for years in developed countries and the

Ground-source heat pumps (GSHPs), often refered to as
geothermal heat pumps (GHPs), provide space heating and
cooling and water heating with relatively high efficiency
[1–6]. The efficiency of these systems may be evaluated
using energy and exergy analyses. Geothermal heat pumps
(GHPs) have had the largest growth since 1995, almost
59% and 9.7% annually in the United States and Europe,
respectively. The installed capacity is 6850 MW in 26
countries. The worldwide actual number of installed units
was around 500,000 in 2000 [7,8]. It is also estimated that
there are about 1.3 million in use today [8]. The concept of
GHP is not new. However, the utilization of GHPs in
residential buildings is new in Turkey, although they have
Corresponding author. Tel.: +90 232 388 4000/1242;
fax: +90 232 388 6027.
E-mail addresses: Onder.Ozgener@ege.edu.tr (O. Ozgener),
Arif.Hepbasli@ege.edu.tr (A. Hepbasli),
leylaozgener@yahoo.com (L. Ozgener).
performance of the components is well documented [1–6].
GHPs have been on the Turkish market for about eight
years. In 1998, when the first installation was begun, two
GHP systems with a total capacity of 26 kW representing a
total floor area of 596 m2 were completed. These systems
have had the largest growth since the beginning of the year
2000. The number of the installations, and the Turkish
GSHP sellers importing the heat pump units from aboard
has recently increased. No Turkish GSHPs have yet had
manufacturers. The majority of the installations are in the
Marmara region of Turkey [1–6,9].
In the literature, there is a number of economic analysis
methods used to evaluate the economic performance of
geothermal heat pumps (GHPs). These include the life
cycle cost (LCC) method, net benefits (net present worth),
payback method, benefit-to-cost (or savings-to-investment)
ratio method, internal rate-of-return method, overall rate-
of-return method, and analytic hierarchy process (AHP)
[2]. Besides this, there is a technique for such evaluations
called EXCEM. This analysis may prove useful to

0360-1323/$ - see front matter r 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.buildenv.2005.12.019
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
1504 O. Ozgener et al. / Building and Environment 42 (2007) 1503–1509
Nomenclature
COP heating coefficient of performance of heat pump
(dimensionless)
E_ energy rate (kW)
_
Ex exergy rate (kW)
h specific enthalpy (kJ/kg)
K capital cost (USD)
L_ thermodynamic loss rate (kW)
m_ mass flow rate (kg/s)
R ratio of thermodynamic loss rate to capital cost
(kW/USD)
s specific entropy (kJ/kgK)
T temperature (1C)
Abbreviations
AHP analytic hierarchy process
EXCEM exergy cost energy mass
GHP geothermal heat pump
GSHP ground-source heat pump
LCC life cycle cost
investigators in engineering and other disciplines due to the
methodology are being based on the quantities exergy,
cost, energy and mass [10,11]. The main objective of the
EXCEM is to investigate capital costs and thermodynamic
losses for devices in thermal and power systems. This
technique is a methodology which can be used at the design
stage of a heating and air-conditioning facility to determine
the type of the system to be used. The EXCEM method has
been applied to a variety of systems. However, little
attention has been given so far to the application of the
EXCEM to the GHP systems, especially to residential
geothermal heat pump systems utilizing geothermal energy,
although the EXCEM seems to be suitable also for these
systems. The purpose of this study is to address this
problem.
In recent years, various exergy-based economic analysis
methodologies (e.g., exergoeconomics, thermoeconomics,
second-law costing,) have been applied by many investiga-
tors [6,10–13]. Among these, EXCEM analysis was
proposed by Rosen and Scott [14] and was utilized recently
by Rosen and Dincer [10,11] can be useful to investigators
in engineering and other disciplines. The methodology
provides a comprehensive assessment by accounting for the
quantities exergy, cost, energy and mass.
As pointed out earlier [10,11], cost accounting for energy
conversion devices conventionally considers unit costs
based on energy. Researchers have developed methods of
performing economic analyses based on exergy. These
analysis techniques have some common characteristics: (i)
they combine exergy and economic disciplines to improve
or optimize economic performance, and (ii) they recognize
that exergy, not energy, is the commodity of value in a
Greek letters
e exergy (exergetic or second law) efficiency (%)
c specific exergy (kW/kg)
Subscripts
a accumulation
act actual
cond condenser
comp compressor
dest destroyed
en energy
ex exergy
fc fan-coil
g generation
HP heat pump
HE heat exchanger
i input
o output
sys system
0 restricted state
system, and they consequently assign costs and/or prices to
exergy-related variables.
Energy (heating coefficient of performance ‘COP’) and
exergy efficiency values of GSHP applications at various
reference and entering water temperatures have also been
reported in the previous studies of the authors [1–6]. The
study differs from the the earlier studies as follows: (i)
GSHPs are modelled, analyzed based on EXCEM, and (ii)
evaluated parametric exergoeconomically. In this regard,
the system considered here is a GSHP heating system with
a 50 m vertical U-bend ground heat exchanger having a
32 mm nominal diameter. This system was designed and
installed at the Solar Energy Institute, Ege University,
Izmir, Turkey. Besides this, we undertake a parametric
study to investigate how the varying reference temperature
from 0 to 25 1C will affect the exergoeconomic analysis of
the ground-coupled heat pump system and provide a
correlation that can be used for predicting the ratio of
thermodynamic loss rate to capital cost.
Exergy analysis can also indicate the possibilities of
thermodynamic improvement of the process under con-
sideration, but only an economic analysis can decide the
expediency of a possible improvement [14–18]. This study
briefly describes an easy-to-follow procedure for exergo-
economic analysis of a ground-source heat pump residen-
tial heating system, installed in Solar Energy Institute, Ege
University, Izmir, Turkey, and how to apply this procedure
to assess the heating system performance by calculating
exergy destruction, and thus showing the direction for
improvements. It is observed from the results that the
maximum exergy destructions in the system particularly
occur due to the electrical, mechanical and isentropic
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
O. Ozgener et al. / Building and Environment 42 (2007) 1503–1509 1505

efficiencies and emphasize the need for paying close
attention to the selection of this type of equipment, since
components of inferior performance can considerably
reduce the overall performance of the system. It is expected
that the results of analysis presented here will be beneficial
to those who deal with exergoeconomic (a combination of
exergy and economy) assessment of GSHP systems.
2. Application of EXCEM to the geothermal heat pump
residential heating system
2.1. Description of the system studied
Fig. 1 illustrates a schematic diagram of the experimental
set-up. To avoid freezing the water under the working
condition and during the winter, a 10% ethyl-glycol
mixture by weight was used. The refrigerant circuit was
built on the closed-loop copper tubing (1–4 lines). The
working fluid is R-22. The GSHP residential heating
system is an air/refrigerant vapor compression heat pump
and consists mainly of a compressor with a capacity of
1.4 kW, a 6.66 kW-condenser, a 8.2 kW-evaporator, an
expansion device equipped with a series of capillary tubes
with a length of 1.5 m and an inside diameter of 0.0015 m.
Besides this, the system has three separate circuits, namely:
(i) the ground-coupling circuit (brine circuit or water–
antifreeze solution circuit), (ii) the refrigerant circuit (or a
reversible vapor compression cycle) and (iii) the fan-coil
circuit for resident heating (water circuit). The main
characteristics of the elements of the system are given in
1 2
I [10,11]
5
8 K i þ K g  K o ¼ K a.
IV GSHP unit II
V
Table 1, where the numbers in parentheses correspond to
these elements as depicted in Fig. 1.
2.2. Modelling and assesment
Here, we apply the model and assessment methodology
outlined earlier by Rosen and Dincer [10,11] to a GSHP
residential heating system. Actual local cost data are used.
The exergetic equivalents of the capital and labor costs
have been evaluated based on data available for Turkey.
The balance equations are written for mass, energy and
exergy flows in the system and its components as they are
considered steady-state steady-flow control volume sys-
tems, and the appropriate energy and exergy equations are
derived for this system and its components. Analysis of
GSHP residential heating system is described in this paper.
More detailed description of the system and how energy
and exergy calculations are done, can be find in the
authors’ previous works [1–6].
A mass flow rate balance for a system may be written as
_i m
m _o ¼ m
_ a. (1)
Like mass, energy is subject to a conservation law
(neglecting nuclear reactions) and can be neither generated
nor consumed. Exergy is subject to a nonconservation law
and can be consumed during a process due to irreversi-
bilities. Consequently, rate balances for energy and exergy,
respectively, can be written as
E_ i  E_ o ¼ E_ a , (2)
Ex _ o  L_ ex ¼ Ex
_ i  Ex _ a. (3)
The balance equation for cost, a nonconserved quantity,
can be written as Cost is an increasing, nonconserved
quantity. The cost balance equation can be written as
(4)

6a 6
Energy losses can be identified directly from Eq. (2). For
Space
convenience, the energy loss rate for a system is denoted in
heating the present analysis as L_ en . Exergy losses can be identified
4 IIII 3
Pump II Eq. (3), and are of two types: external (i.e., the loss
7 VI associated with exergy that is emitted from the system, or
Pump I
waste exergy output) and internal (i.e., the exergy losses
VIII I Compressor
7a within the system due to process irreversibilities, or exergy
II Condenser consumption). These two exergy losses sum to the total
Ground level
III Capillary tube exergy loss. The loss rate based on exergy is denoted L_ ex .
IV Evaporator The exergy rate is calculated from the following equation:
Fan coil unit
V
in the space heating _ ¼ m½ðh
Ex _  h0 Þ  T 0 ðs  s0 Þ. (5)
Ground
heat VI Circulating pump II
The exergy destructions in the heat exchanger and pump
50 m

exchanger VII Ground heat exchanger are calculated respectively as follows:

VII VIII Circulating pump I
_ dest;HE ¼ Exi  Ex
L_ ex;HE ¼ Ex _ o ¼ Ex
_ dest , (6)
I-IV GSHP unit
I-IX Overall system
_ dest;pump ¼ W
L_ ex;pump ¼ Ex _ o  Ex
_ pump  ðEx _ n Þ. (7)
Fig. 1. Schematic of a ground-source heat pump residential heating Energy (or first law) efficiency of the heat pump unit
system. (COPHP) and the whole heat pump system (COPsys) can be
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
1506 O. Ozgener et al. / Building and Environment 42 (2007) 1503–1509

Table 1
Main characteristics of the ground-source heat pump resident heating system

Main circuit Element Technical specification

Refrigerant circuit (1–4)
Fan-coil circuit (5–6a)
Ground-coupling circuit (7–8)
Compressor (I)
Heat exchanger (II)
 condenser for heating
 evaporator for cooling
Capillary tube (III)
Heat exchanger (IV)
 evaporator for heating
 condenser for cooling
Fan-coil unit (V)
Laboratory (space heating)
Water circulating pump (VI)
Ground heat exchanger (VII)
Brine circulating pump (VIII)
Type: hermetic; reciprocating; manufacturer: Tecumseh; model: TFH
4524 F; volumetric flow rate: 7.5 m3/h; speed: 2900 rpm; the rated power
of electric motor driving: 2 HP (1.4 kW); refrigerant: R-22; capacity:
4.134 kW (at evaporating/condensing temperatures of 0/45 1C);
Manufacturer: Alfa Laval; model: CB 26–24; capacity: 6.66 kW; heat
transfer surface: 0.55 m2
Copper capillary tube; 1.5 m long; inside diameter: 1.5 mm
Manufacturer: Alfa Laval; model: CB 26–34; capacity: 8.2 kW; heat
transfer surface: 0.80 m2
Manufacturer: Aldag; type: SAS 28; Cooling/heating capacities: 3.25/
9.3 kW, air flow rate: 600 m3/h
65 m2
Manufacturer: Marina; type: KPM 50; range of volumetric flow rate:
0.36–2.4 m3/h; pressure head: 41–8 m of water column; power: 0.37 kW;
speed: 2800 rpm
Vertical-single U-bend type; bore diameter: 105 mm; diameter of U-bends:
32 mm; of a bore diameter with a boring depth of 50 m; boring depth:
50 m; material: polyethylene
Manufacturer: Marina; type: KPM 50; range of volumetric flow rate:
0.36–2.4 m3/h; pressure head: 41–8 m of water column, power: 0.37 kW;
speed: 2800 rpm

defined respectively as follows: The ratio R of thermodynamic loss L to capital cost Kg is a

Q_ significant parameter [10,11,14]. The capital cost is defined
COPHP ¼ cond , (8a) here using the cost balance in Eq. (4) and is denoted by Kg.
W_ comp
The value of R generally depends on whether it is based on
Q_ cond energy loss rate (Ren) or exergy loss rate (Rex):
COPsys ¼ . (8b)
_
W comp þ W_ pumps þ W
_ fc L_ en
Ren ¼ , (13)
Different ways of formulating exergetic (or exergy) Kg
efficiency (second law efficiency, effectiveness, or rational and
efficiency) have been proposed in the literature. The exergy L_ ex
efficiency can be written as follows: Rex ¼ . (14)
Kg
_ o
Ex _ dest
Ex
esys ¼ ¼1 . (9) Here, the values of R based on energy and exergy loss rates
_ i
Ex _ i
Ex
are considered.
The exergy efficiency of the GSHP unit is calculated from
_ heat Ex
Ex _ o;cond
_ i;cond  Ex 2.3. Uncertainity analysis
eHP ¼ ¼ . (10)
_
W act;i W act;i
In the present study, the temperatures, flow rates,
The exergy efficiency of the heat exchangers (condenser pressure drops, voltages and amperes were measured with
and evaporator) is determined by the increase in the exergy appropriate instruments explained below.
of the cold stream divided by the decrease in the exergy of
the hot stream on a rate basis as follows:
(a) Measurement of mass flow rates of the water/antifreeze
m_ cold ðccold;o  ccold;i Þ solution by a rotameter.
eHE ¼ . (11)
m_ hot ðchot;i  chot;o Þ (b) Measurement of mass flow rates of the refrigeration by
The exergy efficiency of the circulating pumps is deter- a flowmeter.
mined by (c) Measurement of temperature of the water/antifreeze
_ i
_ o  Ex solution entering and leaving the ground heat exchan-
Ex
epump ¼ . (12) ger by copper–constantan thermocouples mounted on
W_ pump
the unit water inlet and outlet lines.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
O. Ozgener et al. / Building and Environment 42 (2007) 1503–1509 1507

(d) Measurement of condenser and evaporator pressures
by Bourdon-type manometers.
(e) Measurement of ambient atmospheric pressure by a
barometer.
(f) Measurement of outdoor and laboratory air tempera-
tures and humidities by using multi-channel cable free
thermo-hygrometer.
(g) Measurement of electrical power input to the compres-
sor and circulating pump by a wattmeter.
(h) Measurement of inlet water temperature to and exit
water temperature from fan-coil unit by copper–con-
stantan thermocouples.
(i) Measurement and monitoring on a LCD display of
instantaneous power consumptions of the heat pump
compressor, the pumps and all electrical parameters by
using electronic energy analyzer.
(j) The tests were conducted on the system under steady-
state conditions in the heating mode in 2004/2005 heat-
ing season. Daily average values of 37 measurements
from 8.30 a.m. to 4.00 p.m. with an interval of 15 min.
The total uncertainties of the measurements are esti-
mated to be 73.33% for the refrigerant temperatures,
71.59% for the water temperatures, 73.32% for pres-
sures, 71.51 for power inputs to the compressor and
circulating pumps. Uncertainty in reading values of the
table is assumed to be 70.20. Total uncertainties
associated with mass flow rates of the refrigerant and
brine are found to be 71.51 and 73.02, respectively [3].
3. Results and discussion
In this study, the reference state was taken to be 11.4 1C
and the atmospheric pressure 101.32 kPa for the GSHP
residential heating system. The exergy losses in the overall
GSHP resident system are quantified and illustrated using
Table 2 for this reference state temperature for comparison
purposes. This reference temperature is taken as an average
value of the ambient temperatures in Izmir measured
during the past five years for the day of January 2nd to
reflect the actual situation [19]. The exergy rate results
given in Table 2 indicate that the compressor produces an
increase in exergy rate due to its work input, while all other
components result in a decrease in exergy rate due to their
irreversibilities. The highest irreversibility on a system basis
occurs in the resident fan-coil unit, followed by the
compressor, condenser, expansion valve and evaporator,
subregions I and V for the GSHP unit and the whole
system, respectively. In addition to this, the remaining
system components have a relatively low influence on the
overall efficiency of the whole system. Since the compressor
power depends strongly on the inlet and outlet pressures,
any heat exchanger improvements that reduce the tem-
perature difference will reduce the compressor power by
bringing the condensing and evaporating temperatures
closer together. From a design standpoint, compressor
irreversibility can be attacked independently. In recent
years, it has been reduced substantially by improving
motors, valves, lubrication etc. [1–6]. The only way to
eliminate throttling loss would be to replace the capillary
tube (the expansion device) with an isentropic turbine (an
isentropic expander) and to recover some shaft work from
the pressure drop. A comparison of the irreversibilities
associated with the heat transfer processes in the evapora-
tor and the ground heat exchanger will show that although
the mean temperature difference in the former is smaller,
the relative magnitudes of their irreversibilities are in the
reverse order.
Table 3 illustrates device parameter values for the GSHP
system studied. The costs given in this table are in 2005 US
dollars and were obtained based on the 2005 Turkish–$US
exchange rate.
In the analysis, thermodynamic quantities were obtained
using actual data from the experimental setup. The
coefficient of performance (COP) and exergy efficiency of
the overall system were determined to be 2.38% and

Table 2
Exergy destruction, energy and exergy efficiency for one representative unit of the GSHP resident heating investigated

Item no. Component Exergy destruction rate (kW) Exergy efficiency (%) Energy efficiency (%) or COP

I Compressor 0.440 71.0 70

II Condenser 0.210 68.7 —
III Capillary tube 0.180 83.6 —
IV Evaporator 0.130 23.5 —

V Fan-coil unit in the space heating 0.465 61.5 65–80

VI Circulating pump II 0.045 16.8 65–80
VII Ground heat exchanger 0.038 42.8 —
VIII Circulating pump I 0.022 50.8 —
I–IV GSHP unit 0.960 71.0 2.60a
I–IX Overall system 1.530 67.4 2.36b
a
Heating coefficient of performance of the heat pump unit.
b
Heating coefficient of performance of the whole system.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
1508 O. Ozgener et al. / Building and Environment 42 (2007) 1503–1509

Table 3
Device parameter values for the GSHP greenhouse heating system (based on US dollars)

Device no. Device K (USD) Len (kW) Ren (kW/USD) Lex (kW) Rex (kW/USD)

I Compressor 302 0 0 0.440 1.46

II Condenser 553 0 0 0.210 0.38
III Expansion valve (capillary tube) — 0 0 0.180 —
IV Evaporator 553 0 0 0.130 0.24
V Fan-coil unit in the space heating 2000 3.7 1.85 0.465 0.23
VII Ground heat exchanger 859 0 0 0.038 0.04
VI, VIII Pumps (I,II) 244 0 0 0.067 0.27

Overall system 4694 3.7 0.78 1.530 0.32

67.7%, respectively. The loss-to-capital-cost ratio based on 0.5

exergy, Rex, for the overall GSHP was about 0.30 [1–6].
The sources of exergy destruction in the system include
the compressor, heat exchangers (ground heat exchanger,
condenser and evaporator), capillary tube, circulating
pumps, and fan-coil units. The highest irreversibility is
seen in Table 2 to occur in the compressor (device I), and
laboratory (device V). More specifically, the losses in the
motor-compressor subassembly are due to the electrical,
mechanical and isentropic inefficiencies and emphasize the
need for paying close attention to the selection of this type
of equipment, since components of inferior performance
can considerably reduce the overall performance of the
system. The second largest irreversibility in the GSHP unit
is in the condenser. This is partly due to the large degree of
superheat achieved at the end of the compression process,
leading to large temperature differences associated with the
initial phase of heat transfer. The third highest irreversi-
bility is in the capillary tube due to the pressure drop of the
refrigerant passing through it. The evaporator has the
lowest irreversibility of the heat pump components. Tables
2 and 3 suggest that the greatest potential for efficiency
improvement is likely in the compressor and its compo-
nents. The values of the ratio of thermodynamic loss rate
to capital cost are given in Table 3, ranging from 0.04 to
1.46, while reference state temperature and the atmospheric
pressure are 11.4 1C and 101.32 kPa, respectively. The
greatest potential for improvement, by balancing thermo-
dynamic losses and capital costs, probably lies in the
compressor, pump II and condenser, followed by pump I
and the greenhouse. The exergy loss rates for the system
devices range from 0.022 to 0.440 kW. As expected, the
largest energy and exergy losses occur in the greenhouse
and compressor. The results suggest that a good design, in
terms of balancing efficiency with cost, occurs when the
loss-to-capital-cost ratios based on exergy for the devices
comprising the geothermal heat pump district heating
system approach the loss-to-capital-cost ratios based on
exergy for the overall system. This is certainly not true for
the loss-to-capital-cost ratios based on energy. More
generally, it appears for any technology that the design
0.4
0.3
Rex
0.2
R2 = 0.99
0.1
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Temperatures (°C)
Fig. 2. Illustration of the tendency of actual Rex curve for GSHP resident
heating system.
of a device may be made more successful if the overall
system and its component parts are modified so that the
value of Rex approaches an appropriate value. A balance is
obtained between exergy loss and capital cost in real
systems. The authors believe that these systems have over
time achieved a balance of exergy loss and capital cost that
is appropriate to the circumstances. If successful technol-
ogies conform to an appropriate Rex, then it follows that
technologies which fail in the marketplace may do so
because they deviate too far from the appropriate Rex.
Rex value can be found between 0.18 and 0.43 for the
GSHP residential heating system investigated. This analy-
sis is done at different reference state temperatures from 0
to 25 1C, and can be seen particularly in Fig. 2. According
to this result, it can be given as a linear correlation for Rex
of the system:
Rex ðTÞ ¼ 0:0102T þ 0:43, (15)
where T is in (1C). The above equation is able to predict the
values of Rex for the system for different environment
temperatures. By using actual system data and different
reference state values (from 0 to 24 1C with increments of 2
and 25 1C), the model is developed for this system. Note
that the equation developed for estimating Rex of the
system with a correlation coefficient R2 ¼ 0.99 is a function
of the ambient temperature. In conclusion, Eq. (15) shows
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
O. Ozgener et al. / Building and Environment 42 (2007) 1503–1509
that a systematic correlation appears to exist between
exergy loss rate (total or internal) and capital cost for the
system. Furthermore, a correlation appears to exist
between the mean thermodynamic loss rate-to-capital cost
ratios for all of the devices in the system and the ratios for
the overall system, when the ratio is based on total or
internal exergy losses, but not when it is based on energy
losses. This correlation may imply that devices in successful
GSHP resident heating systems are configured so as to
achieve an overall optimal design, by appropriately
balancing the thermodynamic (exergy-based) and econom-
ic characteristics of the overall system and its devices.
4. Conclusions
In the paper, an exergoeconomic analysis has been used
to search for the optimal design of system components in a
conventional vapor-compression heat pump. The main
conclusions drawn from the results of the present study are
as follows:
 The causes of exergy destruction in the system include
the compressor, heat exchangers (ground heat exchan-
ger, condenser and evaporator) and circulating pumps
losses.
 The highest irreversibility on a system basis occurs in the
resident fan-coil unit, followed by the compressor,
condenser, capillary tube and evaporator, subregions I
and V for the GSHP unit and the whole system,
respectively. The remaining system components have a
relatively low influence on the overall efficiency of the
whole system.
 The results can draw an engineer’s attention towards the
components where the most availability is being
destroyed and quantify the extent to which modification
of one component affects, favorably or unfavorably, the
performance of other components of the system.
References
[1] Ozgener O, Hepbasli A. Performance analysis of a solar assisted
ground-source heat pump system for greenhouse heating: an
experimental study. Building and Environment 2005;40:1040–50.
[2] Ozgener O, Hepbasli A. An economical analysis on a solar
greenhouse integrated solar assisted geothermal heat pump system.
ASME-Journal of Energy Resources Technology; 2006.
1509
[3] Ozgener O, Hepbasli A. Experimental performance analysis of a solar
assisted ground-source heat pump greenhouse heating system. Energy
and Buildings 2005;37:101–10.
[4] Ozgener O, Hepbasli A. Exergoeconomic analysis of a aolar assisted
ground-source heat pump greenhouse heating system. Applied
Thermal Engineering 2005;25:1459–71.
[5] Ozgener O, Hepbasli A. A parametrical study on the energetic and
exergetic assessment of a solar assisted vertical ground-source heat
pump system used for heating a greenhouse. Building and Environ-
ment; 2006, doi:10.1016/j.buildenv.2005.07.003.
[6] Ozgener O. Design, test and performance evaluation of a solar-
assisted ground-source heat pump system for greenhouse heating
using energy, exergy and exergoeconomic analysis methods. PhD
thesis, Solar Energy Science Division, Graduate School of
Natural and Applied Sciences, Ege University, Izmir, Turkey; 2005,
p. 105.
[7] Lund JW, Freeston DH. World-wide direct uses of geothermal energy
2000. In: Proceedings of the world geothermal congress 2000,
Kyushu-Tohoku, Japan; 2000. p. 1–21.
[8] Lund JW, Freeston DH, Boyd TL. World-wide direct uses of
geothermal energy 2005. In: Proceedings of the world geothermal
congress 2005, Antalya, Turkey; 2005.
[9] Hepbasli A, Ozgener L. Development of geothermal energy utiliza-
tion in Turkey: a review. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews
2004;8:433–60.
[10] Rosen MA, Dincer I. Thermoeconomic analysis of power plants: an
application to a coal-fired electrical generating station. Energy
Conversion and Management 2003;44:1633–51.
[11] Rosen MA, Dincer I. Exergoeconomic analysis of power plants
operating on various fuels. Applied Thermal Engineering
2003;23:643–58.
[12] Rosen MA. The relation between thermodynamic losses and capital
costs for a modern coal-red electrical generation station: computer-
aided energy systems analysis. American Society of Mechanical
Engineers 1990;21:69–78.
[13] Ozgener L. Exergoeconomic analysis of geothermal district heating
systems. PhD thesis, Natural and Applied Sciences, Mechanical
Engineering Science Branch, Ege University, Izmir, Turkey; 2005.
p. 102.
[14] Rosen MA, Scott DS. A methodology based on exergy, cost, energy
and mass for the analysis of systems and processes. In: Proceedings of
the meeting of international society for general systems research,
Toronto, 20–22 May, 1987. p. 8.3.1–13.
[15] Dincer I. The role of exergy in energy policy making. Energy Policy
2005;30:137–49.
[16] Bridges BD, Harshbarger DS, Bullard CW. Second law analysis of
refrigerators and air conditioners. In: Proceedings of ASHRAE
winter meeting, Atlanta, GA, USA; 2001 (CD).
[17] Kotas TJ. The exergy method of thermal plant analysis. Great
Britain: Anchor Brendon, Tiptree, Essex; 1985.
[18] Krakow KI. Exergy analysis: dead-state definition. ASHRAE
Transactions 1991;97(1):328–36.
[19] Ozgener L, Hepbasli A, Dincer I. Effect of reference state on the
performance of energy and exergy evaluation of geothermal district
heating systems: Balcova example. Building and Environment; 2006.