Evaluates heat performance in cold climates, comparing solar, air, and ground sources, indicating solar's potential advantage.
• Dynamic TRNSYS simulations of a Nordic multi-family building with PVT-sourced HP • Finned PVT reaches SPF4+≈2.5 and ∼15–20% auxiliary heater at 2.3–3.4 m²/kWₜₕ • Low-cost polymeric absorber achieves similar cost at full-roof coverage • Cost optimum at SPF4+≈2.2–2.3 — not at peak efficiency • Optimized PVT-only systems match ASHP cost, avoiding noise and borehole drilling There are various ways to integrate solar photovoltaic-thermal (PVT) collectors with heat pumps, but using the PVT array as the sole source offers unique advantages: eliminating noise from air-source units and avoiding the cost and land use of boreholes. This work investigates whether PVT collectors can operate as the sole source for a brine-water heat pump in cold-climate multi-family houses (MFH), and how absorber design and system sizing influence techno-economic performance. Five unglazed PVT absorbers with different design characteristics, are simulated in a validated TRNSYS model of a 2,000 m² Swedish MFH. Collector area is varied from 1.1 to 4.5 m²/kWₜₕ of nominal heat pump capacity, equivalent to a rooftop coverage of 25 to 100 %, while brine flow rate is varied from 24 to 96 l/h-m 2 . Finned designs achieve the highest seasonal performance factor (SPF) of 2.4 to 2.6 at moderate rooftop coverage (2.3-3.4 m²/kWₜₕ), with 15-20 % auxiliary heating share, while unfinned concepts converge at an SPF of approximately 2.2 and 25-35 % auxiliary heating share at full rooftop coverage (4.5 m²/kWₜₕ). Arrays below ∼2 m²/kWₜₕ are non-viable (SPF < 1.8; 40-70 % auxiliary heating). The economic optimum occurs at an SPF of around 2.2, not at the highest efficiency, yielding two optimal pathways: fin-enhanced absorbers at ∼2.3–3.4 m²/kWₜₕ, or low-cost polymeric absorbers at 4.5 m²/kWₜₕ. The best PVT-only configurations achieve cost parity with air source heat pumps (±5 %) and remain ∼10-15 % below district heating. They remain more expensive than GSHP systems, but avoid both outdoor noise and drilling requirements.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Beltrán et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: