Ultimately, the system proved to be a practical heating solution for rural areas facing harsh cold conditions, boasting an average coefficient of performance (COP) of 2.6 and a solar fraction (SF) of 50.9%.
After modeling the system in TRNSYS, a simulation tool for analyzing energy systems, the researchers confirmed its reliability. Over six months of heating, mode 4 performed better than mode 3, achieving a coefficient of performance of 4.6 and a solar fraction of 77.9%, increasing by 15.9% and 20.3%, respectively. It additionally used 405.2 kWh less energy than mode 3.
The scientists found that local electricity pricing policies play a key role in operating costs. Their analysis showed that without peak-valley pricing, Mode 4 reduces costs by 28% compared to Mode 3. However, with peak-valley pricing, the difference narrows, with Mode 4 costing just 2.6% more than Mode 3.