I just published a paper on the possibility of biobased PCM replacing paraffins for reasons as stated in https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S2352710223001602. However, with the great economic and environmental benefits of biobased PCM most of the commercially available PCM are paraffins.
Can anyone share why one should be preferred over the other and what do you think the future trend may be.
Thanks Ali. I also share the same view with you on biobasedPCM. The fact that it is even more environmentally friendly compared to paraffin is also a selling point.
Anyone interested can read more on my comparison in this paper : https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S2352710223001602
Noticing that your paper is specifically about building material incorporation (mortar in particular), it really depends on how that impacts the building manufacturers, and in particular construction cost vs benefit. Your conclusion really holds the answer to your question: "A comprehensive study on the possible energy savings of SCPCMs when used for TES in building material" is needed to evaluate whether any such incorporation is advantageous.
At the end of the day, no matter the incorporation method, what is the total thermal storage increase possible within a space through different means, and what are the total 'costs' (maybe not just financial) of that incorporation, and how does it benefit the building/occupants/energy-payers?
Can energy density ever be high enough for thin building skin incorporation methods to provide enough thermal mass to sufficiently change building thermal profile and energy use? If not, where else can energy storage do so, what will its cost be, and will building construction be amenable to that cost/benefit? If the above questions can eventually be answered in the affirmative, whichever material can cost effectively provide that answer will become the most likely future trend.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Geoscience
- Asia
- India