Environmental Performance of Innovative Ground-Source Heat Pumps with PCM Energy Storage

: Space conditioning is responsible for the majority of carbon dioxide emission and fossil fuel consumption during a building’s life cycle. The exploitation of renewable energy sources, together with e ﬃ ciency enhancement, is the most promising solution. An innovative layout for ground-source heat pumps, featuring upstream thermal energy storage (uTES), was already proposed and proved to be as e ﬀ ective as conventional systems while requiring lower impact geothermal installations thanks to its ability to decouple ground and heat-pump energy ﬂuxes. This work presents further improvements to the layout, obtained using more compact and e ﬃ cient thermal energy storage containing phase-change materials (PCMs). The switch from sensible- to latent-heat storage has the twofold beneﬁt of dramatically reducing the volume of storage (by a factor of approximately 10) and increasing the coe ﬃ cient of performance of the heat pump. During the daily cycle, the PCMs are continuously melted / solidiﬁed, however, the average storage temperature remains approximately constant, allowing the heat pump to operate closer to its maximum e ﬃ ciency. A life cycle assessment (LCA) was performed to study the environmental beneﬁts of introducing PCM-uTES during the entire life cycle of the system in a comparative approach.


Introduction
Buildings dramatically contribute to worldwide energy use and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. According to last official European Union reports [1,2], in 2010 the building sector accounted for about 32% of worldwide final energy consumption and 34% of global GHG emissions. More recently, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) updates confirmed the energy share (31%, [3]) and reduced the estimates of greenhouse gas emissions (23%, [4]). However, both values are expected to increase, resulting in further energy consumption (+2 billion tons of oil equivalent [5]) for the construction of new living spaces worldwide (+230 billion square meters), causing an estimated +30% increase in GHG emissions in the next 40 years. In this context, government and international organizations are pursuing new and more severe policies specifically aimed at reducing the energy consumption of the building sector and mitigating associated emissions. As an example, the European Union aims to reduce by 90% the equivalent carbon dioxide (CO 2 e) emissions of buildings by the year 2050, estimating that about the 17% of the primary energy saving is achievable by retrofitting existing thermal imbalance by a two-year on-site measurement campaign were a decrease in system COP by 42% and 26% in the winter and summer season, respectively [29].
The role of a TES is essentially to decouple the thermal energy exchange of the ground from the building demand by accumulating thermal energy (heat or cold) when it is more readily available and using it upon request. This mismatch could attenuate the effects derived from temperature fluctuations in system efficiency and, therefore, several works aim to include a TES system in the standard GSHP layout. The two approaches can be identified as: 1.
Enhancement of the thermal capacity of the system by upgrading a specific component (BHEs or air distribution system); 2.
Direct installation of a TES.
The first approach is illustrated in [30]. A laboratory-scale BHE with PCM included in its backfill was tested. The system successfully delayed the ground temperature variation and reduced the thermal interference radius (i.e., less area was required for installation). Furthermore, the constant temperature of phase change improved the BHE extraction rate. Another work ( [31]) presented the exergy analysis of a hybrid GSHP system, coupled with solar panels, and indoor air conditioning was possible because of radiant panels with encapsulated PCM. The results showed that PCM was beneficial in term of first and second law efficiency; it increased with density and melting temperature.
The work presented in this paper follows the second approach. We propose the inclusion of an upstream (i.e., between the BHE and the HP) thermal energy storage in the standard GSHP layout. A similar approach is given in [32], where five different control methods for an air-to-air HP were implemented and coupled to a PCM-based TES to optimize its charge/discharge step with electricity tariffs and user demand. Solar-assisted GSHP were analyzed in [33], where the PCMs within the hot water puffer increased the amount of stored solar energy and generally improved the global COP. The importance of thermal storage in these hybrid systems was also confirmed by the experimental campaign in [34] and the numerical analysis in [35].
Finally, the works specifically focused on geothermal systems are [36,37], where PCM-based and sensible, respectively, downstream thermal storage (i.e., between the HP and the air distribution system) were coupled to a GSHP. On the one hand, in a comparison of the annual thermal energy use, at variable partial load ratio, of a boiler-based air conditioning system vs. conventional GSHP vs. TES-upgraded GSHP, the latter showed the best performance in terms of energy-savings. On the other hand, a similar configuration was seen for the cooling of an office building using different cooling storage ratios of PCM storage (i.e., the cooling capacity of PCM on the total building cooling capacity). The optimal cooling capacity was estimated to be 40%, which produced a decrease of 34% of the annual energy cost if compared to a GSHP system without TES.
In this work two different prototypal layouts were assessed and compared: a sensible-heat TES (SH-TES), where water was used as thermal storage material, and a latent-heat TES based on PCMs (PCM-TES). A first energy analysis using computational fluid dynamics of both scenarios was available in a previous work [38]. Based on these results, the work presented here is an in-depth evaluation of the respective energy performance and environmental impacts, measured and compared throughout whole life cycles, with the final aim of defining the most efficient and sustainable system configuration.
Section 2 gives a short description of the methodology. The case study is presented in Section 3. The results are shown in Section 4. Conclusions are discussed in Section 5. Extended results are given in the Supplementary Material.

Materials and Methods
All the potential environmental impacts of the proposed energy systems were quantified by the life cycle assessment (LCA) approach. This technique can be successfully used as a comparative analysis of different products or technologies providing the same service, in order to recognize the most efficient and environmentally sustainable option [39,40]. A life cycle assessment is a standardized and Energies 2020, 13, 117 4 of 15 widespread approach allowing the evaluation of environmental impacts associated with any process, product, or service throughout its entire life, usually starting from raw material acquisition until the end-of-life stage. Thanks to this approach, the life cycle of the studied product could be split into several parts corresponding to relevant components and/or phases (i.e., steps of the production and usage). The relative environmental weight of each part was explicitly assessed in order to spot and, possibly, optimize, the most impactful ones.
Our study, in accordance with standard LCA guidelines [41,42], was undertaken using the following steps: 1.
Compilation of the life cycle inventory (LCI)-an input database based on product specifications (e.g., functional unit, system time and spatial boundaries, and quality criteria) that details all of the mass and energy flows, relative to each stage of the considered life cycle. The LCI is a collection of data, usually in a tabular form, used as input of the LCA model; 2.
Quantification of the environmental impacts by relevant mid-and end-point indicators-the former evaluates the environmental burden as a function of single physical quantities. The latter takes into account higher aggregation levels, such as human health or biodiversity, for which information from multiple mid-point indicators is necessary. They are quantified by arbitrary units (Pt) instead of physical quantities. Mid-point indicators were taken from the comprehensive suite CML-IA baseline V3.05 [43]. End-point indicators were computed by the ReCiPe 20106 Endpoint (H) V1.03 method [44].
The aim of this work was to measure the environmental impact of two innovative GSHP layouts. The comparative approach was as follows: Starting from a reference layout used as a benchmark (i.e., baseline scenario), the enhancement of its energy performance and environmental impacts gained by the two proposed TES systems was measured in terms of mid-and end-point indicators. Different operative conditions were also evaluated for each system. All results were validated against experimental data measured using an existent prototype with a sensible-heat thermal storage and a small-scale laboratory unit with a latent-heat thermal storage.
The life cycle was modeled using the SimaPro v9.0.0 software [45] and the ecoinvent v3.5 database [46]. The impacts were computed according to the product category rule (PCR) document relative to electricity, steam and hot/cold water generation and distribution version 3.1 [47]. In this study, the following environmental indicators were considered 1.

The Case-Study
The system under investigation is a conventional ground-source heat pump system, used air-condition commercial buildings, characterized by a peak power of 17 kW, a yearly demand of 19,965 kWht of heating energy, and 4918 kWht of cooling energy, for a total of 24,883 kWht/year provided by the heat pump [48]. The baseline configuration (BAS) of this system consists of: • a 17-kW reversible ground-source heat pump; Energies 2020, 13, 117

of 15
• and a total of 3 double-loop boreholes, each one 120 m deep with an average extraction capacity of 46.5 W/m measured by the ground response test.
This setup was upgraded by including upstream thermal storage (uTES) between the borehole heat exchangers and the heat pump [49]. The uTES was sized based on the maximum daily energy need instead of the maximum power. This new layout was designed to exchange heat with the ground even when it was not needed by the building, and using the thermal storage as a peak-shaving component. While average power exchanged with the ground on the one side and with the heat pump on the other side was the same, the maximum power required by the ground was less than the maximum power required by the heat pump as the former works with a higher duty cycle. On-site monitoring of a real-building prototype [50] confirmed that this layout was able to successfully decouple the energy exchange between the ground and the HP, resulting in a substantial reduction of peak geothermal power and, therefore, reduced borehole size (i.e., shorter/fewer boreholes to be drilled). Figure 1 shows the upgraded layouts with respect to the BAS scenario. They both use the same 17 kW heat pump while using just 1 borehole in combination with an uTES properly configured for each setup as follows: • The sensible heating thermal energy storage (SH-TES) scenario used a concrete made tank of 12 m 3 and the thermal storage material was water; • The PCM thermal storage (PCM-TES) scenario was obtained using a PCM-based component instead of water. The storage was made of two PCM stacks of 2057 kg (RT-6 PCM) and 1233 kg (RT-27 PCMs) for nominal latent heat of 80 kWh and 50 kWh, respectively, and a total storage volume of about 1 m 3 .
Energies 2019, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 5 of 16 ground even when it was not needed by the building, and using the thermal storage as a peakshaving component. While average power exchanged with the ground on the one side and with the heat pump on the other side was the same, the maximum power required by the ground was less than the maximum power required by the heat pump as the former works with a higher duty cycle. On-site monitoring of a real-building prototype [50] confirmed that this layout was able to successfully decouple the energy exchange between the ground and the HP, resulting in a substantial reduction of peak geothermal power and, therefore, reduced borehole size (i.e., shorter/fewer boreholes to be drilled). Figure 1 shows the upgraded layouts with respect to the BAS scenario. They both use the same 17 kW heat pump while using just 1 borehole in combination with an uTES properly configured for each setup as follows:  As shown in a previous LCA study [48], the sensible-heat uTES was already able to reduce the environmental impact of the conventional layout. However, this preliminary analysis was limited to the evaluation of the environmental impact of the SH-uTES scenario, proposed first as an upgraded conventional BAS system. The inclusion of a latent-heat TES was already mentioned as a potential future development to reduce the storage volume, without any reference to its environmental issues. Similarly, the preliminary CFD energy analysis [38] detailed in the following paragraph exclusively calculated in terms of global COP, the performance of the PCM-uTES scenario. A more detailed assessment of the environmental impact of this system is presented in the current LCA analysis, where the environmental impacts of the PCM-TES system were measured during the life cycle of the plant (20 years), considering the energy consumption of a reference year. The obtained results were compared with a baseline scenario (BAS) and a sensible-heat thermal storage (SH-TES) scenario. For all three scenarios, two hypotheses were proposed: (a) electric energy is taken from the grid, and (b) electric energy is produced entirely from photovoltaic panels.

PCM Modeling and Validation
The energy performance of the PCM-TES scenario was already calculated by a comparative CFD analysis in [38], between the sensible and the latent uTES. Both systems abide by the same daily energy demand schedule, implemented on the basis of yearly energy consumption (see Section 3) As shown in a previous LCA study [48], the sensible-heat uTES was already able to reduce the environmental impact of the conventional layout. However, this preliminary analysis was limited to the evaluation of the environmental impact of the SH-uTES scenario, proposed first as an upgraded conventional BAS system. The inclusion of a latent-heat TES was already mentioned as a potential future development to reduce the storage volume, without any reference to its environmental issues. Similarly, the preliminary CFD energy analysis [38] detailed in the following paragraph exclusively calculated in terms of global COP, the performance of the PCM-uTES scenario. A more detailed assessment of the environmental impact of this system is presented in the current LCA analysis, where the environmental impacts of the PCM-TES system were measured during the life cycle of the plant (20 years), considering the energy consumption of a reference year. The obtained results were compared with a baseline scenario (BAS) and a sensible-heat thermal storage (SH-TES) scenario. For all three scenarios, two hypotheses were proposed: (a) electric energy is taken from the grid, and (b) electric energy is produced entirely from photovoltaic panels.

PCM Modeling and Validation
The energy performance of the PCM-TES scenario was already calculated by a comparative CFD analysis in [38], between the sensible and the latent uTES. Both systems abide by the same daily energy demand schedule, implemented on the basis of yearly energy consumption (see Section 3) and building characteristics [50]. The PCM-TES scenario simulated by CFD analysis provided two closed loops connected to the heat pump and the borehole, respectively. The heat transfer fluid within each loop entered a serpentine tube that crossed two different PCM stacks. The heat transfer between the borehole and PCM during the winter season was modeled via the following steps: 1.
The heat transfer fluid (water) from the borehole flowed into the PCM storage; 2.
This flow crosses the serpentine and, meanwhile, released heat into the PCMs in direct contact with tube shell; 3.
Finally, it left the storage and entered the BHE again; 4.
While the previous steps were running, the heat transfer fluid from the heat pump flowed to the PCM storage and withdrew the heat stored in latent form. The cycle was inverted in the summer season.
The results of this preliminary analysis clearly showed the twofold benefits of the PCM-TES scenario. On the one hand, the daily needs were fully covered by 10 times less thermal storage and, on the other hand, the reduction of storage temperature oscillations, as an effect of phase transition, increased the overall COP from 3.4, for both heating and cooling, to 4.13 and 5.89 for the heating and cooling modes, respectively.
An experimental campaign for the CFD model validation using data from a 1-kWh scale prototype is currently ongoing [51]. Figure 2 shows the experimental apparatus. It consists of two open loops connected to a boiler and a chiller, respectively. Each loop has its circulation pump. The PCM-storage connects both loops and collects the flows; these get mixed within the storage and exchange heat with the PCMs. (They present the same properties used in the CFD analysis.) The heating cycle took place in the following way: 1.
The boiler that reproduced the BHE heated the water; 2.
The heat was released to the PCM and stored in latent form; 3.
The cooling water, produced by the chiller representing the heat pump, flowed within the storage and withdrew the stored heat.
Data were measured by two calorie flow meters placed at the outlet sections of the storage. The PCM phase transition was modeled as function of their temperature (T PCM ) and the thermo-physical properties (Table 1). When T PCM achieved the melting/solidification point, the phase change started and the heat was stored in latent form along the transition region (±0.25 • C with respect to the nominal transition temperature). Preliminary experimental data collected from the laboratory unit are shown in Figure 3. Good agreement between the simulated and measured outlet temperature (T out ) was observed using nominal PCM properties before any model calibration, strengthening the above estimates on performance improvement. CFD simulations were performed using a constant power equal to the average power measured during the experimental campaign. More detailed analyses will be presented in future works. exchange heat with the PCMs. (They present the same properties used in the CFD analysis.) The heating cycle took place in the following way: 1. The boiler that reproduced the BHE heated the water; 2. The heat was released to the PCM and stored in latent form; 3. The cooling water, produced by the chiller representing the heat pump, flowed within the storage and withdrew the stored heat.   (Table 1). When TPCM achieved the melting/solidification point, the phase change started and the heat was stored in latent form along the transition region (±0.25 °C with respect to the nominal transition temperature). Preliminary experimental data collected from the laboratory unit are shown in Figure 3. Good agreement between the simulated and measured outlet temperature (Tout) was observed using nominal PCM properties before any model calibration, strengthening the above estimates on performance improvement. CFD simulations were performed using a constant power equal to the average power measured during the experimental campaign. More detailed analyses will be presented in future works.

The Life Cycle Inventory
The three scenarios differ by borehole number, storage type, and electric energy consumption for heat production (the incidence of raw materials is reported in Table 2); the final electric energy consumption of each scenario is given by the respective COP values (Table 3). These values can be considered a conservative estimate as no contribution from cooling (heating) material is considered for the size of the heating (cooling) material (i.e., the effect of sensible heat of the cooling-optimized

The Life Cycle Inventory
The three scenarios differ by borehole number, storage type, and electric energy consumption for heat production (the incidence of raw materials is reported in Table 2); the final electric energy consumption of each scenario is given by the respective COP values (Table 3). These values can be considered a conservative estimate as no contribution from cooling (heating) material is considered for the size of the heating (cooling) material (i.e., the effect of sensible heat of the cooling-optimized PCM is not considered on heating and vice versa).

Functional Unit and System Boundaries
The functional unit in this study was 1 kWh of thermal energy (kWht) provided by the heat pump to the thermal energy distribution system. The impacts associated with the functional unit were obtained considering the energy inputs during the reference year and allocating the results based on the total production of heating and cooling energy. The system boundaries included the production of input materials for the implementation of the system from the boreholes to the heat pump, excavation activities for the boreholes and the sensible-heat storage, electric energy consumption, and end-of-life of the thermal storage and heat pump.

Mid-Point Indicators
Results for mid-point indicators are shown in Tables 4 and 5, considering electric energy from the grid and from photovoltaic panels, respectively. The percentage variation was relative to the corresponding baseline scenario. We observed that, in terms of overall GHG emissions, the PCM-TES scenario was the most systematically competitive thanks to its higher overall COP that reduced primary energy consumption. This particularly impacted the case where electric energy was taken from the grid (−16% and −17% with respect to BAS and SH-TES scenarios, respectively). It can be noted that the SH-TES scenario had slightly higher impact as a direct consequence of COP deterioration (see Table 3). If electric energy was produced entirely by photovoltaic panels, the average reduction in impact indicators for the PCM-TES scenario would be approximately 69% (76% for CO 2 e). Even in the PV hypothesis, the PCM-TES scenario performed best (−11% and −3.5% with respect to BAS and SH-TES scenarios, respectively). In all cases, the most impactful process was the consumption of electric energy. For the baseline scenarios, it accounted for an average of 85% using the grid hypothesis (Table 6) and 64% using the PV hypothesis (Table 7). Such values dropped to 64% and 41% for the PCM-TES scenarios, respectively. This result was produced by the fact that emission factors for PV production (multi-Si, 3 kWp) were, on average, 75% lower than emission factors for grid electricity (Italy, low voltage). Tables 6 and 7 clearly show that processes related to the PCM-uTES introduced non-negligible impacts. From a life cycle perspective, it is, therefore, worth investigating if possible optimization of such processes might be viable and rewarding. Paraffins and steel, with similar shares, account for approximately 9% using the grid hypothesis, and 31% using the PV hypothesis. Considering these values, an optimal scenario might be foreseen (as discussed in Section 4.2) including the selection of bio-based PCMs and the minimization of steel in the storage structure with respect to the non-optimized prototypal layout.

Global Warming
The system life cycle was divided into six parts according to physical and usage boundaries. In addition, a detailed analysis on the global warming indicator was performed using this partition. The tree view of the PCM-uTES scenario considering electricity from the grid is given in Figure 4. The LCA indicators were: materials, manufacturing/building processes, and piping; 4. HEAT PUMP-containing the HP machine, piping and insulation; 5. HEATING-containing electric energy consumption for heating (grid/PV hypotheses); 6. COOLING-containing electric energy consumption for cooling (grid/PV hypotheses); 7. END-OF-LIFE-containing recycling processes for separable materials (e.g., steel) and specific disposal for the reminder. The relative incidence of each part of the total GHG emissions is shown in Table 8. The phasechange material thermal energy storage was characterized by an impact higher than the water storage, mainly because of the steel and PCMs. However, a large part of its impact (44%) was compensated by the end-of-life indicator, during which steel can be recycled.
Details of the PCM-uTES are given in Table 9. PCMs and steel accounted for the highest impacts (42% and 40%, respectively). The amount of steel was computed using a direct proportion based on the 1-kWh lab prototype of storage. It was, therefore, straightforward to hypothesize lower incidence of steel for an optimized production-ready component. An optimal scenario was finally foreseen using bio-based PCMs and a reduced amount of steel. In the case of bio-based alternatives, the emission factor for PCMs could be lowered from 0.747 kgCO2e/kg (ecoinvent, generic paraffin) down to 0.278 kgCO2e/kg [52]. Considering the optimization of the PCM storage design, a reduction of 0.5 mm in the wall and tube thickness could be hypothesized for the production step without compromising the structure strength, resulting in a savings of approximately 40% of raw materials with respect to the non-optimized prototypal design.
The optimal scenario (PCM-TESopt, PV), realized using the above criteria and tested using the PV hypothesis, resulted in a 51% decrease in the global warming impact associated with the PCM-uTES, and an additional reduction of 10% with respect to the PCM-TES, PV scenario. The overall The relative incidence of each part of the total GHG emissions is shown in Table 8. The phase-change material thermal energy storage was characterized by an impact higher than the water storage, mainly because of the steel and PCMs. However, a large part of its impact (44%) was compensated by the end-of-life indicator, during which steel can be recycled. Details of the PCM-uTES are given in Table 9. PCMs and steel accounted for the highest impacts (42% and 40%, respectively). The amount of steel was computed using a direct proportion based on the 1-kWh lab prototype of storage. It was, therefore, straightforward to hypothesize lower incidence of steel for an optimized production-ready component. An optimal scenario was finally foreseen using bio-based PCMs and a reduced amount of steel. In the case of bio-based alternatives, the emission factor for PCMs could be lowered from 0.747 kgCO 2 e/kg (ecoinvent, generic paraffin) down to 0.278 kgCO 2 e/kg [52]. Considering the optimization of the PCM storage design, a reduction of 0.5 mm in the wall and tube thickness could be hypothesized for the production step without compromising the structure strength, resulting in a savings of approximately 40% of raw materials with respect to the non-optimized prototypal design. The optimal scenario (PCM-TESopt, PV), realized using the above criteria and tested using the PV hypothesis, resulted in a 51% decrease in the global warming impact associated with the PCM-uTES, and an additional reduction of 10% with respect to the PCM-TES, PV scenario. The overall emission factor for the optimal scenario would be 0.028 kgCO 2 e/kWht, −78% and −21% with respect to BAS, grid and BAS, PV scenarios, respectively.

End-Point Indicators
The results of the end-point indicators are shown in Figure 5. Impacts on human health are responsible for 93% of average overall impacts. As part of the electricity-from-grid hypothesis, the PCM-TES scenario showed a decrease of 10% with respect to the baseline. On the other hand, an increase of 1.3% was observed using the photovoltaic hypothesis. In this case the PCM-uTES introduced a positive impact (+25.6%) that was slightly higher than the overall reduction due to shorter boreholes (−13.5%) and lower energy demand for heating (−7.4%) and cooling (−3.3%).

End-Point Indicators
The results of the end-point indicators are shown in Figure 5. Impacts on human health are responsible for 93% of average overall impacts. As part of the electricity-from-grid hypothesis, the PCM-TES scenario showed a decrease of 10% with respect to the baseline. On the other hand, an increase of 1.3% was observed using the photovoltaic hypothesis. In this case the PCM-uTES introduced a positive impact (+25.6%) that was slightly higher than the overall reduction due to shorter boreholes (−13.5%) and lower energy demand for heating (−7.4%) and cooling (−3.3%).
The optimal scenario would likely lower the impacts of storage, resulting in the overall best performing layout, also in terms of end-point indicators (−64% and −13% with respect to BAS, grid and BAS, PV, respectively).  The optimal scenario would likely lower the impacts of storage, resulting in the overall best performing layout, also in terms of end-point indicators (−64% and −13% with respect to BAS, grid and BAS, PV, respectively).

Conclusions
The LCA analysis was applied to a customized ground-source heat pump system. The innovative layout featured upstream thermal energy storage that was able to decouple the thermal fluxes from/to the ground and from/to the heat pump. Following the results of the experimental campaign, an upgrade TES component was evaluated using phase change materials instead of water. We showed that PCMs could reduce the volume of storage by a factor of 10 and enhance the system COP because of temperature stabilization during the charge/discharge cycles. The environmental performance of the system was evaluated in terms of mid-and end-point indicators per unit of thermal energy provided to the building considering the following two hypotheses: (1) energy is taken from the grid, and (2) energy is supplied by photovoltaic panels.
We found that the exploitation of phase-change materials allowed for sensible reduction of electric energy consumption (−18%) thanks to an improved COP both in terms of heating (from 3.50 to 4.13) and cooling mode (from 4.00 to 5.89). This resulted in an overall variation of mid-point indicators of −16% and −11% with respect to hypotheses (1) and (2), respectively. End-point indicator variation was −10% and +1.3%, respectively. The increase in the end-point indicators with respect to the PV hypothesis was due to the high relative impact of the PCM storage itself. Considering further, realistic, optimization of the prototypal storage design using the PV hypothesis, mid-and end-point impacts could be as low as −78% and −64%, respectively, with respect to the baseline scenario (grid hypothesis), making it the most sustainable option.
In terms of global warming, the baseline scenario was characterized by 1.30 kgCO 2 e/kWht (grid) and 0.0356 kgCO 2 e/kWht (PV). The grid-hypothesis result was consistent with a previous study (0.156 kgCO 2 e/kWht [50]), the difference being the higher value of the emission factor of electricity in the database used (ecoinvent v 3.2 [53]). The proposed PCM-TES layout could lower impacts by as much as 0.108 kgCO 2 e/kWht and 0.0312 kgCO 2 e/kWht for the grid and PV hypothesis, respectively. This would make such a solution very attractive to sensibly reduce both energy consumption (−21%) and the environmental impacts associated with space conditioning.

Conflicts of Interest:
The authors declare no conflict of interest.