**5. Results and discussion**

Present study was performed to determine the potential of GSHP, with solar collectors, for heating and cooling purposes in the Middle East. The Kharseh chicken farm in Syria of area 500 m2 was chosen as a case study. The heating and cooling demands of the hangar were then used to estimate annual heating and cooling demands of the ideal chicken farm in Syria of area 200 m2. The calculations showed the following results:

 A typical average size chicken house in Syria requires 92 MWh of heating and 13 MWh of cooling. Required heating and cooling powers are 45.2 kW and 47.7 kW, respectively, as shown in table 2.


Table 2. Heating and cooling demand for chicken farms in Syria.


Present study was performed to determine the potential of GSHP, with solar collectors, for heating and cooling purposes in the Middle East. The Kharseh chicken farm in Syria of area 500 m2 was chosen as a case study. The heating and cooling demands of the hangar were then used to estimate annual heating and cooling demands of the ideal chicken farm in Syria

 A typical average size chicken house in Syria requires 92 MWh of heating and 13 MWh of cooling. Required heating and cooling powers are 45.2 kW and 47.7 kW, respectively,

13 92 13 1196 170 1366

 480 m of borehole with diameter 0.11 m and 34 m2 of a solar collector were required to supply the heating and cooling of the typical chicken farms in Syria. In this case, the maximum fluid temperature delivered from the boreholes is 26.5 oC in the summer while the minimum mean fluid temperature was 11.5 oC during the

 Table 3 shows the operation costs of coal furnace heating system combined with ASHP for cooling issue, diesel furnace heating system combined with ASHP for cooling issue, ASHP for both heating and cooling issue, and suggested GSHP heating/cooling system. Using Fig. 4, we found the COPh and COPc for the ASHP are 4 and 4.3, respectively, while the corresponding values for GSHP are 6.2 and 10. The conversion efficiency of conventional heater was assumed 85%. The calculations show that by using the GSHP, the annual operation costs can be reduced 38%, 69.2%, and 79.7 % compared to ASHP, coal heater combined with ASHP, and diesel heater

 Table 4 shows comparison between the required prime energy, i.e. tons of coal, of three different systems assuming the average annual efficiency of the power plant 32%. As shown, using the GSHP, the amount of fuel required is reduced 38% compared to ASHP or 57.2% compared to coal heater combined with ASHP. In other words, by use GSHP in all chicken farms in Syria, the annual coal consumption can be reduced

103 ton compared to traditional existing system (coal heater combined with ASHP). Accordingly, the carbon dioxide emission can be reduced by the same

Total energy for heating GWh/y

Totally for 13000 farms Floor area 2.6 Mm2

> Total energy for cooling GWh/y

Total Energy GWh/year

of area 200 m2. The calculations showed the following results:

Cooling Energy MWh/year

Table 2. Heating and cooling demand for chicken farms in Syria.

**5. Results and discussion** 

as shown in table 2.

Meat production ton/year

winter.

107.6.

percentages.

Typical farm size Floor area 200 m2

> Heating Energy MWh/year

combined with ASHP, respectively.


Table 3. Comparison between different heating/cooling systems for a typical chicken farm.


Table 4. comparison between the required prime energy.

 The estimated installation cost of a borehole system for a typical chicken farm is \$15000. With current energy price in Syria the payback-time of GSHP is about 5.3, or 3 years compared to coal heater combined with ASHP, or diesel heater combined with ASHP, respectively.
