# Evaluation of Coupling PV and Air Conditioning vs. Solar Cooling Systems--Case Study from Jordan
## 3 Results and Discussions
### Solar Thermal Cooling System  
The solar field on the campus had a complex design with regard to the provision of hot water to generate the weak solution of H\({}_{2}\)O-LiBr because the solar collector was additionally utilised to heat water in Building C for domestic use. The system's overall cost was $350k. The cost of the absorption chiller was $88k, whereas the solar field cost $145k, which accounted for the largest proportion of the system costs. The cost for the absorber and for condenser units was $28k, while the auxiliary unit was around $48k. A critical factor in assessing a solar thermal system's viability is the economic feasibility analysis due to the fact that initial investments can be high [49].  
The life expectancy of the system was determined on the basis of the lifespan of the system components and the necessary maintenance. The feasibility analysis involved the calculation of two different scenarios with a lifespan greater than 25 years. The energy saved across the 25-year lifespan was calculated by estimating the amount of electrical energy that would be saved when running the system according to local Jordanian distribution companies. The operating and maintenance (O and M) cost percentage was determined on the basis of the varying costs incurred when operating and maintaining the system over its lifetime. Additionally, the yearly inflation in the O and M costs was determined as the inflation rate of the O and M costs on an annual basis. The operating cost was primarily generated by the functioning of the system's auxiliary components (the chilled water pumps, cooling, heating, and dry coolers) [49].  
For the purposes of the present study, the assumption was made that the interest rate was 6%. According to the central bank guidelines, the absorption cooling system's feasibility for a lifetime of 25 years required a COP of 0.79. The net present worth equalled $256k, whereas the payback period equated to 10 years. Nevertheless, according to the results of the feasibility analysis of the absorption cooling system using actual measurements taken over a period of four months in the summer (May 2015-August 2015), the system's average COP was 0.32, thus indicating the lack of feasibility of the system, as the net present value equalled \(-\$195\)k and the payback period was 45 years, which was more than the project's anticipated lifespan [49].  
Furthermore, the absorption cooling system was perceived to lack economic feasibility due to the fact that the payback period was longer than the anticipated lifespan of the system according to the identified cooling capacity. Additionally, the cost of the absorption chiller system was conducted on the basis of the LCOE. In order to calculate the LCOE, the net present value was divided by the overall cost of operating the power generating unit and absorption chiller system and the total electrical energy savings across the system's lifespan. When the system is operating at a maximum COP of 0.79 (under standard test conditions) and the actual recorded COP of 0.32 on the site, the respective LCOE values were $0.9/kWh and $2.35/kWh. In this study, we assumed the electricity tariffs based on total demand (not peak demand) were fixed at $0.1/kWh; as such, it is clear that the absorption chiller does not have economic feasibility [49]. Figure 5: Cash flow diagram including the present worth of the future money with an interest rate of 6% over a period of 20 years.