Economic reality of photovoltaic thermal management with nano-enhanced PCM: A target costing framework for bridging the viability gap
Energy Conversion and Management, vol.364, 2026 (SCI-Expanded, Scopus)
- Publication Type: Article / Article
- Volume: 364
- Publication Date: 2026
- Doi Number: 10.1016/j.enconman.2026.121697
- Journal Name: Energy Conversion and Management
- Journal Indexes: Science Citation Index Expanded (SCI-EXPANDED), Scopus, Applied Science & Technology Source, Compendex, Environment Index, INSPEC, Academic Search Ultimate (EBSCO), Engineering Source (EBSCO)
- Keywords: Economic viability, Nano-enhanced PCM, Phase change materials, Photovoltaic thermal management, Target costing, Techno-economic analysis
- Hatay Mustafa Kemal University Affiliated: Yes
Abstract
Crystalline silicon photovoltaic (PV) modules incur a 0.45 %/°C efficiency penalty at elevated operating temperatures, motivating passive cooling via phase change materials (PCM) and nano-enhanced PCM (NePCM). Despite numerous studies reporting peak temperature reductions of 8 °C to 15 °C, a rigorous economic assessment under realistic market conditions remains absent. This study asks: at what cost level does PV-NePCM technology become economically viable? Using the enthalpy-porosity method, we conducted a validated 365-day transient simulation of a 33 mm RT44HC layer with 3% Al2O3 nanoparticles, driven by typical meteorological year data for Ankara, Turkey. Four value streams — electricity revenue, carbon savings, Arrhenius-based lifetime extension, and maintenance savings — were evaluated across six market–policy scenarios using Net Present Value (NPV), Internal Rate of Return (IRR), and Simple Payback Period (SPP). The system achieved an 11.0 °C peak temperature reduction and 5.47% daily efficiency gain with complete overnight regeneration across all 365 days. Yet all six scenarios yield strongly negative NPVs (baseline: -373 €/m2) with no finite payback. Break-even analysis establishes that a viable 25-year payback requires system costs below 87.1 €/m2 and PCM material costs below 1.52 €/kg—5-fold and 8-fold reductions from current levels. Sensitivity analysis identifies PCM cost as the dominant driver, outweighing electricity and carbon prices by nearly an order of magnitude. Monte Carlo simulation (5000 runs) confirms positive NPV probability below 0.1%. These results demonstrate that nanoparticle additives are economically counterproductive. Commercialization requires transformative cost reduction through low-cost formulations such as bio-based fatty acids and eutectic salt hydrates meeting the 1.52 €/kg threshold.