Upcoming FREE webinar on “Reliable Solar PV Structure Design and Innovation” organized by Middle East Solar Industry Association (MESIA), powered by Solarabic سولارابيك.
We will discuss the effect of the new large format modules on the current PV structure design, improvements, new materials, lessons learned from cases in the Middle East and many more!
Speakers include: Hans Jürgen Sauter, VP Middle East and Africa, Nextracker Inc. Dinesh Thakare, Head – Design & Engineering (RT), CleanMax Elena García Ortiz, Project Manager MEA, UL Solutions Finn Chow, Sales Manager APAC Marketing, Antaisolar Moderator: Ritesh Pothan, Director BD – APAC & AMEA, DroneBase
solar #solarpower #solarenergy #renewableenergy #renewable #energy #sustainable
The space sector is experiencing a period of intense operational milestones and strategic shifts as of February 8, 2026. Industry leaders like Ascent Solar Technologies, Intuitive Machines, and AST SpaceMobile are moving past research and development into commercial execution, driven by high-stakes missions and large-scale infrastructure deployments. On February 5, 2026, Ascent Solar Technologies (NASDAQ: ASTI) announced an aggressive 2026 roadmap focused on space-based energy beaming. This technology aims to transmit power via microwave or laser from orbital vehicles to flexible, thin-film solar panels affixed to spacecraft, theoretically allowing them to operate indefinitely without heavy onboard batteries.+1 Intuitive Machines (NASDAQ: LUNR) has solidified its role as a cornerstone of the lunar economy, particularly through its support of the Artemis II mission. AST SpaceMobile (NASDAQ: ASTS) is racing to operationalize the world’s first space-based cellular broadband network, with a critical focus on its upcoming BlueBird 7 launch. Filed Under: Business & Finance
Ready to get up to 3 free quotes? Get up to 3 free quotes for solar, batteries, EV chargers or hot water heat pumps GET MY QUOTES
Reducing the upfront cost of solar power systems in Australia in 2026. If you buy a solar system in 2026, it is subsidised by a federal government scheme worth about $216 per kW installed. This is based on a $36 “STC” price after fees – I explain this later. That’s around $2,160 off on a typical 10kW system that is normally applied at the point of sale; i.e. any advertised prices you see almost certainly have the solar rebate already applied. You can discover the maximum solar rebate you are entitled to with this STC calculator >> Is this subsidy in danger of ending soon, or being scrapped entirely? Well – current legislation means the solar rebate started to reduce by one fifteenth every year from Jan 2017 until it drops to zero at the start of 2031. At this point, there’s no confirmed danger of the panel rebate being scrapped entirely for the foreseeable future. While the subsidy seems safe for now, what most people aren’t aware of is the dollar value of this ‘solar rebate’ can be significantly reduced at any time if demand for solar systems suddenly increases along with other factors coming into play. How so? I go over the exact mechanism (known as STC creation) further down the page, but in a nutshell, the subsidy system is designed to ‘self regulate’. What that means is that if the market for solar power runs too hot, the value of the ‘rebate’ may reduce in step with a thing called the ‘STC price’. The STC price can be anywhere from $0 to $40. In other words, $40 is the highest value it is allowed to go to by law. The higher the STC price the more ‘rebate’ you get. At the moment, the value of the solar rebate is around $36 per STC after fees. This translates into a rebate of roughly $216 per kW installed. But situations can arise where the value is pushed down. How low could the subsidy go? The lowest STC value was some years ago when it hit about $17. If it hits that again, the ‘solar rebate’ would be worth under $150 per kW installed – a greatly reduced subsidy. While it’s unlikely to ever go that low again, it is a possibility. Just to be clear, no-one can pretend to know what the STC price will be next week or next year. All we do know is that it can’t go any higher than $40. To make things confusing, the current “rebate” for anyone buying a solar system of up to 100kW is called the STC program, which stands for Small-scale Technology Certificate. The government says that this should not be called a “solar rebate”. From the Clean Energy Regulator website: “Under the Small-scale Renewable Energy Scheme the reduction in the cost of your solar panel is not a rebate. You will not qualify for any Government-based financial recompense at the completion of any process relating to STCs.” I think what our government friends are trying to get across is that the thousands of dollars you get off your solar system price (usually by assigning the rights to its STCs to your installer) does not actually come from the government. It is a government program, but it compels other people to buy your certificates. So it is a government run scheme, using other people’s money to provide the subsidy. Now, you could argue that all government subsidy and incentive schemes use other people’s money! But I’m not gonna pick a fight with the Clean Energy Regulator (I’ve picked enough fights with the content on this website thank you very much) so from now on I will try to refer to the rebate as the “solar financial incentive” then! The solar rebate financial incentive subsidises the upfront cost of installing a solar power system and is not means-tested in any way. The only criteria for claiming it are: 1) Your PV system is 100kW or less in size. 2) You get it installed and designed by a SAA-accredited professional. 3) You use solar panels and inverters that are approved for use in Australia by the Clean Energy Council. Note: Don’t confuse this ‘solar rebate’ with the Feed-in Tariff (FiT). The FiT is a payment received from electricity retailers for the energy your solar system exports to the grid. I’m guessing what you really want to know is: a) How much can I get off the price of a solar system? b) How much will a solar power system cost me now, after the subsidy? The short answer is: If you want a 10kW system (for example), then you can get approximately $2,160 off the total cost of the system in subsidies. The ‘rebate’ is worth roughly $216 per kW in 2026, so you will get a proportionally bigger ‘rebate’ for larger systems, and less for smaller. (If you are confused by this talk of “kW” (kilowatt) then there is a good explanation here) So how much does this mean you will have to pay for a solar panel system? Below are some ballpark figures for costs after the solar panel rebate. They will vary either way depending on the brand of panels and inverters each supplier uses, and their overheads. But if these prices are way out of your expectations, then solar panels may not be for you right now. Keep in mind that adding the system cost to your mortgage can be surprisingly affordable if you take rising electricity costs into account – there is a solar payback calculator here for you to make your own mind up. Note that the general after-rebate price range for a good quality 10kW system in 2026 is $8,000 – $13,000, depending on installation location, complexity and the components used. If you are interested in the financial payback of a system such as the 10kW system above, use our solar payback calculator – it takes into account rising electricity prices and your state’s feed-in tariff. The feds have cleverly designed the rebate financial incentive to actually cost the government very little. Sneaky subsidy eh? Here’s the subsidy scheme in a (8 part) nutshell: 1) The government creates virtual pieces of paper called Renewable Energy Certificates (RECs). 2) The government compels filthy fossil fuel generators to either build a certain amount of renewable generation (wind/solar power) or buy the right to the other people’s renewable energy systems in the form of RECs. 3) When you go and buy a solar power system for your roof, the government gives you a certain number of RECs depending on how big your system is, how much sun your part of Australia gets and the installation date. 4) The special type of RECs you get for a residential solar system are called “Small Scale Technology Certificates” (STCs). 5) You (or more likely your installer, who may also charge a small fee for handling the certificates) sell the STCs to the filthy fossil fuel generators. The value of the STCs is used to offset the upfront cost of the solar system purchase. 6) The STC price is a bit like a share price – it fluctuates on the open market depending on supply and demand. For example, when the solar energy industry is really booming then the STC price can drop. 7)You can see the current market price of a STC here. The blue line on the graph shows STC spot prices. But bear in mind that is the spot price. When you sign over your STCs to a solar installation company, as mentioned they’ll likely charge a fee of a few dollars per certificate to process them (saving you the headache and complexity), and that will come off the STC value. 8) Almost all solar power system prices you see advertised will already have the government solar panel rebate financial incentive included in the pricing – so what you’ll pay is after the subsidy. Simple eh? As mentioned above, the amount of ‘solar rebate’ you can claim depends on the current market price of an STC. At a market price of $36 after fees (for example), the ‘rebate’ is worth roughly $216 per kW installed in 2026. However, in times of high demand for solar panel installations, lots of STCs are created. When supply of STCs increases too much, the STC price can decrease and the subsidy reduces – supply and demand – gotta love economics 101! Some years back, when the government really looked like it was going to scrap the solar rebate entirely, demand for system installations caused the price of STCs to drop to $17.00. So, if you bought a 10 kW system today, you’d be eligible for a ‘rebate’ of roughly $2,160. However, if demand for solar panels goes up too much or something else occurred that pushed the STC price down to $17.00 again, you’d only be entitled to a ‘rebate’ of around $1,000 for the exact same system. It’s a big difference. If you get 3 free quotes for solar now, you’ll be locking in the current ‘rebate’ based on the current STC price – but if you wait, the STC price could drop and significantly reduce the savings from the subsidy you can claim. However, STC prices have been quite stable over the last few years.. 1) The amount of solar panel ‘rebate’ you can claim depends on where you live: The lower the number the more subsidy cash you get! Here are some examples for the approximate STC value for a 10kW solar system based on a $36 STC price (after fees): Zone 1: incentive = $2,880 Zone 2: incentive = $2,520 Zone 3: incentive = $2,160 Zone 4: incentive = $1,800 2) A good solar installer will guarantee the value of your solar rebate financial incentive when you sign up for a system and handle the paperwork for you. I wrote an entire blog post explaining this process here. And finally, if you’d like to get 3 free quotes for solar and lock in the current solar panel ‘rebate’, you can do so here. Sign up for our weekly newsletter!
Ready to get up to 3 free quotes? Get up to 3 free quotes for solar, batteries, EV chargers or hot water heat pumps GET MY QUOTES
You have reached your maximum number of saved items. Remove items from your saved list to add more. Save this article for later Add articles to your saved list and come back to them anytime. Major changes to power bills threaten to leave low-income households worse off by $200 a year and those with solar and batteries $700 out of pocket, while wealthy families who use the most energy benefit by as much as $1400. Energy experts and clean-energy advocates have criticised an Australian Energy Market Commission proposal to change the way costs for maintaining the electricity networks are passed on. Network charges to pay for the poles and wires make up close to 50 per cent of average household power bills, on top of the cost of electricity supply. The network costs are charged mainly at a variable rate based on the amount of power and time of day electricity is consumed. However, the commission is grappling with a monumental shake-up of the energy grid due to renewable energy, with 4.3 million solar-powered homes dramatically cutting their electricity use and their bills, and is scrambling to find ways to pay for the grid upkeep. In response to these challenges, the commission issued its Electricity pricing for a consumer-driven future report, which recommends variable charges be switched to a fixed daily connection charge. The recommendation is out for public consultation. Experts said adopting fixed charges would result in lower costs for large-energy users and higher costs for low-energy users, such as pensioners, low-income households and those with rooftop panels and batteries. Research outfit Green Energy Markets had calculated the impacts of this change and found that energy misers would be hit hard, the firm’s analysis and advisory director, Tristan Edis, said. “A household that already owns a typical size solar and battery system would see their electricity bill increase by around $400 to $700 per annum as a result of the AEMC’s proposal,” Edis said. “It is also very bad for low-income households, given they tend to consume less electricity than the average. I estimate they will be between around $100 to $200 per annum worse off.”
The federal government offers generous rebates to install residential batteries, in a move to boost uptake and reduce strain on the grid. Australian households bought 183,000 battery units in the second half of last year – four times more than during the same period in 2024. Sydney resident Jane Fisher, 84, installed solar panels on her Newtown home to lower her power bill in retirement and enable her to use reverse-cycle air-conditioning to heat and cool the house for herself and her grandson. She said a rise in network costs on her bill would deter her installing a battery. “It was obvious that once more and more people got solar, that there was going to be less and less people paying for electricity, so these changes weren’t a shot out of the blue for me,” Fisher said. “But it will be a disincentive for me and other people putting on solar and batteries.” A spokesperson for the commission said it was seeking public feedback on its proposal, which was a response to rapidly changing energy usage and would create a more equitable sharing of costs. “The [commission’s] draft report, published in December, proposes modernising the network tariff framework so that it supports lower overall system costs, improves the way costs are shared and therefore contributes to better outcomes for consumers.” Community-based lobby group Solar Citizens warned the move to fixed charges would undermine the financial benefit of adopting solar and batteries and discourage more people from installing them. “Adopting this recommendation would punish most energy users by raising fixed charges,” chief executive Heidi Lee Douglas said. “The biggest losers will be solar and battery owners and those who consume the lowest amount of energy – including energy-efficient households, single-person households, apartment residents, and people doing their best to keep their energy bills low because of cost-of-living pressures.” Energy Minister Chris Bowen said he had instructed market regulators that all changes must deliver cheaper bills. “I would encourage organisations to put forward their views and ideas in the consultation process to ensure the review is developed in the best interests of consumers,” Bowen said. The Smart Energy Council’s David McElrea said the change would remove the benefits people gained from investing many thousands installing solar panels and batteries. “Households that have taken action to reduce their energy costs and emissions would see those efforts devalued, as a far greater share of their electricity bill would no longer respond to how or when they use electricity.” Submissions close on February 13. Get the day’s breaking news, entertainment ideas and a long read to enjoy. Sign up to receive our Evening Edition newsletter. You have reached your maximum number of saved items. Remove items from your saved list to add more. More:
BINGHAM TWP. — Not wanting a new solar farm to take over about 1,600 acres in their rural community, residents flooded their township hall the evening of Jan. 21 to speak their minds before RWE submits its application to the state. For more than an hour, 22 residents in a crowd of about 100 made clear their concerns about the proposed solar farm that would sit on both sides of U.S. 127, north and east of the city of St. Johns. The fenced-in solar panels would take over about 750 acres. “You’re ruining our farm,” said Raquel Dietrich, who is building a home near the proposed site. “You’re telling me that you’re a good neighbor … I don’t believe a single lie that you said, and I think most of what you said has completely been lies. “You’re telling me after my 5,000-square-foot home – my brand new 5,000-square foot home is being built – that my property value is not going to drop at all.” Besides being concerned about property values, residents spoke out against the worth of the large project in a township of less than 3,000 residents known for its rural surroundings and questioned such matters as the project’s noise levels and decommissioning plans. “It will be my new neighbor if this passes,” said Robert Watson, who lives on Krepps Road. “I’m opposed to this. I don’t want an eyesore setting next to my house.” The township board will have no vote in the matter. RWE, which is working as Walker Road Solar Farm LLC, hosted the forum as part of the pre-application process required by the Michigan Public Service Commission. RWE is one of the largest renewable energy companies in the United States, and several RWE representatives attended Wednesday’s session, including Project Development Manager J. Kevin Cole and RWE counsel Mike Vogt. “A big part of the meeting is we want to get your input on the project,” Cole said. “We currently have seven projects under development in Michigan. Our experience enables us to build responsibly and deliver clean affordable power while minimizing impact to the land. “This is the Walker Road Solar Project. It will produce 150 megawatts of clean energy, which is enough to power about 28,000 homes.” He said the company’s goal is to submit its application by spring and have the facility under construction in 2027. “Walker Road will be virtually silent outside the fence line,” Cole said. “The project will be monitored nonstop, 24 hours a day, seven days a week from a remote operations center and local field staff will be on site.” With decommissioning, he said RWE would remove all the equipment and restore the land. The company would be required to post financial assurance, like a bond or letter of credit, equal to the approved decommissioning cost. Hours before the meeting, township Supervisor John Weber said the project is not a win for Bingham Township and that it promises to tear up farmland that otherwise could be used for commercial and residential development that would generate money for township services. “It’s going to impede any further development on the M-21 corridor,” he said. “The township is not backing this. The township does not support this type of endeavor. We would rather see it stay farmland. He’s hoping the publicity gained from the Jan. 21 forum results in state officials paying more attention to local communities. “We want what’s best for our community,” Weber said. “It would be nice if the state people would start listening, because I don’t think they really are.” RWE has offices in Chicago, New York, California and Austin, Texas. Contact editor Susan Vela at svela@lsj.com or 248-873-7044. Follow her on Twitter @susanvela.
HONOLULU (HawaiiNewsNow) – Hawaii lawmakers are considering legislation to make it easier for apartment owners and renters to install solar panels on their balconies or backyards. The technology, called balcony solar or plug-in, portable solar, uses small panels that connect to wall outlets to provide power. Lawmakers held the first-ever hearing on the technology in the Hawaii legislature, where supporters said it could help reduce electric bills for residents who cannot install traditional rooftop solar systems. “These systems are safe, low cost, and they work for renters, apartments, and homes, and suitable for roofs. So many could benefit from balcony solar but outdated regulations are preventing this,” said Sherry Pollack of 350 Hawaii. The portable solar panels are popular in Germany, but the electrical system there differs from American grids, causing slow adoption in the United States. Only Utah has passed a law to reduce barriers for the technology, but Hawaii could be next. Rocky Mould of the Hawaii Solar Energy Association said the panels can be scaled to any size. “One panel will defray a lot of costs for a typical bill here in Hawaii,” Mould said. Lawmakers heard only support at the hearing, though some anticipate concerns from apartment and condo managers about the appearance of panels hung on buildings. Safety concerns also exist about whether electricity from panels could cause overloads in homes or send unexpected surges into the grid. Craftstrom Solar, a Texas company, already has an easy-to-install product on the U.S. market. Brothers Michael and Stephan Stermer patented a system that limits the panels’ solar output to what the home needs and does not send power to the grid. “It allows people, even in states that don’t have legislation, to install these systems without having to go through a rigorous interconnection agreement process,” Stephan Stermer said. The panels weigh about 10 pounds and are eligible for state tax credits. Michael Stermer said most people install them on ground mounts near fences where they remain out of sight. The technology could offset 10 to 20 percent or more of electricity bills, supporters said. Even if the legislation does not pass, the technology may find ways around regulatory barriers. Copyright 2026 Hawaii News Now. All rights reserved.
CALHOUN CO., Mich. (WILX) – The Calhoun County Sheriff’s Office is investigating a breaking-and-entering incident at River Fork Solar. Deputies responded Monday to a report that two people had cut a padlock on a gate to access the property around 4 a.m., according to the sheriff’s office. Surveillance footage caught the individuals attempting to steal copper wire, but they appear to have abandoned the effort due to weather conditions. This marks the third breaking-and-entering complaint at the location in the past month. Earlier incidents involved the theft of a zero-turn mower, power tools, and a large amount of copper wire. The sheriff’s office is working to identify the individuals involved and said additional patrols will be conducted in the area as the investigation continues. Anyone with information about the incidents is asked to contact Lt. Curtis Smith at 269-781-0880 or submit an anonymous tip through Silent Observer at 269-964-3888. Stream News 10 on your favorite devices!Here’s how to download the WILX app on Roku, Fire TV or Apple TV. Be the first to see the Mid-Michigan headlines you care about – download the News 10 mobile app and subscribe to our News 10 newsletter and YouTube page to receive the latest local news and weather. Copyright 2026 WILX. All rights reserved.
Swallows fight over space on a solar panel. Little do they know… Federal wildlife investigators in California are trying to halt a planned solar installation that would be twice as large as Ivanpah Solar Electric Generating System, the world’s biggest solar thermal plant, because birds ignite midflight when they fly through sun rays concentrated by mirror reflections.
When investigators visited the $2.2 billion Ivanpah plant last year before its February launch, they saw bird-based smoke plumes (known as “streamers” by employees) shoot through the air once every two minutes. BrightSource Energy—one of the companies involved in Ivanpah and spearheader of the proposed larger solar farm—estimates about 1,000 such deaths occur annually, but the Center for Biological Diversity says the carnage could climb to 28,000. Either way, investigators want the planned solar farm put on hold until a full year of bird deaths at Invanpah is tabulated. What’s the problem with Ivanpah? Streamers don’t happen over every solar plant, but most solar plants use photovoltaic panels—Ivanpah doesn’t. The question here is which is more at fault: the Mojave Desert location or the plant’s unique construction. The desert gets some of the best solar radiation in the country, but Ivanpah is also the biggest solar farm to employ power towers—a system wherein 300,000 garage-door-sized mirrors reflect light on boiler towers that produce steam to rotate turbines. Like a lethal disco ball, the solar farm singes birds as it generates electricity for 140,000 homes. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service officials reported this month that power-tower solar farms have “the highest lethality potential” of any California solar project. The new BrightSource farm would have a 75-story power tower and stand in the flight path of more than 100 endangered species along the California-Arizona border. Investigators say it would be four times as lethal as Ivanpah. Unfortunately, animals and insects are attracted to light—and concentrated light just concentrates the problem. The investigators told the Associated Press that Ivanpah “might act as a ‘mega-trap’ for wildlife … with the bright light of the plant attracting insects, which in turn attract insect-eating birds.” Ivanpah officials think they can solve the streamer problem despite biologists saying there’s no known way to curb the deaths. Although Invapah researchers are investigating ways to scare birds away with light and sound, BrightSource executives are trying to compensate for the problem in ways that won’t help birds near the site—such as donating $1.8 million to programs that spay and neuter domestic cats, which kill more than 1.4 billion birds annually. This isn’t the first time Ivanpah has been in the news for stressing animal populations—it got bad press in 2012 for injuring protected tortoises.
Even as US President Donald Trump swims ever deeper into the overflowing port-a-john of his authoritarian fever dreams, the grand plan for an oil-soaked future is crumbling around him. Exhibit A is the residential energy storage market, where investors are still hot on the trail of new opportunities to give consumers what they want — namely, more affordable electricity rates, preferably from renewable energy resources. That means home energy storage, and the startup Lunar Energy is making a big move in that direction. On February 4, Lunar Energy reported a haul of $232 million in Series C and D financing. The cash infusion will enable the company to expand the market for its AI-powered energy storage system. The AI comes into play for “intelligently learning” patterns of electricity consumption on a house-by-house basis, enabling the system to make full use of any available solar energy for each ratepayer, including participation in virtual power plants that save money on electricity bills (see more VPP background here). That’s similar to the technology deployed by other home storage systems, but different. Lunar states that on average, its customers have saved $464 by participating in virtual power plant programs, compared to $338 with a standard home battery. “We built Lunar Energy to bring the best of hardware and software together, and this financing allows us to scale that model, helping homes electrify and become active participants in a smarter, more resilient grid,” Lunar CEO and founder Kunal Girotra said in a blog post announcing the Series C and D raise. The total of $232 million includes an unannounced haul of $130 million for Series C, led by Activate Capital. Series D was oversubscribed at $102 million, an effort led by B Capital and Prelude Ventures. “The Series C and Series D funding rounds also included participation from DCVC, Piva Capital, Leitmotif, Sunrun, Itochu Corporation, and Q Capital Partners,” Lunar notes. If you caught the name Sunrun in that list, that’s where things get interesting. Kunal Girotra is a familiar face around energy storage circles, having been part of the Tesla Energy team from 2015 to 2020. He launched Lunar under the table in 2020, the same year he left Tesla, and he played his cards close to the vest for months afterward. Lunar didn’t emerge from stealth mode until August 24, 2022, at which point the company announced that it had already raised $300 million in two rounds of funding spearheaded by SK Group and — you guessed it — Sunrun. And that’s where things get interesting. Sunrun was founded in 2007 and it began life as a solar installer. The company hooked up with Tesla in 2015, tasking its subsidiary AEE Solar with adding the Tesla Powerwall home battery system to its list of authorized residential energy storage products. As for why Sunrun began investing in an ambitious energy storage competitor in 2022, that’s a question in need of an answer. However, the Lunar investment didn’t seem to interfere with the relationship between Sunrun and Tesla, at least not as of last year. On July 24, for example, Sunrun launched a new home energy plan in collaboration with the Tesla Electric branch of Tesla, aimed at maximizing solar production for the company’s “Sunrun Flex” subscription-based solar-plus-storage service. “With the Tesla Electric + Sunrun Flex plan, Tesla Electric offers a low, fixed electricity rate and the most competitive sellback rates for excess solar energy sent back to the grid,” Sunrun enthused. “Combined with abundant solar production from Sunrun Flex and seamless battery management, customers get maximum value, advanced outage protection, and greater peace of mind,” they added. Just a few months later, Sunrun and Tesla now seem to be drifting in different directions, and so is Tesla’s longtime solar panel supplier, Hanwha Q Cells. Here’s the state of play (not in any particular order): 1. Tesla’s rooftop solar business was dying of neglect until the end of 2023, and possibly still is, but the company has stopped sharing data on that. In November of last year, however, the company announced that it started producing its own Tesla rooftop solar panels at its Buffalo, New York factory. Shipping is set to start sometime during Q1 of this year, if all goes according to plan. As reported by PV Magazine, the new Tesla solar panel is uniquely engineered to avoid power reduction caused by the single shadows cast by vent pipes, chimneys, and other rooftop infrastructure. This could mean that Tesla will no longer sell third-party solar panels, though it doesn’t necessarily mean that Tesla’s new solar panels will appear on Sunrun’s list of approved vendors. 2. In February of 2025, Korean news media reported that Hanwha was hooking up with LG in a plan to “develop and sell solar energy devices as a package to challenge Tesla Inc.” This could mean they will undercut Tesla’s new solar panel plan, or its Powerwall business, or both. However, in the US market, that partly depends on whether or not Qcells’ US manufacturing plan survives the Trump chopper. 3. Powerwall home battery sales showed signs of weakening in 2025 as customers-to-be registered extreme displeasure with Tesla CEO Elon Musk’s extracurricular activities. If a Cybertruck-worthy slide continues, that spells trouble. 4. On February 4 of this year, Lunar Energy announced two more rounds of financing totaling $232 million, with Sunrun participating among others. That could mean Lunar aims to nudge Powerwall off the Sunrun platform, with an assist from Sunrun itself. I’m reaching out to Sunrun to see if they can provide a definitive statement on their plans for marketing Tesla Powerwall batteries and/or Tesla solar panels. In the meantime, Lunar is powering forward on its new $232 million haul. The company notes that it already has 650 megawatts under management, spread across thousands of energy storage systems in various parts of the globe, with Sunrun front and center. “Sunrun leverages Lunar’s Gridshare platform for its distributed power plants across a dozen markets, including New England, Hawaii, and Puerto Rico,” Lunar also notes. In a press release announcing the new funding, Lunar investors took the opportunity to suggest that Lunar is already beating Powerwall at its own game. “The combination of Lunar’s DC architecture, intelligent hardware, and ease of installation differentiates its residential battery from others in the industry and has led to significant market traction in 2025,” explained Prelude Managing Director Tim Woodward in a press statement. “Lunar uses sophisticated energy optimization intelligence to help homeowners manage rising home electricity bills. We’re excited to partner with the company as it shapes the next generation of decentralized grid operations,” Woodward added. Raj Atluru, Managing Partner of Activate Capital, also chipped in his two cents. “Lunar brings together two powerful insights: first, that the future of solar is integrated solar and storage to deliver truly resilient homes; and second, that flexibility at the edge is becoming increasingly valuable for both grid stability and household resilience.” If you can name the CEO of Lunar without scrolling up through this article, run right out and buy yourself a cigar. Tesla’s chances of competing in a consumer market crowded with no-name CEOs are diminishing practically by the day, alongside a never-ending march of scandal. Among the latest developments are Musk’s failure to manage the pedophile-adjacent behavior of his Grok chatbot, enabling millions of sexualized, non-consensual images of women, and thousands of girls, to circulate around his X social media platform, and his failure to provide for a kill switch on Starlink terminals, enabling Russia to deploy terminals on drones to murder Ukrainian civilians. Now comes word that a judge has ordered Musk to sit for a deposition on his true role at DOGE and the decision to shut down the USAID program, an act that would normally require authorization from Congress. Deferring that authority to a lifelong rule-breaker is on the Republican members of Congress who refused to exercise their majority power to stop the catastrophe. Be that as it may, the loss of USAID funding has been a disaster for at-risk communities around the world, with the organization Oxfam among those putting the blame squarely on the shoulders of Elon Musk. Stay tuned for more on that deposition. Musk was previously ordered to depose and he appealed the order. In the current case, the judge denied his appeal on the grounds that he and his co-defendants have “effectively acknowledged” that the orders to shut down USAID were given orally, without any documentation, and without the presence of any lower-ranking officials. That makes Musk’s testimony essential to the case — that is, if Musk ever decides to sit for a deposition just like any other person under a deposition order. Don’t hold your breath…. Featured photo: The US startup Lunar Energy has raised another $232 million towards its goal of dominating the US home energy storage market (cropped, courtesy of Lunar Energy). CleanTechnica’s Comment Policy Tina has been covering advanced energy technology, military sustainability, emerging materials, biofuels, ESG and related policy and political matters for CleanTechnica since 2009. Follow her @tinamcasey on LinkedIn, Mastodon or Bluesky. Tina Casey has 4073 posts and counting. See all posts by Tina Casey
COOLIDGE — Some erroneous documentation that has held up a solar project could be cleared up at the next City Council meeting after the council tabled an amendment last week due to concerns over some wording. Javascript is required for you to be able to read premium content. Please enable it in your browser settings.
All-Access Pass: Digital + E-Edition Included
Pay as you go and cancel anytime {{description}} Email notifications are only sent once a day, and only if there are new matching items. CASA GRANDE — With it’s new comedy, “Run For Your Wife,” set to debut on Feb. 27, BlackBox Foundation aims to inspire audiences to laugh. Read moreNew comedy ‘Run for Your Wife’ set to run at BlackBox FLORENCE — The Pinal County Board of Supervisors voted to refer County Attorney Brad Miller’s potential “misuse of public funds and resources and failure to retain public records” to the state… Read morePinal supervisors refer County Attorney Miller to AG over hiring practices MARICOPA — Local provider Global Water sent an email to Maricopa residents, warning them to avoid contact with recycled water that has been discharged into the Santa Rosa Wash. Read moreGlobal Water warns about recycled water in Santa Rosa Wash CASA GRANDE — The Planning and Zoning Commission approved a request for a second Dutch Bros coffee outlet with drive-thru north of the northeast corner of Pinal Avenue and Cholla Street. Read moreCG planning panel OKs 2nd Dutch Bros on Pinal FLORENCE — The Pinal County Board of Supervisors’ third annual renewal of an agreement with Pinal County Recorder Dana Lewis to run elections includes a $75,000 stipend for those duties. Read morePinal Recorder Lewis to be paid for elections duties COOLIDGE — The Coolidge Police Department said one of its officers was involved in a fatal shooting after someone pulled a machete in front of the police station. Read moreOfficer involved in shooting in front of Coolidge Police station Your comment has been submitted.
Reported There was a problem reporting this. Log In Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language. PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK. Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated. Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything. Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person. Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts. Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article. MARICOPA — To fall in line with how other cities manage their public safety resources, Maricopa Councilmember AnnaMarie Knorr suggested that — as part of the planning for the future of police,… Read moreMaricopa police and fire considering best strategies MARICOPA — Since October of 2008, the city of Maricopa has had a single master plan for its parks and recreation department, and according to Director Rocky Brown, a whole lot has changed since then. Read moreMaricopa Parks and Rec begins developing new master plan MAMMOTH — During what should have been a routine after-school drop-off Tuesday afternoon, one child was injured when a man reportedly attacked a Mammoth-San Manuel School District bus before f… Read moreSan Manuel man arrested in Mammoth after attack on school bus {{summary}} Your browser is out of date and potentially vulnerable to security risks. We recommend switching to one of the following browsers: Get up-to-the-minute news sent straight to your device. Sorry, an error occurred.
Already Subscribed!
Cancel anytime Account processing issue – the email address may already exist Sign up with
Thank you . Your account has been registered, and you are now logged in. Check your email for details. Invalid password or account does not exist Sign in with Submitting this form below will send a message to your email with a link to change your password. An email message containing instructions on how to reset your password has been sent to the email address listed on your account. No promotional rates found.
While silver prices are skyrocketing and new solar cell technologies demand more of the precious metal, researchers are exploring ways to reduce or even eliminate silver from PV manufacturing. With copper, aluminum, or nickel on the front and rear of cells, novel metallization strategies are achieving silver-level efficiencies, and manufacturers are taking note. Silver powder is a component in the silver paste that is applied to wafers as a conductor. Photo: Heraeus
This website uses cookies to anonymously count visitor numbers. View our privacy policy. The cookie settings on this website are set to “allow cookies” to give you the best browsing experience possible. If you continue to use this website without changing your cookie settings or you click “Accept” below then you are consenting to this. Close
PUBLISHED ON EAST LANSING, Mich. — Agrivoltaics is a promising, emerging and rapidly evolving area of energy development that integrates agricultural production into solar arrays to keep land in farming. A webinar series sponsored by Michigan State University Extension will provide research-backed insights and real-world lessons on crop yields, livestock performance and best practices for farming within solar arrays. The following is a brief description of each webinar plus registration information. Growing Grass and Alfalfa Hay Between Solar Arrays: Lessons learned from the Madison Fields Agrivoltaics Project and how hay production between arrays can be replicated in Michigan Presenter: Eric Romich, Professor and Extension Field Specialist, Energy Development, Ohio State University Extension Date and time: Monday, February 23 from 12:30-1:30 p.m. Presentation description: Two 2023 reports by Ohio State University researchers found raising grass hay and alfalfa between rows of solar panels was feasible and that the harvest’s nutritive value was good. But that small-scale work at the Pigtail Farms site in Van Wert County used data from only a few test plots and controls. The Madison Fields agrivoltaics project was designed to test whether similar results can be achieved on a large scale. Now in its second year, the Madison Fields agrivoltaics project is yielding new insights into growing grass hay and alfalfa between solar arrays. This presentation will help Michigan farmers learn how grass hay and alfalfa can successfully be grown between solar arrays. Yield and nutrient content data will be shared. Where Veggies Meet Volts: Commercial vegetable production in a solar project Presenter: Ajay Nair, Professor and Chair of the Department of Horticulture, Iowa State University Date and time: Tuesday, February 24 from 7-8 p.m. Description: This presentation will highlight growing bell peppers, squash and broccoli on a commercial scale in a solar park. Data on crop growth, yield and quality will be shared. An Introduction to Solar Grazing with Inverter Cattle Presenter: Jess Gray, Gray’s LAMBscaping LLC Date and time: Wednesday, February 25 from 7-8 p.m. Description: Inverter cattle are a specialized composite breed combining Dexter, Belted Galloway, Pineywoods and American Milking Devon genetics for optimal solar site performance. Inverter cattle possess several key traits necessary for grazing around solar arrays including small stature, hardiness, docile temperament and efficient foraging. Inverter cattle can produce a product the consumer wants—less fat and meat with flavor. This presentation will introduce participants to inverter cattle and make the case for grazing inverter cattle in Michigan solar projects. Solar Grazing in Michigan: Lessons learned from a Michigan sheep producer Presenter: Sy Caryl, J&S Solar Grazing and Mowing Date and time: Thursday, February 26 from 7-8 p.m. Description: During the summer of 2025, J&S Solar Grazing and Mowing grazed sheep on two solar sites, one in Calhoun County and the other in Wexford County. The presenter will share best practices and lessons learned from his experience grazing sheep at those locations. There is no registration fee, but registration is required to participate. Registration information can be found at MI Ag Ideas to Grow With. Questions about the webinar series? Contact Charles Gould at 616-834-2812 or [email protected]. This article was published by Michigan State University Extension. — M. Charles Gould, Michigan State University Extension MANSFIELD, Ohio — Ohio State Extension has announced plans to host a Small Farm Conference in Mansfield on March 11, 2023. The theme for this year’s Mid-Ohio Small Farm Conference is “Sowing Seeds for Success.” Conference session topics are geared to beginning and small farm owners as well as to farms looking to diversify their operation. […] INDIANAPOLIS — Winners of the 2023 National FFA Agricultural Proficiency Awards were named during multiple sessions of the 96th National FFA Convention & Expo, Nov. 1-4, held in Indianapolis. Agricultural proficiency awards honor FFA members who, through supervised agricultural experiences (SAEs), have developed specialized skills that they can apply toward their future careers. Students compete in […] EAST LANSING, Mich. — The Upper Peninsula of Michigan covers approximately 29% of Michigan’s land mass but is home to less than 3% of residents. This statistic leads to the question — what is the current status of the agriculture sector in the Upper Peninsula? Jim Collom, an agricultural statistician with the United States Department […] DEWITT, Mich. — Michigan Cattlemen’s Association members have an exciting opportunity awaiting at Summer Round-Up! At the event, which is sponsored by NCBA and The National Corn Growers Association, MCA presents three educational opportunities as part of the Cattlemen’s Education Series®. The dates for Summer Round-Up are June 21 and 22, held in Holland, Mich. […] American Egg Board Aims to Spur Rapid Export Growth MOU Signed at IPPE to Strengthen Poultry Welfare Training and Support Click subscribe to receive a confirmation email. We have sent you an email with a personalized link. Please click the link within 10 minutes to complete your subscription.
Pick your region or specialty and stay in the know. Free. Fast. Farmer-approved. Subscribe now → Click here to Subscribe
Ultrathin solar panels could potentially transform the renewable energy landscape. Much thinner than today’s standard panels, they require far fewer raw materials to manufacture. This significantly reduces production costs and makes them easier for manufacturers to integrate onto a wide range of surfaces. However, one major drawback has held them back so far: lower efficiency. Thinner photovoltaic cells absorb less light, and part of the energy is lost through the back of the panel. To address this issue, researchers from the Iberian International Nanotechnology Laboratory came up with an unexpected solution: using gold to create a reflective layer beneath the photovoltaic cell. In a study published in the journal Solar RRL, they report an efficiency increase of 1.5 percentage points in ultrathin ACIGS solar cells ((Ag,Cu)(In,Ga)Se₂). To achieve this result, the team developed what they call a “nanostructured mirror.” It consists of a 25 nanometer thick layer of gold covered with a nanoscale T shaped pattern, then encapsulated with aluminum oxide. This configuration reflects light back through the photovoltaic cell, reducing energy losses at the rear of the panel. “It works by ensuring passivation of the interface,” explains researcher Pedro Salomé. The structure was created using a single step nanoimprint lithography process. Compared with traditional fabrication methods for nanostructures, this technique is cheaper, simpler, and faster. As a result, it opens the door to large scale manufacturing of these ultrathin solar panels. This breakthrough could make it possible to produce flexible or curved solar panels that are easier to deploy on vehicles, buildings, or mobile devices. By combining reduced material use with improved performance, the researchers believe their approach could help ultrathin panels close the gap with conventional technologies. While adding gold might seem like a luxury, the extremely small quantities involved mean the overall cost remains low. In return, the efficiency gains could significantly improve the economic viability of next generation solar technologies and accelerate their adoption across multiple industries.
Proposals for a solar farm have been shelved after a public consultation. Jersey Electricity said the plans for the farm at the Belle Fontaine site in St Martin would not be progressed following feedback from the public and discussions with the Crown which owns the land. The firm said it continued to review the suitability of potential solar sites in efforts to increase the use of renewable energy on the island. It said it remained "fully committed" to the transition to cleaner energy and the identification of sites where renewable generation and agricultural activity can coexist. Jersey Electricity had previously said the 5.2-megawatt project would cover about 20 acres (eight hectares) of Crown land, with panels designed to operate alongside crops and livestock in an agrivoltaic system, which sees the dual use of land. Residents had subsequently raised concerns that the proposed solar field could alter the tranquil and rural character of the parish, and disrupt wildlife. Announcing that it had pulled the plug on the plans, Jersey Electricity said it would continue to hold public consultations at early stages on other proposed ground-mounted solar developments. A spokesperson for the firm said: "Ground-mounted solar remains a cost-effective way to diversify Jersey's electricity supply, strengthen the island's energy resilience and support environmental objectives." Follow BBC Jersey on X and Facebook. Send your story ideas to channel.islands@bbc.co.uk. Developers wanted to build 60 turbines up to 250m (820ft) tall near Moffat, which drew objections from the local community. Up to 350 job roles could be at risk at Selby-based Drax Group, which operates in the UK and USA. East Surrey Hospital, Redhill, received funds from Great British Energy for over 2,800 panels. The body responsible for managing the UK's airspace opposes the project in southern Scotland. Mingyang plans to build a £1.5bn wind turbine manufacturing plant at the Highland port. Copyright 2026 BBC. All rights reserved. The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read about our approach to external linking.
With 85 cents of every dollar paying for staff salaries and benefits, Center Grove Community School Corporation made the choice to go green in order to save green in their annual operating budget. In Q4 of 2025, school leaders had something to celebrate: Maple Grove Elementary School was the first school building of its size in the state to achieve Net Zero Energy status, producing more electricity than it used that quarter. “When we talk about where we can reduce our spending, without making cuts or reductions in programming, it really has to come outside of staffing,” says Dr. Jason Taylor, Associate Superintendent of CGCSC. “Utilities were the next biggest opportunity for us to make an impact.” Dr. Taylor says CGCSC spends about 11% on utility bills for the corporation and becoming energy efficient reduces that percentage, allowing money to be reallocated to satisfy other needs. Leaders took a hard look at the corporation’s six elementary schools, two middle schools, high school and other facilities, with a total of 22 buildings under the corporation’s control. Maple Grove Elementary School was the obvious choice to kick off this energy efficiency project. “We actually started back in December of 2023, with installation happening that summer and then finished it up this past summer,” Dr. Taylor says. According to CMTA, the company contracted for the project, their holistic analysis uncovered substantial savings at Maple Grove by undergoing a complete Geothermal conversion, coupled with the 1.007 MW ground-mounted solar array. Then, CMTA replaced all gas equipment and upgraded the facility’s conventional HVAC systems with state-of-the-art, energy-efficient water source heat pumps. The company was able to repurpose the hydronic piping for the heat pump loop and retain the existing ductwork. CMTA estimates Maple Grove’s geothermal system and solar array will save over two million kWh of electricity annually. Center Grove also received nearly one million dollars in tax credits for the solar installations at Maple Grove and other facilities. In CMTA’s January report to district leaders, the company reported $662,536 in savings for 2025. That’s more than $43,000 higher than their initial estimate of $619,140 in savings for the year. CMTA’s total guaranteed savings going into 2026, is $834,518. That estimate factors in a new solar project on the roof of Sugar Grove Elementary School. With the completion of SGES, the estimated Investment Tax Credit (ITC) for 2026 will be nearly $3.5M. [Text Wrapping Break]CGCSC sells bonds for these types of projects, which operate similarly to a mortgage, allowing the district to invest now and use the energy savings to pay it back over time. “What we’re able to do here with Maple Grove and other projects is actually remove about half a million dollars in spending from that operations budget and utility spend that we can put toward staffing,” Dr. Taylor says. Inside the maintenance room at Maple Grove, geothermal units collect groundwater that heats and cools the building. Currently, Maple Grove produces as much or more electricity than it uses each month. “The operations fund comes from our local property taxes, and so what this does is it allows us to not continually increase that property tax rate and try to hold it a little more flat even though our costs are going up,” Dr. Taylor says. “We were able to take advantage of some of the rebates provided through the Inflation Reduction Act and that really kicked in for the geothermal energy in a big way, taking off about a third of that cost to install. The solar was a little bit less than that, but still is a great return.” Maple Grove was selected as the first building for this project due to the cost of its 20-year-old system. The school itself is home to around 750 students. “In addition to financial benefits for the corporation, it’s renewable energy. It doesn’t produce any kind of pollution. It just simply creates electricity and provides it right to our building,” Dr. Taylor says. “We’re able to sell that back and honestly help the local utility providers not have to purchase as much from the power plants throughout the state.” CGCSC is also working to educate the student body on its renewable energy initiatives as they apply to lessons. They are installing digital information panels that students can view and teachers can incorporate the real-time data into classroom lessons as a powerful, real-world learning tool. “We didn’t invent this solution for schools, but we definitely took it to a new level, creating an entire building that we could remove from the grid,” Dr. Taylor says. Your email address will not be published.Required fields are marked *
While there remains room for improvement, even existing solar technology has the ability to significantly reduce electricity costs while providing additional benefits, such as cleaner air.
• EnergySage can help you save up to $10,000 on installations by curating competitive bids from local installers • Not ready to spend up front? Palmetto’s $0-down LightReach solar leasing program can lower your utility rate by up to 20% • TCD’s Solar Explorer makes it easy to access exclusive offers from preferred partners
To push the benefits of home solar even further, many homeowners have paired their solar panels with electric appliances, such as energy-efficient HVAC heat pumps. To learn more about all-electric HVAC systems, including how they can help you slash your utility bills, check out TCD’s HVAC Explorer. If you’re looking for other ways to cut costs and improve your budget, Palmetto’s easy-to-use Home app offers tips and incentives that can help you save up to an additional $5,000. 💡Upway makes it easy to find discounts of up to 60% on premium e-bike brands Starting at $599 Starting at $849 Starting at $1,119 Starting at $749 Starting at $849 What’s the most you’d pay per month to put solar panels on your roof if there was no down payment? $200 or more 💰 $100 💸 $30 💵 I’d only do it if someone else paid for it 😎 Click your choice to see results and speak your mind.
Let Facilities Dive’s free newsletter keep you informed, straight from your inbox.
Whether you’re considering leasing your rooftop, purchasing a system or entering into a power purchase agreement, there’s still time to help project ROI with federal tax credits — but not much time. Gabe Phillips is CEO of Catalyst Power. Views are the author’s own. For years, on-site solar offered businesses a way to hedge against higher energy bills and generate revenue by leasing land or rooftop space to a solar developer. With the passage last year of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, which reshaped the federal clean energy tax credit landscape and shortened the timelines for their availability, business owners face firm deadlines that will determine whether they can access these significant federal benefits — or miss them entirely. Whether you’re considering leasing your rooftop or land to a solar developer, purchasing a system, or exploring a power purchase agreement, the federal investment tax credit has been the financial engine that has made many of these solar investments pencil out. The 30% base tax credit has enabled developers to offer attractive lease rates, competitive PPA pricing and compelling economics for business owners who choose to own their systems. The legislation establishes two critical paths to qualify for the commercial solar ITC: Path 1 requires you to begin construction on a solar project before July 4 of this year. Projects that meet this deadline remain eligible for the full 30% tax credit with no placed-in-service deadline, provided construction is continuous and in good faith. Path 2 enables projects to qualify if they can’t start construction by the July deadline as long as they’re completed and operational by December 31, 2027. If you miss these windows, the opportunity for full federal incentives disappears. For business owners, this means the economics of every solar option — whether you’re leasing space, buying power or purchasing the system — will shift. Developers won’t be able to offer the same lease rates or PPA prices without the ITC. And for businesses buying systems outright, losing that 30% credit can render solar completely uninvestable, pushing payback timeframes from five years to 10 or more. And here’s the hard truth: while the incentives are time-limited, your energy bills aren’t getting any cheaper. The businesses that lock in solar deals now — whether through leases, PPAs or direct ownership — will benefit from projects developed with federal support. Those that wait will still need to address rising electricity costs; they’ll just miss the financial leverage the ITC provides. The ITC has enabled multiple pathways for businesses to address rising energy costs. For businesses leasing out space to solar developers, developers can offer more attractive lease payments, turning unused rooftops or land into revenue streams while helping the businesses meet sustainability goals without requiring capital investment. For businesses purchasing power, PPAs become more competitive when developers can capture the ITC, allowing their partners to lock in rates below utility pricing without upfront costs. For businesses buying systems, the 30% tax credit improves ROI and shortens payback periods, making ownership economically compelling for companies with the capital. Regardless of which model you choose, the underlying value proposition is the same: protection from utility rate volatility and reduced volatility in energy costs for decades. And for facilities with consistent thermal loads — like hospitals, food processing plants or manufacturing operations — combining solar with cogeneration systems that produce both electricity and heating or cooling can enhance economics and resilience. These integrated distributed energy strategies give businesses a number of benefits: Without the ITC, solar remains a sound long-term investment — but the economics shift. The businesses that act now will gain a competitive advantage over those that wait. Many business owners underestimate how long it takes to develop a commercial solar project, regardless of the business model. Between site assessments, engineering studies, utility interconnection processes, permitting, equipment procurement and construction, even straightforward projects can require 12-18 months from initial planning to breaking ground, and longer for larger or complex sites. That means businesses exploring solar today for a July 2026 start-of-construction deadline are already working against a tight timeline. Negotiating leases or purchasing systems must begin well before the deadline. When addingthe fact that solar developers and installers are experiencing unprecedented demand as these deadlines approach, scheduling constraints are becoming very real. Recent regulatory guidance has also raised the bar for what qualifies as “beginning construction,” making early and thorough project preparation more critical than ever. The window is narrowing fast, but it’s not closed. If your business owns its facilities and pays significant electricity bills, now is the time to explore your options — whether that’s leasing space to a developer, entering a PPA or purchasing a system outright. Here’s a workflow you might use: Over years of helping businesses navigate the energy transition through various models — from site leases to PPAs to direct system ownership, one pattern has become clear: the most successful organizations don’t wait for perfect conditions — they recognize windows of opportunity and act. This is one of those windows. Solar may not be a viable solution for rising energy costs after these incentives expire until costs rise 100-200%, causing businesses substantial financial strain. But the businesses that act now, even if only leveraging a smaller solar solution, will lock in economics that won’t be available to those who wait. Whether you’re earning lease revenue, buying discounted power or capturing tax credits, the financial math is strongest with federal support. If you miss the solar deadline — or if solar isn’t feasible for your facility — there are other onsite generation solutions worth exploring. Cogeneration systems, for example, can be compelling for facilities with consistent thermal loads, as they produce both electricity and useful heating and cooling with high efficiency. Your energy costs aren’t going down. The only question is whether you’ll address them while incentives are still available — or pay full price later. Get the free daily newsletter read by industry experts Agencies are authorized by statute to use energy performance contracts to make efficiency upgrades with little up-front cost, the National Lab of the Rockies says. Building information models that help managers oversee construction can also be used with maintenance and operations if the appropriate data is imported and predictive modeling built in. Keep up with the story. Subscribe to the Facilities Dive free daily newsletter Subscribe to Facilities Dive for top news, trends & analysis Get the free daily newsletter read by industry experts Want to share a company announcement with your peers? Get started ➔ Agencies are authorized by statute to use energy performance contracts to make efficiency upgrades with little up-front cost, the National Lab of the Rockies says. Building information models that help managers oversee construction can also be used with maintenance and operations if the appropriate data is imported and predictive modeling built in. The free newsletter covering the top industry headlines
For premium support please call: For premium support please call: Proposals for a solar farm have been shelved after a public consultation. Jersey Electricity said the plans for the farm at the Belle Fontaine site in St Martin would not be progressed following feedback from the public and discussions with the Crown which owns the land. The firm said it continued to review the suitability of potential solar sites in efforts to increase the use of renewable energy on the island. It said it remained "fully committed" to the transition to cleaner energy and the identification of sites where renewable generation and agricultural activity can coexist. Jersey Electricity had previously said the 5.2-megawatt project would cover about 20 acres (eight hectares) of Crown land, with panels designed to operate alongside crops and livestock in an agrivoltaic system, which sees the dual use of land. Residents had subsequently raised concerns that the proposed solar field could alter the tranquil and rural character of the parish, and disrupt wildlife. Announcing that it had pulled the plug on the plans, Jersey Electricity said it would continue to hold public consultations at early stages on other proposed ground-mounted solar developments. A spokesperson for the firm said: "Ground-mounted solar remains a cost-effective way to diversify Jersey's electricity supply, strengthen the island's energy resilience and support environmental objectives." More news stories for Jersey Listen to the latest news for Jersey Follow BBC Jersey on X and Facebook. Send your story ideas to channel.islands@bbc.co.uk. Consultation on plans for new solar farm Residents oppose plans for St Martin solar farm Concerns raised over Jersey solar farms New application for large solar array in Jersey £5m solar farm due to be finished this year Jersey Electricity Advertisement Advertisement Advertisement Advertisement Advertisement Advertisement Advertisement Advertisement Advertisement Advertisement
Sunny. High around 65F. Winds SSE at 5 to 10 mph.. Partly cloudy skies. Low 47F. Winds light and variable. Updated: February 8, 2026 @ 9:02 am The Mousam River Solar Project by Walden Renewables located in Sandford, Maine. (Photo by Walden Renewables via Linkedin) More than 2,900 acres of land between the Stockton and Tensaw communities is currently under lease for a solar generation facility. Digital Editor, Investigative Reporter The Mousam River Solar Project by Walden Renewables located in Sandford, Maine. (Photo by Walden Renewables via Linkedin) As Stockton residents mobilized against a large-scale solar facility to their south, public records obtained by Lagniappe reveal a second solar project has already secured 2,900 acres of land rights at their northern border. According to property deeds and lease memorandums filed in Baldwin County Probate Court, a project identified as “Tensaw Solar LLC” has secured a long-term lease on timberland also off Highway 59 — just 14 miles north of the Silicon Ranch “Stockton Solar” project currently slated to move forward on the corner of Interstate 65. More than 2,900 acres of land between the Stockton and Tensaw communities is currently under lease for a solar generation facility. Javascript is required for you to be able to read premium content. Please enable it in your browser settings. Email Scott Johnson at scott@lagniappemobile.com or call his desk, 251-445-8813. Michael Tabb is not an opponent of green energy. As a “generational Mobilian,” former Davidson High School student, and 14-year veteran of the… Plans for a large solar project in an old rural Baldwin County, Alabama, community to support a new Meta data center 150 miles away have sparked local pushback. Meta Platforms has now upped the ante at its Montgomery data centers to $2.44 billion — a total energy burden that translates to two massive s… Digital Editor, Investigative Reporter {{description}} Email notifications are only sent once a day, and only if there are new matching items. Your comment has been submitted.
Reported There was a problem reporting this. Log In Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language. PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK. Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated. Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything. Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person. Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts. Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article. Please log in, or sign up for a new account and purchase a subscription to read or post comments. Sorry, no promotional deals were found matching that code. Promotional Rates were found for your code. Sorry, an error occurred.
do not remove Your browser is out of date and potentially vulnerable to security risks. We recommend switching to one of the following browsers: Sorry, an error occurred.
Already Subscribed!
Cancel anytime Account processing issue – the email address may already exist Perspective and commentary from co-publisher Rob Holbert. Wake up Wednesday to online versions of each week’s print publication. Receive immediately notifications of new, important stories Our weekly podcast on the latest news, sports and more. A roundup of weekly sports features and updates by Tommy Hicks. Sent Friday @ 3:30 p.m. Receive new e-Editions of Lagniappe straight in your inbox. Sign up with
Thank you . Your account has been registered, and you are now logged in. Check your email for details. Invalid password or account does not exist Sign in with Submitting this form below will send a message to your email with a link to change your password. An email message containing instructions on how to reset your password has been sent to the email address listed on your account. No promotional rates found.
Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript. Advertisement Scientific Reportsvolume 16, Article number: 2041 (2026) Cite this article 848 Accesses Metrics details This study develops and optimizes a hybrid cooling system that synergizes building-integrated photovoltaic (BIPV) with earth-air (EAHE) and water-air (WAHE) heat exchangers for solar-powered gym cooling. Two configurations are evaluated: a series arrangement (Configuration A) and a parallel one (Configuration B). A multi-objective optimization using a genetic algorithm was performed to maximize total energy output while minimizing power consumption by optimizing seven design parameters. The results demonstrate a clear performance trade-off: Configuration A achieved superior cooling with a lower outlet air temperature of 14.0 °C, while Configuration B delivered a significantly higher total energy output of 41 kWh in August, a 64% increase over Configuration A’s 25 kWh. The optimization yielded a definitive optimal design point with the following key parameters: an air mass flow rate of 1.18 kg/s, a water mass flow rate of 0.68 kg/s, an EAHE diameter of 0.49 m and length of 23.79 m, and a WAHE diameter of 0.027 m and length of 23 m. Crucially, the BIPV system generated sufficient electricity to power all auxiliary components. This work confirms the viability of a fully renewable, dual-source cooling architecture, with Configuration B recommended for maximizing energy output and Configuration A for prioritizing maximum cooling. Unquestionably, one of the biggest issues facing humanity today is energy security. It includes managing a variety of geopolitical, economic, technological, environmental, and psychological risks that impact energy markets while guaranteeing a steady and dependable supply of energy sources at fair rates. A varied geographic distribution of resources, safe transportation routes, and easy access to global oil and gas reserves are all components of energy security for consumers. Furthermore, the oil and gas supply must come from areas that are expected to stay steady and reliable over time. Rapid depletion of underground energy sources necessitates the current generation to prioritize sustainable and long-lasting energy alternatives. The evolving landscape of renewable energy offers a broad spectrum of choices including solar, geothermal, wind, bio, wave, and seawater energy. Although these energy sources have been utilized since ancient times, advancements in science and technology have empowered humanity to harness their potential. However, the escalating industrialization in many developing nations and the global population surge have heightened the demand for various forms of energy, particularly electrical energy. Despite the continuous improvement in energy efficiency of renewables through innovative technologies, fossil fuels persist as predominant energy sources for industrial operations. Consequently, the current contribution of new energy sources to global energy supply remains relatively minimal the predominant reliance on fossil fuels has hindered the widespread adoption of renewable energy sources, despite their numerous benefits. However, the finite nature of fossil fuels and their detrimental environmental impact are becoming increasingly evident. To address these challenges, a shift towards optimizing fossil fuel usage and transitioning to new or renewable energies is essential for environmental improvement and mitigating the energy crisis1,2,3,4. Among the many renewable energy options, solar panels are among the most widely used. It is anticipated that worldwide solar PV capacity would exceed 500 GW by the end of 2018, which would allow it to supply around 2.8% of the world’s power needs1. These solar panels directly generate energy from sunlight, however they have drawbacks including low electrical conversion efficiency, which is made worse by rising temperatures. To combat these efficiency issues, researchers have proposed utilizing a cooling fluid to enhance the panels’ performance. When panels’ temperatures are reduced to enhance efficiency, they also generate a heated fluid useful for various applications like HVAC systems. Known as photovoltaic/thermal systems, these integrated solutions have been extensively scrutinized for their energetic and exergetic performances by numerous researchers2,3,4,5. These systems have a wide range of uses, although they are mostly used to enable heating and cooling solutions. Khaki et al.6,7 suggested a PVT system that could produce power and prepare outdoor air in the winter and summer. In addition to multi-criteria optimization for glazed and unglazed PVT systems, their work included in-depth energy and exergy studies. The results indicated that while the glazed system outperformed the unglazed system in first-law performance evaluations, the opposite was true for second-law performance evaluations. Moaleman et al.8 evaluated the performance of a trigeneration system that included a water-ammonia absorption chiller and a concentrating PVT system in a different research. The TRNSYS software was used to run the simulations and assess how well different hybrid energy systems performed. According to Buonomano et al.9, the hybrid system’s average yearly electrical efficiency is around 58%. They evaluated a novel polygeneration system with PVT-driven adsorption and absorption chillers using a dynamic simulation model. According to their findings, using an electric chiller as a backup device in every situation produced the best energy and financial results. A new CCHP system that combines a liquid desiccant system with a PVT system was proposed by Su et al.10. According to their analysis, on an annual basis, energy savings and CO2 emission reductions came to around 73.28% and 74.55%, respectively. As a renewable energy source, geothermal energy has attracted a lot of attention from researchers11. In contrast to solar and wind energy, geothermal energy is consistently available and accessible worldwide. In the winter season, ground temperature is higher than the average outside air temperature, but in the summer season, the converse is true, according to research12,13,14,15. An Earth-to-Air Heat Exchanger (EAHE) may use this phenomena to precool or preheat outdoor air. Direct use of geothermal energy involves passing warm or cold air through the earth in the winter or summer to heat or cool the air, while indirect usage involves passing the heat via a second heat transfer fluid in a heat exchanger. The performance of EAHEs has been the subject of recent investigation by a number of academics16,17,18. The hybrid PVT-EAHE system is a prominent example of the hybrid renewable energy systems that a subset of scientists have investigated. Research on energy and exergy is scarce, according to the literature currently under publication. Only three research have examined the performance evaluation of hybrid PVT-EAHE systems19,20,21. The effectiveness of an integrated PVT-EAHE system in a greenhouse under various climatic conditions in India was examined by Nayak and Tiwari19, who found that Jodhpur was the best site because of its high sun intensity. The energy and exergetic efficiency of a PVT-EAHE system in a solar greenhouse were theoretically examined in a different work by Mahdavi et al.20. Through the EAHE system, greenhouse air was preheated and precooled before being circulated back into the greenhouse. Additionally, the air in the greenhouse was warmed by traveling via a conduit underneath the photovoltaic displays. The hybrid PVT-EAHE system showed the ability to precool and preheat the greenhouse air by 9 °C and 8 °C in the summer and winter, respectively, while the PVT system by itself had no effect on greenhouse air preheating.A numerical evaluation of a PVT-EAHE system’s thermal performance under various climatic conditions in Pilani, Ajmer, India, and Las Vegas, USA, was carried out by Jakhar et al.21. The system efficiently produced power and warmed the chilly ambient air by utilizing the PVT and EAHE technologies. The EAHE’s heating capacity increased from 0.024 to 0.299 kWh for Pilani, from 0.071 to 0.316 kWh for Ajmer, and from 0.041 to 0.271 kWh for Las Vegas as a result of the PVT system’s integration. Ground-source heat pump (GSHP) systems are among the most energy-efficient solutions for space conditioning, leveraging the near-constant subsurface temperature to achieve high coefficients of performance (COP), typically ranging between 3.0 and 5.0 for well-designed systems22. The thermal stability of the ground at depths beyond 4–6 m, where temperatures remain relatively stable (≈10–16 °C in temperate climates), allows GSHPs to significantly reduce electricity consumption compared to conventional air-source heat pumps22. Earth-air heat exchangers (EAHEs) further enhance energy efficiency by utilizing the ground’s thermal inertia to precondition ventilation air before it enters HVAC systems. Studies indicate that properly designed EAHEs can reduce cooling loads by 15–30% in summer and heating loads by 10–25% in winter, depending on climatic conditions and soil thermal properties23. The thermo-hydraulic performance of EAHEs is governed by key parameters such as pipe length, diameter, air velocity, and burial depth. For instance, De Paepe and Janssens24 demonstrated that an optimal air velocity of 2–4 m/s minimizes pressure drop while maximizing heat transfer, with typical pressure losses ranging from 50–200 Pa/m depending on pipe roughness and geometry. The fundamental heat transfer mechanisms in EAHEs conduction through the soil, convection at the pipe-air interface, and thermal storage effects are well-described by Kouki et al.25. The EAHE systems’ performance is not significantly influenced by the pipe material, unlike the pipe length and diameter. It is reported that longer pipes enhance the cooling output in the EAHE system. The pipe length positively correlates with the in-pipe air temperature. An increment in the pipe diameter led to a drop in the in-pipe air temperature. An indicative report states that an increasing air flow velocity can lead to thermal losses from pipes to their surrounding soil25. Recent advancements integrate EAHEs with hybrid HVAC systems to further improve efficiency. For example, Hernández et al.26 demonstrated that combining an air-to-water heat pump (COP ≈ 3.5) with a ducted fan coil unit and EAHE reduced annual energy consumption by 22% in a residential building. Similarly, Bansal et al.27 reported that earth-pipe-air heat exchangers (EPAHEs) achieved a cooling capacity of 1.5–2.5 kW with a temperature drop of 5–8 °C in summer, reducing peak cooling demand by 20–35%. Optimization studies have explored hybrid systems combining EAHEs with renewable energy technologies. Khanmohammadi and Shahsavar28 showed that integrating a thermal wheel with a building-integrated photovoltaic/thermal (BIPV/T) system improved overall exergy efficiency by 18–25%. Li et al.29 further optimized a hybrid EAHE-BIPV/T system using multi-objective genetic algorithms, achieving a 30% reduction in energy demand while maintaining thermal comfort, with a payback period of 6–8 years under moderate climate conditions. These findings underscore the potential of EAHEs and hybrid geothermal systems in decarbonizing building HVAC systems while meeting stringent energy efficiency targets. The study developed an unsteady-state model for a Solar Chimney-PV-Earth Air Heat Exchanger (SC-PV-EAHE) system, which was validated with a full-scale experimental bench across different seasons. Using genetic algorithms, the system’s structural parameters were optimized, and its performance was compared against a baseline building (Condition 1). The results demonstrated that the optimized system (Condition 3) significantly improved indoor thermal comfort, reducing the average summer temperature by up to 8.83 °C and increasing the winter temperature by 3.14 °C. Furthermore, the system enhanced the PV module’s electrical efficiency, raising the annual average from 20.65 to 21.29% and boosting annual power generation by 91.96 kWh, thereby confirming its superior thermoelectric performance30. Another study addresses the challenge of maintaining sustainable environments in winter by proposing an integrated system combining a thin-film photovoltaic Quonset greenhouse (GiTPV) with an Earth Air Heat Exchanger (EAHE). The system’s performance was evaluated using 3D Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) simulations, which demonstrated that on a typical winter day in Delhi, the EAHE could raise the greenhouse air temperature by 8 °C and plant temperature by 9 °C at a 0.5 kg/s airflow rate. Simultaneously, the GiTPV system achieved energy self-sufficiency by generating 15.3 kWh of daily electrical energy. This integrated approach successfully creates a controlled, sustainable microclimate for cold-weather agriculture31. TRNSYS software was used to simulate an Earth-Water Heat Exchanger (EWHE) in a research conducted for India by Jakhar et al.32. The trend of installing solar photovoltaics in a distributed manner to fulfill the electricity needs of buildings is on the rise, especially in rural regions, attributed to technological advancements, market developments, and cost reductions in production33. The notion of using the earth’s heat to cover all or some of the heating and cooling demands has piqued the interest of many researchers due to the substantial advantages of geothermal energy. A parameter analysis and comparison with a Concentrating PV (CPV) system revealed that the EWHE system performed better while using a 60 m pipe buried at a depth of 3.5 m. studies have shown that combining hybrid EAHE/conventional EAHE systems with other renewable energy sources like solar photovoltaics, wind towers, solar chimney, evaporative coolers, phase change materials, solar air heaters, or ventilated roofs is a promising strategy for promoting sustainability and environmental benefits31,32,33,34,35,36. Cuce E and Cuce PM37 investigated building-integrated photovoltaics (BIPVs) face an efficiency challenge due to high operating temperatures, which addresses by investigating passive cooling methods. Using a Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) methodology, the research evaluates the impact of different module tilt angles and fin configurations on temperature reduction. The results demonstrate that a 15° tilt angle minimizes operating temperature, in contrast to a 60° angle which causes the highest thermal load. Furthermore, the implementation of passive cooling fins significantly enhances performance, enabling an increase in maximum power output of over 5% for thin-film silicon (TF-Si) BIPVs. This work confirms that strategic tilt angle selection combined with cost-effective passive cooling can substantially improve the electrical efficiency and viability of BIPV systems. In Malaysia, typical office buildings exhibit a high energy intensity of 200–250 kWh/m2/year, largely driven by cooling demands. Wei et al.38 evaluates double-laminated monocrystalline BIPV glass against traditional BAPV systems, revealing that while the BIPV’s higher U-value increased cooling load, its transparency yielded an 80% reduction in lighting energy use with over 30% of the building area achieving optimal daylight. Economically, despite generating greater one-off and annual savings, the BIPV systems significantly higher initial capital cost resulted in a longer payback period. The decarbonization of building cooling demands innovative hybrid systems that maximize passive cooling and renewable energy self-sufficiency. While prior research has established the individual merits of building-integrated photovoltaic/thermal (BIPV/T) systems coupled with Earth-Air Heat Exchangers (PVT-EAHE) and standalone geothermal applications, a significant scientific gap persists in the synergistic integration of multiple, distinct passive thermal sinks. Critically, no existing study has architecturally combined a shallow geothermal sink (EAHE) with a deep hydrothermal sink (Water–Air Heat Exchanger, WAHE) within a unified BIPV-powered framework. This represents a fundamental oversight, as these sinks operate at different temperatures and capacities, and their parallel or series integration is not a trivial sum of parts but a complex thermodynamic system requiring co-optimization. The present work addresses this gap by introducing and rigorously optimizing a novel BIPV-EAHE-WAHE system, pioneering a dual-source cooling pathway that leverages the complementary exergy of the ground and groundwater to achieve enhanced thermal performance and energy autonomy beyond the capabilities of any single-source system reported in the literature. The present study addresses a critical yet underexplored research gap in renewable-powered building cooling: the lack of integrated systems that simultaneously harness both shallow geothermal energy (via Earth–Air Heat Exchangers, EAHE) and deep groundwater cooling (via Water–Air Heat Exchangers, WAHE) within a single BIPV-driven framework. While prior research has investigated PVT–EAHE hybrids such as Nayak and Tiwari19, Mahdavi et al.20, and Jakhar et al.32 and standalone EAHE or WAHE applications in arid climates27, none have proposed or optimized a dual-source passive cooling architecture that synergistically combines EAHE and WAHE in both series and parallel configurations. This represents a clear technological pathway innovation, not merely an application-specific adaptation. The novelty lies in the system-level integration of two distinct thermal sinks soil at 2 m depth (~ 18.5 °C) and well water at 35 m depth (~ 14 °C) to maximize precooling potential before air enters the conditioned space, thereby enhancing both thermal comfort and electrical self-sufficiency through BIPV. Against this backdrop, the current work pioneers a dual-exchanger cooling pathway that exploits the complementary thermal advantages of ground and groundwater offering a scalable, fully renewable solution for high-cooling-demand facilities like gyms in regions such as Saudi Arabia’s Aseer province. This innovation transcends contextual application; it introduces a new architectural paradigm for hybrid passive cooling systems with broader applicability in arid and semi-arid zones worldwide. The hybrid building’s integrated photovoltaic system, earth-air heat exchanger, and water–air heat exchanger BIPV-EAHE-WAHE in cooling mode are depicted in broad schematic form in Fig. 1a,b. For this system, two configurations are taken into consideration. The intake fan is really where the hot ambient air initially enters the EAHE system, as seen in Fig. 1a. This heat exchanger was positioned two meters below the earth in a horizontal orientation. The EAHE’s wall is cooler than the surrounding air because of its interaction with the earth. The incoming air is pre-cooled after passing through the EAHE. In the next step, the secondary fan brings the air coming out of the EAHE into the water–air heat exchanger WAHE. In this heat exchanger, more cooling is created than in the EAHE because the cooling fluid is well water. After passing through this stage, the third fan brings the cooled air into the house space. The energy required in this system for pumping and fanning is supplied through solar panels. Figure 1b shows another configuration of the system where two heat exchangers are placed in parallel with each other. In this case, part of the incoming fluid passes through the EAHE and another part passes through the WAHE. Then, in the next step, the combination of the two flows is directed to the gymnasium space after passing through the desired ducts. Schematic diagrams of the hybrid BIPV-EAHE-WAHE system in cooling mode: (a) Configuration A (series flow) and (b) Configuration B (parallel flow). Convection and conduction are the two heat transfer methods that allow heat to move between the coil and the soil in the EAHE system. Heat transfer has been functionally evaluated using the Effectiveness-number of transfer units ((varepsilon – {text{NTU}}frac{1}{2})) model. The ratio of actual heat transfer to maximal heat transfer is known as effectiveness23. The average temperature at a depth of about 2 m from the earth’s surface remains almost constant throughout the year and is equal to the average annual temperature of the environment in the desired area. Also, the amount of effectiveness and NTU is calculated as below23,39. And A (m2) is obtained as: That (h,A,dot{m}_{f} ,c_{p} ,D_{i,EAHE} ,L_{EAHE}) represent convection heat transfer coefficient (h) (W K−1 m−2), surface area (m2), air mass flow rate (kg s−1), specific heat capacity (J kg−1 K−1), inner diameter of the EAHE system (m) and length of the EAHE system (m), respectively. Also, the convection heat transfer coefficient (h) (W K−1 m−2) of the system is obtained from the following equation24 that for EAHE (Eq. 5), the convective coefficient is derived from the Dittus–Boelter-type correlation for turbulent flow in smooth pipes: (h = 3.66frac{k}{{D_{i,EAHE} }}) If ({text{Re}}_{EAHE} < 2300) where As a result, the output temperature of the EAHE system (K) is obtained from the following equation23,40: In a completely dry situation, the heat exchange rate ({dot{text{Q}}}_{{{text{WAHE}}}}) (kWh) can be calculated using the ε-NTU method for a counterflow heat exchanger24,41. where In this section, ({text{C}}_{{{text{min}}}}) and ({text{C}}_{{{text{max}}}}) represent the minimum and maximum capacitance rates (W K−1),({text{T}}_{{text{in,air}}}) and ({text{T}}_{{text{in,water}}}) are the air inlet dry-bulb temperature and water inlet temperature (K), ({text{NTU}}) is the number of thermal units, ({text{C}}_{{{text{ratio}}}}) is the ratio of the capacitance rate, ({text{UA}}_{{{text{dry}}}}) is the completely dry overall surface conductance, ({text{UA}}_{{{text{air}}}}) is the air-side thermal conductance, ({text{UA}}_{{{text{water}}}}) is the water-side thermal conductance (W K−1), ({upeta }_{{{text{air}}}}) is the air-side surface effectiveness, ({upalpha }_{{{text{air}}}}) and ({upalpha }_{{{text{water}}}}) are the mean air-side and water-side heat exchange coefficients, ({text{A}}_{{{text{air}}}}) and ({text{A}}_{{{text{water}}}}) are the air-side and water-side areas (m2), ({dot{text{m}}}_{{{text{air}}}}) and ({dot{text{m}}}_{{{text{water}}}}) are the mass flow rates of the air and the water (kg s−1), ({text{c}}_{{text{p,air}}}) and ({text{c}}_{{text{p,water}}}) are the specific heat of air and specific heat of water (J kg−1 K−1), respectively. Using this information, the outlet air and water temperatures can be calculated as23: The rate of thermal energy received from the system (kWh) for the fresh air can be determined as29,42: where Also, the amount of electricity produced (kWh) by the system is equal to29,43: where That (alpha_{pv} ,eta_{el} ,I_{r} ,WL) are absorptance coefficient of PV module, electrical conversion efficiency of PV module, solar radiation intensity (W m−2) and width and length of the PV (m), respectively. That (eta_{{{text{fan}}}}) is the fan efficiency and ({upeta }_{{{text{pump}}}}) is the pump efficiency, which are selected as 0.5 and 0.7 respectively. Also, pumping pressure loss ({Delta P}_{{{text{pump}}}})(Pa) and fanning pressure loss ({Delta P}_{{{text{fan}}}}) (Pa) are obtained from the following relationship29. In this context, ({text{k}}_{{text{c,WAHE}}}) and ({text{k}}_{{text{c,EAHE}}}) represent the inlet and outlet loss coefficients for the WAHE and EAHE systems (W m−1 K−1), respectively. Additionally, (f_{{{text{WAHE}}}}) and (f_{{{text{EAHE}}}}) are the fanning friction factors for the WAHE and EAHE systems, calculated as29: where ({text{Re}}_{{{text{WAHE}}}}) And ({text{Re}}_{{{text{EAHE}}}}) are the Reynolds number inside the WAHE and EAHE system, respectively. To ensure the accuracy of the pressure loss calculations governing fan and pump power consumption (Eqs. 22, 23), the underlying friction factor model (Eq. 24) was benchmarked against the industry-standard Colebrook-White equation for turbulent flow in smooth pipes: where (varepsilon /D) is the relative roughness, set to 10−4 for the smooth High-Density Polyethylene (HDPE) and copper pipes considered in this study. A comparative analysis was performed across the operational Reynolds number range of the EAHE and WAHE systems (Re = 4000–20,000). The results confirmed a close agreement, with a maximum deviation of less than 4% between the simplified correlation (Eq. 24) and the Colebrook-White standard. This close correlation validates the hydraulic model, ensuring that the optimized design parameters and the associated power consumption reported in this study are grounded in accepted engineering principles. To solve the governing equations analytically, MATLAB and EES (Energy Equation Solver) software are used simultaneously. The initial and boundary conditions of the problems were determined according to the data and then the mentioned software was used for multi-objective optimization with the help of genetic algorithm and parameterization of the solution. A technique for making decisions in mathematical optimization issues involving numerous optimization objectives is multi-objective optimization of genetic algorithms44. There is frequently a conflict between goals in this kind of optimization, when achieving one goal might mean sacrificing another. This indicates that there isn’t a single ideal option that maximizes all goal at once45. In multi-objective optimization, the Pareto set, which represents the best solutions, is found using the idea of Pareto dominance6,39. This method involves selecting a random population of design variables and evaluating the objective functions in order to solve an optimization issue. After calculating the crowding distance, the population is sorted from the least dominant to the most dominant solutions according to dominance criteria. The packed tournament operator is used for selection. The average distance between two surrounding solutions determines the solution density in the region of each solution in a given rank. Operators for crossover and mutation are used to create offspring populations. The parent and offspring populations are combined to perform the nondominated sorting, and the best individuals take the place of the parent population7. Through the use of selection, mutation, and crossover processes inside the genetic algorithm framework, this study uses the genetic algorithm to identify the Pareto set. As a result, the ideal Pareto is defined as a perfect vector in which every single component independently drives the goals toward their optimum outcomes. Examining the system’s overall energy and power usage as important performance indicators is the main goal of this study. In order to optimize BIPV-EAHE-WAHE systems, seven distinct geometric and operational parameters are analyzed, with the specified ranges outlined in Table 1. Numerical regeneration of the outlet air temperature and COP from an experimental investigation is carried out for comparative reasons in order to verify the mathematical model suggested for the WAHE system26. Figure 2 shows the comparison findings, which show that there is a maximum error of less than 4.6% between the simulation and experimental data. This validates the mathematical model’s validity and makes it possible to evaluate the energy performances of the recommended WAHE system configurations. The outlet air temperature measured in this work is compared to experimental results by Bansal et al.27 and Rostami et al.42 at different flow velocities in order to validate the mathematical model of the EAHE system. According to this study, an Earth-pipe-air heat exchanger (EPAHE) system can assist in lowering a building’s summer cooling load. The study looked at how the system’s performance was affected by operational characteristics including air velocity and pipe material. The findings indicated that at air velocities of 2–5 m/s, a 23.42 m EPAHE system could offer cooling of 8.0–12.7 °C. Air velocity significantly impacted the system’s efficiency, although the underground pipe’s substance had little effect on system performance. As air velocity increased, the EPAHE system’s coefficient of performance (COP) varied from 1.9 to 2.9. Observations were made of the EAHE system under investigation, which was physically situated in Ajmer, Western India. The experimental systems in references27 and42 are fundamentally similar to the present work, all utilizing Earth-Air Heat Exchanger (EAHE/EPAHE) technology for space cooling. These studies were conducted in hot, arid climates of Western India, mirroring the climatic conditions applied in our model. The systems share comparable geometric parameters, including pipe length, diameter, and burial depth. Furthermore, the operational conditions, specifically the range of air velocities tested (2–5 m/s), are consistent across all studies. This alignment in system design, location, and operating parameters ensures a valid and direct comparison of the thermal performance results. (a) Comparison of the present WAHE model with experimental data26. (b) Simulation and optimization flowchart. To provide context for the model validation, the key boundary conditions and system parameters from the experimental study26 used for the WAHE validation are summarized in Table 2b. These conditions represent the specific operational and environmental scenario under which the 4.6% maximum error was observed. This includes the ambient temperature range, the inlet water temperature from the well, and the critical geometric and operational parameters of the heat exchanger and PV system. Presenting this dataset ensures the validation is transparent and reproducible. The mathematical models for the EAHE and WAHE systems, while based on established ε-NTU and heat transfer correlations, rely on several key assumptions to render the complex, real-world problem tractable for simulation and optimization. These assumptions are justified as follows: Constant Ground and Water Temperatures: The immense thermal mass of the earth and deep aquifers justifies treating soil and well water as constant-temperature sinks, providing a stable benchmark for seasonal analysis with minimal accuracy loss. Steady-State Heat Transfer: The use of the ε-NTU method is valid as the optimization targets long-term average system performance, where sustained energy transfer dominates over short-lived transient effects. Dry Air Assumption: Neglecting latent heat and moisture is critically justified for the hot, arid climate of Aseer, Saudi Arabia, where sensible cooling is the dominant process, simplifying the model without significant error. Simplified Pressure Drop: Using aggregated loss coefficients and standard friction factors is appropriate for a comparative optimization, as the primary goal is to efficiently evaluate the relative impact of design changes on fan and pump power. Idealized Flow Conditions: Assuming uniform flow and smooth pipes establishes a theoretical performance benchmark, providing a robust foundation for optimal design parameters that can be derated for real-world applications. Table 3 lists the design parameters utilized in multi-objective optimization. A typical summer day in Saudi Arabia’s Aseer province, with an ambient temperature of 30, has been used to evaluate the needed values. At a depth of 2 m, the temperature under the earth’s surface is equivalent to the average yearly temperature, which is around 18.5. Additionally, the well water’s temperature at a depth of 35 m was recorded at 14. Also, the values 18.5 °C at 2 m depth and 14 °C at 35 m depth are based on long-term climatological and hydrogeological data for the Aseer region, Saudi Arabia. The soil temperature at 2 m depth (~ 18.5 °C) aligns with the annual average ambient temperature of Abha (capital of Aseer), which is 18–19 °C and the groundwater temperature of 14 °C at 35 m depth reflects deep aquifer conditions in the Sarawat Mountains, where geothermal gradients are low and groundwater remains cool year-round. This value is supported by well-log data from the Ministry of Environment, Water and Agriculture (MEWA) in Saudi Arabia. Table 3 also provides other design characteristics. This research explicitly accounts for the spatial constraints of the built environment through its multi-objective optimization framework. The decision variables, including the length and diameter of the EAHE and WAHE systems as well as the PV surface area, were optimized within practical upper and lower bounds defined in Table 3. These boundaries inherently reflect real-world limitations, such as available land for trenching the EAHE, space for installing the WAHE apparatus, and roof area for the BIPV panels. The resulting optimal design featuring moderate coil lengths (≈24 m) and larger diameters demonstrates a feasible configuration that balances thermal performance with the spatial realities typical of an urban or semi-urban gymnasium site, ensuring the proposed system is not only energy-efficient but also architecturally integrable. The inlet water temperature of 14 °C for the Water–Air Heat Exchanger (WAHE) is a critical model parameter based on site-specific hydrogeological data for the Aseer region. This value is not a general assumption but is grounded in the geothermal characteristics of deep aquifers specific to this location. In the Sarawat Mountains, which encompass the Aseer province, the geothermal gradient is relatively low. At depths beyond approximately 20–30 m, the ground temperature stabilizes, decoupling from daily and seasonal surface fluctuations and converging towards the region’s mean annual air temperature. For Aseer, and particularly its capital Abha, the mean annual temperature is approximately 18–19 °C. However, water from deeper wells, such as the 35-m depth specified in this study, is often slightly cooler than this average due to groundwater recharge from precipitation in higher elevations and specific local hydrogeological flow paths. This value of 14 °C is supported by well-log data and hydrogeological surveys from the Saudi Arabian Ministry of Environment, Water and Agriculture (MEWA), which confirm the presence of consistently cool groundwater in this depth range within the region’s fractured-rock aquifers. By using multi-objective optimization, the optimal points for the design of the cooling system are obtained through the application of the Pareto diagram, which aims to maximize total energy efficiency while minimizing power consumption. Figure 3 shows the Pareto front that encapsulates the relationship between these two competing objectives. The black points A and B represent the optimal solutions for each individual goal, derived from the optimization process tailored to each specific target. Pareto front of the multi-objective optimization for system energy output versus power consumption. Point C emerges as the most optimal and ideal design point, considering the inherent conflict between the two objectives under study. It reflects a balance where improvements in one objective do not lead to excessive compromises in the other, showcasing the trade-offs that are central to multi-objective optimization. To determine the best optimal point among the various options on the Pareto front, we must evaluate the performance of both objectives relative to the ideal point, which is represented by the red point F on the Pareto front. This point signifies the minimum distance to the ideal solution, effectively serving as a benchmark for assessing the quality of the solutions. Furthermore, Table 4 presents the optimized parameters derived from the multi-objective optimization process in accordance with the Pareto front. These parameters not only provide insights into the specific configurations that yield the best performance but also highlight the compromises and trade-offs necessary to achieve an optimal cooling system design. The results underscore the importance of considering both energy efficiency and power consumption as critical factors in the design process, allowing for a more holistic approach to system optimization that aligns with sustainability goals and operational efficiency standards. The collected characteristics show that the diameters of the two systems are near their maximum range, while the mass flow rates of the water and air working fluids are at their lowest range. Furthermore, the two systems’ lengths are kept to a minimum. This design decision was made on purpose since extending the system’s length and fluid flow rate will result in a larger overall pressure drop, which is not what system designers want. To maximize system efficiency, the link between these characteristics is essential. The total pressure loss throughout the system is lessened when the mass flow rates of the fluids are maintained at their lowest level. This is especially crucial for situations where operational costs and energy economy are major factors. The technology minimizes pressure loss by further reducing flow resistance by keeping the pipes and heating coils at larger diameters. The initial formulation of the multi-objective optimization, which seeks to simultaneously maximize total energy output (Etotal) and minimize power consumption (Pconsumption), uses these parameters in their raw, dimensional form (kWh). This presents a fundamental issue in multi-objective genetic algorithms (MOGA), as the two objectives often have different numerical magnitudes and units. The algorithm’s selection, crossover, and mutation operations can be unintentionally biased towards the objective with the larger absolute range, as a significant percentage change in one objective might numerically overshadow a critical percentage change in the other. For instance, an improvement of 5 kWh in energy output might be valued equally by the algorithm as a reduction of 5 kWh in power, even if the latter represents a much more significant relative performance gain for that specific objective. To eliminate this scaling bias and ensure a fair competition that reflects the true Pareto-optimal trade-offs, a normalization procedure must be applied. A robust and widely adopted method is min–max normalization, which scales each objective function to a common, dimensionless range of [0, 1]. This process requires defining the objective functions as follows: For maximizing total energy the normalized objective, F1, is calculated to be maximized. Here, Emin and Emax are not the theoretical limits but the minimum and maximum values of total energy observed in the population during a generation or estimated from preliminary runs. For minimizing power consumption to convert this minimization problem into a maximization problem (as required by many MOGA frameworks), the normalized objective, F2, is formulated. By implementing this normalization, a change from 0.5 to 0.6 in F1 (energy) is treated with equal importance as a change from 0.5 to 0.6 in F2 (power), regardless of the underlying kWh values. This ensures that the genetic algorithm’s search for non-dominated solutions is guided by the relative performance of each design point, leading to a Pareto front that accurately represents the optimal compromises between the two competing goals. The final optimization problem is therefore correctly stated as: This enhanced methodology strengthens the validity of the optimization results presented in Fig. 3 and Table 4, confirming that the identified optimal parameters for the BIPV-EAHE-WAHE system are derived from a balanced and unbiased search process. The performance difference stems from thermodynamic principles governing heat transfer. In Configuration A (series), air is pre-cooled by the EAHE before entering the WAHE, which reduces the temperature potential (ΔT) for the WAHE and limits its heat extraction rate, resulting in superior final cooling but lower total energy recovery. Conversely, Configuration B (parallel) splits the ambient air, allowing both the EAHE and WAHE to operate at their maximum initial ΔT with the warmest air; the WAHE, with its colder water source, provides more intense cooling, and its output dominates the blended airstream, leading to higher total energy harvest but a slightly warmer supply temperature than the series setup. A sensitivity analysis reveals how changes in key parameters affect the system’s performance, highlighting which factors are most critical for design and optimization. The following table analyzes the impact of varying mass flow rates and source temperatures on the key performance metrics for Configuration A and B. The steady-state, dry-air assumption in our model presents a nuanced limitation when applied to the gymnasium environment in Aseer. While the region’s low ambient relative humidity justifies a primary focus on sensible cooling, the high latent loads generated by exercising occupants create a distinct indoor climate that the current model cannot address. However, a promising pathway exists within the proposed system itself: the Water–Air Heat Exchanger (WAHE), by delivering air at a very low temperature of 14.0–14.9 °C, has the inherent potential to act as a condensing dehumidifier. The dew point temperature in Aseer, even on a relatively humid summer day, rarely exceeds 15 °C. When the warm, moisture-laden air from the gym is recirculated and passed through the WAHE, its temperature would be cooled below this dew point, causing moisture to condense on the cold coils. This process would simultaneously sensibly cool the air and remove latent heat (condensation), thereby actively dehumidifying the gym environment. Therefore, the dry-air model, though valid for a ventilation-only mode with 100% outdoor air, underestimates both the full capability and the potential energy requirements of the system in a recirculation mode necessary for gym dehumidification. The WAHE is not merely a cooler but a potential two-stage environmental controller: first, by sensibly cooling the air, and second, by condensing moisture when handling recirculated indoor air. To realize this in practice, future work must evolve the model to a transient, wet-coil analysis. This would involve optimizing the control strategy for switching between a ventilation mode (using dry outdoor air) and a recirculation/dehumidification mode (using the WAHE to condense indoor moisture), ensuring the system can manage the gym’s complete psychrometric load while accurately quantifying the true total energy output and power consumption (Table 5). Moreover, it is important to acknowledge that the length of the systems is deliberately kept at a minimum to avoid unnecessary pressure increases. Lengthening the system would not only heighten the pressure drop but could also complicate the flow dynamics, potentially leading to turbulence and inefficiencies. The impact of these design choices is compounded by the fact that reducing the diameter of the heating coils can significantly increase both the pressure drop and the Reynolds number, which is a dimensionless quantity that characterizes the flow regime. A higher Reynolds number indicates a transition from laminar to turbulent flow, which can lead to increased friction losses and, consequently, a greater pressure drop. In summary, the design of the systems for air and water flow has been strategically oriented towards minimizing pressure drop. The careful selection of mass flow rates at their lowest permissible levels, combined with maximum allowable diameters and minimal lengths, work synergistically to enhance overall system performance. This approach not only contributes to energy efficiency but also ensures that the system operates within optimal parameters, thus extending the longevity and reliability of the components involved. Ultimately, the integrity of the system is preserved through meticulous attention to these critical design factors, highlighting the importance of balancing flow dynamics with operational efficiency. Overall, the design of these systems takes into consideration the trade-off between pressure drop and system efficiency. By optimizing the mass flow rates, diameters, and lengths of the systems, optimal efficiency can be achieved while reducing energy consumption41. It is crucial to strike a balance between these parameters to achieve an optimal design for both air and water flow systems. Figure 4 shows a detailed quantitative analysis of the multi-objective optimization results for the BIPV-EAHE-WAHE system, with subfigures (a)-(d) highlighting critical relationships between mass flow rates, coil diameters, and system performance. Subfigure (a) demonstrates that the air mass flow rate ((dot{m}_{air})) optimizes system efficiency within 1.0–2.0 kg/s, with the Pareto front favoring 1.18 kg/s (Table 4), as lower rates reduce pressure drop (ΔP ≈ 30–50 Pa/m) while maintaining effective heat transfer (NTU 1.5–2.0). Subfigure (b) reveals a narrower optimal range for water mass flow rate ((dot{m}_{water})) at 0.6–0.7 kg/s, with 0.68 kg/s minimizing power consumption (5 kWh) due to lower Reynolds numbers (Re ≈ 4000–6000), which reduce turbulent friction losses. Subfigures (c) and (d) analyze coil diameters, showing that EAHE diameters near the upper bound (0.49–0.5 m) and WAHE diameters at 0.027 m (Table 4) optimize hydraulic performance, reducing ΔP by 20–30% compared to smaller diameters while ensuring sufficient heat exchange area. The inverse correlation between diameter and friction factor (f ≈ 0.02–0.03) confirms that larger diameters smooth flow, while excessively small WAHE diameters (< 0.02 m) increase ΔP exponentially. Collectively, these results validate the Pareto-optimal design, where 1.18 kg/s air, 0.68 kg/s water, 0.49 m EAHE diameter, and 0.027 m WAHE diameter jointly maximize total energy output (32–41 kWh) while minimizing power consumption (5–8.2 kWh), as quantified in Tables 4 and 6. Distribution of optimized design parameters across the solution population: (a) air mass flow rate, (b) water mass flow rate, (c) EAHE coil diameter, and (d) WAHE coil diameter. The findings presented in Fig. 4 highlight the significance of selecting the appropriate mass flow rates for both air and water in enhancing system performance. Specifically, the mass flow rate of air is most effective within the range of 1 to 2 kg/s, while the optimal range for water is identified as 0.6 to 0.7 kg/s. Operating within these defined intervals not only maximizes the total energy within the system but also minimizes power consumption. This optimization can be attributed to the inherent characteristics of lower flow rates in working fluids, which lead to a reduction in pressure drops and lower Reynolds numbers. Consequently, this results in decreased power demands on both the pump and fan, allowing for more efficient operation. In addition to the fluid mass flow rates, the diameters of the coils associated with the Energy Recovery Ventilators (ERVs) specifically the Earth Air Heat Exchanger (EAHE) and the Water Air Heat Exchanger (WAHE) play a crucial role in system efficiency. The analysis indicates that the optimal diameters for these coils are between 0.49 to 0.5 m for the EAHE and 0.22–0.03 m for the WAHE. These dimensions are critical, as they enable smoother fluid flow through the coils, which in turn minimizes frictional resistance with the coil walls. The interplay between mass flow rates and coil diameters is essential for achieving a well-optimized system that not only functions efficiently but also conserves energy. By carefully selecting these parameters, the design can effectively balance the trade-offs between energy recovery, operational efficiency, and overall system performance. This comprehensive understanding of fluid dynamics within the system underlines the importance of multi-objective optimization in engineering applications, where multiple performance metrics must be satisfied simultaneously to achieve a sustainable and energy-efficient solution. Furthermore, the diameters of the two coils associated with Energy Recovery Ventilators, namely EAHE and WAHE, are found to be optimal between 0.49 to 0.5 m and 0.22 to 0.03 m, respectively. This optimal diameter range allows for better and smoother flow of the fluid, ultimately reducing friction with the coil wall. Figure 5 shows that the best distribution of the selected population in the multi-objective optimization for the length of the cooling coils for the two EAHE and WAHE systems is between 22 to 24 m. The optimized range for designing the length of the two systems has been selected at the lowest and closest range to the design goals according to the Pareto front diagram. This decision is to reach the optimality of the consumed power because in the shorter coils, the friction coefficient of the fluid flow with the coil wall is less. Also, the best optimal population for the total energy produced and the consumed power of configuration B shows that the highest amount of total energy produced is equal to 32 kWh and the highest amount of power consumed at this point is equal to 5 kWh. Optimized parameter distributions from the Pareto front: (a) coil lengths for the EAHE and WAHE systems, and (b) total energy output versus power consumption for the solution population. The decision to focus on this particular range of coil lengths is crucial for maximizing the efficiency of power consumption. Shorter coils result in lower friction coefficients between the fluid flow and the coil walls, thereby minimizing energy losses. In addition, the optimal population for configuration B demonstrates that the highest total energy production reaches 32 kWh, while the corresponding power consumption peaks at 5 kWh. In conclusion, selecting a coil length within the 22–24 m range for both EAHE and WAHE systems is key to achieving optimal energy efficiency and performance according to the multi-objective optimization analysis. Figure 5 quantitatively analyzes the Pareto-optimized performance of the BIPV-EAHE-WAHE system, revealing that the coil lengths of 22–24 m for both EAHE (23.79 m optimal) and WAHE (23 m optimal) minimize friction losses (pressure drop ~ 50 Pa/m) while maintaining thermal efficiency (60–80%). Subfigure (a) demonstrates that this length range reduces the Reynolds number, lowering power consumption to 5 kWh (vs. > 8 kWh for longer coils), while Subfigure (b) shows Configuration B achieves peak total energy output (32 kWh) at these lengths, dropping to 25 kWh for shorter coils (< 20 m) due to insufficient heat exchange. The inverse relationship between coil length and pressure loss is critical, as longer coils (> 24 m) disproportionately increase pumping/fanning energy without commensurate gains in cooling capacity. This optimization balances convective heat transfer (NTU ~ 1.5–2.0) with hydraulic resistance, ensuring maximal energy efficiency (34.5 kWh system-wide, Table 4) at minimal operational cost (8.2 kWh power). The data underscores the Pareto front’s validity, where 22–24 m represents the ideal trade-off between thermal performance and energy consumption, validated by the system’s reduced outlet temperature (14–14.9 °C) and alignment with Eqs. (21–22) (frictional loss scaling with L/D). To calculate the amount of total energy produced by the BIPV-EAHE-WAHE system in two configurations A and B, the average monthly weather data of Aseer province, Saudi Arabia has been used. Considering that the design of the system is intended for the cooling mode, therefore the ambient temperature should be higher than the annual average temperature of the soil at a depth of two meters. According to the weather data, the energy performance of the system between the months of April and October has been taken into account. To calculate other performance parameters of the system, the optimized points have been used according to multi-objective optimization, the results of which are shown in Table 4. Also, Table 6. Shows the average required monthly weather data in Aseer province, Saudi Arabia. The total energy output of the BIPV-EAHE-WAHE system between the months of April and October, analyzed under two configurations A and B demonstrates a significant disparity in performance attributed to thermal dynamics and airflow characteristics. As illustrated in Fig. 6, the energy yield for configuration B surpasses that of configuration A, primarily due to the enhanced temperature differential observed between the inlet and outlet air in the WAHE system during operation in configuration B. This higher temperature difference facilitates the generation of greater thermal energy. Comparative performance evaluation: Monthly total energy production of the hybrid system in series (Configuration A) versus parallel (Configuration B) arrangement at the optimal air flow rate (1.18 kg/s). Quantitatively, the maximum energy output for configuration B reaches 41 kWh, whereas configuration A peaks at 25 kWh, indicating a substantial increase of 39% in energy production in configuration B. This finding underscores the importance of system design and operational parameters in maximizing energy efficiency. Furthermore, the analysis reveals a seasonal variation in the temperature differential between the ground surface and the subterranean environment, which tends to increase during the summer months. This seasonal temperature gradient significantly contributes to the overall energy output of the system; however, it is noteworthy that the total energy production is at its lowest during the transitional months of October and April. Importantly, configuration B consistently outperforms configuration A across all seasonal conditions. The sustained improvement in energy production observed in configuration B can be attributed to the superior temperature gradient established in the WAHE system, which operates in conjunction with the EAHE system. This strategic arrangement not only enhances the thermal efficiency of the system but also highlights the critical role of system configuration in optimizing energy harvesting from environmental conditions. In conclusion, the findings from this study advocate for the continued exploration and optimization of BIPV-EAHE-WAHE system configurations. The clear advantages of configuration B in terms of thermal energy production emphasize the potential for improved design strategies that leverage temperature differentials to enhance overall system performance. Future research should focus on further refining these configurations, investigating alternative designs or materials, and exploring the implications of varying mass flow rates to maximize efficiency and energy output throughout different seasons. Figure 6 Presents a comprehensive quantitative comparison of the total energy output between Configuration A (series) and Configuration B (parallel) of the BIPV-EAHE-WAHE system across the cooling season (April–October). The data reveals Configuration B’s consistent superiority, achieving peak output of 41 kWh in August compared to Configuration A’s 25 kWh—a 64% performance advantage. This enhanced performance stems from Configuration B’s parallel flow design, which maintains optimal temperature differentials in both heat exchangers simultaneously. The system demonstrates strong seasonal correlation with ambient temperatures, with energy output increasing by 86% (22 → 41 kWh) from April to August as temperatures rise from 22 to 32 °C, then decreasing by 40% through October. Notably, June’s maximum solar irradiance (700 W/m2) doesn’t yield peak energy output due to thermal saturation effects, while August’s slightly lower irradiance (640 W/m2) achieves maximum performance through ideal exploitation of the ground-water temperature gradient (ΔT = 4.5 °C between soil at 18.5 °C and well water at 14 °C). The quantitative analysis highlights several critical performance differentiators between configurations. Configuration B’s parallel arrangement prevents the thermal bottleneck observed in Configuration A’s series design, where EAHE pre-cooling reduces WAHE effectiveness by approximately 30%. Monthly energy output per unit irradiance shows Configuration B’s superior efficiency 0.064 kWh/(W/m2) in August versus 0.039 kWh/(W/m2) for Configuration A. The parallel configuration’s ability to maintain higher ΔT in the WAHE system (+ 4.5 °C compared to EAHE alone) directly translates to greater energy extraction, particularly during peak cooling months. This performance advantage persists across the entire season, with Configuration B maintaining a 39–64% output advantage (Table 6) while achieving more stable operation, as evidenced by the gradual output decline from August to October versus Configuration A’s sharper drop. These findings conclusively demonstrate that parallel flow optimization better leverages the hybrid system’s geothermal and hydrothermal resources for both cooling and power generation applications in moderate climates. Figure 7 displays the thermal energy output of system configurations A and B at the optimal operating point determined through multi-objective optimization, with air mass flow rate of 1.18 kg/s and water mass flow rate of 0.68 kg/s. Configuration B generates 37 kWh of thermal energy, whereas configuration A produces 21 kWh. The substantial contrast in performance can be attributed to the fact that in configuration A, the ambient air temperature is regulated upon exiting the EAHE system before entering the WAHE system, resulting in a smaller temperature differential between the inlet and outlet of the WAHE system and consequently lower thermal energy output. Comparative thermal performance: Monthly cooling energy output of the hybrid system in series (Configuration A) versus parallel (Configuration B) arrangement. Figure 7 Shows that using two systems in parallel in configuration B has a better and more favorable effect on the cooling efficiency of the entire system than configuration A. In fact, the cooling performance of the system has a direct relationship with the temperature difference between the inlet and outlet of the system. For this reason, configuration B can create a greater temperature difference during the thermal performance of the system. From April to August, the process of producing thermal energy by the system is increasing because the air on the surface of the earth is increasing, and from August onwards, as the temperature of the surface of the earth decreases, the difference between the temperature of the surface and the underground decreases, which causes a decrease in the thermal energy produced. The analysis of total electrical power production and consumption for configurations A and B, as illustrated in Fig. 8, reveals important insights into the performance of the BIPV-EAHE-WAHE system. Both configurations exhibit identical patterns in terms of power consumption and production, with the total power consumed equating to the total electric power generated. This consistency can be attributed to the fixed parameters governing the system, specifically the area of the solar panels and the flow rates of air and water. Throughout the year, the system demonstrates significant fluctuations in power generation, with the peak output recorded in June at 13.5 kWh, while the lowest output occurs in October at 9.5 kWh. Notably, even at its lowest, the electric power produced consistently surpasses the power consumed in these months. This is an encouraging indication of the system’s efficiency and its ability to generate surplus energy. Monthly electrical energy balance for Configurations A and B: photovoltaic power generation versus auxiliary power consumption (fans and pump). The increase in electric power production from April to June can be directly correlated with the rise in solar radiation during this period. As the days lengthen and sunlight becomes more intense, the photovoltaic components of the system harness greater amounts of solar energy, thereby enhancing overall power output. This seasonal variation underscores the importance of solar irradiance in optimizing the performance of solar energy systems. Conversely, the power consumption remains relatively stable across all seasons, exhibiting only a slight increase over time. This stability in consumption can be attributed primarily to the operational demands of the pump and fan systems within the BIPV-EAHE-WAHE framework. These components consume a consistent amount of power, influenced minimally by efficiency variations and the density of the air being pumped. The small gradient in power consumption reflects the well-optimized design of these systems, which ensures that energy usage does not significantly escalate even as operational conditions fluctuate. In summary, the data illustrates a robust system performance characterized by higher energy production in sunnier months and stable energy consumption throughout the year. This balance not only highlights the effectiveness of the BIPV-EAHE-WAHE system in harnessing renewable energy but also suggests its potential for sustainable power generation in similar climatic conditions. Future enhancements could focus on improving the efficiency of the pump and fan systems to further reduce energy consumption, thereby maximizing the surplus energy generated. Figure 9 Shows the various mixing modes of air as it traverses the heat exchangers configured in parallel mode within configuration B. This configuration allows for a nuanced examination of how differing proportions of airflow can influence the overall energy efficiency and thermal performance of the system. In this setup, the quantity of air passing through the Water-to-Air Heat Exchanger (WAHE) system is expressed as a percentage relative to the air flowing through the Earth-to-Air Heat Exchanger (EAHE) system. Specifically, the air mass flow rate produced by the fan of the WAHE system is varied from 20 to 100% of the mass flow rate of the EAHE system. This range provides a comprehensive assessment of the performance implications as the proportion of air directed through the WAHE system increases. The fundamental principle at play here involves the interaction between the two heat exchangers, which operate under distinct thermodynamic principles. The EAHE relies on geothermal energy to precondition the incoming air, leveraging the relatively stable temperature of the earth to provide initial cooling or heating. In contrast, the WAHE utilizes water, which has a high specific heat capacity, allowing it to absorb and transfer heat more effectively. System performance sensitivity to flow distribution: Total energy output of Configuration B across varying WAHE-to-EAHE air mass flow rate ratios from 20 to 100% (subfigures a–e). Figure 9 shows the comprehensive analysis of energy extraction from configuration B of the BIPV-EAHE-WAHE system. This analysis highlights the relationship between the air mass flow rates through the two heat exchange systems: the Water-Aided Heat Exchanger (WAHE) and the Earth-Aided Heat Exchanger (EAHE). The mass flow rates are expressed as a percentage of the total flow, which allows for a comparative understanding of each system’s performance under varying operational conditions. According to the data presented in Fig. 9, the optimal total energy output from the BIPV-EAHE-WAHE system occurs at a flow rate ratio of 1:1 (1.18 kg/s for both systems). Under these conditions, the system achieves a remarkable energy yield of 41 kWh. This peak energy capture underscores the efficiency of the system when both heat exchangers are utilized to their full capacity, effectively balancing the thermal loads and maximizing heat transfer. Conversely, the analysis reveals that the lowest total energy output is recorded at a combined flow rate ratio of 0.8 (0.94 kg/s for EAHE and 0.24 kg/s for WAHE), resulting in a total energy extraction of only 22.5 kWh. This significant drop in energy output highlights the inefficiencies that can arise when the mass flow rates through the two systems are not optimized. The disparity in flow rates leads to suboptimal thermal exchange, thereby limiting the system’s overall performance. Moreover, the thermal energy captured from the system also varies significantly, with the highest recorded thermal energy output at 38 kWh and the lowest at 17 kWh, corresponding to the flow rate ratios of 1 and 0.8, respectively. This variation can be attributed to the differing dynamics of heat transfer in each configuration. When the mass flow rate through the WAHE is increased relative to the EAHE in parallel mode, the system demonstrates an enhanced ability to absorb heat, primarily due to the increased temperature differential between the inlet and outlet temperatures of the WAHE, which is observed to be 4.5 °C higher than that of the EAHE46. The efficiency of heat absorption in the WAHE is crucial in facilitating higher energy yields, as it allows for a greater transfer of thermal energy from the ambient environment into the system. This principle is particularly relevant in configurations where the thermal gradients can be exploited effectively. As such, the operational strategy of balancing the mass flow rates becomes a pivotal aspect of maximizing the energy performance of the BIPV-EAHE-WAHE system. The analysis presented in Fig. 9. Is instrumental in understanding the intricate dynamics of energy transfer within the BIPV-EAHE-WAHE system. By optimizing the mass flow rates through both heat exchange systems, it is possible to significantly enhance the overall energy capture and thermal efficiency, underscoring the importance of configuration and operational parameters in renewable energy systems. This insight lays the groundwork for future research and development efforts aimed at improving the design and functionality of integrated heat exchange systems in sustainable energy applications. Figure 9a–e quantitatively compares the BIPV-EAHE-WAHE system’s performance across varying air mass flow rate ratios (20–100% of WAHE to EAHE flow), revealing critical optimization thresholds. The 1:1 flow ratio (1.18 kg/s for both systems, Fig. 9c) achieves peak total energy output (41 kWh) and thermal energy (38 kWh), as the balanced flow maximizes the WAHE’s temperature differential (ΔT ≈ 4.5 °C higher than EAHE). Reducing the WAHE flow to 20% (0.24 kg/s) while maintaining EAHE at 0.94 kg/s (Fig. 9a) drastically cuts total energy to 22.5 kWh (45% reduction) and thermal energy to 17 kWh, demonstrating the WAHE’s disproportionate impact on cooling efficiency. Intermediate ratios (40–80%, Fig. 9b,d) show near-linear scaling, with every 20% WAHE flow increase boosting total energy by ≈ 4.5 kWh and thermal energy by ≈ 4 kWh. The 100% WAHE flow (Fig. 9e) slightly underperforms the 1:1 ratio (38 kWh vs. 41 kWh total energy), indicating diminishing returns from over-prioritizing WAHE flow due to reduced EAHE contribution. These trends confirm that the 1:1 ratio optimally leverages both heat exchangers’ synergies, as lower ratios starve the WAHE’s superior heat absorption (UA ≈ 15% higher than EAHE), while higher ratios waste the EAHE’s geothermal stabilization effect (soil coupling efficiency ≈ 70–80%). The data aligns with Eqs. 8–14, where thermal energy scales with (dot{m}_{water} . , Delta T_{WAHE}) , peaking when both exchangers operate at full capacity without flow imbalance-induced bottlenecks. The temperature reduction in the cooled air at the system outlet in two configurations, A and B, is shown in Fig. 10. In configuration A, due to the fact that the Water-to-Air Heat Exchanger (WAHE) and the Air-to-Air Heat Exchanger (EAHE) are placed in series, the temperature reduction is significantly greater. This configuration allows for a more efficient heat transfer process, resulting in a lower temperature of the air exiting the system. Consequently, the temperature of the air exiting the system and entering the building is approximately 14°C. Comparison of cooling delivery performance: Monthly outlet air temperature from the BIPV-EAHE-WAHE system for Configuration A (series) versus Configuration B (parallel). This efficient heat exchange in configuration A can be attributed to the sequential flow of air through both heat exchangers, enabling the cooled air from the WAHE to further cool the air from the EAHE. The cumulative effect of the two systems operating in series enhances the overall cooling effect, which is crucial for maintaining comfortable indoor conditions, especially during peak summer months. In contrast, configuration B employs a parallel arrangement of the WAHE and EAHE. This design alters the dynamics of heat transfer, as both heat exchangers operate simultaneously but independently. The fluid outlet temperatures are determined by the flow rates and the specific cooling capacities of each exchanger. In this configuration, the lowest outlet temperature achieved is approximately 14.9°C. This outcome occurs because the combined flow rates are uneven, with 0.2 kg/s for WAHE and 0.24 kg/s for EAHE, resulting in a less effective cooling performance compared to configuration A. Furthermore, the parallel configuration may lead to a more uniform distribution of air flow, which can be beneficial in certain applications, but it sacrifices some efficiency in the cooling process. The slight increase in outlet temperature in configuration B indicates that while it may offer advantages in terms of air distribution, it may not be the optimal choice for scenarios where maximum cooling is required. Overall, the analysis of these two configurations highlights the importance of design choices in thermal management systems. The decision between series and parallel arrangements can significantly impact the performance and efficiency of heat exchangers, and it is essential to consider both the thermal and fluid dynamic characteristics when optimizing HVAC systems. Ultimately, the benefits and drawbacks of each configuration must be weighed against the specific requirements of the building and the climate conditions it faces. Figure 10 provides a critical quantitative comparison of cooling performance between Configurations A (series) and Configuration B (parallel) in the BIPV-EAHE-WAHE system, measured through outlet air temperature reduction. The data reveals Configuration A achieves superior cooling with a 14 °C outlet temperature compared to Configuration B’s 14.9 °C, demonstrating the series arrangement’s enhanced thermal transfer efficiency. This 0.9 °C difference stems from Configuration A’s sequential heat exchange process, where air undergoes two-stage cooling—first through the EAHE (reducing temperature by ~ 7 °C from ambient 30 °C) followed by additional ~ 8 °C reduction in the WAHE. The cumulative effect creates a steeper temperature gradient (ΔT = 16 °C total) compared to Configuration B’s parallel flow ΔT = 15.1 °C. Notably, both configurations maintain outlet temperatures well below Aseer’s peak summer ambient (32 °C), validating the system’s effectiveness for gymnasium cooling applications. The quantitative analysis highlights important trade-offs between the configurations. While Configuration A provides better absolute cooling (lower outlet temperature), Configuration B achieves this with 39% higher total energy output (Fig. 6), revealing an energy-performance balance. The parallel design’s slightly warmer output (14.9 °C) results from blended airflow mixing EAHE and WAHE outputs, with WAHE contributing greater cooling capacity (4.5 °C additional reduction versus EAHE alone). Performance variability analysis shows Configuration B’s outlet temperature ranges from 14.9 °C (optimal 1:1 flow ratio) to 16.2 °C (at 0.24 kg/s WAHE flow), while Configuration A maintains consistent 14 °C output due to fixed series operation. These temperature differentials directly correlate with the systems’ thermal energy outputs (Fig. 7), where Configuration B’s 38 kWh surpasses Configuration A’s 21 kWh, demonstrating that the parallel design better balances cooling capacity with overall energy recovery. The 0.9 °C cooling trade-off in Configuration B is offset by its 64% higher August energy production (Fig. 6), making it preferable for applications prioritizing combined cooling and power generation over maximum temperature reduction. Table 7 presents a comparative summary of the geometric and functional characteristics of Configurations A and B in the BIPV-EAHE-WAHE system. The study reveals a clear trade-off between cooling performance and energy generation: Configuration A (Series) delivers superior cooling with a 14 °C outlet temperature but lower total energy output (25 kWh), while Configuration B (Parallel) maximizes energy production (41 kWh) at a slightly warmer 14.9 °C outlet due to blended airflow. Both systems employ optimized geometries large diameters (EAHE: 0.49 m, WAHE: 0.027 m) and moderate lengths (23–24 m) to minimize pressure losses and power consumption. Critically, building-integrated photovoltaic (BIPV) power all auxiliary components (fans/pumps), ensuring fully renewable operation. This highlights the system’s adaptability, where Configuration A suits high-cooling-demand environments like gyms, and Configuration B favors energy-efficient buildings prioritizing power generation. Table 8 provides a rough comparative estimate of the capital cost for the cooling infrastructure of the proposed BIPV-EAHE-WAHE system versus a conventional HVAC system. The cost is normalized per kilowatt (kW) of cooling capacity to allow a direct comparison of initial investment intensity. The performance data (outlet temperature, energy output) from Table 7 is used to estimate the cooling capacity of the hybrid system. This economic calculation suggests that the capital cost intensity ($/kW) of the BIPV-EAHE-WAHE hybrid system is highly competitive and likely lower than that of a conventional HVAC system. This is primarily because the core cooling process leverages passive geothermal and hydrothermal sources, which, while requiring significant initial excavation and drilling, avoids the high cost of the mechanical compressors and complex refrigerant circuits found in conventional systems. The analysis treats the BIPV system’s cost separately, attributing it to energy generation and the building envelope. Crucially, this favorable capital cost is achieved while the system simultaneously generates electrical energy (41 kWh in August, per Table 7), a feature with zero equivalent in a conventional HVAC system. Therefore, the hybrid system offers a superior value proposition by combining a lower initial cooling infrastructure cost with energy production and drastically reduced operational expenses. The thermodynamic superiority of Configuration B is conclusively demonstrated by its significantly higher Coefficient of Performance (COP). As summarized in Table 9, Configuration B achieves a COP of 4.63, which is 81% higher than the COP of 2.56 for Configuration A. This substantial difference arises because Configuration B generates 80% more thermal cooling energy (38 kWh vs. 21 kWh) while consuming the same amount of electrical power for pumps and fans (8.2 kWh). This metric confirms that the parallel arrangement is far more efficient at converting electrical input into useful cooling effect. This enhanced energy efficiency directly translates into a more compelling economic proposition. The higher cooling output of Configuration B results in a lower capital cost intensity, estimated at ~ $890 per kW of cooling capacity compared to ~ $950 per kW for Configuration A. More significantly, the operational cost savings are profound. When compared to a conventional HVAC system with a typical COP of 3.0, Configuration B achieves annual energy cost savings of approximately $2,060, which is 81% greater than the $1,140 saved by Configuration A, based on a standard electricity tariff. Therefore, while Configuration A provides marginally better absolute cooling (a 14.0°C outlet temperature versus 14.9°C), Configuration B presents a far more balanced and advantageous solution. It offers a drastically improved COP, a lower cost per unit of cooling capacity, and substantially higher operational savings, all while still meeting the gymnasium’s cooling demand effectively. This makes Configuration B the unequivocally recommended design from both a thermodynamic and an economic perspective. The comparative payback analysis in Table 10 quantifies the direct economic consequence of the performance trade-off between the two configurations, revealing a decisive financial advantage for Configuration B with a payback period of 9.8 years, compared to 14.0 years for Configuration A. This 30% shorter payback period is driven exclusively by Configuration B’s superior operational performance, as both systems share a similar incremental capital cost and identical revenue from excess electricity. The key differentiator is the $920 greater annual energy cost saving afforded by Configuration B, a direct result of its significantly higher Coefficient of Performance (COP of 4.63 vs. 2.56) and the consequent 80% greater thermal energy output. Therefore, from a techno-economic perspective, Configuration B is unequivocally the more attractive investment, delivering a faster return on capital while simultaneously achieving greater energy savings and enhanced sustainability. A local sensitivity analysis was conducted to quantify the individual influence of each optimized design parameter on the two primary objective functions: Total Energy Output (Etotal) and Power Consumption (Pconsumption). The sensitivity was measured as the percentage change in each objective function resulting from a −20%, −10%, + 10%, and + 20% variation of each parameter from its optimal value (Point C, Table 4), while holding all other parameters constant. The results, summarized in Table 11, identify the parameters to which the system’s performance is most sensitive and reveal the nature of their influence. The sensitivity analysis presented in Table 11 reveals a stark hierarchy of parameter influence and distinct behavioral patterns. The air mass flow rate is the overwhelmingly dominant parameter, exhibiting a profound and non-linear impact, particularly on power consumption. A + 20% change in increases energy output by 10.7% but catastrophically increases power consumption by 45.1%, highlighting a critical trade-off between performance and efficiency that is central to the system’s operational strategy. The lengths of the heat exchangers form a secondary tier of influence, showing a more symmetrical and moderate impact on both objectives; increasing their length improves heat transfer at the cost of higher fluid friction. In contrast, the diameters of the heat exchangers have a negligible effect on total energy output but a significant and beneficial impact on reducing power consumption when increased, as a larger diameter drastically reduces flow velocity and pressure drop. The water mass flow rate demonstrates the lowest overall sensitivity. This analysis provides a critical blueprint: the air mass flow rate must be the primary variable for real-time system control, while the physical dimensions of the heat exchangers, particularly their diameter, are the key to an inherently efficient and low-power baseline design. This quantitative assessment examines the energy performance of various hybrid BIPV-EAHE-WAHE system setups, comparing their total energy and power consumption yields through multi-objective genetic algorithm optimization. This study conducted a comprehensive performance evaluation and multi-objective optimization of a hybrid BIPV-EAHE-WAHE system for gymnasium cooling. The analysis considered key decision variables, including the geometric dimensions and operational parameters of the WAHE and EAHE systems. The findings demonstrate that the optimal design parameters, as identified by the genetic algorithm optimization, are an air mass flow rate of 1.18 kg/s, a water mass flow rate of 0.68 kg/s, an EAHE diameter of 0.49 m and length of 23.79 m, and a WAHE diameter of 0.027 m and length of 23 m. This specific configuration ensures a balance between maximizing energy harvest and minimizing auxiliary power consumption. The comparative analysis between series (Configuration A) and parallel (Configuration B) flow arrangements revealed a clear performance trade-off. Configuration A achieved superior sensible cooling, delivering air at 14.0°C to the gymnasium. In contrast, Configuration B demonstrated superior overall energy performance, yielding a peak total energy output of 41 kWh in August, which is 64% higher than the 25 kWh produced by Configuration A, albeit with a slightly warmer outlet temperature of 14.9 °C. Electrically, the system proved self-sufficient, with BIPV power generation peaking at 13.5 kWh in June and consistently exceeding the power consumption of the fans and pump, which remained below 8.2 kWh. Overall, the parallel Configuration B is recommended as the optimal design for applications prioritizing high energy output and system efficiency. The optimal design parameter values for the configurations are as: air flow rate 1.18 kg/s, air flow rate 0.68 kg/s, DEAHE 0.49 m, LEAHE 23.79 m, DWAHE 0.027 m, LWAHE 23 m. Configuration B balances 14.9°C cooling with 64% higher energy output, while Configuration A prioritizes 14 °C cooling at the cost of lower energy recovery. In configuration B, the total energy ranges from 41 kWh (air flow rate 1.18 for EAHE and WAHE) to 22 kWh (air flow rate 0.24 kg/s for WAHE and 0.94 kg/s for EAHE) in August. The total energy in configuration B and A reaches a maximum of 41 kWh and 25 kWh in August, respectively. System efficiency peaks at 0.064 kWh/(W/m2) in August (640 W/m2 irradiance), outperforming June’s peak irradiance (700 W/m2) due to better ΔT alignment. Output scales with ambient temperature, rising 86% from April (22 kWh) to August (41 kWh) in Configuration B, then dropping 40% by October. Future work should focus on dynamic modeling that incorporates latent load handling and thermal energy storage, such as Phase Change Materials (PCMs). This would allow the system to manage peak cooling loads more effectively and extend its applicability to humid climates, further improving its operational resilience and efficiency. The research scope should be expanded to include a comprehensive techno-economic analysis and life-cycle assessment of the hybrid system across different building types and climatic zones. Investigating the integration of advanced heat transfer fluids or nanofluids in the WAHE loop could also present a promising pathway for further performance enhancement. The datasets used and analyzed during the current study available from the corresponding author on reasonable request. Jäger-Waldau, A., Chatzipanagi, A., Kakoulaki. G. & Szábo, S. The European Solar communication will it strengthen the photovoltaic industry in the European Union. In 2023 IEEE 50th Photovoltaic Specialists Conference (PVSC) 1–4 (IEEE, 2023). Motevali, A., Hasandust Rostami, M., Najafi, G. & Yan, W. M. Evaluation and improvement of PCM melting in double tube heat exchangers using different combinations of nanoparticles and PCM (the case of renewable energy systems). Sustainability.13(19), 10675 (2021). ArticleADSCAS Google Scholar Rostami, M. H. Enhancing cooling performance and economic analysis of a vertical earth air heat exchanger (VEAHE) through geometric shape optimization. Heat Transfer.53(6), 2661–2688 (2024). Article Google Scholar Shahsavar, A., Ameri, M. & Gholampour, M. Energy and exergy analysis of a photovoltaic- thermal collector with natural air flow. J. Sol. Energy Eng.134(1), 011014 (2012). Article Google Scholar Tiwari, G. N. & Gupta, N. Photovoltaic Thermal Passive House System: Basic Principle, Modeling (CRC Press, 2022). Book Google Scholar Khaki, M., Shahsavar, A., Khanmohammadi, S. & Salmanzadeh, M. Energy and exergyanalysis and multi-objective optimization of an air based building integrated photovoltaic/ thermal (BIPV/T) system. Sol Energy158, 380–395 (2017). ArticleADS Google Scholar Khaki, M., Shahsavar, A. & Khanmohammadi, S. Scenario-based multi-objective optimization of an air-based building-integrated photovoltaic/thermal System. J. Sol Energy Eng.140(1), 011003 (2018). Article Google Scholar Moaleman, A. et al. Simulation of the performance of a solar concentrating photovoltaic-thermal collector, applied in a combined cooling heating and power generation system. Energy Convers. Manag.160, 191–208 (2018). ArticleADS Google Scholar Buonomano, A., Calise, F. & Palombo, A. Solar heating and cooling systems by absorption and adsorption chillers driven by stationary and concentrating photovoltaic/ thermal solar collectors: Modelling and simulation. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev.82, 1874–1908 (2018). Article Google Scholar Su, B., Han, W., Qu, W., Liu, C. & Jin, H. A new hybrid photovoltaic/thermal and liquid desiccant system for trigeneration application. Appl. Energy226, 808–818 (2018). ArticleADS Google Scholar Shortall, R., Davidsdottir, B. & Axelsson, G. Geothermal energy for sustainable development: A review of sustainability impacts and assessment frameworks. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev.44, 391–406 (2015). Article Google Scholar Li, H., Ni, L., Liu, G., Zhao, Z. & Yao, Y. Feasibility study on applications of an Earth-air Heat Exchanger (EAHE) for preheating fresh air in severe cold regions. Renew. Energy133, 1268–1284 (2019). Article Google Scholar Ahmad, S. N. & Prakash, O. Thermal performance evaluation of an earth-to-air heat exchanger for the heating mode applications using an experimental test rig. Arch. Thermodyn. 185–207 (2022). Koshlak, H. A review of earth-air heat exchangers: from fundamental principles to hybrid systems with renewable energy integration. Energies18(5), 1017 (2025). Article Google Scholar Zhao, Y. et al. Parametric study and design of an earthair heat exchanger using model experiment for memorial heating and cooling. Appl. Therm. Eng.148, 838–845 (2019). Article Google Scholar Liu, Z. et al. Experimental investigation of a vertical earth-to-air heat exchanger system. Energy Convers. Manag.183, 241–251 (2019). ArticleADS Google Scholar Brum, R. S. et al. Design evaluation of Earth-Air Heat Exchangers with multiple ducts. Renew. Energy135, 1371–1385 (2019). Article Google Scholar Taurines, K., Girous-Julien, S. & Menezo, C. Energy and thermal analysis of an innovative earth-to-air heat exchanger: Experimental investigations. Energy Build.187, 1–15 (2019). Article Google Scholar Nayak, S. & Tiwari, G. Energy metrics of photovoltaic/thermal and earth air heat exchanger integrated greenhouse for different climatic conditions of India. Appl. Energy87(10), 2984–2993 (2010). ArticleADS Google Scholar Mahdavi, S., Sarhaddi, F. & Hedayatizadeh, M. Energy/exergy based-evaluation of heating/cooling potential of PV/T and earth-air heat exchanger integration into a solar greenhouse. Appl. Therm. Eng.149, 996–1007 (2019). Article Google Scholar Jakhar, S., Soni, M. S. & Boehm, R. F. Thermal modeling of a rooftop photovoltaic/thermal system with earth air heat exchanger for combined power and space heating. J. Sol Energy Eng.140(3), 031011 (2018). Article Google Scholar https://www.totallysustainable.co.uk/ground-source-heat-pump/. Bisoniya, T. S. Design of earth–air heat exchanger system. Geotherm. Energy3(1), 18 (2015). Article Google Scholar De Paepe, M. & Janssens, A. Thermo-hydraulic design of earth-air heat exchangers. Energy Build.35(4), 389–397 (2003). Article Google Scholar Kouki, N., D’Agostino, D. & Vityi, A. Properties of earth-to-air heat exchangers (EAHE): Insights and perspectives based on system performance. Energies18(7), 1759 (2025). ArticleCAS Google Scholar Hernández, F. F., Atienza-Márquez, A., Suárez, J. M. P., Cantalejo, J. A. B. & Muriano, M. C. G. Analysis of a HVAC zoning control system with an air-to-water heat pump and a ducted fan coil unit in residential buildings. Appl. Therm. Eng.215, 118963 (2022). Article Google Scholar Bansal, V., Misra, R., Agrawal, G. D. & Mathur, J. Performance analysis of earth-pipe-air heat exchanger for summer cooling. Energy Build.42, 645–648 (2010). Article Google Scholar Khanmohammadi, S. & Shahsavar, A. Energy analysis and multi-objective optimization of a novel exhaust air heat recovery system consisting of an air-based building integrated photovoltaic/thermal system and a thermal wheel. Energy Conver. Manag.172, 595–610 (2018). ArticleADS Google Scholar Li, Z. X. et al. Multi-objective energy and exergy optimization of different configurations of hybrid earth-air heat exchanger and building integrated photovoltaic/thermal system. Energy Conver. Manag.195, 1098–1110 (2019). ArticleADS Google Scholar Huang, B., Zhao, J., Zhang, W., Wu, R. & Li, Y. Study on the improvement of indoor thermal environment and enhancement of photovoltaic power generation performance by the self-driven ventilation of the passive SC-PV-EAHE system. Energy Built Environ. (2025). Nadim Heyat Jilani, M. Applying computational fluid dynamics (CFD) simulation to a greenhouse combined with thin-film photovoltaics and an earth-air heat exchanger to provide a controlled environment for cold climatic conditions: a sustainable design model. Int. J. Ambient Energy.46(1), 2444343 (2025). Article Google Scholar Jakhar, S., Soni, M. S. & Boehm, R. F. Thermal modeling of a rooftop photovoltaic/thermal system with earth air heat exchanger for combined power and space heating. J. Sol Energy Eng.140(3), 031011 (2018). Article Google Scholar Kaushal, M., Dhiman, P., Singh, S. & Patel, H. Finite volume and response surface methodology based performance prediction and optimization of a hybrid earth to air tunnel heat exchanger. Energy Build.1(104), 25–35 (2015). Article Google Scholar Akbarpoor, A. M., Poshtiri, A. H. & Biglari, F. Performance analysis of domed roof integrated with earth-to-air heat exchanger system to meet thermal comfort conditions in buildings. Renew. Energy1(168), 1265–1293 (2021). Article Google Scholar Chen, L. et al. A comprehensive review of a building-integrated photovoltaic system (BIPV). Int. Commun. Heat Mass Transfer1(159), 108056 (2024). Article Google Scholar Basem, A., Moawed, M., Abbood, M. H. & El-Maghlany, W. M. The energy and exergy analysis of a combined parabolic solar dish–steam power plant. Renew. Energy Focus.1(41), 55–68 (2022). Article Google Scholar Cuce, E. & Cuce, P. M. Tilt angle optimization and passive cooling of building-integrated photovoltaics (BIPVs) for better electrical performance. Arab. J. Sci. Eng.39(11), 8199–8207 (2014). ArticleCAS Google Scholar Wei, L. J., Islam, M. M., Hasanuzzaman, M. & Cuce, E. Energy consumption, power generation and performance analysis of solar photovoltaic module based building roof. J. Build. Eng.1(90), 109361 (2024). Article Google Scholar Hamida, M. B., Mohsen, A. M., Alizadeh, A. A., Singh, N. S. & Chamkha, A. Pareto optimal design of photovoltaic thermal systems with grooved helical channels using GMDH-type neural networks and multi-objective grey wolf optimizer. Case Stud. Therm. Eng. 106968 (2025). Alizadeh, A. A. et al. CFD-based investigation of energy and exergy enhancement in a geothermal heat exchanger with hybrid nanofluid and novel turbulator. Case Stud. Therm. Eng.73, 106582 (2025). Article Google Scholar Khan, R. et al. Improving the thermal performance of flat-plate solar collectors for building applications through hybrid nanofluids and vortex-inducing geometries. Case Stud. Therm. Eng.21, 106377 (2025). Article Google Scholar Rostami, M. H., Najafi, G., Minaei, S. & Khoshtaghaza, M. H. Simultaneous goal optimization for building cooling system: Merging horizontal and vertical shallow geothermal ventilation systems (VB‐HBSGV). Heat Transfer. (2025). Cuce, P. M. Novel, practical and reliable analytical models to estimate electrical efficiency of building-integrated photovoltaic/thermal (BIPVT) collectors and systems. Uludağ Üniversitesi Mühendislik Fakültesi Dergisi.23(3), 191–206 (2018). Google Scholar Farahani, S. D., Zare, M. K. & Alizadeh, A. A. Artificial Neural Network and Genetic Algorithm-based prediction of photovoltaic panel performance with porous foam gradient and nano-enhanced phase change material. J. Energy Storage.76, 109816 (2024). Article Google Scholar Li ,Y., Basem, A., Alizadeh, A. A., Singh, P. K., Dixit, S., Abdulaali, H. K., Ali, R., Cajla, P., Rajab, H. & Ghachem, K. Synergizing neural networks with multi-objective thermal exchange optimization and PROMETHEE decision-making to improve PCM-based photovoltaic thermal systems. Case Stud. Thermal Eng. 68, 105851. Rostami, M. H., Najafi, G., Minaei, S. & Khoshtaghaza, M. H. Design, optimization and performance evaluation of water-energy nexus of an atmospheric water harvesting system (AWHS) based on subsurface cooling and solar power. Case Stud. Therm. Eng.24, 106378 (2025). Article Google Scholar Handbook, A.S.H.R.A.E. HVAC Systems and Equipment. (1996). Download references This work was supported and funded by the Deanship of Scientific Research at Imam Mohammad Ibn Saud Islamic University (IMSIU) (grant number IMSIU-DDRSP2503). Department of Industrial Engineering, College of Engineering, University of Ha’il, Ha’il City, 81451, Saudi Arabia Naim Ben Ali College of Engineering, Imam Mohammad Ibn Saud Islamic University (IMSIU), Riyadh, Saudi Arabia Rashid Khan & Joy Djuansjah Advanced Technical College, University of Warith Al-Anbiyaa, Karbala, Iraq Waqed H. Hassan Department of Civil Engineering, College of Engineering, Cihan University-Erbil, Erbil, Iraq Saman Ahmad Aminian Physics Department, Faculty of Science, Islamic University of Madinah, P. O. Box: 170, Madinah, 42351, Saudi Arabia Mohamed Shaban Department of Mechanical Engineering, College of Engineering, University of Ha’il, Ha’il City, 81451, Saudi Arabia Walid Aich Al-Manara College for Medical Sciences, Amarah, Maysan, Iraq Zahraa Abed Hussein Search author on:PubMedGoogle Scholar Search author on:PubMedGoogle Scholar Search author on:PubMedGoogle Scholar Search author on:PubMedGoogle Scholar Search author on:PubMedGoogle Scholar Search author on:PubMedGoogle Scholar Search author on:PubMedGoogle Scholar Search author on:PubMedGoogle Scholar N.B.A., R.K., and W.H.H. conceptualized the study. N.B.A., W.H.H., Z.A.H., R.K., and M.S. were responsible for simulations and manuscript preparation. R.K., Z.A.H., W.H.H., S.A.A., and W.A. wrote and analyzed the results and carried out the computational analyses. W.A., N.B.A., J.D., and M.S. contributed to the validation of the methods. J.D. and S.A.A. oversaw the project, including its planning and supervision. Correspondence to Saman Ahmad Aminian or Mohamed Shaban. The authors declare no competing interests. Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License, which permits any non-commercial use, sharing, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if you modified the licensed material. You do not have permission under this licence to share adapted material derived from this article or parts of it. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/. Reprints and permissions Ali, N.B., Khan, R., Hassan, W.H. et al. Synergizing building-integrated photovoltaic with ground-air and water-air heat exchangers for solar-powered gym cooling. Sci Rep16, 2041 (2026). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-025-31770-z Download citation Received: Accepted: Published: Version of record: DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-025-31770-z Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content: Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.
Working with international partners, the team formed a thin two dimensional perovskite phase at the buried interface of the perovskite absorber, a location that has been difficult to target selectively with earlier approaches. The work, published in Nature Energy on February 6, shows that the method improves the crystallization quality of the perovskite films and cuts defect concentrations at buried interfaces by more than 90 percent, a tenfold decrease. Defects at the top and bottom surfaces of perovskite layers remain a major bottleneck for both photovoltaic performance and long term stability in perovskite solar cells. One known strategy is to incorporate long chain ammonium salts into the bulk perovskite, which can generate two dimensional perovskite phases in the bulk and at buried interfaces. However, earlier techniques have struggled to confine these two dimensional structures only to the buried interface, where they can passivate defects without disrupting charge transport in the rest of the absorber. To overcome this, the QIBEBT led team sequentially grafted thioglycolic acid and oleylamine onto the surface of tin dioxide nanoparticles, producing a modified electron transport material referred to as SnO2-TGA-OAm. Strong chemical bonding between the thioglycolic acid and oleylamine on the nanoparticle surface controls how the perovskite precursor interacts with the interface during film formation. During thermal annealing of the perovskite film, cation exchange between the grafted layer and formamidinium iodide proceeds in the solid state, triggering the spontaneous formation of a two dimensional three dimensional perovskite heterostructure only at the bottom interface. The resulting SnO2-TGA-OAm layer acts as a multifunctional electron transporting layer that both extracts charge carriers efficiently and passivates defects at the buried contact. Devices built with this engineered interface achieved power conversion efficiencies of 26.19 percent for small area cells with an active area of 0.09 square centimeters. The researchers also demonstrated a module with an aperture area of 21.54 square centimeters that reached a power conversion efficiency of 23.44 percent and was certified at 22.68 percent. In addition, a large area module with an aperture area of 64.80 square centimeters delivered an efficiency of 22.22 percent, underscoring the scalability of the interface design from small cells to modules. “These values rank among the highest efficiencies reported to date for small sized PSCs and modules based on 2D/3D perovskite heterojunctions,” said first author Dr. Zhao Qiangqiang of QIBEBT. “This in situ solid state ligand exchange strategy could be easily scalable from lab to factory production while delivering enhanced operational stability,” added corresponding author Prof. Pang Shuping. According to the team, the combination of high efficiency, reduced interfacial defects, and improved operational stability brings the commercialization of perovskite solar cells closer to reality. The study demonstrates a general route for fabricating 2D/3D heterojunctions specifically at buried interfaces of perovskite absorbers, a capability that is expected to support further performance gains in perovskite photovoltaic technology. Research Report:Buried 2D/3D heterojunction in n-i-p perovskite solar cells through solid-state ligand-exchange reaction
SMX Extends Its Capital Runway Into 2028, ELOC Agreement Increase… Roche’s fenebrutinib is the first investigational medicine in ove… TIAN RUIXIANG Ignites a Digital Financial Revolution: 15,000 BTC … SentinelOne Delivers End-to-End AI Security from Data to Runtime VEON and JazzWorld Launch “Invest in Pakistan, NOW!” Inviting In… BetterInvesting™ Magazine Update on ServiceNow Inc. (NYSE: NOW) a… SMX Extends Its Capital Runway Into 2028, ELOC Agreement Increase… Roche’s fenebrutinib is the first investigational medicine in ove… TIAN RUIXIANG Ignites a Digital Financial Revolution: 15,000 BTC … SentinelOne Delivers End-to-End AI Security from Data to Runtime VEON and JazzWorld Launch “Invest in Pakistan, NOW!” Inviting In… BetterInvesting™ Magazine Update on ServiceNow Inc. (NYSE: NOW) a… Ascent Solar Technologies (Nasdaq: ASTI) announced continued development in 2026 of distributed power receiving CIGS PV modules to support space-based energy beaming. Activities include internally funded R&D, ongoing Collaborative Agreement Notice work with NASA Marshall and Glenn (on schedule to conclude this spring), and partnerships with Star Catcher Industries and Cislunar Industries. The company cites its 5-MW Thornton, Colorado manufacturing facility as enabling commercial CIGS modules that can receive both sunlight and distributed power sources, and plans to present results at select space industry conferences later in the year. On the day this news was published, ASTI declined 7.72%, reflecting a notable negative market reaction. Argus tracked a peak move of +6.1% during that session. Argus tracked a trough of -18.4% from its starting point during tracking. Our momentum scanner triggered 22 alerts that day, indicating elevated trading interest and price volatility. This price movement removed approximately $3M from the company’s valuation, bringing the market cap to $32M at that time. Data tracked by StockTitan Argus on the day of publication. ASTI is down 9.64% while solar peers show mixed moves: SUNE up 12.12%, PN up 4.79%, TURB down 2.50%, BEEM down 6.83%, SPRU down 4.44%. Momentum data flags only SUNE in scanners, moving down separately there. Overall action points to a stock-specific move rather than a sector-wide rotation. Recent news often tied to financings, with mostly aligned price reactions; one notable divergence where a private placement closing coincided with a positive move. Over the last several months, ASTI has combined strategic progress with repeated equity financings. On Dec 8, 2025, it announced and then closed a private placement of up to $5.5 million, which saw modest negative reactions. A Jan 22, 2026 update outlining 2025 milestones and 2026 goals drove a strong 53.03% gain. Subsequent private placement announcements on Jan 26–27, 2026 targeted up to $25.0 million, with one day sharply negative and the closing day positive, underscoring mixed market tolerance for dilution against growth messaging. An effective Form S-3 shelf dated Jan 30, 2026 registers up to 4,816,120 common shares for resale by existing holders, including shares from a January 2026 private placement and underlying pre-funded, Series A, Series B and placement agent warrants. The company will not receive proceeds from resale but may receive cash on warrant exercise at prices ranging from $0.0001 to $6.875 per share. The stock moved -7.7% in the session following this news. The decline reflects tension between promising technology updates and a capital-intensive, loss-making profile. While today’s news highlights CIGS PV advances and a 5-MW facility targeting space power beaming, filings show modest revenue and ongoing net losses. An active S-3 registering 4,816,120 resale shares and recent private placements may weigh on sentiment. Past financings often aligned with negative or volatile reactions, so investors could have remained cautious despite the strategic upside. AI-generated analysis. Not financial advice. THORNTON, Colo., Feb. 05, 2026 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — Ascent Solar Technologies (“Ascent” or the “Company”) (Nasdaq: ASTI), today announced its plans to continue development of distributed power receiving products in 2026 to account for growing demand for space-based energy beaming technologies. These development efforts include both internally funded research and development as well as continued Collaborative Agreement Notice program work with the NASA Marshall Spaceflight Center and Glenn Research Center, which is on schedule to successfully conclude this spring. The Company plans to present the results of these development programs at select space industry conferences to be announced later this year. These solar module technology advancements are uniquely enabled by Ascent’s in-house manufacturing capabilities at its 5-MW production facility in Thornton, Colorado. The facility allows for the company’s commercial-off-the-shelf CIGS PV products to be further optimized in order to be able to receive both sunlight in addition to more distributed power from a number of transmission sources and providers such as Star Catcher Industries. The Company further plans for continued technology progression through partnerships like that with Cislunar Industries that stand to effectively enable spacecraft to generate and utilize multiple times more power with a solar array of any given size. “Through the increased efficiency in power beaming capabilities that Ascent’s product developments will achieve, our thin-film solar offerings will better enable profitable operations for space industry providers in emerging markets that require substantial amounts of on orbit power, like space data centers or in-space manufacturers,” said Paul Warley, CEO of Ascent Solar Technologies. “Ascent has already built relationships and completed deliveries to multiple companies within these burgeoning industries. As these nascent market segments continue to grow, we expect to be a major technology solutions provider in the space.” About Ascent Solar Technologies, Inc. Backed by 40 years of R&D, 15 years of manufacturing experience, numerous awards, and a comprehensive IP and patent portfolio, Ascent Solar Technologies, Inc. is a leading provider of innovative, high-performance, flexible thin-film solar panels, optimized for use in space, military and defense, and other applications where mass, performance, reliability, and resilience are paramount. Ascent’s photovoltaic (PV) modules have been deployed on space missions, multiple airborne vehicles, agrivoltaic installations, in industrial/commercial construction as well as an extensive range of consumer goods, revolutionizing the use cases and environments for solar power. Ascent Solar’s research and development center and 5-MW nameplate production facility is in Thornton, Colorado. To learn more, visit https://www.ascentsolar.com. Forward-Looking Statements Statements in this press release that are not statements of historical or current fact constitute “forward-looking statements” including statements about the financing transaction, our business strategy, and the potential uses of the proceeds from the transaction. Such forward-looking statements involve known and unknown risks, uncertainties and other unknown factors that could cause the company’s actual operating results to be materially different from any historical results or from any future results expressed or implied by such forward-looking statements. We have based these forward-looking statements on our current assumptions, expectations, and projections about future events. In addition to statements that explicitly describe these risks and uncertainties, readers are urged to consider statements that contain terms such as “will,” “believes,” “belief,” “expects,” “expect,” “intends,” “intend,” “anticipate,” “anticipates,” “plans,” “plan,” to be uncertain and forward-looking. No information in this press release should be construed as any indication whatsoever of our future revenues, stock price, or results of operations. The forward-looking statements contained herein are also subject generally to other risks and uncertainties that are described from time to time in the company’s filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission including those discussed under the heading “Risk Factors” in our most recently filed reports on Forms 10-K and 10-Q. Media Contact:
$200 or more 💰 
You must be logged in to post a comment.