PSI - Issue 77

Arian Semedo and João Garcia/ Structural Integrity Procedia 00 (2026) 000–000

10

Arian Semedo et al. / Procedia Structural Integrity 77 (2026) 498–511

507

heat recovery systems. Figure 8 presents the graphical representation of the COP values for each strategy, clearly illustrating the differences in energy performance among the evaluated solutions.

6.2. Economic Performance and Payback Period

Fig. 8. Graphical representation of the COP values for each solution

A financial feasibility analysis was performed for each solution over a 10-year evaluation period. The assessment considered key economic indicators, including initial capital investment, energy-related cost savings, cumulative financial balance, and payback period, with the detailed results summarized in Table 4. The investment accounted for both the refrigeration infrastructure and the associated renewable energy generation systems. Energy cost savings were calculated based on the electricity demand profile of each solution, reflecting the reduction in grid electricity consumption due to on-site renewable energy generation.

Table 4. Financial Analysis of Proposed Solutions

Energy savings (€) over 10 years

Payback Period (Years)

Solutions

Initial Investment (€)

Accumulated Balance (€)

A B C D

-€ 45 000.00 -€ 64 600.00 -€ 769 172.00 -€ 715 000.00

-€ 1 760 000.00 -€ 2270 000.00 € 2 270 000.00 € 1 650 000.00

-€ 1621 000.00 -€ 2330 000.00 € 1 500 000.00 € 935 000.00

∞ ∞

4

5 The financial assessment indicates that Solutions C and D, although associated with higher initial capital expenditures, demonstrate superior long-term economic viability due to the integration of renewable energy sources. Solution C, with an initial investment of €769,172.00, achieves a positive cumulative balance of €1,500,000.00 over a ten-year horizon, corresponding to a payback period of four years. Solution D, with an investment of €715,000.00, attains a cumulative balance of €935,000.00 over the same period, with a payback period of five years. In contrast, Solutions A and B, which rely exclusively on electricity supplied by the public grid, result in negative cumulative balances due to high energy costs, rendering them