Comparative Energy and Crop-Zone Thermal Performance of Solar-Thermal Absorption and Photovoltaic Vapor-Compression Cooling Systems for a Smart Greenhouse in a Hot-Arid Climate

This study directly compares a photovoltaic (PV)-powered vapor-compression chiller with a solar-thermal-driven absorption chiller for localized cooling of the tomato crop zone in a 1536 m2 smart greenhouse under a hot-arid climate. The principal contribution is a controlled system-level comparison of two solar-cooling pathways under the same greenhouse load, solar-aperture area, terminal equipment, rated cooling capacity, and crop-zone temperature-control constraints. The previously validated greenhouse model was transitioned from EnergyPlus 8.9 to Version 23.1, after which the two alternative plants were connected to the same base model. Base-case annual simulations produced nearly identical chiller cooling energy (1669.3 and 1668.9 MWh) and was only 4 and 5 h above 28 °C. The PV-powered system required 101.6 MWh of net grid electricity, whereas the absorption system used 202.3 MWh of electricity and 253.2 MWh of natural gas and achieved an 84.23% solar fraction. Static operational primary energy was 331.2 and 912.7 MWhPE, respectively; HSDH28 was 0.50 and 0.81 °C·h; and peak grid import was 113.46 and 63.61 kW. The absorption case additionally required 10,103.6 m3/yr of cooling-tower makeup water. Storage/EMS sensitivity changed the absorption solar fraction from 58.17% to 88.30% and natural-gas use from 187.7 to 674.0 MWh/yr without materially changing cooling service. Matched 50–100 W/m2 daytime latent-load sensitivity increased annual cooling by 14.7–28.8%. At the 100 W/m2 bound, HSDH28 increased to 49.32 °C·h for PV and 8.06 °C·h for absorption, while the principal energy–infrastructure trade-off remained: static primary energy was 712.4 versus 1354.2 MWhPE and peak grid import was 137.46 versus 63.96 kW. A bounded hourly primary-energy-factor stress test did not reverse the technology ranking, and balanced TOPSIS scores were 0.766 for PV and 0.234 for absorption. The results show that PV vapor compression minimizes operational primary energy and cooling-water use, whereas solar-thermal absorption reduces electrical peak demand and shows greater thermal-control resilience at the highest tested latent-load bound.