How refrigerant cycle modeling shapes the techno-economic analysis of centralized vs. decentralized heat supply systems for city districts

Applied Energy, vol. 420, pp. 128131

Abstract

Heat supply systems can be divided into district and individual heating. For both, heat pumps (HPs) play a key role, and their future relevance can be assessed using dynamic simulations. This raises the question of which HP model is most appropriate and how model choice influences techno-economic decision indicators. This paper analyzes the impact of HP modeling on result variability and introduces a novel approach: the Unified Heat Pump Model (UHPM). The UHPM employs a unified parameterization, requiring no detailed knowledge of HPs while enabling the simulation of off-design operating conditions. Its C O P estimation is validated against publicly available manufacturer C O P maps, while its power estimation is validated using field monitoring data from five HPs. A techno-economic analysis is conducted for a residential district. The dynamic simulation represents the complete system, from building envelope to heat supply, and applies three HP models: UHPM, Carnot, and manufacturer-performance-map-driven. Key decision indicators include peak electric power, annual electric energy demand, and levelized cost of heat. The variability of results across the models ranges from − 27.0 % to 29.4 % for decentralized systems and from − 10.3 % to 10.3 % for centralized systems, depending on the indicator and building stage. This internal variability leads to overlapping decision indicators between system configurations. The UHPM enables consistent system comparison and reduces ambiguity. Results indicate that centralized systems are advantageous in terms of peak power reduction, whereas decentralized systems are more favorable for retrofitting from an economic perspective.

Authors 6

1. Moritz Zuschlag corresponding Aachen E.ON Energy Research Center Institute for Energy Efficient Buildings and Indoor Climate

   RWTH Aachen University

   Affiliation as printed

   Institute for Energy Efficient Buildings and Indoor Climate, E.ON Energy Research Center, RWTH Aachen University, Aachen, Germany

2. David Jansen Aachen E.ON Energy Research Center Institute for Energy Efficient Buildings and Indoor Climate

   RWTH Aachen University

   Affiliation as printed

   Institute for Energy Efficient Buildings and Indoor Climate, E.ON Energy Research Center, RWTH Aachen University, Aachen, Germany

3. Benjamin Frank Aachen E.ON Energy Research Center Institute for Energy Efficient Buildings and Indoor Climate

   RWTH Aachen University

   Affiliation as printed

   Institute for Energy Efficient Buildings and Indoor Climate, E.ON Energy Research Center, RWTH Aachen University, Aachen, Germany

4. Sonja Schuster Aachen E.ON Energy Research Center Institute for Energy Efficient Buildings and Indoor Climate

   RWTH Aachen University

   Affiliation as printed

   Institute for Energy Efficient Buildings and Indoor Climate, E.ON Energy Research Center, RWTH Aachen University, Aachen, Germany

5. Jonas Klingebiel Aachen E.ON Energy Research Center Institute for Energy Efficient Buildings and Indoor Climate

   RWTH Aachen University

   Affiliation as printed

   Institute for Energy Efficient Buildings and Indoor Climate, E.ON Energy Research Center, RWTH Aachen University, Aachen, Germany

6. Dirk Müller Aachen E.ON Energy Research Center Institute for Energy Efficient Buildings and Indoor Climate

   RWTH Aachen University

   Affiliation as printed

   Institute for Energy Efficient Buildings and Indoor Climate, E.ON Energy Research Center, RWTH Aachen University, Aachen, Germany