New analysis from Germany reveals that figuring out the most affordable supply of residential heating stays difficult, as a result of the ultimate outcomes rely upon the assumptions made and the vitality costs. Scientists have proven that air-water warmth pumps and gasoline heating programs are the most affordable options.
Researchers on the Technical University of Munich in Germany evaluated the environmental, financial, and eco-efficiency efficiency of 13 completely different heating programs for a typical German two-story dwelling and located -air-source warmth pumps and gasoline programs are the most costly. – efficient options.
Scientists have decided that figuring out the most affordable supply of residence heating stays difficult, as the ultimate outcomes rely upon the assumptions made and vitality costs. But additionally they level out that the variations in prices between all of the analyzed programs are small, which they are saying makes it difficult to ascertain a transparent rating based mostly solely on analysis. within the economic system.
For this purpose, their strategy consists of environmental and financial elements in a single indicator. The life cycle evaluation (LCA) methodology is used to guage the environmental affect of the programs and the web current worth (NPV) methodology is used to guage their financial viability. The evaluation additionally features a greatest case and a worst case state of affairs with completely different preliminary funding prices.
For a two-story residence, the researchers assume that it operates underneath Munich local weather situations with a typical heating load of 5 kW and an annual heating requirement of 8,066 kWh. They additionally take into account that every one programs have a warmth storage tank that repeatedly heats sizzling water and a life cycle of 20 years.
The 13 programs thought-about within the evaluation are: Natural gasoline condensing boiler; pure gasoline condensing boiler with photo voltaic thermal system; pellet boiler; pellet boiler with photo voltaic thermal system; wooden gasification boiler; wooden gasification boiler with photo voltaic thermal system; air-source warmth pump; air-source warmth pump with PV system; ground-source warmth pump with geothermal probe; ground-source warmth pump with geothermal probe and PV system; sizzling water pipe; water-source warmth pump with PV system; and ground-source warmth pump with ice storage and photo voltaic collectors.
“A goal stream temperature of 35 C is specified for the thought-about commonplace outdoors temperature of -12.9 C,” defined the analysis crew. “The sizzling water demand calculation relies on a each day sizzling water demand of 40 l per individual at 50 C, utilizing a typical consumption profile with peak load within the morning, at midday, and at evening.”
Academics additionally take into account that solely 6% of the electrical energy generated by the PV system is used instantly by the warmth pump, with the remaining share being injected into the grid or utilized by family home equipment. “It must be famous that the programs usually are not optimized for PV self-consumption,” the scientists emphasised.
The evaluation reveals that air-water warmth pumps with and with out PV programs, in addition to gasoline heating programs are probably the most cost-effective options of the 13 programs thought-about. In phrases of “eco-efficiency,” the scientists discovered that the air supply warmth pump with PV system and the log wooden gasification boiler had been higher than different programs.
“Three different heating programs – water and ground-source warmth pumps with PV and air-source warmth pumps – additionally present larger eco-efficiency than the gasoline heating system,” they added. “On the opposite, the ice-storage warmth pump and the pellet heating with photo voltaic thermal assist present the bottom eco-efficiency.”
Their findings seem within the research “Environmental, financial, and eco-efficiency evaluation of residential heating programs for low-rise buildings,” just lately revealed in Journal of Building Engineering.
This content material is protected by copyright and will not be reused. If you need to cooperate with us and need to reuse a few of our content material, please contact: editors@pv-magazine.com.
Popular content material
