Optimal heating of large block of flats

Gustafsson, Stig-Inge; Rönnqvist, Mikael

doi:10.1016/j.enbuild.2008.02.027

Cited by 11 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 16 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The effect of a longer control time horizon was not considered. Gustafsson and Rönnqvist [24] used mixed integer linear programming (MLIP) models to minimize the life cycle cost of a hybrid heating system consisting of the GSHP, district heating, and gas boiler for building owners. The results suggested that the mixed integer linear programming was able to adequately address both the district heating and the electricity tariffs.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cost-Effective Control of Hybrid Ground Source Heat Pump (GSHP) System Coupled with District Heating

Xue,

Jokisalo,

Kosonen

2024

Buildings

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Hybrid ground source heat pump systems (GSHP) offer energy flexibility in operation. For hybrid GSHP systems coupled with district heating, limited studies investigated control strategies for reducing system energy costs from the perspective of building owners. This study proposed a cost-effective control strategy for a hybrid GSHP system integrated with district heating, investigating how power limits of district heating/GSHP, COP value for control (COPctrl), and control time horizon impact the system annual energy cost, CO2 emissions, and long-term borehole heat exchanger system performance. The simulations were performed using the dynamic building simulation tool IDA ICE 4.8. The results indicate that to realize both the energy cost savings and the long-term operation safety, it is essential to limit the heating power of district heating/GSHP and select an appropriate COPctrl. The control time horizon insignificantly affected the annual energy cost and long-term borehole heat exchanger system performance. The recommended COPctrl was 3.6, which is near the GSHP seasonal performance factor. Eventually, the cost-effective control reduced the system’s annual energy cost by 2.2% compared to the GSHP-prioritized control. However, the proposed control increased the CO2 emissions of the hybrid GSHP system due to the higher CO2 emissions from district heating.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%