Comparing the benefits of energy saving measures with seasonal solar thermal heat storage

Sammanfattning: This thesis compares the effects of energy saving measures with Active Solar Energy Storage (ASES) on a property owned by Stena Fastigheter. The building is located in Lövgärdet in Gothenburg and was a part of the Million Homes Program. It was built in 1967, has 9 floors, a heated basement and is heated by district heating. The thermal envelope of the building consists of the walls, doors, windows, roof/attic and the basement.   ASES is a system consisting of solar panels on the roof of a building connected to the heating system. The solar energy that cannot be used immediately is stored in a ground storage unit for when it is needed. ASES can also be supplemented by geothermal heating by drilling boreholes into the ground and, via a Ground Source Heat Pump (GSHP), using the heat in the underlying rock.   The ASES and GSHP system combined were compared to energy saving measure on the thermal envelope in terms of reducing the need for purchased energy and increasing profitability. The energy saving measures were: changing the 2-pane windows to 3-pane windows (either by adding a window pane or changing to a 3-pane window), insulating the façade, insulating the attic, insulating and draining the basement, changing doors, replacing the heat exchanger with a more efficient one, and improving ventilation system. The new system, called FTX, reuses the heat from the exhaust air to save energy.   The results of the thesis show that it is difficult to make energy saving measures profitable. Of the measures evaluated, draining and insulating the basement is extremely cost effective, with a payback time of less than two years. Other profitable measures are insulating the walls (renovation costs of the wall excluded) and insulating the attic, but with a much longer payback time. The ASES and GSHP system are profitable and greatly reduced the need for purchased energy, but require a long payback time. The sum of all energy saving measures does not reduce the need for purchased energy as much, or as cheaply, as ASES, which reduced the energy usage by 62 %.   Due to limited solar panel area ASES cannot supply enough heat to cover the heat demand of the studied building. ASES is therefore believed to be better suited for the buildings that surround the evaluated building. The surrounding buildings have fewer storeys, larger roof area where solar panels can be mounted, and open areas better suited for the ground storage. The potential to implement the ASES system for buildings like these from the Million Homes Program should be evaluated further.