Comparing the Effects of Flexibility Options on Conventional and Low-temperature District Heating Networks : Studying the potential of the next generation of district energy systems

Sammanfattning: District heating (DH) systems have been commonplace in Europe for over a century. These systems have undergone an evolution since their conceiving, and today we are at the precipice of the next major transition from the third-generation district heating system (3GDH) to the fourth generation (4GDH). Current 3GDH systems operate at a supply temperature in-between 80 °C - 100 °C and a return temperature of around 45 °C. Future 4GDH systems will operate at a supply temperature below 70 °C and return temperature as low as 25 °C, and therefore, will integrate waste heat available at low temperatures, and renewable heat sources.The literature review performed here shows that low temperature DH (LTDH) systems have several benefits over their conventional temperature DH (CTDH) predecessor and achieve lower operating costs for some technologies when compared to the CTDH alternative. Therefore, in this thesis, a TIMES (The Integrated MARKAL-EFOM System) model is used to simulate the operation of a DH system. The learnings from the literature review were incorporated into the model so that certain operational differences between CTDH and LTDH systems could be compared.In this context, the aim of this project is to analyse the effects of flexibility options on the operation of a DH system, and to compare these effects between CTDH and LTDH systems. Flexibility options in DH systems are technologies and concepts that work towards balancing heat generation and demand in thermal grids and can also help balance power generation and demand in electrical grids. Examples of flexibility options are thermal energy storage (TES) tanks, and seasonal energy storages (e.g., borehole TES (BTES), caverns (CTES), and pits (PTES)). These flexibility options have already been implemented in varying amounts in today’s CTDH systems and will therefore have to provide the same service with LTDH systems in the future.As part of the REWARDHeat project (grant agreement No. 857811), the Swedish city of Helsingborg was used as the case-study in this thesis. The city’s heating sector was incorporated into a TIMES heat model and simulated for the period 2017 to 2052. The existing CTDH system model was then adapted to a LTDH system model and simulated for the same time horizon. Both the CTDH model and LTDH model were simulated for a case with TES available and then for a case where TES was not available, to better-identify the flexibility benefits. The effect of electricity prices on the operation of the system was also studied, where one case uses electricity prices that are on the conservative (i.e., higher) side and another on the ambitious (i.e., lower) side. This means that a total of eight scenarios were simulated and analysed.The results show that more heat storage capacity is utilised in the LTDH system due to TES technologies having lower heat losses. Also, it was found that peak shaving was more pronounced in the LTDH system. This is due to more base heat supply in the system from more excess heat, and from STES discharging. This means that the required installed capacity of heat generating technologies are lower compared to the CTDH alternative. This all translates to TES technologies facilitating greater savings in total system cost, by almost 10%, in the LTDH system. The CTDH and LTDH systems studied in this thesis (i.e., with and without TES) are seen to transition from being a net electricity generator to being a major electricity consumer. This is due to reducing electricity prices going into the future, which incentivise investments into heat pumps (HPs), eventually making the systems (with combined heat and power (CHP) plants in the mix in the earlier years) HP-dominated. The inclusion of TES technologies is shown to accelerate this transition in both CTDH and LTDH systems studied in this thesis. More electricity is generated in the CTDH system than in a LTDH system as the cost savings from running HPs (due to higher coefficients of performance (COP) in low-temperature operation) offsets the revenue from electricity sales.Finally, the effect of electricity prices is also seen in the results. Lower electricity prices favour more DH production from HPs, while higher electricity prices incentivise increased production from CHP plants. The results show that the CTDH system gives the network operator more freedom (than in the LTDH system) to respond to electricity prices.Therefore, to conclude, LTDH systems can make more use of the flexibility provided by TES technologies due to lower heat losses, as shown through DH production volumes being lower, and through more peak shaving.Similar studies in future could incorporate a sensitivity analysis on the COPs of HPs in LTDH systems, given that this parameter seems to greatly influence the cost optimised strategy for operating DH systems. Also, it may be beneficial to expand the study into incorporating the city’s power sector, which would mean incorporating the electricity demand into the model. It would be interesting to see if this would cause the model to invest in other technologies other than HPs, or if it might still make more financial sense to import the electricity at market prices. Finally, the cost of transitioning from a CTDH system to a LTDH system could also be considered in the model, as it was not the case in this project. This would probably show that the financial benefit of LTDH systems is less than what is predicted in this study.