heat pump systems in retrofitting - · pdf filerehva conference –april 17-20, 2012...

REHVA Conference – April 17-20, 2012 -TIMISOARA - ROMANIA

HEAT PUMP SYSTEMS IN RETROFITTING

Prof. Robert Gavriliuc, Ph.D.Prof. Florea Chiriac, Ph.D.


• INTRODUCTION

• CASE ANALYSIS FOR HEAT PUMP SYSTEMS IN RETROFITTING

1. GROUP OF BUILDINGS IN A CROWDED URBAN ENVIRONMENT – Blocks of flats

2. EDUCATION FACILITIES – Highschool complex

3. GROUP OF BUILDINGS IN A RURAL ENVIRONMENT – Local administration center

• CONCLUSIONS


INTRODUCTION

• Sanierung, Restaurierung

• progetto di retrofit; ammodernamento;

ristorazione

• Retrofit; Restoration; Retrofit project

• remise à niveau; restauration; projet de remise à

niveau

• vernieuwing; retrofit;restauratie;

vernieuwingsproject

• renovación; restauración; proyecto de renovación


CASE ANALYSIS 1

GROUP OF BUILDINGS IN A CROWDED URBAN ENVIRONMENT

• LOCATION

• CLIMATIC ZONE

• ENERGY AUDIT

• ENERGY LOADS CALCULUS

• TECHNICAL SOLUTION

• ECONOMICAL STUDY


LOCATION :

• Close to Bucharest centre, bd. Marasesti – Climatic zone 3

•3 appartment buildings BL.2, BL.3B, BL.3C, 300 appartments

connected to a local heating plant Marasesti, total of 23 456 m²

6

Thermal resistance of the walls [m²K/W]

Interior wall R=1,006 m²K/W

Exterior wall R=1,74 m²K/W

Terrace R=2,7 m²K/W

Horizontal concrete plate R=0,88 m²K/W

Windows R=0,55 m²K/W

Doors R=0,4 m²K/W


Outdoor air parameters:

•Outdoor air temperature = 35°C ;

•Outdoor air moisture content = 11.95 g / kg ;

•Outdoor air relative humidity = 40%.

Indoor air parameters:

•Indoor air temperature = 26°C;

•Indoor air velocity = 0.2 m/s ;

•Indoor air relative humidity = max 50%.

REFRIGERATION LOAD CALCULATION

Cf. STAS 6648/1-1982

SUMMER COOLING LOAD

BL.2 Q=358,64 kW

BL.3B Q=198,03 kW

BL.3C Q=134,59 kW

TOTAL Q=691,26 kW

SUMMER REFRIGERATION LOADS

0

50000

100000

150000

200000

250000

300000

350000

400000

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

hour

flu

x (

W)

charge thermique ete BL.3B charge thermique ete BL.3C

charge thermique ete BL.2

TOTAL SUMMER REFRIGERATION LOAD

0

200000

400000

600000

800000

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

hour

flu

x (

W)

7


HEAT LOAD CALCULATION:

Cf. STAS 1907/ 1-1980

Outdoor air parameters:

•Outdoor air temperature teh = -15°C ;

•Outdoor air moisture content 0.8 g / kg ;

•Outdoor air relative humidity φeh = 80%.

Indoor air parameters:

• Indoor air temperature tih = 20-22°C ;

• Indoor air velocity 0.2 m/s ;

• Indoor air relative humidity φih = 45-60%.

WINTER HEATING LOAD

0

100000

200000

300000

400000

500000

600000

700000

800000

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

hour

flu

x (W

)

charge thermique hiver BL.3B charge thermique hiver BL.3C charge thermique BL.2

TOTAL WINTER HEATING LOAD

0

200000

400000

600000

800000

1000000

1200000

1400000

1600000

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

hour

flu

x (

W)

CHARGE THERMIQUE HIVER TOTALE

WINTER HEATING LOAD

BL.2 Q=757,12 kW

BL.3B Q=475,02 kW

BL.3C Q=334,3 kW

TOTAL Q=1566,44 kW

8


SOLUTION PAIR H2O-LiBr NH3-H2O

(kg/s) 1.8 3.3

(kg/s) 2.09 3.85

(kW) 877.99 1117.55

(kW) 864.1 1077.43

(kW) 719.2 644.25

( kW) 0.418 0.69

COP 0.79 0.62

pressure 2C….7.57 mbar

34C….56 mbar

-2C….4.06 bar

34C….13.37 bar

temperature/

application

Positive

evaporation

temperatures, air

conditioning

Negative

evaporation

temperatures,

industrial

refrigeration & air

conditioning

material/ corrosion Inhibitor against

corrosion

Copper forbidden

Energy supply Gas, vapors, hot

water

Gas, vapors, hot

water

Rectifier needed no yes

Latent heat of

evaporation

(kJ/ kg)

2C....2365 kJ/ kg -2C...1250 kJ/ kg

COMPARISON BETWEEN THE

H2O-LiBr AND THE NH3-H2O

ABSORPTION MACHINES

SPm

SRm

GQ

ABSQ

CQ

SRP

TECHNICAL SOLUTION

REVERSIBLE ABSORPTION

MACHINE, GAS DRIVEN

•The metal needed for the equipment is

less, thus the investment smaller;

•No deflegmator needed, so the COP is

bigger;

•The possibility to group all the exchangers

in one single shell.

DISADVANTAGES FOR THE H2O-LiBr

ABSORPTION MACHINE

•The vacuum imposed needs solid joints;

•The solution H2O-LiBr is agresiv in contact

with metalls.

11

ADVANTAGES FOR THE

H2O-LiBr ABSORPTION MACHINE


Final solution for the refrigeration production –

Carrier double effect absorption machine, gas driven

12

pI

p

Ir

Iff

8

2

8

1 11

skgq

Qm OH /29.0

0

0

2

skgmfm OHr /18.4*21

skgmfm OHp /61.3*)1(22

skgmfmfm OHOHI /90.3**)1(22 21

kWmqQ OHGG 760*23

kWmqQ OHabsabs 5.1001*2

kWmqQ OHcc 25.732*2

91.0gQ

QCOP o

skgm absc

e /96.82

Point t

(°C)

P

mbar

ξLiB

r%

ξeau

%

h

kJ/kg

1sat 80 56 0.61 0.39 290

1 85.7 70 0.61 0.39 200

145 1000 0.56 0.44 320

2 90 56 0.65 0.35 240

155 1000 0.61 0.39 330

3 39.6 56 0.65 0.35 180

4 52 7.57 0.65 0.35 180

4sat 54 7.57 0.65 0.35 160

5 34 7.57 0.56 0.44 90

6 34 56 0.56 0.44 90.2

7 78 56 0.56 0.44 153

143 700 0.56 0.44 310

8 80 56 0 1 2670

145 1000 0 1 2652

9 34 56 0 1 145

10 2 7.57 0 1 145

11 2 7.57 0 1 2510

sat1

2

7

8


Position and connection of the absorption machine

in the heating plant

DOUBLE EFFECT ABSORPTION MACHINE, GAS DRIVEN

Hourly gas

consumption

Bh=81.7 m³/h

Cooling tower

needed

( 1,7 MW )

13


Chilled water delivery

14


NETWORK CALCULATION

15

• Refrigeration load calculation, chilled water network calculation

• Heat load calculation, check of the diameters for the hot water network;

Tr Q m m d DN d ext

Thic

knes

s dint v R

I kw m³/h l/s toli mm mm mm m m/s mCE/m

II 1.1. 55,795 9,614 2,67 3" 80 88,9 4 0,081 0,52 0,004754

II 1.2. 138,15 23,8 6,61 4" 100 114,3 4,5 0,105 0,76 0,006984

II 1.3. 220,5 37,99 10,6 5" 125 133 4 0,125 0,86 0,00714

II1.4. (bl 2-A) 358,64 61,79 17,2 6" 150 168,3 7 0,154 0,918 0,006214

II 1.5(A-CT) 691,26 119,1 33,1 7" 200 219,1 8 0,203 1,022 0,005413

II 1.6. 691,26 119,1 33,1 7" 200 219,1 8 0,203 1,022 0,005413

II. 2. 691,26 119,1 33,1 7" 200 219,1 8 0,203 1,022 0,005413

Tr Q m m d DN d ext

epai

sseu

r dint dint v R

I kw m³/h l/s toli mm mm mm mm m m/s mCE/m

II 1.1. 167,13 7,406 2,06 3" 80 88,9 4 80,9 0,081 0,4 0,002576

II 1.2. 308,13 13,65 3,79 4" 100 114,3 4,5 105,3 0,105 0,436 0,002178

II 1.3. 449,13 19,9 5,53 5" 125 133 4 125 0,125 0,451 0,001876

II1.4. (bl 2-A) 757,13 33,55 9,32 6" 150 168,3 7 154,3 0,154 0,499 0,001756

II 1.5(A-CT) 1566,1 69,4 19,3 7" 200 219,1 8 203,1 0,203 0,595 0,001764


ECONOMICAL STUDY REGARDING THE DISTRICT COOLING SYSTEMInvestments costs

ITEM Units pieces Unit price

TOTAL

EUR

Refrigeration production

Absorption machine u 1 128 050 128050

Cooling tower u 1 37 000 37000

TOTAL I. 165050

Additional equipment

Pumps P1 ens. 1 1334 1334

Pumps P2 ens. 1 1768 1768

Pumps P3 ens. 1 1334 1334

Pumps PI.2. ens. 1 1645 1645

Pumps PII.1.6 ens. 1 5274 5274

Pumps P II.2. ens. 1 2327 2327

Electrical equipment ens. 1 7000 7000

Transformator u 10 10 000 100000

Fan coils u 1386 250 346500

Insulation m 851,34 1,6 1362,144

Construction and mounting works ens. 1 28 000,0 28000

TOTAL II. 496544,144

TOTAL I.+II. 661594,144

Unforeseen costs % 5 33079,7072

Insurance % 10 66159,4144

TOTAL REFRIGERATION COSTS 760833,266

16

REHVA Conference – April 17-20, 2012 -TIMISOARA - ROMANIA 17

Total functioning costs for

first year

Comparison between total costs for the local

refrigeration solution and the district cooling

solution

Item Unit total

ENERGY

Refrigeration power kW 633

Running hours 100% power

5h/day h 625

Refrigeration needs kWh 395625

Refrigeration cost EUR/MWh 27,24

Total refrigeration costs EUR 10776,825

Water consumption m³ 14,322

Water costs EUR/m³ 0,8

Total water costs EUR 11,4576

Electric energy for the pumps kWh 46285,8

Electricity costs EUR/MWh 101,7

Total electricity costs EUR 4707,26586

TOTAL COSTS ENERGY EUR 15 496

TOTAL COSTS MAINTENANCE EUR 8 229

INVESTMENTS

Refrigeration works EUR 760833,266

Financing period years 10

Interest rate % 5

Total interest EUR 209 897

Government incentives % 0

TOTAL INVESTMENTS EUR 970730,266

TOTAL COSTS EUR 994 455


CASE ANALYSIS 2

EDUCATION FACILITIES – Highschool complex

• LOCATION

• CLIMATIC ZONE

• ENERGY AUDIT

• (ENERGY LOADS CALCULUS)

• TECHNICAL SOLUTION

• ECONOMICAL STUDY


CASE ANALYSIS 2LOCATION & CLIMATIC ZONE

CLIMATIC ZONE: 3Outdoor calculus temp.=-18°CAverage outdoor temp.=9,8°CMax. outdoor temp.= +39,4 °CMin. outdoor temp.=-30,4 °C


CASE ANALYSIS 2ENERGY AUDIT

Buildings HEATING ONLY APPLICATION

Theoretical highschool

Total built surface 4130 sqm

HEATING & DHW PLANT

2 BOILERS (on natural gas)

Heating output = 800 kW

Radiators for heating

Primary school

Ground floor 1161 sqm

First floor 1161 sqm

Green field (courtyard)11330 sqm

Sports’ hall

617 sqm

Boarding house



Theoretical highschool building Primary school building

Sports’ hall Boarding house



The administration of the complex has recently managed to

rehabilitate the heating plant and the indoor heating system.

The requirement was to maintain the existing (classical)

system, but also to introduce heat pumps.

The funds for the heat pump system will be obtained through

the “Program regarding the achievement of heating systems

based on the use of re-generable sources of energy”.


CASE ANALYSIS 2TECHNICAL SOLUTION

0 °C

10 °C

20 °C

30 °C

40 °C

50 °C

60 °C

70 °C

80 °C

90 °C

100 °C

-20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20

t ext [°C ]

t s upply

t return

-1 °C-18

Heating fluid's s upply and return temperaturest s upply / t return



0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

-20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20

Ø hea ting [K W]

t ext

[°C ]

R OB UR

← ---------------------→R OB UR + C IAT

← ------------------------→R OB UR + C IAT + B OIL E R S

←------------------------------------------→

440 [K W]

-1

[°C ]

-18

210 [K W]

+10

[°C ]

Heating demand as function of the outdoor temperature



Temperature range Heat demand Heat sources

10 °C <toutdoor < 20 °C 210 kW Gas-driven-air-source HP

-1°C < toutdoor < 10 °C 440 kW

Gas-driven-air-source HP

+

Ground-source HP

toutdoor < -1 °C 440 kW – 800 kW

Gas-driven-air-source HP

+

Ground-source HP

+

Boilers

(bivalent series)

• Supply temperature adopted for the heat pump system: 50 °C

• Outdoor minimal temperature for the heat pump system: -1°C

• Minimal outdoor temperature for the gas-driven-air-source heat pumps: +10°C

• Functioning regime according to the temperature range:


CASE ANALYSIS 2TECHNICAL SOLUTION - EQUIPMENT

• 1 GROUND-SOURCE-HEAT-PUMP

Øheating =197,2 kW, COP=3,71, Pelectric=53,2 kW

• 27 GROUND-SOURCE-HEAT-EXCHANGERS: 107 m deep

• 6 GAS-DRIVEN-AIR-SOURCE-HEAT-PUMP

Øheating =34 kW, GUE=152%


CASE ANALYSIS 2ECONOMICAL STUDY

• Total investments costs: 8.666.869 RON = 2.045.375 euro

• Construction + equipment costs: 7496.129 RON=1.769.082 euro

• Built surface: 9.736 sqm

• Specific investment costs: 176,54 euro/sqm


CASE ANALYSIS 3GROUP OF BUILDINGS IN A RURAL ENVIRONMENT – Local

administration center

• LOCATION• CLIMATIC ZONE• ENERGY AUDIT

– MAYOR’S HOUSE– CULTURAL CENTER– ALL-PURPOSE HALL– CLINIC

• ENERGY LOADS CALCULUS• TECHNICAL SOLUTION• ECONOMICAL STUDY

• CLIMATIC ZONE: 3

• Outdoor calculus temp.= -18°C



• 2 X FLORIDA HEAT PUMPS WW 120

– Heating 30,8 kW; SPF=4,2

– Cooling 32,23 KW; SPF=6,1

• Fan-coils

– Mayor’s house 19 pieces

– All-purpose hall + cultural center + clinic 26 pieces



GROUND SOURCE HEAT EXCHANGER

Month HEATING DHW

[MWh]

TOTAL

H+DHW

AIR CONDITIONING

Max.

load

[kW]

Medium

load

[kW]

Energy

demand

[MWh]

Max. load

[kW]

Medium

load

[kW]

Energy

demand

[MWh]

Jan 58.5 26 8.4 0.23 8.63 - - -

Febr 58.5 23.5 7.1 0.22 7.32 - - -

March 42 17.1 6.1 0.25 6.35 - - -

Apr 27 10.2 3.4 0.24 3.64 - - -

May - - - 0.23 0.23 32.4 11.3 2.14

June - - - 0.24 0.24 45 15.7 3.12

July - - - 0.24 0.24 53 18.5 3.66

Aug. - - - 0.24 0.24 51 17.8 3.54

Sept. - - - 0.24 0.24 32.4 11.3 2.24

Oct. 23 10.8 3.5 0.23 3.73 - - -

Nov. 42 17.1 5.7 0.24 5.94 - - -

Dec. 58.5 23 7.1 0.22 7.32 - - -

- - 41.3 2.82 44 - - 15

Max. Load: 58.8 kWH / 53 kWC

Annual consumption: 44 MWhH+DHW / 15 MWhAC

GSHE: 18 closed-loop-heat-exchangers; 71.5 m deep, 6 m apart



• Energy performance after refurbishment

– Primary energy consumption for heating 75 [kWh/m2 year]

– Primary energy consumption for DHW 21 [kWh/m2 year]

– Primary energy consumption for cooling 17 [kWh/m2 year]

– Overall primary energy consumption 113 [kWh/m2 year]


CASE ANALYSIS 3ECONOMICAL STUDY


CONCLUSIONS

MAIN BARRIERS IN ROMANIA AGAINST THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE HEAT PUMP SYSTEMS

Lack of knowledge regarding the use of (GS)HP

Delay regarding the implementation of the European Directives in the secondary legislationExample: RES 2009/28/EC Directive has not yet been implemented into the Romanian legislation

Difficult implementation frameworkExamplificare: Law 372/2005 is the “mirror image” of EPBD, meanwhile EPBD recast has been elaborated

Incapacity of harmonization with complementary national or European documents Example: the GSHP projects are excluded from co-financing from structural funds on the basis of the so-called “lack of unitary European methodology for the evaluation of the energy provided by RES in the GSHP aplications”, The 2006/32/EC Directive – Energy efficiency at the final user” and the 2002/91/EC Directive– Energy Performance of Buildings state very clearly the above-questioned issue.


CONCLUSIONS

BARRIERS GENERATED BY THE LEGISLATIVE FRAMEWORK

Lack of the specific legal framework regarding the GSHP(exploitation of water or soil, drillings etc.);

The green certificates are not applicable to this domain;

The financial incentives are reduced, hardly accesible and unsure;

“The green house” program awards similar funding for RES systems regardless of the costs for their implementation


CONCLUSIONS

THE STATE SHOULD BE THE MAIN PROMOTER / MAIN USER OF RES

OBJECTIVE: Balancing the national budget by diminishing the operation costs of public buildings

Special program for educational facilities in universities, schools, gradinite, crese

Special program for health care public facilities in clinics, hospitals, sanatories

Special program for army facilities

Special program for buildings of the central and local administration

Special program for social facilities


CONCLUSIONS

AKNOWLEDGEMENT

The authors express their gratitude to:

The ROMANIAN GEOEXCHANGE SOCIETY

GEOTRAINET Project

ROBUST Project

REGEOCITIES Project

Dr. Radu Polizu

Mrs. Doina Cucueteanu

Mr. Radu Hanganu


THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION!

heat pump systems in retrofitting - · pdf filerehva conference –april 17-20, 2012...

Documents