Search

• Data-driven and comprehensive thermodynamic technology models are developed. • Multi-fidelity approaches are used to compare heat-generation solutions. • Centralised CHP systems appear to be the most profitable option at present. • Heat pumps can achieve a significant degree of heat decarbonisation (55–62%). • Thermodynamic models reduce uncertainty by 75% compared to black-box approaches. This paper presents a multi-scale framework for the design and comparison of centralised and distributed heat generation solutions. An extensive analysis of commercially available products on the UK market is conducted to gather information on the performance and cost of a range of gas-fired combined heat and power (CHP) systems, air-source heat pumps (ASHPs) and ground-source heat pumps (GSHPs). Data-driven models with associated uncertainty bounds are derived from the collected data, which capture cost and performance variations with scale (i.e. , size and rating) and operating conditions. In addition, a comprehensive thermoeconomic (thermodynamic and component-costing) heat pump model, validated against manufacturer data, is developed to capture design-related performance and cost variations, thus reducing technology-related model uncertainties. The novelty of this paper lies in the use of multi-fidelity approaches for the comparison of the economic and environmental potential of important heat-generation solutions: (i) centralised gas-fired CHP systems associated with district heating network; (ii) gas-fired CHP systems or GSHPs providing heat to differentiated energy communities; and (iii) small-scale micro-CHP systems, ASHPs or GSHPs, installed at the household level. The pathways are evaluated for the case of the Isle of Dogs district in London, UK. A centralised CHP system appears as the most profitable option, achieving annual savings of £13 M compared to the use of decentralised boilers and a levelised cost of heat equal to 31 £/MWh th. However, if the carbon intensity of the electrical grid continues to reduce at current rates, CHP systems will only provide minimal carbon savings compared to boilers (<6%), with heat pumps achieving significant heat decarbonisation (55–62%). Differentiating between high- and low-performance and cost heat pump designs shows that the former, although 25% more expensive, have significantly lower annualised costs (£4.9 M vs. £7.7 M) and 12% higher CO 2 -equivalent savings. The uncertainty propagation reveals that data-driven and detailed thermoeconomic models can reduce the uncertainty in the total annualised energy cost and emissions by more than 75% compared to simplified black-box approaches, while the economic comparison of centralised CHP systems and domestic heat pumps for various electricity and gas price scenarios provides guidance to support energy policy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

• Techno-economic analysis of low-carbon heat supply options for UK supermarkets. • RIHC, an ASHP, and a thermal storage tank with advanced control is recommended. • Best investments provide a 16-to-18-year payback without a carbon price. • The UK renewable heat incentive subsidy (for ASHP) generates 89% of the 'savings' • When a £100/tCO2e tax is considered, paybacks are reduced to a 9–11 years. Eliminating the use of natural gas for non-domestic heat supply is an imperative component of net-zero targets. Techno-economic analyses of competing options for low-carbon heat supply are essential for decision makers developing decarbonisation strategies. This paper investigates the impact various heat supply configurations can have in UK supermarkets by using heat recovery principles from refrigeration systems under different climatic conditions. The methodology builds upon a steady-state model that has been validated in previous studies. All refrigeration integrated heating and cooling (RIHC) systems employ CO 2 booster refrigeration to recover heat and provide space heating alongside various technologies such as thermal storage, air-source heat pumps (ASHPs) and direct electric heaters. Seven cases evaluating various technology combinations are analysed and compared against a conventional scenario in which the building is heated with a natural gas boiler. The specific combinations of technologies analysed here contrasts trade-offs and is a first in the literature. The capital costs of these projects are considered, giving insights into their business case. Results indicate that electric heaters are not cost-competitive in supermarkets. Meanwhile, RIHC and ASHP configurations are the most attractive option, and if a thermal storage tank system with advanced controls is included, the benefits increase even further. Best solutions have a 6.3% ROI, a payback time of 16 years while reducing energy demand by 62% and CO 2 emissions by 54%. Such investments will be difficult to justify unless policy steers decision makers through incentives or the business case changes by implementing internal carbon pricing. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]