Energy Efficiency through Thermal Energy Storage - Evaluation of the Possibilities for the Swedish Building Stock, Phase 1

As a first step in assessing the potential of thermal energy storage in Swedish buildings, the current situation of the Swedish building stock and different storage methods are discussed in this paper. Overall, many buildings are from the 1960’s or earlier having a relatively high energy demand, creating opportunities for large energy savings. The major means of heating are electricity for detached houses and district heating for multi dwelling houses and premises. Cooling needs are relatively low but steadily increasing, emphasizing the need to consider energy storage for both heat and cold. The thermal mass of a building is important for passive storage of thermal energy but this has not been considered much when constructing buildings in Sweden. Instead, common ways of storing thermal energy in Swedish buildings today is in water storage tanks or in the ground using boreholes, while latent thermal energy storage is still very uncommon.

Energy performance comparison of three innovative HVAC systems for renovation through dynamic simulation

In this paper, dynamic simulation was used to compare the energy performance of three innovativeHVAC systems: (A) mechanical ventilation with heat recovery (MVHR) and micro heat pump, (B) exhaustventilation with exhaust air-to-water heat pump and ventilation radiators, and (C) exhaust ventilationwith air-to-water heat pump and ventilation radiators, to a reference system: (D) exhaust ventilation withair-to-water heat pump and panel radiators. System A was modelled in MATLAB Simulink and systems Band C in TRNSYS 17. The reference system was modelled in both tools, for comparison between the two.All systems were tested with a model of a renovated single family house for varying U-values, climates,infiltration and ventilation rates.It was found that A was the best system for lower heating demand, while for higher heating demandsystem B would be preferable. System C was better than the reference system, but not as good as A or B.The difference in energy consumption of the reference system was less than 2 kWh/(m2a) betweenSimulink and TRNSYS. This could be explained by the different ways of handling solar gains, but also bythe fact that the TRNSYS systems supplied slightly more than the ideal heating demand.