Renewable Energy 35 (2010) 1275–1282

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Renewable Energy
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/renene

Comparison of energy and exergy analysis of fossil plant,

ground and air source heat pump building heating system
S.P. Lohani a, *, D. Schmidt b
a
University of Oldenburg, Oldenburg, Germany
b
Fraunhofer Institute of Building Physics, Kassel group, Germany

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: The energy and exergy flow for a space heating systems of a typical residential building of natural
Received 2 May 2009 ventilation system with different heat generation plants have been modeled and compared. The aim of
Accepted 5 October 2009 this comparison is to demonstrate which system leads to an efficient conversion and supply of energy/
Available online 31 October 2009
exergy within a building system.
The analysis of a fossil plant heating system has been done with a typical building simulation software
Keywords:
IDA–ICE. A zone model of a building with natural ventilation is considered and heat is being supplied by
Ground source heat pump system
condensing boiler. The same zone model is applied for other cases of building heating systems where
Air source heat pump system
Conventional system power generation plants are considered as ground and air source heat pumps at different operating
Energy analysis conditions. Since there is no inbuilt simulation model for heat pumps in IDA–ICE, different COP curves of
Exergy analysis the earlier studies of heat pumps are taken into account for the evaluation of the heat pump input and
output energy.
The outcome of the energy and exergy flow analysis revealed that the ground source heat pump
heating system is better than air source heat pump or conventional heating system. The realistic
and efficient system in this study ‘‘ground source heat pump with condenser inlet temperature 30  C and
varying evaporator inlet temperature’’ has roughly 25% less demand of absolute primary energy and
exergy whereas about 50% high overall primary coefficient of performance and overall primary exergy
efficiency than base case (conventional system). The consequence of low absolute energy and exergy
demands and high efficiencies lead to a sustainable building heating system.
Ó 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
The use of energy in the building sector for heating and cooling is
nearly one third of the total energy consumed in the world [16]. As
there is growing concern in the use of fossil fuels that is being
depleted soon and because of the sustainability issue, an alternative
source of energy must be found to meet energy supply of high
energy consumption sector. The building sector is one of the
prominent sectors, which could save tremendous amount of fossil
fuels if renewable energy source like ground coupled heat pumps
(GCHPs) substituted them. The use of GCHPs is growing significantly
in commercial and residential sectors and has numerous advantages
over air source heat pumps as described by [11]. The increase in
interest to the heat pumps is due to their high utilization efficiency
over conventional heating and cooling systems. More or less
constant temperature over the year is an important feature of the
* Corresponding author. Tel.: þ4791004758.
E-mail address: splohani@daad-alumni.de (S.P. Lohani).
ground coupled heat pump over air source heat pump that has
extreme low outside temperatures at severe weather conditions and
lead to high operational energy consumption. Capital cost of GCHPs
is 30–50% more expensive than air source heat pumps, which is
a major hurdle in gaining overwhelming demand despite having
several advantages. Nevertheless, the annual operation cost is less
making the unit justifiable over the life time operation [12]. As heat
pumps are advantageous from the energy, environment and
sustainability point of view, efforts should focus on to show scien-
tific evidence to the knowledge body of the society. Thermodynamic
analysis of the system would produce scientific results that help
convince scientific knowledge body to propel the system at large.
Thermal analysis of a system focuses on first law and second law
of thermodynamics. First law deals with energy balance of a system
whereas second law address energy and entropy of a system, it
gives in depth of the system operations. Combining first law and
second law of thermodynamics is necessary for exergy analysis of
the system that gives detail know how of the performance evalu-
ation and optimization of the system. Exergy analysis is the basis

0960-1481/$ – see front matter Ó 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.renene.2009.10.002
1276 S.P. Lohani, D. Schmidt / Renewable Energy 35 (2010) 1275–1282

Nomenclature out Outlet

des Destruction
avail Available evp Evaporator
0 Reference state exp Expansion
D, dis Distribution aux Auxiliary energy
electr Electricity ret return
f Fuel gen generation subsystem
FH Floor Heating env Envelope subsystem
H Heat cond Condenser
irrev Irreversible Ex Exergy flow, [W, kWh/a]
p primary En Energy, [J]
q quality S Entropy, [J/K]
COP Coefficient of Performance h Floor average temperature
Q Heat flow, [W, kWh/a]
cp Specific heat capacity at constant pressure, [J/KgK] Abbreviation
T Temperature, [K] GCHP Ground coupled heat pump
h Energy efficiency GSHP Ground Source Heat Pump
j Exergy efficiency ASHP Air source heat pump
CO2 Carbon dioxide COP Coefficient of Performance

Indices
in Inlet

for identifying irreversibility of the system and is helpful to  The environment or system surrounding is considered as large
minimize entropy generation in a process where heat and work thermal reservoir and has no influence of local activity of
interaction takes place [1]. Exergy analysis is an important tool to source or sink.
determine how efficient thermal systems can be designed or in  Reference temperature is taken as dynamic environment
other words it can reveal unavoidable thermal inefficiencies of the temperature and atmospheric pressure.
system [4].
Few numbers of experimental investigations of ground coupled
heat pumps in building application based on exergetic analysis has
been published [5–8,13]. However, all analysis has been performed 2.1. Balance equation for building system
with steady state condition.
Theoretical investigation of similar system has not yet been When the abovementioned assumption is observed, the exergy
published to the knowledge of the author. This study intends to is basically divided into four different subcomponents, physical
carry out dynamic energy analysis and quasi static exergy analysis exergy ExPH, chemical exergy ExCH, kinetic exergy ExKN and potential
of the system on theoretical basis. exergy ExPT [1]. However, physical exergy is considered as impor-
tant while dealing with heat and mass interactions of the systems.
Total exergy of a system can be written as following equations.

2. Thermal analysis Ex ¼ ExPH þ ExKN þ ExPT þ ExCH (1)

CH KN
Neglecting chemical exergy Ex , kinetic exergy Ex and
This paper focus on the analysis of the energy and exergy flow of potential exergy ExPT, the exergy balance can be expressed as:
the fossil plant and air or ground coupled heat pump building heating
systems, which takes into account of basic governing equations of Exin  Exconsumed ¼ Exout (2)
first and second law of thermodynamics for the analysis. However,
both laws alone cannot investigate quality of energy flow in any
systems. Thus, combination of both laws which gives the concept of Since this building heating system is a floor heating system this
exergy analysis will be imperative for the quality analysis. Moreover circulating water heats or cools the floor followed by heating or
analysis has been based on simulation work on IDA-ICE where energy cooling of the room with some response time depending on the
and exergy model has been developed and implemented in to the heavy or light floor heating systems. In the process exergy is
simulation environment. While developing model following basic transferred to the room air through floor surface, since the comfort
assumption has been made. temperature demand of the room is not high, the exergy demand of
the room is therefore low. Some exergy is consumed in the floor
 There is no kinetic and potential energy effects and is no heating system with entropy generation. The mathematical
chemical or nuclear reactions. formulation depicting the exergy flow in the process can be stated
 All processes are steady state and steady flow. as follows.

1 3 4 5
zfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflffl
 ffl}|fflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflffl{
  zfflfflfflffl}|fflfflfflffl{ 2 zfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflffl
ffl}|fflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflffl
ffl{ zfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflffl}|fflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflffl{
   zfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflffl
 ffl}|fflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflffl
  ffl{
Ti _ T0 Tret Tin
_
m,c, ðTi  T0 Þ  T0 ,ln  Sgen ,T0 ¼ Qh , 1  _
þm,c, ðTret  TÞ  T0 ,ln _
þ m,c,ð1  hF Þ ðTin  Tret Þ  T0 ,ln
T0 Th T0 Tret
(4)
 S.P. Lohani, D. Schmidt / Renewable Energy 35 (2010) 1275–1282 1277

Exergyin;floor  Exergyconsumption Q_ ghx ¼ m

_ w ,cp;w ,ðTout  Tin Þ (11)
¼ Exergysupply;floor þ Exergyret;floor þ Exergyloss;floor (3)
An amount of exergy extracted by the ground heat exchanger
from the ground surface is
In the above equation (3), Exergyin,floor (1) refers an amount of  
_ Q_ ghx Tout
exergy supplied to the floor heating system. An Exergyconsumption Ex ghx ¼ ðTout  Tin Þ  T0 ln (12)
(2), represents exergy consumption in a floor heating system solely ðTout  Tin Þ Tin
because of the irreversibility in process of the system. The other
The exergy transferred from flow of stream to the evaporator
term Exergyloss,floor (5), is also an exergy losses term but it has
can be calculated using a following equation.
nothing to do with entropy generation. It is a loss due to inefficient
"
floor heating system that is expressed as efficiency factor of the  
Qevap
floor heating system, hF. Exergysupply,floor (3) stands for transported Exevap ¼   Tout;evap;r  Tin;evap;r
Tout;evap;r  Tin;evap;r
exergy from the floor heating system to the floor construction,
#
which eventually transferred to the room air and Exergyret,floor (4) is Tout;evap;r
an amount of returned exergy through returned water of the floor  T0 ln (13)
Tin;evap;r
heating systems.
The efficiency factor of a floor heating system can be calculated The electrical energy supplied to the compressor is taken as
with the given equations. energy supplied to the fluid system that is also considered as exergy
supplied to the system, since the quality factor of electrical energy
Qh
hF ¼ (5) is 1. The exergy destruction in a compressor can be determined
ðQin  Qret Þ
using the equation below.
 
The exergy demand of the room is, therefore, subtraction of Exdes;comp ¼ T0 Sin;comp  Sout;comp (14)
exergy input to exergy return in the floor heating system. The fossil
plant or ground source heat pump is responsible to meet the It can be referred as total generation energy from ground
difference, in other words, heat generator of the systems. coupled heat pump is being delivered through condenser,
Exergy transfer through a condenser is investigated with this
Exdemand ¼ Exin  Exret formula;
¼ Exsupply;floor þ Exloss;floor þ Exconsumption (6) "
Qcond  
Excond ¼   Tin;cond;r  Tout;cond;r
Tin;cond;r  Tout;cond;r
   #
Q_ T
Exdemand ¼ ðTin  Tret Þ  T0 ln in (7) Tin;cond;r
ðTin  Tret Þ Tret  T0 ln (15)
Tout;cond;r
Where the term Q is introduced, which is nothing but an The working fluid is returned to its original states and enters to
amount of heat energy delivered by the floor heating system to the the evaporator to complete the cycle. The exergy destruction in an
floor construction can be expressed as: expansion device can be evaluated using the following equation.
 
Q_ ¼ m,c,ðT
_ in  Tret Þ (8) Exdes;exp ¼ T0 Sout;exp  Sin;exp (16)

Exergy supplied to the floor can be represented in terms of heat

and temperature; 3. System description
 
T0
Exsupply;floor ¼ Qh 1  (9) Since this study is focus on comparing energy and exergy flow in
Th
the building system supplied with fossil fuel plant, ground source
Exergy consumption in a system due to irreversibility can be and air source heat pump system, an exact and detail simulation of
evaluated with an equation, the whole building is not imperative at the moment. In addition
this analysis is focus on evaluating one representing figure that can
be extrapolated for in general all building system with reasonable
   accuracy and simplicity. The zone model is found as a best model to
Q_ ,hF T
Exconsumption ¼ ðTin  Tret Þ  T0 ,ln in meet all criteria required for this analysis, therefore, is selected in
ðTin  Tret Þ Tret
the building system.
  A simple building zone model ‘‘reference zone’’ has been created
T
Qh 1  0 (10) for the energy and exergy analysis that represents the thermal
Th behavior of the whole multi-family building. The reference zone
should be considered at a height that has no influenced from the
2.2. Balance equation for heat pump system ground and the roof [9]. Hauser further claim that the corner room
will likely mimic the thermal behavior of the building. In this study
Heat extracted by the ground heat exchanger from the ground we conform to the findings of [9] and adopt the reference zone
surface is calculated with the general equation 11, Where mass flow accordingly. However, the influence of the orientation of the zone
rate of the antifreeze water solution, specific heat capacity and has also significant role in evaluating the thermal behavior and
temperature difference of the water gives an amount of heat taken performance of the system. The simulation results of energy
out by the system. consumption in the north/east and south/west orientation differs
1278 S.P. Lohani, D. Schmidt / Renewable Energy 35 (2010) 1275–1282
about 20%, hence the average of both could be of best representa-
tive figure to evaluate the energy demand of the system [15].
The reference zone has two outer walls with length of 8 m each
and the zone area of 64 m2 (8 m  8 m). Height of the zone is 2.6 m
is at height of 5.2 m and the total height of the building is consid-
ered as 13 m so that no ground and roof influence has occurred in
the zone model.
The zone model is shown in Fig. 1. The Fig. 1a shows that the
whole surface of the building, the size, and the location of the zone
under investigation. Fig. 1b depicts the exterior walls and windows
placed on them.
In the figure it has been seen that there is two interior walls that
is considered as adiabatic meaning no heat and work transfer
through the walls between zone and the surroundings. The floor
and ceiling of the zone are adjacent to each other, which are
involved in heat interaction between zone and the surroundings
along with two exterior walls. Floor heating system is incorporated
here in the simulation of the zone model of the building. The
mechanical ventilation system is not considered and the air
exchange rate with infiltration is taken as 0.6 h1 that is supposed
to represent a typical modern tight German building. The value is
taken as representing figure for all European buildings analysis. The
internal loads of a building including equipments, occupants are
taken as 5 W/m2 year around value according to German standard
[3]. The climate data for the analysis of a building is taken from
ASHRAE IWEC Weather file for Hamburg, since analysis is being
done for heating in this study. The various inputs of the construc-
tion details of the building are given in the Table 1.
The reference zone model is an inbuilt function of IDA-ICE
building simulation and has been modeled in detail using the
CEDETZONE model. In this model the long wave and short wave
heat interaction are taken in to account using the net radiation
method [2].
IDA-ICE has also provision for two different zone models,
Climate model and Energy model. The climate model is in detail
and calculates vertical temperature gradient, includes long wave
radiation calculations, mean radiant and operative temperatures,
and comfort index and daylight level. The energy model is simple
and has a more conventional precision level and based on a mean
radiant temperature. Both models evaluate CO2, air mass, humidity
and energy of the system. Selecting climate model in the simulation
does not complicate and lengthen the simulation process and time
instead it assures better accuracy and precision of the results.
Therefore, this study takes in to account of climate model for the
simulation of the building system. Table 2 shows different cases
that have been studied.
4. Model analysis and simulation procedure
Energy analysis model developed by Schmidt [14] is quite
explicit and has detail investigation of energy chain from primary
Fig. 1. Location of the reference zone and its boundary walls.
Table 1
Overview of the most important parameters defining the base case building model.
Parameters Value
External Wall, U Value 0.48 (W/m2 K)
Internal Wall, U Value 1.072 (W/m2 K)
Floor and Ceiling, U Value 0.41 (W/m2 K)
Windows U-glass: 2 W/m2 K,
U-frame: 1.5 W/m2 K
Frame fraction to the total window: 20%
Solar heat gain coefficient: 0.76
Internal emissivity: 0.9
Solar Transmittance: 0.6764
Set Point Temperature 21  C–23  C (Heating Mode)
Maximum supply inlet temperature 40  C
for floor heating system
Infiltration rate 0.6 h1
No Ventilation System
Boiler with proportional controller Tsupp (30  C)–45  C
Tsupp (20  C)–22  C
Weather data ASHRAE IWEC Weather File
energy source via building to the sink. However, this analysis has
been carried out taking consideration of high grade energy sources,
fossil fuels as a source of primary energy. Here, primary energy
source is taken as renewable energy (ground source heat pump,
and air source heat pump), therefore, the model is slightly changed
to incorporate the modification. Moreover, the model from distri-
bution to building envelope system is used in accordance with
Schmidt [14], Fig. 2.
The energy flow in a system is divided into thermal energy and
auxiliary energy flow. Thermal energy flow at each subsystem
provides an information of energy demand at each modules
whereas auxiliary energy flow is an amount of electricity required
to operate the system. In this analysis, however, primary and
generation energy is substituted by ground and/or air source heat
pump.
Since there was not a typical simulation module developed for
a heat pump integrating heating or cooling system, an earlier
studies of representative heat pumps characteristic curves (COP
curves) are used for the purpose of analysis and in this approach of
evaluation heat pumps are usually deemed as black box that is to
say no detail analysis of component basis has been done, but input
and output from the heat pumps are obtained. Output of the heat
pump is generation energy which then flows through distribution
subsystem to finally envelope subsystem. Storage is not considered
in this analysis. A characteristics curve from Ito [10] is used in this
study. Brief descriptions of these curves are presented herein. Fig. 3
shows the COP curve that is used in this analysis.
The relation between COP and the temperature of the heat
sources is shown in Fig. 3. Generally, a water source heat pump
gives a higher COP than an air source heat pump if both tempera-
tures are the same, which in above figure can also be seen. While
obtaining the typical characteristics curves, few operating
 S.P. Lohani, D. Schmidt / Renewable Energy 35 (2010) 1275–1282 1279

Table 2
Describes the different cases that have been studied during analysis.

Cases
Case 1: Conventional system
(base case)
Case 2: Ground coupled heat
pump integration system
Case 3: Ground coupled heat
pump integration system
Case 4: Air source heat pump
integration system
Case 5: Air source heat pump
integration system
Description
Building with condensation boiler
(hboiler ¼ 0.95) and floor heating system.
Infiltration rate 0.6 h–1.
Building system same as base case and ground
coupled heat pump with constant
condensation temperature 30  C with varying
inlet evaporator temperature.
Building system same as base case and ground
coupled heat pump with constant
condensation temperature 40  C with varying
inlet evaporator temperature.
Building system same as base case and Air
source heat pump with constant condensation
temperature 30  C with varying ambient
temperature.
Building system same as base case and Air
source heat pump with constant condensation
temperature 40  C with varying ambient
temperature.

conditions were imposed during experimentation, condenser inlet
temperature was maintained constant at 30  C and 40  C respec-
tively, while varying the evaporator source temperatures. Working
fluid of the heat pump in all cases was R22. This operating condition
of the heat pump with air and water source temperature resembles
with our analysis for the heat pump integrated building heating
system. As the building heating system is low temperature floor
heating system, Working fluid R22 is quite applicable for low and
medium temperature floor heating system that has been used in
getting the above curves. Similarly, from the simulation result of
conventional heating systems, we obtained inlet temperature of
the generation plant lies in the range of 26–32  C ensuing
condenser inlet temperatures constant at 30  C is quite reasonable
for our investigations. However, condenser inlet temperature 40  C
is also rational to be examined because in many other cases this
situation might occur for low/medium floor heating systems. The
source temperature was varying in air source heat pump as
ambient temperature fluctuates with day and time, but in case of
ground source heat pump we consider a system with vertical heat
exchanger of 50 m depth and took constant temperature of 10  C,
thus inlet water to evaporator approximates around 8  C. COP in
ground source heat pump is, therefore, constant in this analysis.
Fig. 3. Relation between COP and the temperature at the evaporator using air or water
as a heat source (Ito et al., 2000).
4.1. Simulation procedure
As the aim of this study is to compare energy and exergy flow of
a system supplied with fossil fuel plant and ground and air source
heat pump for the same building zone model. Hence there is no
need of changing anything in the IDA-ICE building zone model for
both systems. The self developed exergy analysis module that uses
dynamic values from IDA-ICE is implemented on each system and
starts simulation of the system. The simulation is performed
dynamically with periodic start up for 1st January, 2007 a repre-
sentative day for winter climate using ASHRE IWEC climate file for
Hamburg. The self developed exergy model with steady state
exergy equations has used dynamic values of energy from the
simulation and calculates quasi steady state exergy for the each
subsystem. While in the case of heat pumps dynamic values of
energy from IDA-ICE is taken from distribution subsystems to
envelope subsystems. For the primary energy transformation and
generation part, COP curves of earlier studies has taken and fit into
the analysis of this study. Energy and exergy input output of the

Fig. 2. Energy flow at different modules of a building system (Schmidt, 2004).

1280 S.P. Lohani, D. Schmidt / Renewable Energy 35 (2010) 1275–1282

heat pump are calculated with the help of spread sheet using Table 4
similar steady state equations of the exergy. Overall primary exergy efficiencies for the building in all cases.

Description Case 1 Case 2 Case 3 Case 4 Case 5

5. Results and discussion
The considered system has two parts: building part and energy
supply part that is fossil plant, ground source and air source heat
pump systems. While illustrating energy and exergy performance
of the system; basically energy and exergy demand, energy and
exergy losses and energy and exergy efficiencies of each subsys-
tems and overall system are being derived. Table 3 presents energy
and exergy demand for all cases studied here, a glimpse of
comparison that is followed by energy and exergy efficiency and/or
COP in Table 4.
Above table gives energy and exergy demands status in
number for each subsystem of different cases analysed in this
study. Just to give a bit detail overview total demands are sepa-
rated in to thermal and electrical parts. From case 2 to case 6,
primary energy and exergy is taken a sum of compressor and
evaporator. However, an external supplied energy and exergy is
only compressor part and evaporator energy/exergy is free but
monitored during analysis, which is extracted from ground or air
sources. The thermal energy and exergy demand of the building
envelope subsystem depicts overall losses through the building
envelope that is being supplied by active as well as passive
heating system of the building.
Above Table 4 presents overall primary energy efficiency and
coefficient of performance; and overall primary exergy efficiency
for all cases investigated and found quite different values for each
case. Since case 1 is conventional fossil plant system the term
efficiency is used whereas cases 2–4 are heat pump systems the
term coefficient of performance is used to designate overall input/
output energy ratio. The term exergy efficiency is used for both
systems. This overall efficiency and/or coefficient of performance
indicate the extent of matching of energy/exergy levels of the
supply and demand sides in the building.
The overall primary exergy efficiency is of important to compare
total quality of energy required to produce the same amount of
exergy that is being supplied at the building envelope. In case 1, the
overall primary exergy efficiency is 5% that means an amount of
total exergy needed to produce exergy for building envelope is 20
Overall primary exergy 5 7.1 5.4 3.7 3.47
efficiency [%]
Overall primary energy 67.1 106 81 55.6 51.7
efficiency [%] & COP
times. In ground source heat pump system overall primary exergy
efficiency is higher than that of air source heat pump with same
condensation temperature that is obvious and complies with
basic heat pump theory. From above primary exergy efficiency
comparison gives that fossil plant need more exergy at primary
level than to ground source heat pump whereas air source demand
is highest to all to supply the same amount of exergy at an envelope
system.
The output of the energy and exergy analysis which were
presented on the above table are compared graphically and shown
in Figs. 4 and 5 below.
The above graph compares the energy flow from primary
subsystem to envelop subsystem, where the dashed line at
primary energy is energy extracted from evaporator in the case of
heat pumps. In the envelope sub system, the total energy
demand is what the total energy dissipated from the building
shell to the environment. Moreover, the active energy demand is
about 32% of the total energy dissipated through the building
shell, which is delivered by active heating system like condensing
boiler and ground or air source heat pumps respectively via floor
heating system, the rest of the energy demand in a building
envelope is met with internal loads and solar gains. The gener-
ation sub system in cases 2, 3, 4 and 5 have around 6% less energy
demand against case 1. But, at the primary sub system reduction
of energy demand for cases 2 and 3, are about 36.6%, and 17%,
whereas for cases 4 and 5 energy demand increases at 22.6% and
31.8% respectively against case 1. This proves that the ground
source heat pumps have better performance against fossil plant
(conventional system) and air source heat pumps in terms of
energetic point of view that lead to reduction of overall primary
energy demand following reduction in environmental impacts
and uphold sustainability.

Table 3
Energy and exergy demands for the different subsystems of all cases.

Primary Energy Generation Distribution Emission Room-Air Envelope

Energy Exergy Energy Exergy Energy Exergy Energy Exergy Energy Exergy Energy Exergy
[kWh/a] [kWh/a] [kWh/a] [kWh/a] [kWh/a] [kWh/a] [kWh/a] [kWh/a] [kWh/a] [kWh/a] [kWh/a] [kWh/a]
Case 1 Th. 3365 3028 3059 2753 2896.7 265 2503 227 2292 200 7147 450
Elec. 51 51 15 15 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total 3415 3078 3074 2768 2899 267 2503 227 2292 200 7147 450

Case 2 Th. 2175 44 2899 267 2896.7 264.7 2503 227 2292 200 7174 450
Elec. 2166 2166 0 0 2.3 2.3 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total 4341 2210 2899 267 2899 267 2503 227 2292 200 7174 450

Case 3 Th. 1952 33 2899 267 2896.7 264.7 2503 227 2292 200 7174 450
Elec. 2832 2832 0 0 2.3 2.3 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total 4784 2865 2899 267 2899 123.6 2503 227 2292 200 7174 450

Case 4 Th. 1521 6 2899 267 2896.7 264.7 2503 227 2292 200 7174 450
Elec. 4127 4127 0 0 2.3 2.3 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total 5648 4133 2899 267 2899 267 2503 227 2292 200 7174 450

Case 5 Th. 1418 5 2899 267 2896.7 264.7 2503 227 2292 200 7174 450
Elec. 4436 4436 0 0 2.3 2.3 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total 5854 4441 2899 267 2899 267 2503 227 2292 200 7174 450

Th.: thermal energy/exergy; Elec.: electrical energy/exergy flow.

 S.P. Lohani, D. Schmidt / Renewable Energy 35 (2010) 1275–1282 1281

Fig. 4. Comparison of energy flows in cases 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5.

The exergy curve gives completely different picture from the
energy curve; exergy demand of envelope sub system is very low
down despite having the highest energy demand for the same.
The discrepancy between two analyses substantiates the need of
exergy analysis in getting more insight of source energy
requirement. Since the energy dissipates from the envelope sub
system to the environment is at low temperature between 21  C
and 23  C, the exergy content of these massive energy flows is
then very small and in principle could be supplied through low
quality energy sources say low exergy energy. As it is evident
from the curve that in the fossil plant system (case 1) biggest
exergy losses take place at primary and generation sub systems,
which is the point of high quality energy in the form of fuels or
electricity is being fed to the building system. The exergy flow fed
to the building envelope is zero when it finally gets to the outside
air (reference). Thus, all exergy provided to the building envelope
is at last consumed. While in cases 2, and 3, the absolute amount
of primary exergy needed for maintaining the same temperature
level of the zone 21–23  C in the heating mode, are 30%, and 8%
less than that of case 1, but for cases 4 and 5 exergy demand is
34% and 44% higher as compared to case 1. While generation
exergy demand is 91% less for all heat pumps. This clearly
substantiate that ground coupled heat pump building heating
system is far more sustainable approach than conventional
building heating system. It needs less absolute energy and exergy
supply at primary level and it also make clear that high grade
energy is not a requirement for the building heating energy
supply.
6. Prioritizing the systems from energetic/exergetic
viewpoint
The performance of the different cases has been presented
mostly with energetic/exergetic standpoint. The reason behind
a typical results for cases, pro and cons of it with regard of
sustainability issue that is utmost important in days to come to
keep up balance between energy supply and climate change have
been unveiled. A final conclusion of the system, ranking of the cases

Fig. 5. Comparison of exergy flows in cases 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5.

1282 S.P. Lohani, D. Schmidt / Renewable Energy 35 (2010) 1275–1282

Table 5 analysis gives case 2 is one of the most realistic systems that have
Ranking of all cases from best to worst with energetic and exergetic perspective. around 50% high overall primary coefficient of performance and
Cases Energetic Exergetic overall primary exergy efficiency and about 25% less primary energy
perspective perspective and exergy demand than the base case ‘‘case 1’’.
Case1 – Base case Reference case Reference case
Case 2 – GSHP @ condenser Better Better
inlet temperature 30  C
Case 3 – GSHP @ condenser Good Good References
inlet temperature 40  C
Case 4 – ASHP @ condenser Worse Worse [1] Bejan A. Advanced engineering thermodynamics. New York: Wiley Inter-
inlet temperature 30  C science; 1998. pp. 501–14.
Case 5 – ASHP @ condenser Worst Worst [2] Bring A, Sahlin P, Vuolle M. Models for building indoor climate and energy
inlet temperature 40  C simulation. Report of IEA SHC Task 22, Subtask B (1999).
[3] DIN 4108-6: 2003–06. Wärmeschutz und Energie-Einsparung in Gebäuden –
Teil 6: Berechnung des Jahresheizwärme- und des Jahresheizenergiebedarfs.
studied have been presented primarily based on sustainability German National Standard. Berlin: Deutsches Institut für Normung e.V.
[4] Dincer I, Rosen MA. Exergy as a driver for achieving sustainability. Interna-
viewpoint in Table 5 below. tional Journal of Green Energy 2004:1–19.
[5] Hikmet E, Mustafa I, Mehmet E, Kazim P. Energy and exergy analysis of
7. Conclusion a ground coupled heat pump with two horizontal ground heat exchangers.
International Journal of Building and Environment 2007:3606–15.
[6] Hikmet E, Mustafa I, Mehmet E. Numerical and experimental analysis of
The analysis of the several cases under investigations has a horizontal ground–coupled heat pump system. Building and Environment
revealed that exergy analysis is very important to get more insight of 2007:1126–34.
the processes than that of sheer energy analysis. The discrepancy [7] Hepbasli A, Tolga Balta M. A study of modeling and performance assessment of
a heat pumps system for utilizing low temperature geothermal resources in
over overall primary energy and exergy efficiencies has divulged the buildings. Building and Environment 2006:3747–56.
fact that exergy demand of a building heating system is very low, [8] Hepbasli A, Akdemir O. Energy and exergy analysis of a ground source
however energy demand is not. Exergy efficiency is in the range of (geothermal) heat pump system. Energy Conversion and Management
2004:737–53.
0.035–0.09 whereas energy efficiency is from 0.5 to 1.06. The energy [9] Hauser G. Vereinfachte Behandlung des Wärmeverhaltens großer Gebäude
efficiency exceeds over 1 just because extraction of evaporator durch thermische Systeme. Betonwerk und Fertigteil-Technik 1978:266–71.
energy (which is free) is ignored in the calculation of the efficiency [10] Ito S, Miura N. Studies of a heat pump using water and air heat sources in
parallel. Heat Transfer Asian Research 2000:473–90.
but is monitored. The efficiencies alone do not reveal more insight of [11] Lund, JW & Freeston, DH, World-wide direct uses of geothermal energy,
the absolute demand, though overall losses proportion in the system Proceedings world geothermal congress, Kyushu-Tohoku, Japan, (2000) 1–21.
can be determined, hence absolute energy and exergy demands are [12] Lund, JW, Ground-source (geothermal) heat pumps, course on heating with
geothermal energy: conventional and new schemes. World Geothermal
crucial to determine heat generation plant. The biggest exergy losses
Congress 2000 Short Courses, Kazuno, Tohuko District, Japan, (2000) p.
occur in all cases studied, by far in the energy conversion process 209–36.
namely: in conventional heating system at generation subsystem [13] Ozgener L, Hepbasli A, Dincer I. Performance investigation of two geothermal
district heating systems for building applications: energy analysis. Energy and
and in heat pumps at primary subsystems. Nevertheless, energy
Building 2006:286–92.
losses are negligible in conventional system. The exergy losses in [14] Schmidt D. Design of low exergy building and a pre–design tool. The Inter-
generation subsystem is in the range of 90% while in heat pumps national Journal of Low Exergy and Sustainable Buildings 2004:1–47.
exergy losses in primary subsystems is in the range of 85–95%. [15] Weitzmann P. Modelling building integrated heating and cooling systems. PhD
thesis, DTU–Technical University of Denmark, Copenhagen (2004).
Exergy losses in each subsystem are basically due to intrinsic ther- [16] Energy conservation in buildings and community systems (ECBCS) [viewed
modynamic irreversibility in the processes. The comparison of the 27/10/2007], http://www.ecbcs.org/home.htm.