# Impact of Heat Pump Flexibility in a French Residential Eco-District

^{1}

^{2}

^{*}

## Abstract

**:**

## 1. Introduction

#### 1.1. Background

#### 1.2. Literature Review

#### 1.3. Context and Aims of the Study

#### 1.4. Paper Structure

## 2. Methods for Impact Quantification of Load Shedding

#### 2.1. Indicators for Impact Quantification of Load Shedding

#### 2.1.1. Peak Shaving

#### 2.1.2. Thermal Comfort

- Comfortable: A range of +/− 1 °C about the temperature set-point (T${}_{set}$)
- Slightly uncomfortable: A range of +/− 1 °C and +/− 2 °C about T${}_{set}$
- Uncomfortable: A difference of more than 2 °C with T${}_{set}$

#### 2.1.3. CO${}_{2}$ Emissions Reduction

#### 2.2. Heat Load Profiles Models

#### 2.2.1. Experimental Load Shifting Profile

#### 2.2.2. Thermal Models

#### 2.2.3. Summary of Modeling Approaches

- The ‘Standard’ model: the statistical model from experimental data
- The ‘Simple’ model: thermal model generated by TEASER (Figure 3) with database
- The ‘Enriched’ model: thermal model generated by TEASER (Figure 3) with building envelope data
- The ‘Complex’ model: multi-zone thermal model created with a Pleiades tool.

#### 2.3. Modeling of Load Shedding Scenarios

- One-hour thermal load shedding after one-hour over-heating: In order to over-heat the building outside of the peak period (5 a.m. to 10 a.m.), the load shedding order will be applied from 5 a.m. to 6 a.m.
- Simple one-hour thermal load shedding: In this scenario, the load shedding will be applied in the middle of the peak period, from 7 a.m. to 8 a.m. without any over-heating.

## 3. Results and Discussion

#### 3.1. Results for Peak Shaving

#### 3.1.1. Thermal Load Shedding from 7 a.m. to 8 a.m.

- Most of the rebound effect appears within the two hours following the load shedding (experimental load shifting profile)
- The shed consumption is shifted during the entire day (load shifting profiles from thermal models)

#### 3.1.2. Heat Load Shedding from 5 a.m. to 6 a.m. after an Over-Heating in Preceding Hour

#### 3.2. Results for Thermal Comfort

- On average, load shedding hours are slightly uncomfortable
- On average, other hours of the days are comfortable

#### 3.3. Results for CO${}_{2}$ Emissions Reduction

## 4. Conclusions

- An overheating from 4 a.m. to 5 a.m. before load shedding from 5 a.m. to 6 a.m.
- One-hour load shedding building by building beginning from 6 a.m. to 9 a.m.

- Peak shavingTurning off the heating supply for one hour successively for building by building in an entire district seems to be effective for peak-shaving. Indeed, the transferred load is very diffused (LS${}_{rate}^{h}$ < 25% the first hour and LS${}_{rate}^{h}$ < 10% the following hours) so that the rebound effects of the previous buildings do not cancel the peak reduction obtained by the current load shedding. These results are crucial in the case of a long peak (more than an hour), offering the possibility to shift the load outside consumption peak period.
- Thermal comfortThermal comfort is reduced during the load-shedding hours. Measurements would have to be realized in order to determine if operative temperature evaluation is more reliable when based on the ‘Simple’ model, the ‘Enriched’ model or the ‘Complex’ model. Indeed, the ‘Complex’ model assessed only 0.8% of the time as not comfortable, while this discomfort could cover up to 4% of the time with the ‘Enriched’ model. Moreover, the ‘Enriched’ model gives a minimal operative temperature of 18 °C, while the operative temperatures estimated by the ‘Simple’ and the ‘Complex’ models never reach values below 18.8 °C. The different modeling approaches used do not allow to estimate precisely how much thermal comfort can be reduced and how it will be perceived by occupants but they help the stakeholder understand what could be the issue. In all cases, one solution to investigate the reduction of thermal discomfort could be to reduce heat loads instead of shedding them, or to turn off the thermal load during shorter duration.
- CO${}_{2}$ emission reductionIn the case of CO${}_{2}$ emission reduction, estimation cannot be based only on consumption reduction as CO${}_{2}$ emission for electrical systems have dynamic variations that have to be taken into account. Only by considering dynamic CO${}_{2}$ variations and by calculating the difference between emissions with or without load shedding strategy could lead to a reliable estimation of CO${}_{2}$ emissions variations. Indeed, even with effective consumption diminution, a load shedding strategy could shift consumption from low-CO${}_{2}$ periods to higher-CO${}_{2}$ time slots, increasing the overall CO${}_{2}$ emissions. For instance, in the case of the load shedding after over-heating, the ’Complex’ model assessed 0.14% of energy saving during the month, while the CO${}_{2}$ emissions increased from 0.06%. Therefore, the link between energy saving and CO${}_{2}$ emission reduction has to be realized carefully.

## Author Contributions

## Funding

## Conflicts of Interest

## Abbreviations

COP21 | 21th Conference of the Parties |

CSTB | French Scientific and Technical Center for Building |

DSM | Demand Side Management |

DSO | Distribution System Operator |

GEG | Grenoble Gas and Electricity |

GSHP | Ground Source Heat Pumps |

RTE | French transmission system operator |

TEASER | Tool for Energy Analysis and Simulation for Efficient Retrofit |

TSO | Transmission System Operator |

UNFCCC | United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change |

## Nomenclature

CO${}_{{2}_{t}}$ | [kg] | CO${}_{2}$ emissions at time t (with load shedding) |

CO${}_{{2}_{t}}^{ref}$ | [kg] | Reference CO${}_{2}$ emissions at time t (without load shedding) |

CO${}_{2}$S${}^{m}$ | [%] | CO${}_{2}$ Saving in a month (Reduction of CO${}_{2}$ emission on the month) |

E${}_{anticipated}$ | [kWh] | Anticipated energy consumption during the hour before the load shedding |

E${}_{cut\_off}$ | [kWh] | Cut-off energy consumption during the load shedding |

E${}_{delayed}$ | [kWh] | Delayed energy consumption during the 23 h after the load shedding |

EG${}_{red}$ | [%] | Expected Gains Reduction (CO${}_{2}$ emissions diminution expected by looking at the energy |

consumption reduction) | ||

ES${}_{rate}^{d}$ | [%] | Energy Saving rate defined 23 h after the load shedding |

ES${}^{m}$ | [%] | Energy Saving in a month (Reduction of energy consumption on the month) |

LS${}_{rate}^{d}$ | [%] | Load Shifting rate defined during a day |

LS${}_{rate}^{h}$ | [%] | Load Shifting rate defined during an hour |

P${}_{t}$ | [kW] | Power consumed at time t (with load shedding) |

P${}_{t}^{ref}$ | [kW] | Reference power consumed at time t (without load shedding) |

T${}_{air}$ | [°C] | Ambient temperature |

T${}_{set}$ | [°C] | Set-point temperature |

T${}_{op}$ | [°C] | Operative temperature |

T${}_{walls}$ | [°C] | Walls temperature |

${\tau}_{ls}^{b}$ | [h] | Beginning of the load shedding |

${\tau}_{ls}^{e}$ | [h] | End of the load shedding |

## References

- The Paris Agreement|UNFCCC. Available online: https://unfccc.int/process-and-meetings/the-paris-agreement/the-paris-agreement (accessed on 10 August 2018).
- Lund, P.D.; Lindgren, J.; Mikkola, J.; Salpakari, J. Review of energy system flexibility measures to enable high levels of variable renewable electricity. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev.
**2015**, 45, 785–807. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version] - Ponds, K.; Arefi, A.; Sayigh, A.; Ledwich, G.; Ponds, K.T.; Arefi, A.; Sayigh, A.; Ledwich, G. Aggregator of Demand Response for Renewable Integration and Customer Engagement: Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats. Energies
**2018**, 11, 2391. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - City-zen|New Urban Energy. Available online: www.cityzen-smartcity.eu (accessed on 19 June 2018).
- Congedo, P.M.; Colangelo, G.; Starace, G. CFD simulations of horizontal ground heat exchangers: A comparison among different configurations. Appl. Therm. Eng.
**2012**, 33–34, 24–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Congedo, P.; Lorusso, C.; De Giorgi, M.; Laforgia, D.; Congedo, P.M.; Lorusso, C.; De Giorgi, M.G.; Laforgia, D. Computational Fluid Dynamic Modeling of Horizontal Air-Ground Heat Exchangers (HAGHE) for HVAC Systems. Energies
**2014**, 7, 8465–8482. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version] - Razmara, M.; Bharati, G.R.; Hanover, D.; Shahbakhti, M.; Paudyal, S.; Robinett, R.D. Building-to-grid predictive power flow control for demand response and demand flexibility programs. Appl. Energy
**2017**, 203, 128–141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Uddin, M.; Romlie, M.F.; Abdullah, M.F.; Halim, S.A.; Bakar, A.H.A.; Kwang, T.C. A review on peak load shaving strategies. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev.
**2018**, 82, 3323–3332. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Müller, D.; Monti, A.; Stinner, S.; Schlösser, T.; Schütz, T.; Matthes, P.; Wolisz, H.; Molitor, C.; Harb, H.; Streblow, R. Demand side management for city districts. Build. Environ.
**2015**, 91, 283–293. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Salpakari, J.; Mikkola, J.; Lund, P.D. Improved flexibility with large-scale variable renewable power in cities through optimal demand side management and power-to-heat conversion. Energy Convers. Manag.
**2016**, 126, 649–661. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version] - Zhang, Y.; He, Y.; Yan, M.; Guo, C.; Ding, Y.; Zhang, Y.; He, Y.; Yan, M.; Guo, C.; Ding, Y. Linearized Stochastic Scheduling of Interconnected Energy Hubs Considering Integrated Demand Response and Wind Uncertainty. Energies
**2018**, 11, 2448. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Behrangrad, M. A review of demand side management business models in the electricity market. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev.
**2015**, 47, 270–283. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Baeten, B.; Rogiers, F.; Helsen, L. Reduction of heat pump induced peak electricity use and required generation capacity through thermal energy storage and demand response. Appl. Energy
**2017**, 195, 184–195. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Kensby, J.; Trüschel, A.; Dalenbäck, J.O. Potential of residential buildings as thermal energy storage in district heating systems—Results from a pilot test. Appl. Energy
**2015**, 137, 773–781. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Romanchenko, D.; Kensby, J.; Odenberger, M.; Johnsson, F. Thermal energy storage in district heating: Centralised storage vs. storage in thermal inertia of buildings. Energy Convers. Manag.
**2018**, 162, 26–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Reynders, G.; Nuytten, T.; Saelens, D. Potential of structural thermal mass for demand-side management in dwellings. Build. Environ.
**2013**, 64, 187–199. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version] - De Coninck, R.; Helsen, L. Bottom-Up Quantification of the Flexibility Potential of Buildings. In Proceedings of the 13th Conference of International Building Performance Simulation Association, Chambéry, France, 26–28 August 2013. [Google Scholar]
- Le Dréau, J.; Heiselberg, P. Energy flexibility of residential buildings using short term heat storage in the thermal mass. Energy
**2016**, 111, 991–1002. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Reynders, G.; Amaral Lopes, R.; Marszal-Pomianowska, A.; Aelenei, D.; Martins, J.; Saelens, D. Energy flexible buildings: An evaluation of definitions and quantification methodologies applied to thermal storage. Energy Build.
**2018**, 166, 372–390. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Reynders, G.; Diriken, J.; Saelens, D. Generic characterization method for energy flexibility: Applied to structural thermal storage in residential buildings. Appl. Energy
**2017**, 198, 192–202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Aduda, K.O.; Labeodan, T.; Zeiler, W.; Boxem, G.; Zhao, Y. Demand side flexibility: Potentials and building performance implications. Sustain. Cities Soc.
**2016**, 22, 146–163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Faria Neto, A.; Bianchi, I.; Wurtz, F.; Delinchant, B. Thermal Comfort Assessment; Final ELECON Workshop Federal Institute of Santa Catarina—IFSC: Florianópolis, Brazil, 2016. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Goy, S.; Ashouri, A.; Maréchal, F.; Finn, D. Estimating the Potential for Thermal Load Management in Buildings at a Large Scale: Overcoming Challenges Towards a Replicable Methodology. Energy Procedia
**2017**, 111, 740–749. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Hurtado, L.A.; Rhodes, J.D.; Nguyen, P.H.; Kamphuis, I.G.; Webber, M.E. Quantifying demand flexibility based on structural thermal storage and comfort management of non-residential buildings: A comparison between hot and cold climate zones. Appl. Energy
**2017**, 195, 1047–1054. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Reynders, G.; Diriken, J.; Saelens, D. Quality of grey-box models and identified parameters as function of the accuracy of input and observation signals. Energy Build.
**2014**, 82, 263–274. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Perez, N. Contribution à la Conception éNergéTique De Quartiers: Simulation, Optimisation et Aide à la Décision. Ph.D. Thesis, Université de La Rochelle, Rochelle, France, 2017. [Google Scholar]
- Fonseca, J.A.; Nguyen, T.A.; Schlueter, A.; Marechal, F. City Energy Analyst (CEA): Integrated framework for analysis and optimization of building energy systems in neighborhoods and city districts. Energy Build.
**2016**, 113, 202–226. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Remmen, P.; Lauster, M.; Mans, M.; Fuchs, M.; Osterhage, T.; Müller, D. TEASER: An open tool for urban energy modelling of building stocks. J. Build. Perform. Simul.
**2018**, 11, 84–98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Frayssinet, L.; Kuznik, F.; Hubert, J.L.; Milliez, M.; Roux, J.J. Adaptation of building envelope models for energy simulation at district scale. Energy Procedia
**2017**, 122, 307–312. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Morales, D.X.; Besanger, Y.; Sami, S.; Alvarez Bel, C. Assessment of the impact of intelligent DSM methods in the Galapagos Islands toward a Smart Grid. Electr. Power Syst. Res.
**2017**, 146, 308–320. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - RTE. Évaluation des Economies D’éNergie Et Des Effets De Bord AssociéS aux Effacements de Consommation. 2016. Available online: https://clients.rte-france.com/htm/fr/mediatheque/telecharge/20160401_Rapport_report_complet.pdf (accessed on 19 October 2018).
- De Dear, R.; Brager, G.S. Developing an Adaptive Model of Thermal Comfort and Preference; UC Berkeley: Berkeley, CA, USA, 1998. [Google Scholar]
- Eco2mix CO2. 2014. Available online: https://www.rte-france.com/fr/eco2mix/eco2mix-co2 (accessed on 20 May 2018).
- Annuaire des Projets en France / Greenlys. Available online: http://www.smartgrids-cre.fr/index.php?p=greenlys (accessed on 20 June 2018).
- Fuchs, M.; Teichmann, J.; Lauster, M.; Remmen, P.; Streblow, R.; Müller, D. Workflow automation for combined modeling of buildings and district energy systems. Energy
**2016**, 117, 478–484. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - AixLib: A Modelica Model Library for Building Performance Simulations. 2018. Available online: https://github.com/RWTH-EBC/AixLib (accessed on 10 July 2014).
- Modelica-Ibpsa: Modelica Library for Building and District Energy Systems Developed within IBPSA Project 1. 2018. Available online: https://github.com/ibpsa/modelica-ibpsa (accessed on 21 September 2013).
- Logiciel Pleiades—Izuba énergies. Available online: http://www.izuba.fr/logiciels/outils-logiciels/ (accessed on 20 September 2018).
- Amasuomo, T.; Amasuomo, J.; Amasuomo, T.T.; Amasuomo, J.O. Perceived Thermal Discomfort and Stress Behaviours Affecting Students’ Learning in Lecture Theatres in the Humid Tropics. Buildings
**2016**, 6, 18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]

**Figure 1.**Representation of a daily heating load curve modification with a load shedding order and associated load shifting rates.

**Figure 2.**Load shifting rate profiles. (

**a**) One-hour residential heat load shedding without pre-heating (

**b**) One-hour residential heat load shedding after one-hour pre-heating.

**Figure 3.**Scheme of the RC (Resistance Capacity) equivalent model generated by Tool for Energy Analysis and Simulation for Efficient Retrofit (TEASER).

**Figure 4.**Load shifting rate profiles during a day for the multiple one-hour thermal load shedding from 5 a.m. to 10 a.m. Example of the ’Standard’ model for load shifting rate profiles for 5 buildings.

Load Shedding after over-Heating | |||
---|---|---|---|

Comfort level/Models | Reduced | Enriched | Complex |

Comfortable | 98.5% | 96% | 100% |

Slightly uncomfortable | 1.5% | 3.6% | 0% |

Uncomfortable | 0% | 0.4% | 0% |

**Table 2.**Consumption and CO${}_{2}$ emission reduction in January for the simple load shedding strategy (a) and for the load shedding after over-heating strategy (b).

(a) Load Shedding | |||

Models | Simple | Enriched | Complex |

ES${}_{rate}^{d}$ | −10.0% | 13.1% | 5.5% |

ES${}^{m}$ | 0.40% | 0.50% | 0.22% |

CO${}_{2}$S${}^{m}$ | 0.38% | 0.50% | 0.16% |

EG${}_{red}$ | 3.2% | 0.70% | 28% |

(b) Load Shedding after over-Heating | |||

Models | Simple | Enriched | Complex |

ES${}_{rate}^{d}$ | 3.1% | 2.1% | 2.4% |

ES${}^{m}$ | 0.21% | 0.22% | 0.14% |

CO${}_{2}$S${}^{m}$ | 0.01% | 0.05% | −0.06% |

EG${}_{red}$ | 94% | 76% | 144% |

© 2018 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

## Share and Cite

**MDPI and ACS Style**

Pajot, C.; Delinchant, B.; Maréchal, Y.; Frésier, D.
Impact of Heat Pump Flexibility in a French Residential Eco-District. *Buildings* **2018**, *8*, 145.
https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings8100145

**AMA Style**

Pajot C, Delinchant B, Maréchal Y, Frésier D.
Impact of Heat Pump Flexibility in a French Residential Eco-District. *Buildings*. 2018; 8(10):145.
https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings8100145

**Chicago/Turabian Style**

Pajot, Camille, Benoit Delinchant, Yves Maréchal, and Damien Frésier.
2018. "Impact of Heat Pump Flexibility in a French Residential Eco-District" *Buildings* 8, no. 10: 145.
https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings8100145