Simulative Analyse der Transformation der Wärmeversorgung von Quartieren unter Verwendung erneuerbarer Energien - am Beispiel eines Sportquartiers im Raum Koblenz

This bachelor's thesis compares heat supply systems of a district in terms of their costs and climate impact using TRNSYS simulation. First, the renovation potential of the
building envelopes in the investigated district is analysed to reduce the heating demand. Two degrees of refurbishment are identified for this purpose. The next step is to
analyse how the energy demand can be covered by local renewable energies. A decentralised system, a low-temperature heating grid and a cold local heating grid are
compared over an observation period from 2025 to 2050. The synergies resulting from a centralisation of the heat supply are also examined. Using a parametric study, the influence of integrating waste heat into the centralised grids is examined and the effects of the installation of underfloor heating on all systems are investigated.
The results show that higher costs correlate with greater savings in CO2 emissions. The low-temperature heating grid proved to be the most cost-effective option, while the cold local heating grid was the option with the lowest emissions. Even taking CO2 pricing into account, the low-temperature heating grid remained the most economical solution. The synergy effects of centralising the heat supply of the district proved to be low. Integrating waste heat with an output of up to 20 kW enabled cost reductions of up to 3 % and climate impact reductions of up to 13 % in the low-temperature heating grid. By integrating waste heat into the cold local heating grid, the impact on the climate could only be reduced by a maximum of 6 %. It was shown that the investment costs initially increase through the integration of small amounts of waste heat. The increase was at a maximum of approximately 5 %. The installation of underfloor heating proved to be an effective measure for reducing the climate impact by an average of 36 % but increased the costs by an average of 21.4 %.