is now only kept as a back-up unit for security of supply, while the boosting of temperatures is managed by a new electric boiler. Engineers and models, together Testing every possible combination is not realistic. This is why the approach relies on two things: experienced engineers, and a model of both the industrial site and the DH system. Engineers first narrow down the handful of solutions that, based on experience, could make sense for a specific case. The model then quantifies and compares them. Detailed design and sizing follow only after that. Stress-testing the future A comparison to today’s situation is not enough. Investment decisions look years or decades ahead, so results need to hold up under different and uncertain future scenarios. This is where sensitivity analysis becomes important. Electricity and fuel prices, investment costs, interest rates, and other assumptions can all be varied, showing how each solution performs under each scenario. Which parameters to test is often decided together with management on both sides. Each party knows its own biggest risks and concerns, and the analysis can be tailored to address them directly. A shared foundation for agreement The model results are not only technical output. They become the shared, factual basis for collaboration and negotiations between the two parties. A common description of the situation and the options helps both sides discuss value, risk, and responsibility on equal footing. Who takes on which risk, and how are the benefits shared? This same foundation also speeds up decision-making. It helps reach agreement faster or shows early on when a case is not viable, thus preventing wasting resources on the wrong solutions.
What model-based analysis can help answer
This model-based approach was developed and tested through the RAPIDH project funded by the Danish Energy Agency’s EUDP program. The approach combines engineering expertise with digital modelling of industrial and DH systems, rather than treating them separately. The goal is straightforward: a better, faster basis for investment decisions on both sides of the fence, and a faster green transition for industry and district heating alike. RAPIDH points to three core findings that support that goal. First, a company’s economy, climate performance, and resilience can all be strengthened through a combined solution tailored to its specific needs. Second, DH can be a valuable part of that combined solution. Third, because potential solutions can look so different from one another, comparing them equally takes tools and methods that measure impact and key figures independently of the technical combination considered. Direct comparisons of economy, CO2 emissions, and energy savings across proposed solutions. Opportunities to make use of surplus heat — both internally and externally. Where to place the heat pump — at the company, or as part of the DH system. Energy storage as an alternative to new energy production. Impact on heat production in the local DH system. Sensitivity analyses for risk assessments and decision support. Optimal sizing of the electricity connection, temperature levels, district heating pipes, and more. A basis for more automated reporting and input to ESG accounting.
From tool to transition
Read more about the RAPIDH project: https://dbdh.org/rapidh-renewable-and-affordable-process-integrated-district-heating/
For further information please contact: Ole Andreassen Kofoed – oak@arteliagroup.dk
23 www.dbdh.dk
Powered by FlippingBook