Applied Thermal Engineering 71 (2014) 729e735

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Applied Thermal Engineering

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/apthermeng

Biomass-red CHP and heat storage system simulations in existing

district heating systems
Michel Noussan a, *, Giulio Cerino Abdin a, Alberto Poggio a, Roberta Roberto b
a
b

Politecnico di Torino e DENERG, C.so Duca degli Abruzzi 24, 10129 Turin, Italy
C.R. ENEA di Saluggia e UTTS, Strada per Crescentino 41, 13040 Saluggia, VC, Italy

h i g h l i g h t s

Analysis of a wood-biomass ORC unit in an existing DH system.

Parametric study with optimization on ORC size and heat storage system size.

Simulation of heat demand from a dataset of a similar DH system in operation.

Different optimal congurations when considering energetic or economic criteria.

The Italian incentive still not encourages system layouts with higher efciency.

a r t i c l e i n f o

a b s t r a c t

Article history:
Received 7 July 2013
Accepted 11 November 2013
Available online 21 November 2013

The installation of a biomass-red Organic Rankine Cycle (ORC) unit coupled to a heat storage system
(HSS) in an existing district heating (DH) system is proposed and analyzed from both energetic and
economic point of view. A real DH system is considered as case study, and the optimal layout conguration is investigated varying the size of the components. The analysis is carried out tuning the heat
demand dataset obtained from real data of a different existing DH system with a 6-min time step and ten
years of operation. The heat demand is used to match the production from different generation units. The
overall efciency of the system, the primary energy savings related to CHP production, as well as the pay
back time of the investment are evaluated. Calculations show that for the considered case study the
maximum size of the HSS that gives noticeable advantages is 150 m3/MWth. The optimal conguration is
different when considering energetic or economic criteria. Moreover, the current Italian incentive tariff
on electricity production from renewable sources appears to promote the choice of low efciency layouts
for the case study under consideration.
2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords:
Biomass
District heating
Combined heat and power
Heat storage
Organic Rankine cycle
Energy

1. Introduction
Energy production from renewable sources, together with energy efciency and energy saving measures, is a key question in the
limitation of greenhouse gases emissions (GHG) and in the diversication of energy resources.
The European Union in its Climate Package has set a target of
20% of energy production from renewable sources by 2020, with
further objectives for 2050 [1,2].
Energy production from renewable sources has increased in
recent years up to 1660 Mtoe in 2010 [3]. Biomass is currently the
* Corresponding author. Tel.: 39 011 090 4529; fax: 39 011 090 4499.
E-mail addresses: michel.noussan@polito.it (M. Noussan), giulio.cerino@polito.it
(G. Cerino Abdin), alberto.poggio@polito.it (A. Poggio), roberta.roberto@enea.it
(R. Roberto).
1359-4311/$ e see front matter 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2013.11.021

most diffused and exploited renewable source all over the world. In
2010 about 75% of primary energy production from renewable
sources was produced from biomass and renewable wastes [3].
However, research and planning activities are still required in
order to improve overall sustainability and energy conversion efciency of biomass to energy pathways.
The use of wood-red combined heat and power (CHP) and
district heating (DH) systems can play an important role in
improving a rational use of bioenergy [4e6], when an accurate
analysis of both availability of local biomass and thermal demand is
performed.
CHP plants can reach higher overall efciencies due to the recovery of the waste heat resulting from electricity generation, even
though wood-red plants often work at lower performances than
expected due to not optimal design and operational strategies. For
these reasons, a careful design and operation of the plant based on

M. Noussan et al. / Applied Thermal Engineering 71 (2014) 729e735

integrated analysis of both thermal demand side evaluation and

CHP unit, boilers and HSS performance can allow to enhance the
overall efciency of the system. Furthermore, reduced emissions of
pollutants typical from a wood-red combustion plant (above all
particulate matter and nitrogen dioxide) can be obtained limiting
part load operation of the plant and with proper operational and
control strategies that are beyond the scope of the study performed
so far.
Several simulation codes have been developed in recent years to
support DH planning [7], both in the short-term [8] and the midterm [9] perspective. Furthermore, some studies have investigated CHP systems coupled with DH [10] as well as CHP performances at partial load [11]. However, there is often a lack of
information about the data measured from DH systems during
operation and consequently the real behavior can differ from the
design hypothesis.
This work represents the rst stage of a study aiming to simulate
the behavior of DH systems and to analyze energetic, economic and
environmental aspects with a multi-criteria approach. The model
proposed is based on the integration of computed and measured
datasets.
2. Methodology
2.1. Methodology summary
This paper aims to describe the analysis of conguration and
operational criteria of a DH system through simulations with
respect to multiple parameters. The study is performed by means of
a simulation tool capable of analyzing the operation of multiple
generation units in matching the heat demand load and of evaluating/assessing energetic, economic and environmental aspects.
The model proposed is based on the integration of computed and
measured datasets in order to analyze energetic, economic and
environmental aspects with a multi-criteria approach.
In this paper the installation of a CHP unit coupled to a HSS in an
existing DH network is considered. The heat load prole has been
simulated by means of real data that has been recorded over several
years of operation of an existing DH system with similar
characteristics.
Different system congurations have been investigated by
varying the CHP nominal power, the HSS size and the operation
mode of the system (e.g. full year or heating season only operation).
In this case study the CHP unit is an organic Rankine cycle (ORC)
system.
An economic analysis has been carried out, focusing on the
current Italian incentive tariff on electricity production from
renewable sources and its effect on the pay back time, with the aim
of evaluating the incentive attitude.
2.2. Description of the heat demand dataset
The heat demand model used for the simulations was developed
by processing operational data collected over ten years of operation
from the Turin DH system, which has similar characteristics
regarding users typology and climate conditions [12]. The heat
supplied to the thermal grid from each generation unit has been
recorded every 6 min, as well as the water temperatures and ow
rates, from 2002 to 2010. This large amount of data was processed
taking into account also the expansions of the network that have
occurred over the years. Considering the specic thermal power
demand a comparison between data of different years has been
performed.
The Turin DH system currently supplies about 50 million cubic
meters of buildings, which represent more than 40% of the city.

The overall thermal peak power increased during last years to

almost 2 GW, with an annual heat requirement of 1800 GWh. The
heat is mainly provided by three gas turbine combined cycles,
whereas backup boilers and heat storage systems provide the
remaining part of the load. Over the next years several projects
aim to increase the generation capacity in order to connect new
areas of the city to the grid and reach 73 million cubic meters of
connected buildings.
Through the evaluation of cumulative specic power it has been
possible to compare the network behavior for different years. The
result is showed in Fig. 1, considering hourly heat demand. The
slight differences among the years are related to climate conditions,
as well as some anomalies due to the connection of new generation
units or signicant amount of buildings.
The calculation of specic heat power allows the analysis of the
data for different years and also the comparison with other DH
systems. The comparison with data of various systems is essential
in order to create a wider database, which can track the relations
between different parameters (e.g. volume of the buildings, degreedays, length of the grid, users typology, etc.).
Furthermore, the data related to heat production from each
generation unit have been analyzed to outline some considerations
about unit operation behavior. The proles of heat storage systems
have been analyzed in more detail, in order to assess the operational criteria.
2.3. Description of the case study
This paper presents the results obtained from the application of
the simulation model mentioned above to a small DH system
already in operation, in order to analyze some possible improvements to the system concerning both design and operational
criteria. Particular attention has been paid to the evaluation of the
best congurations and operational criteria of a biomass-red CHP
system coupled with a heat storage system.
The DH system under examination is located in Leini, a little
town of about 15,000 inhabitants in the outskirts of Turin. About
500,000 cubic meters of buildings (mostly residential structures)
are supplied by a 12-km DH system powered by two biomass
boilers (5 MW each) and a natural gas backup boiler (3.5 MW). The
annual thermal energy supplied by the system is about 17 GWh,
with a consumption of more than 9500 tons of chipped wood. In
the current conguration the system produces only heat (no CHP),
without any HSS coupled to the boilers.

30

year 2002
year 2003
year 2004
year 2005
year 2006
year 2007
year 2008
year 2009
year 2010

25

Specific heat [W/m3]

730

20

15

10

0
0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000

hours
Fig. 1. Cumulative specic power proles for different heating seasons.

9000

M. Noussan et al. / Applied Thermal Engineering 71 (2014) 729e735

This study considers the additional installation of a CHP system,

simulating its behavior with respect to the current heat demand of
the DH network. The proposed layout of the generation plant is
reported in Fig. 2. An ORC turbine has been chosen as CHP unit,
coupled to an HSS that allows to split the matching between heat
production and demand. The existing biomass boilers are used as
auxiliary heat generators, producing the excess heat requested
from the DH system. The simultaneous production of heat and
power can improve the overall efciency of the system. Moreover,
the installation of a HSS can lead to an efciency increase thanks to
the recovery of a share of heat production that would be dissipated
to the environment.
The amount of daily energy produced from each boiler in the
current system conguration has been registered for ve heating
seasons, from 2007/2008 to 2011/2012. The monitoring system can
measure heat production with more precise time step, but
currently these data are not stored in the database and therefore
they are not available.
Due to the lack of data regarding the case study operation, the
Turin DH dataset has been used to estimate the heat load of the
users. This assumption is justied by the geographic proximity of
the systems, resulting in similar climate conditions, and by the
similar users typology. The heat demand has been scaled proportionally to the building volume supplied by the DH network and the
resulting model has been applied to the case study for the year 2010
for assessment. The resulting curves are presented in Fig. 3. The
chart shows an acceptable correspondence between the two cases
both during winter and middle-seasons, with some slight deviations due to some anomalies or slight differences between the
two DH systems.
2.4. Performance parameters assumed in the simulation
On the basis of the assumed demand input, the tool simulates
the behavior of the whole DH system calculating the total annual
energy consumed and produced by each component, as well as
other parameters. The total heat supplied to the DH network can be
expressed by Equation (1):

Qtot QCHP QHSS QBoiler

(1)

where QCHP, QHSS and QBoiler represent the heat shares produced by
each component of the system. The amount of heat produced by
each component in matching the total demand is computed for
each time step of the simulation. Multiple factors need to be
considered in the calculation, e.g. the total heat demand, the
availability of each component, the operation strategy, etc.
Considering the efciency of each component it is possible to
calculate the biomass consumption of the system.

Combined heat and power generation plant

Power grid
Biomass fuel

CHP Unit
(ORC turbine)

Heat Storage
System

DH network

biomass
electricity
heat

Biomass
boilers

Fig. 2. Block diagram of the CHP system.

731

140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
0

Real Case
Model
50

100

150

200

250

300

350

Fig. 3. Daily energy supplied in the real case study compared to the simulated
behavior (year 2010).

The time step of the simulation has been set to 6 min, according
to the availability of demand data. The simulation with a detailed
time step can describe the energy system in an accurate way, and it
is necessary in order to assess the real performance of the system
under all the different operation conditions.
The main factor in the choice of a CHP unit is the nominal
power range, affecting both technological and economical constraints. As a general rule, the CHP unit is usually designed in
order to cover less than half of the thermal peak load. In the Leini
DH the maximum power required by the grid reached 9.8 MWth
in 2010, while the total nominal power of the wood-red boilers
is equal to 10 MWth. Considering the behavior of the thermal
load, the CHP unit may have a useful thermal power lower than
5 MWth.
Among the available wood-red CHP technologies, the state of
the art in this range of output power is the organic Rankine cycle
(ORC). It is a consolidated and reliable technology with many units
operating all around the world, powered by solid biomass and other
heat sources (heat recovered from industrial processes, geothermal
sources, solar energy), and many studies have investigated ORC
operational parameters [13,14].
In the present study (power range from 400 kWe to 1200 kWe)
the gross electrical efciency of the ORC has been set to 19.0% and
the heat efciency to 77.9%. The heat to power ratio, which remains
constant in all the different operation conditions, is equal to 4.1. The
nominal efciency of the thermal oil boiler coupled with the ORC
unit has been set to 85% (considering the LHV of the fuel). The CHP
unit is assumed to work continuously at nominal power conditions,
coupled with a HSS in order to recover part of the surplus heat
produced during off-peak hours.
The HSS performance has been considered on the basis of the
DH operation temperature of 90  C and the return temperature of
60  C. The HSS simulation has been performed considering daily
load/unload cycles, without accounting for eventual infra-daily
cycles.
The two biomass-red boilers currently in operation are
assumed to operate as auxiliary boiler, in order to supply the excess
heat demand. The actual efciency of the boilers at partial load is
currently under investigation, and therefore an estimated value of
80% has been assumed as an average annual efciency. This value is
lower than the nominal efciency of the thermal oil boiler in order
to take into account partial load operation and age of the boilers.
The DH grid losses have been calculated for the year 2010, and they
are equal to 15.4%.

732

M. Noussan et al. / Applied Thermal Engineering 71 (2014) 729e735

Multiple output factors have been computed in order to assess

the performance of the system, e.g. overall efciency, total biomass
consumption, energy produced from each generation unit and
simple pay-back time. The overall efciency and the primary energy saving index (PES) have been selected as indicators for energetic and environmental performance of the system. All the factors
have been calculated with respect to the annual energy, therefore
all the operation conditions are included in the analysis.
2.5. Denition of performance indicators
Overall CHP system efciency and primary energy savings have
been selected as main indicators for system performances. The
indicators are calculated considering all the different conditions
analyzed by the simulation tool.
The overall CHP system efciency is the ratio between the sum
of electricity and useful heat (supplied directly or through HSS to
the network) produced by the CHP unit and the total biomass
consumption of the unit. The efciency has been calculated for the
whole period of operation, considering all the different conditions
which occurred during the year.
Primary energy savings have been evaluated calculating the PES
index, as dened in the Directive 2004/8/EC [15] (and transposed in
Italy with the DM 4 agosto 2011).
The PES index is dened as follows:

PES @1  CHP Hh
Ref Hh

1
Eh
CHP
Ref Hh

A  100%

(2)

where:
PES is the primary energy saving index;
CHP Hh is the heat efciency of the cogeneration production
dened as annual useful heat output (Qu) divided by the fuel
input used to produce the sum of useful heat output and electricity from cogeneration (Fin);
Ref Hh is the efciency reference value for separate heat
production;
CHP Eh is the electrical efciency of the cogeneration production dened as annual electricity from cogeneration (E) divided
by the fuel input used to produce the sum of useful heat output
and electricity from cogeneration (Fin);
Ref Eh is the efciency reference value for separate electricity
production.
The annual useful heat output (Qu), the annual electricity produced (E) and the fuel consumptions (Fin) are calculated by the
simulation tool.
The efciency reference values listed above are dened in the
annexes of the DM 4 agosto 2011; for wood-red systems Ref Eh is
0.33 and Ref Hh is 0.86. Some corrections are applied to Ref Eh as a
function of geographical position (and consequent average ambient
temperature). The resulting value for Ref Eh in this case study is
equal to 0.33369.
In Italy a CHP system smaller than 1 MWe needs to reach a positive PES to be considered as CAR (High Efciency Cogeneration),
whereas larger systems need to reach at least a PES of 0.1. These
thresholds are assumed to set the eligibility of a system to receive
incentives related to cogeneration (dened as CHP bonus).
2.6. Economic analysis
Performing an in-depth economic analysis is beyond the scope
of this study. However, since in evaluating the design of a CHP

system economic aspects cannot be neglected, a simplied analysis

has been performed. Only simple PBT (Pay Back Time) is considered, without taking into account interest rates.
The value of investment cost for the ORC units is reported in
Table 1 [16]. This value includes the ORC unit, the wood-red
thermal oil boiler, the pipe connections, the building and the
design and installation costs. The cost of the HSS has been estimated equal to 2400 V/m3 [17]. No other investment costs have
been taken into account since the DH system is already in
operation.
The operational costs are mainly related to biomass consumption and in a minor part to maintenance costs. The lower caloric
value for chipped wood has been assumed to 3 kWh/kg (considering chipped wood with a moisture content of 35%), according to
the current biomass supply conditions in Leini, and the base price
for biomass equal to 75 V/t (corresponding to 25 V/MWh). The
maintenance costs for the ORC unit have been expressed with
respect to the size of the system [16], and they are showed in
Table 1.
The prots of the system are related to the incomes from the
heat supplied to the users, the electricity produced and the available incentives. The current price of the heat sold to nal users
depends on many parameters, and is often dened by different
tariff formulations. A base price of 90 V/MWh has been considered,
according to the current conditions of the case study.
From January 2013 the electricity produced from renewable
sources in Italy is incentivated with a feed-in tariff described in DM
6 luglio 2012. The base price offered for biomass-red systems
(considering chipped wood) is equal to 180 V/MWhel for nominal
electric power between 300 kWe and 1 MWe, and 133 V/MWhel for
power larger than 1 MWe. Some bonus can be added to this base
price, as dened in the same Decree:

CHP bonus of 40 V/MWhel for units operating in high efciency CHP (i.e. PES > 0 for Pe < 1 MWe and PES > 0.1 for
Pe > 1 MWe);

emission bonus of 30 V/MWhel for systems respectings prescribed pollutant emission limits for NOx, CO, SO2, TOC and dust.
A sensitivity analysis has been performed on the heat price and
electricity price, comparing the results with the current incentive
framework. The aim of this analysis is to provide a methodology to
assess the effect of the incentive tariff, and discuss some
alternatives.
3. Results and discussion
3.1. Performance analysis
The CHP nominal power and the HSS size have been considered
as the leading parameters for the analysis. The ORC power has been
varied from a minimum of 400 kWe to a maximum of 1.2 MWe,
whereas the HSS size is dened with respect to the ORC nominal
heat output (m3/MWth), varying the capacity up to 250 m3 per each
Table 1
Investment and O&M costs for ORC units.
ORC unit

400 kWe
600 kWe
800 kWe
1000 kWe
1200 kWe

Investment cost

O&M cost

Total [V]

Specic [V/kWe]

Total [V/y]

V3,794,000
V4,251,000
V4,708,000
V5,165,000
V5,622,000

V9,485
V7,085
V5,885
V5,165
V4,685

V68,840
V73,260
V77,680
V82,100
V86,520

M. Noussan et al. / Applied Thermal Engineering 71 (2014) 729e735

3.2. Economic analysis

The case study under investigation has been analyzed also from
the economic point of view, considering the simple pay back time
as the main output parameter for some comparisons and
considerations.
The rst case examined refers to the current Italian market,
without considering the incentive tariff for electricity production
from renewable sources. The average national price for electricity
has been considered equal to 75 V/MWhe (price for year 2012 [18]).
The results of the calculation are showed in Fig. 7 (upper curves).
The minimum PBT value (8.7 years) occurs for a 820 kWe ORC unit
and a HSS of 100 m3/MWth, corresponding to about 335 m3.

0.85

Overall CHP System Efficiency

MW of nominal heat power. This upper value of the range is the

volume of storage needed to store all the energy produced during
one night with no heat demand.
The typical behavior of the system during three winter days is
showed in Fig. 4, considering a unit of 800 kWe coupled to a HSS of
325 m3, corresponding to 150 m3/MWth. The CHP unit provides the
base load, while the HSS is charged at night in order to supply the
morning peak load and allow a gradual operation of the biomass
auxiliary boilers. Other operational logics of the HSS can be dened
into the model in order to assess other possible advantages (e.g. a
constant discharge during the day, the total matching of the
morning peak load, etc.).
Fig. 5 shows the variation of the overall CHP system efciency
(considering both heat and power) over the two parameters.
Without the installation of a HSS the efciency behavior is linear,
while the use of a HSS modies the pattern thanks to the increase of
the useful heat that can be obtained from the CHP unit.
The PES index has a similar behavior (see Fig. 6), as the energy
savings are related to the system efciency. The two dashed lines
represent the limit set by the regulations to the PES index in order
to reach the high efciency CHP operation, and obtain the resulting
incentive bonus. The CHP system is always operating over this
threshold for systems smaller than 1 MWe, whereas larger systems
never reach the target, which is set to PES  0.1.
The optimum system conguration for this case study, both
from efciency and energy savings point of view, requires a small
CHP system (under 600 kWe) and a HSS larger than 100 m3/MWth.
However, the installation of a HSS larger than 150 m3/MWth appears to have negligible effect on the efciency, especially for
smaller CHP systems.
The larger systems have generally a lower efciency compared
to the smaller ones because of the share of heat that needs to be
dissipated during the middle seasons, when the heat required by
the users is lower. Moreover, it has to be noted that heat dissipation
requires additional energy consumptions related to the operation
of the cooling towers, which have not be considered in this study.

733

0.8

HSS size (from 0 to 250 m3/MWth)

0.75

0.7

0.65

0.6
400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

1100

1200

CHP size [kWe]

Fig. 5. Overall CHP system efciency over CHP size and HSS size.

However, the PBT has slight variations in a wide range of parameters, resulting in signicant higher values only for small ORC units
coupled to large HSS. The economical optimum in this case differs
from the energetic optimum, but in both cases the variations are
low and therefore an acceptable solution can be found.
The same analysis has been carried out for the current Italian
incentive framework, as described previously. The lower curves
reported in Fig. 7 show some signicant difference with respect to
the upper ones. The presence on the incentive on electricity production lowers the PBT range, which is lower than 7.5 years for all
the cases under examination. The minimum value of the PBT occurs
at 1 MWe, in correspondence of the discontinuity of the incentive.
A secondary effect of the incentive tariff is evident from the
modication of the differences between the curves: as the electricity becomes much more protable than heat, the investment for
a HSS is no more economically justiable. Thus, the optimum values
of PBT are associated with systems without HSS or with a very small
one, in contrast with the performance analysis showed in Figs. 4
and 5. In this case it is not possible to nd an optimal solution
both from energetic and economic point of view.
Some sensitivity analysis have been performed with respect to
electricity price, heat price and biomass price. The base prices are
75 V/MWh for electricity, 90 V/MWh for heat and 25 V/MWh for
wood biomass. In all the cases a HSS of 100 m3/MWth has been
considered.
Fig. 8 shows the variation of PBT over the electricity price. The
average price for the years 2008, 2010 and 2012 are marked on the
0.25

0.2

CHP direct

aux boilers

CHP through HSS

HSS loading

HSS size
0.15

PES value

Heat load [MW]

10

PES limit
0.1

0.05

PES limit

0
Time [hours]
Fig. 4. Example of simulated load (11th Jan e 13th Jan) for a CHP unit of 800 kWe
coupled to a HSS of 325 m3.

-0.05

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

CHP size [kWe]

Fig. 6. PES index over CHP size and HSS size.

1100

1200

734

M. Noussan et al. / Applied Thermal Engineering 71 (2014) 729e735

no HSS

50 m3/MWth

100 m3/MWth

150 m3/MWth

20

200 m3/MWth

14
13

15

PBT [years]

11

PBT [years]

12

no incentives

10
9
8

10

400 kWe

incentives (including CHP bonus)

6
5

60

70

80

1200 kWe

90

100

110

120

Heat price [/MWh]

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

1100

1200

CHP size [kWe]

Fig. 7. Pay back time over ORC and HSS size under different incentive conditions.

plot, as well as the values of the base incentive. The smallest ORC
system is signicantly different from the average, while the other
systems provide comparable pay back times.
The variation of the heat price (Fig. 9) has a greater effect on the
PBT, as the quantity of heat supplied to the user is greater than the
electricity produced. However, there are currently no incentives on
heat production for the power range under examination, therefore
the range of variation of heat price remains lower. It has to be
observed that the same reduction in PBT can be achieved by a lower
increase of heat price with respect to the current incentive on
electricity price.
The third sensitivity analysis refers to the biomass price (Fig. 10),
which can vary depending on the material, the origin, the transport
costs, etc. If the biomass is the waste from some process (e.g.
pruning residues) its value may be equal to zero, but the fuel quality
in these cases is often very poor.
The annual balance composition has been investigated, and the
main revenue is always related to the heat sales (Fig. 11), ranging
from 53% to 58%, while on the electricity side the incentive value is
almost twice the electricity price for units smaller than 1 MWe, and
slightly higher for larger plants. Looking at the operation costs,
80%e90% of the cost is due to the biomass, while O&M costs account for the remaining part.
The share of HSS in the total investment cost varies from 0% to
34%, and in the optimum conguration without incentives it is
equal to 14%.

IPEX price range

20

Fig. 9. Pay back time over heat price variation (electricity price: 75 V/MWh, biomass
price: 25 V/MWh, HSS size 100 m3/MWth).

The system conguration corresponding the optimum without

incentives (ORC unit of 820 kWe and HSS size of 335 m3) is used as
reference also for an operational strategy analysis of the system.
In all the cases under consideration the system is operated only
during the heating season, but due to the incentive feed-in tariff on
electricity production is not infrequent that some systems are
operated throughout the year. The comparison of these two
different operational strategies of the system (Fig. 12) underlines
the fact that only the presence of incentives for electricity production from renewable sources makes full-year operation protable. Moreover, the greater the incentive, the greater is the
advantage of this operation mode. To be noticed that for this specic case study the CHP bonus, granted only to the share of the
electricity produced in high efciency CHP, does not affect this
trend in a signicant way.
These results are valid in the frame of the current Italian feed-in
tariff. Nevertheless, the methodology presented in this paper can
be extended to any incentive framework. Other kind of incentives
(e.g. quota-based incentives) could lead to different results,
reaching an economic optimum with a higher energy performance.
However, these alternatives are depending on many different parameters, and could be the object of further analyses.
4. Conclusions
The simulations performed show some key features of the
operation of a wood biomass ORC unit coupled with a HSS in an
existing district heating network.

20

Incentive tariff
> 1 MWe
<1 MWe
400 kWe

18

15

1200 kWe

14
12
10

PBT [years]

800 kWe

16
PBT [years]

800 kWe

10

6
4

400 kWe

800 kWe

1200 kWe

0
50

75

100

125
150
175
Electricity price [/MWh]

200

225

250

Fig. 8. Pay back time over electricity price variation (heat price: 90 V/MWh, biomass
price: 25 V/MWh, HSS size 100 m3/MWth).

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Biomass price [/MWh]

Fig. 10. Pay back time over biomass price variation (electricity price: 75 V/MWh, heat
price: 90 V/MWh, HSS size 100 m3/MWth).

M. Noussan et al. / Applied Thermal Engineering 71 (2014) 729e735

heat

electricity

incentive

biomass

environmental and social aspects, is crucial in order to reach a

global sustainability of the system and of the wood-to-energy
pathway.

O&M

Revenues and Costs [M]

2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
400

600

800

1000

1200

-0.5
-1

Fig. 11. Composition of the annual balance over the ORC size (electricity incentives,
HSS size 100 m3/MWth).

14
heating season operation

Pay Back time [years]

full year operation

10
8
6
4
2
0
No incentive

Base incentive

Base + CHP

Nomenclature
CHP
combined heat and power
DH
district heating
HSS
heat storage system
ORC
organic Rankine cycle
P
nominal power
PBT
Pay back time
Subscripts
e
electric
th
thermal

ORC size [kW]

12

735

Base + CHP +
emissions

Fig. 12. Comparison of the pay back time over electricity tariff in winter and full year
operation (CHP unit of 800 kWe, HSS size 325 m3).

The installation of a HSS can lead to a signicant increase of the

overall efciency of the system (up to 8.6%). In the present case
study the highest efciencies are reached for a HSS size of 150 m3/
MWth, whereas for higher sizes the HSS provides no additional
advantages.
The current formulation of the national incentive on electricity
production has a strong effect on the system layout and operation,
and appears to discourage the more efcient solutions. The high
value of electricity leads to a shift of the optimal conguration to a
solution with no HSS and a corresponding lower overall efciency.
Moreover, the incentive has an inuence also on the operational
strategy, making in some cases the full year operation of the system
(with heat dissipation during the summer season) more convenient. Finally, the discontinuity of the incentive at 1 MW of electric
power induces a signicant distortion in the trends.
Considering the design of biomass-red CHP units, energy efciency and economic prot are still conicting. Therefore a careful
analysis of these two aspects, together with considerations about

References
[1] European Union, Climate and Energy Package, http://ec.europa.eu/clima/
policies/package/index_en.htm, (accessed 02.07.13) (n.d.).
[2] European Climate Foundation, Roadmap 2050, www.roadmap2050.eu,
accessed (02.07.13) (n.d.).
[3] International Energy Agency, Key World Energy Statistics, 2012.
[4] H. Lund, B. Mller, B.V. Mathiesen, A. Dyrelund, The role of district heating in
future renewable energy systems, Energy 35 (2010) 1381e1390.
[5] M.F. Torchio, G. Genon, A. Poggio, M. Poggio, Merging of energy and environmental analyses for district heating systems, Energy 34 (2009) 220e227.
[6] G. Genon, M.F. Torchio, A. Poggio, M. Poggio, Energy and environmental
assessment of small district heating systems: global and local effects in two
case-studies, Energy Convers. Manag. 50 (2009) 522e529.
[7] J. Fonsecajr, P. Schneider, Simulation of a thermal power plant with district
heating: comparative results of 5 different codes, Energy 31 (2006) 1955e
1968.
[8] K. Sperling, B. Mller, End-use energy savings and district heating expansion
in a local renewable energy system e a short-term perspective, Appl. Energy
92 (2012) 831e842.
[9] E. Dotzauer, Experiences in mid-term planning of district heating systems,
Energy 28 (2003) 1545e1555.
[10] L. Barelli, G. Bidini, E.M. Pinchi, Implementation of a cogenerative district
heating system: dimensioning of the production plant, Energy Build. 39
(2007) 658e664.
[11] T. Savola, I. Keppo, Off-design simulation and mathematical modeling of
small-scale CHP plants at part loads, Appl. Therm. Eng. 25 (2005) 1219e1232.
[12] A. Cugno, M. Noussan, G. Cerino Abdin, A. Poggio, Simulation of district
heating operation with heat storage systems, in: Proceedings of the 9th World
Energy System Conference, 2012, pp. 1e8.
[13] A. Schuster, S. Karellas, E. Kakaras, H. Spliethoff, Energetic and economic
investigation of organic Rankine cycle applications, Appl. Therm. Eng. 29
(2009) 1809e1817.
[14] S. Clemente, D. Micheli, M. Reini, R. Taccani, Energy efciency analysis of
organic Rankine cycles with scroll expanders for cogenerative applications,
Appl. Energy 97 (2012) 792e801.
[15] Directive 2004/8/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11
February 2004 on the Promotion of Cogeneration Based on a Useful Heat
Demand in the Internal Energy Market and Amending Directive 92/42/EEC,
2004. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUr.
[16] A. Duvia, A. Guercio, C. Rossi di Schio, Technical and economic aspects of
biomass fuelled CHP plants based on ORC turbogenerators feeding existing
district heating networks, in: Proceedings of the 17th European Biomass
Conference, Hamburg, Germany, 2009.
[17] V. Verda, F. Colella, Primary energy savings through thermal storage in district
heating networks, Energy 36 (2011) 4278e4286.
[18] Electricity Markets e Summary Data e MPEeMGP e Overview, http://www.
mercatoelettrico.org/En/Statistiche/ME/DatiSintesi.aspx, (accessed 02.07.13)
(n.d.).