I januari 2017 kom Boverket ut med nya förslag om regleringar gällande Sveriges realisering av primärenergifaktorer för uppvärmning i byggnader. Det innebär att de tidigare kraven om specifik energianvändning ersätts med en energiprestandaindikator som uttrycker en byggnads primärenergianvändning. Användningen av primärenergifaktorer för reglering av uppvärmning i byggnader härstammar ifrån EU:s direktiv om energieffektiva byggnader (EPBD), där syftet är att styra nybyggnationer mot nära-nollenergibyggnader (NNE). Boverket föreslår att el bör tilldelas primärenergifaktorn 1,6 fram till 2021 och uppvärmning med fjärrvärme, olja, naturgas och biobränsle ska inledningsvis tilldelas faktorn 1,0. Förslaget har fått mycket kritik ifrån bland annat svenska energibolag, som menar att den svenska fjärrvärmen missgynnas, då den likställs med annan uppvärmning som exempelvis olja. Det framgår även i EPBD att medlemsländer får ta fram egna primärenergifaktorer som motsvarar lokala förutsättningar. Sammantaget har examensarbetet syftat till att beräkna och analysera primärenergifaktorer för svensk fjärrvärme. Inom arbetet genomfördes en litteraturstudie där rapporter, vetenskapliga artiklar och konsultrapporter inom ämnet primärenergifaktorer studerades. Dessutom undersöktes huruvida övriga länder inom EU beräknat nationella primärenergifaktorer för fjärrvärme och hur de gått tillväga. Det har konstaterats av författarna att det finns ett stort antal metoder, värderingar och synsätt att beakta vid framtagandet av primärenergifaktorer. Två olika beräkningsperspektiv har identifierats, bokförings- och konsekvensperspektivet. Utöver dessa perspektiv återfanns ett antal metoder för allokering mellan el och värme; I rapporten har energimetoden, alternativproduktionsmetoden samt exergimetoden studerats inom bokföringsperspektivet. För konsekvensperspektivet har systemutvidgning använts genom power bonus method, i vilken producerad el i kraftvärmeverk antas ersätta motsvarande mängd elproduktion på marknaden. Totalt studeras 10 olika kombinationer med varierande perspektiv, allokeringsmetoder och indata för beräkning av primärenergifaktorer. Författarna föreslår att bokföringsperspektivet och alternativproduktionsmetoden bör användas som ett första steg vid framtagandet av svenska primärenergifaktorer för fjärrvärme. Detta eftersom metoden är lätthanterlig och stödjs av flertalet aktörer, såsom Värmemarknadskommittén (VMK) och Swedish Standards Institute (SIS). De beräknade primärenergifaktorerna har delats upp i de 8 kategorierna nät med och utan avfall, med och utan elproduktion efter storlek samt ett nationellt värde. Primärenergifaktorer för ingående bränslen i fjärrvärmeproduktion har inhämtats från VMK och SIS. Författarna har valt att inte förespråka någon uppdelning framför en annan, utan anser snarare att en tydlig motivering bör ligga bakom de beslut som ska tas och att de beräknade faktorerna utgör beslutsunderlag i frågan. En viktig slutsats är dock att de beräknade faktorerna är betydligt mindre än den som presenterats av Boverket. Vidare anser författarna att tydligare riktlinjer behöver implementeras på EU-nivå för hur nationella och lokala primärenergifaktorer får tas fram och beräknas. / In January 2017, Boverket issued new proposals for regulations concerning Sweden's realization of primary energy factors for heating in buildings. The new proposal replaces the previous requirements for specific energy use with an energy performance indicator that expresses a building's primary energy use. The use of primary energy factors for the regulation of heating in buildings is derived from the EU's Energy Efficient Buildings Directive (EPBD), which aims guiding new buildings towards Near-Zero Energy Buildings (NZEB). Boverket proposes that electricity should be set to the primary energy factor 1.6 (until 2021) and heating by either district heating, oil, natural gas or biofuel should initially be assigned the factor 1.0. The proposal has received a lot of criticism from, among other players, Swedish energy companies, which argue that the Swedish district heating is given a disadvantage, as it valued the same as energy carriers such as oil. It is also apparent from the EPBD that member countries may develop their own primary energy factors that correspond to local conditions if they want to. All in all, above mentioned issues have led to this thesis’ aim, which is calculating and analyzing primary energy factors specifically for Swedish district heating. Within the thesis boundaries, a literature study was conducted in which reports, scientific articles and consultancy reports on the subject of primary energy factors were studied. In addition, it was investigated if other EU countries have calculated national primary energy factors for district heating and how they were implemented. It has been concluded by the authors that there are a large number of methods, values and approaches to be taken into account in the development of primary energy factors. Two different calculation perspectives have been identified, the accounting and consequence perspective. In addition to these perspectives, a number of methods were found for the allocation of electricity and heat; In the thesis, the energy method, the alternative production method and the exergy method have been studied in the accounting perspective. For the consequence perspective, system expansion has been utilized through the power bonus method, in which electricity produced in CHP plants is assumed to replace the corresponding electricity generation in the market. In total, 10 different combinations are studied with varying perspectives, allocation methods and input data for the calculation of primary energy factors. The authors suggest that the accounting perspective and alternative production method should be used as a first step in the development of Swedish factors for district heating. The method is easy to handle and supported by many actors, such as Värmemarknadskommittén (VMK) and the Swedish Standards Institute (SIS). The calculated primary energy factors have been divided into the following categories: waste in the fuel mix, a national factor, electricity generation and grid size. The authors have chosen not to advocate any calculated factor in front of another, but rather thinks that the upcoming decisions to be taken regarding primary energy factors should be well motivated. An important conclusion, however, is that the calculated factors are considerably smaller than those presented by Boverket. Furthermore, the authors argue that clearer guidelines need to be implemented at an EU level for how national and local primary energy factors can be developed and calculated.

Current federal and provincial efficiency standards for residential water heating are based solely on the tested efficiency of individual water heating devices. Additional energy expended or saved as the water cycles through the home is not taken into account. This research, co-funded by British Columbia’s Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources (MEMPR), is a first step toward the Province’s goal of developing a new energy efficiency standard for water heating systems in new construction. This groundbreaking new standard would employ a “systems” approach, establishing guidelines for new construction based on the total energy used for water heating within the building envelope The research team has developed a Simulink computer model which, using a one-minute time-step, simulates 24-hour cycles of water heating in a single-family home. The objectives of this thesis are to use that model to simulate a variety of water heating technology combinations, and to devise methods of utilizing the resulting data to evaluate water heating systems as a whole and to quantify each system’s relative energy impact. A metric has been developed to evaluate the efficiency of the system: the system energy factor (SEF) is the ratio of energy used directly to heat water over the amount of energy drawn from conventional fuel sources. The CO2 impact of that energy draw is also considered. Data is generated for cities in three different climates around BC: Kamloops, Victoria and Williams Lake. Electric and gas-fired tank water heaters of various sizes and efficiencies are simulated, along with less traditional energy-saving technologies such as solar-assisted pre-heat and waste water heat recovery components. A total of 7,488 six-day simulations are run, each representing a unique combination of technology, load size, location and season. The resulting data is presented from a variety of angles, including the relative impacts of water heater rating, additional technology type, location and season on the SEF of the system. The interplay between SEF and carbon dioxide production is also examined. These two factors are proposed as the basis for devising performance tiers by which to rank water heating systems. Two proposals are made regarding how these tiers might be organized based on the data presented here, though any tiers will have to be re-evaluated pending data on a wider range of technology combinations. A brief financial analysis is also offered, exploring the potential payback period for various technology combinations in each location. Given current equipment and energy costs, the financial savings garnered by the increase in energy efficiency are not, in most cases, found to be sufficient to justify the expense to the homeowner from a purely fiscal perspective. Additional changes would need to take place to ensure the financial viability of these technologies before large-scale adoption of systems-based standards could be employed. / Graduate

The use of the concept of "primary energy" is present in all types of regulations at both European and national level, so that all aspects related to the reduction of energy use and energy efficiency measures speak in terms of primary energy and Primary Energy Factors, necessary for its conversion. The existing consensus on the use of the term is not such in terms of the methodology for calculating the Primary Energy Factors to be adopted, which is the reason for the search for a methodology that acquires the status of global and standard. Using an analytical methodology, this study will analyze and compare the main methods used by agencies and institutions: the Physical Energy Content Method and the Partial Substitution Method, together with another less widely used method, the Exergy Method. The three calculation methodologies will be applied to the case study of the Swedish electricity production mix. The main objective of this thesis is to analyze the advantages and disadvantages of those methodologies, as well as discuss the difficulties of defining some variables such as efficiencies and system boundaries. The results obtained in this study demonstrate the complexity of trying to analyze a system as complex as the energy consumption of a country based on the calculation of a single number or Primary Energy Factor. The system boundaries affect the results. At the same time, the use of the Physical Energy Content Method is discarded because it incurs thermodynamic discrepancies. On the other hand, the use of the Partial Substitution Method and Exergy Method is encouraged, since they reflect more accurately the primary energy consumption, as long as the values of efficiencies that they use are clearly defined and referenced. However, there is a more widespread use of the Physical Energy Content Method in the institutions since the other methods present the great difficulty of establishing a consensus on the energy and exergy efficiencies values adopted. The complexity of choosing a calculation methodology is not only due to the choice of efficiencies but other factors, such as system boundaries, also influence the final results and they have to be reflected in some way. Therefore, it is difficult to decide on a single solution and future studies on other indicators and variables affecting primary energy usage are needed, for instance, CO2 emissions associated with generation technologies.

Kombinationen av fjärrvärme och frånluftsvärmepump (FVP) har blivit allt vanligare i Sverige. Detta kombinerade värmesystem är väl lämpat för att reducera energianvändningen i befintliga fastigheter med mekanisk frånluftventilation som saknar värmeåtervinning. Dock kan en FVP-installation leda till högre returtemperaturer i fjärrvärmenätet vilket det ofta finns avgifter för i dagsläget. För att främja fjärrvärmeanvändning sommartid använder fjärrvärmeleverantören sig av säsongsvarierande prismodeller i vilket fjärrvärmepriset varierar under en del av året. Genom att stänga av FVP sommartid och endast bruka fjärrvärme finns en potentiell kostnadsbesparing då fjärrvärmepriset är som lägst. Denna kostnadsbesparing undersöks utifrån olika typer av fjärrvärmetaxor, elnätsavgifter och elhandelspris. Det undersöks också hur Boverkets regler för beräkning av primärenergital påverkar denna värmesystemtyp. Typiska prismodeller för fjärrvärme har undersökts, samt så har energianvändning framräknats för sex fiktiva flerbostadshus runtom i landet. För varje byggnad beräknas energianvändningen utifrån tre fall. I referensfallet, Fall 1 används bara fjärrvärme och i Fall 2 används FVP till både uppvärmning och tappvarmvatten (TVV). Fall 3 är som Fall 2 fast FVP täcker inget TVV-behov och stängs av under sommar-perioden. Energianvändningen är framräknad över ett år och energikostnaden jämförs mellan fallen. I Fall 2 och Fall 3 är de totala energikostnaderna för byggnaderna mellan 61–75% respektive 67–78% av energikostnaderna i Fall 1. Mellan Fall 2- och 3 finns däremot ingen tydlig besparingstrend trots att alla fjärrvärmenät på orterna har ett säsongsvarierande fjärrvärmepris. Att ingen besparingstrend uppstår påvisar att kostnaden för varje levererad värmeenhet från FVP sommartid är ungefär lika stor som varje värmeenhet fjärrvärme. Detta beror på att en hög värmefaktor används vilket gör det väldigt kostnadseffektivt att köpa el. Med en lägre värmefaktor gynnas avstängning av FVP sommartid. Utifrån den framräknade energianvändningen beräknas primärenergitalet och den specifika energianvändningen för samtliga byggnader. Primärenergitalet är i de flesta fall större än den specifika energianvändningen för att elanvändningen räknas upp. I Luleå är däremot den specifika energianvändningen större än primärenergitalet, även vid användning av FVP. / The combination of district heating and exhaust air heat pump (EAHP) has become increasingly common in Sweden. This combined heating system is well suited for reducing energy use in existing buildings with mechanical exhaust air ventilation that lacks heat recovery. However, an EAHP installation can lead to higher return temperatures in the district heating network. In order to promote district heating use during the summer, the district heating supplier use seasonal varying price models in which the district heating price varies during some of the year. By shutting down EAHP in summer and only using district heating, there is a potential cost saving as the district heating price is at its lowest. This cost saving is investigated based on various types of district heating tariffs, electricity grid charges and electricity prices. It is also examined how Boverket's rules for calculating primary energy affects this type of heating system. Typical price models for district heating have been investigated. The energy use for six fictitious multi-dwelling buildings around the country has also been made. For each building, the energy use was calculated from three cases. For the reference case, Case 1, only district heating is used, for Case 2 EAHP is used for both heating and domestic hot water and Case 3 is as Case 2 fixed EAHP does not cover domestic hot water requirements and is switched off during the summer period. The energy consumption is calculated over a year and the energy cost is compared between the cases. In Case 2 and Case 3, the total energy costs for the buildings are between 61–75% and 67–78% of the energy costs in Case 1, respectively. However, between Case 2- and 3, there is no clear saving trend despite all the locations having a seasonally varying district heating price. The fact that no saving trend arises shows that the cost of each heat unit delivered from FVP in the summer is about the same as each heating unit of district heating. This is because a high COP (coefficient of performance) is used, which makes it very cost-effective to buy electricity. With a lower COP, shutdown of EAHP benefits summer time. Based on the calculated energy use, the primary energy and the specific energy use are calculated for all buildings. In most cases, the primary energy number is larger than the specific energy use, as the electricity consumption is going to be larger with primary energy. In Luleå, on the other hand, the energy-area ratio is greater than the primary energy number, even when using an EAHP.