5. RESULTS OF THE MODEL PROJECT
Energy supplier
Lighting Electricity: 160 MWh
Heat: 150 MWh
Granule drying Gas: 250 MWh Gas: 12,900 MWh Electricity: 1,090 MWh CCHP
Heat: 140 MWh
Electricity: 100 MWh Heat: 40 MWh
Heat: 1,130 MWh
AC Heat: 550 MWh
Heat: 3,410 MWh Heat: 0 MWh
Cooling: 2,560 MWh Heat: 100 MWh
Electricity: 3,580 MWh
Hall 1: Production
Heat: 0 MWh
IMM Gas: 1,020 MWh Heat: 1,750 MWh
Assembly
Figure 22:
Electricity: 100 MWh
Heat: 40 MWh
Annual energy flows for Alternative 2,
Electricity: 130 MWh
Lighting
simulation supported
Heat: 120 MWh
Hall 2: Assembly
energy efficiency analysis17
With this alternative the electricity demand is reduced by 2,900 MWh/a compared with the initial situation. The gas demand is 12,260 MWh/a higher. Because of the heat-controlled operation the trigeneration plant produces more electricity than is needed for production requirements, and the surplus is fed into the electricity supply grid. The annual energy costs are reduced – partly due to the feed-in tariff for the trigeneration current – to 470,000 €/a. The resulting cost savings compared with the initial situation amount to 368,000 €/a.
Results overview Figure 23 shows the change in the relative shares of electricity and gas for energy provision compared with the initial situation. The energy concept is converted successively to greater use of gas, since this is advantageous in terms of primary energy and also from the financial viewpoint. Figure 24 presents the primary energy demand resulting from the simulation, in which Alternative 2 shows a much lower primary energy demand. The reason for this is the higher energy conversion efficiency of trigeneration.
Gas demand Electricity demand
Initial situation
Alternative 1
Figure 23: Results for
Alternative 2
energy provision, simulation supported
-2,000 MWh
2,000 MWh
6,000 MWh
10,000 MWh
energy efficiency analysis
44
17 IMM = injection moulding machine, AC = absorption chiller, CCHP = trigeneration plant
14,000 MWh