open_access
This study identifies supply options for sustainable urban energy systems, which are robust to external system changes. A multi-criteria optimization model is used to minimize greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and financial costs of a reference system. Sensitivity analyses examine the impact of changing boundary conditions related to GHG emissions, energy prices, energy demands, and population density. Options that align with both financial and emission reduction and are robust to system changes are called “no-regret” options. Options sensitive to system changes are labeled as “potential-risk” options.
There is a conflict between minimizing GHG emissions and financial costs. In the reference case, the emission-optimized scenario enables a reduction of GHG emissions (-93%), but involves higher costs (+160%) compared to the financially-optimized scenario.
No-regret options include photovoltaic systems, decentralized heat pumps, thermal storages, electricity exchange between sub-systems and with higher-level systems, and reducing energy demands through building insulation, behavioral changes, or the decrease of living space per inhabitant. Potential-risk options include solar thermal systems, natural gas technologies, high-capacity battery storages, and hydrogen for building energy supply.
When energy prices rise, financially-optimized systems approach the least-emission system design. The maximum profitability of natural gas technologies was already reached before the 2022 European energy crisis.
Indicators for the optimization of sustainable urban energy systems based on energy system modeling
(2022)
Background: Urban energy systems are responsible for 75 % of the world's energy consumption and for 70 % of the worldwide greenhouse gas emissions. Energy system models are used to optimize, benchmark and compare such energy systems with the help of energy sustainability indicators. We discuss several indicators for their basic suitability and their response to changing boundary conditions, system structures and reference values. The most suitable parameters are applied to four different supply scenarios of a real-world urban energy system.
Results: There is a number of energy sustainability indicators, but not all of them are suitable for the use in urban energy system optimization models. Shortcomings originate from the omission of upstream energy supply chains (secondary energy efficiency), from limited capabilities to compare small energy systems (energy productivity), from excessive accounting expense (regeneration rate), from unsuitable accounting methods (primary energy efficiency), from a questionable impact of some indicators on the overall system sustainability (self-sufficiency), from the lack of detailed information content (share of renewables), and more. On the other hand, indicators of absolute greenhouse gas emissions, energy costs, and final energy demand are well suitable for the use in optimization models. However, each of these indicators only represents partial aspects of energy sustainability; the use of only one indicator in the optimization process increases the risk that other important aspects will deteriorate significantly, eventually leading to suboptimal or even unrealistic scenarios in practice. Therefore, multi-criteria approaches should be used to enable a more holistic optimization and planning of sustainable urban energy systems.
Conclusion: We recommend multi-criteria optimization approaches using the indicators of absolute greenhouse gas emissions, absolute energy costs, and absolute energy demand. For benchmarking and comparison purposes, specific indicators should be used and therefore related to the final energy demand, respectively the number of inhabitants. Our example scenarios demonstrate modeling strategies to optimize sustainability of urban energy systems.