GENIO Comparative Study Heating Costs
The following figures show the results of the profitability calculation. Under the assumptions made, system 01 (HEAT4All infrared heating) is the most cost-effective over the period under consideration (20 years). System 04 (floor heating+heat pump) has slightly higher total costs (about 8%), while systems 02 (fan coil+district heating) and 03 (radiators+district heating) have significantly higher total costs of 20% and 47%, respectively.
Sum of present values over the period under review
The following figure shows the development of total costs over the period under review. The initial investments mark the starting point in year 0, the annual costs (energy sources, fixed costs, maintenance, …) result in the slope of the curves, replacement investments are visible as jumps in the respective year and the residual values of the plant components are deducted in the last year.
A comparison of the individual cost groups shows that the HEAT4ALL infrared heating system has by far the lowest investment costs. Although the running energy costs for infrared heating are significantly higher than for all other variants, the system remains the most cost-effective overall in view of the comparatively high investment, maintenance and fixed costs of the comparative systems. Due to the very high thermal standard of the building envelope, the ongoing energy costs tend to take a back seat to the capital and operating costs. This explains that despite the efficiency advantage of the heat pump (Figure 2-15), its total costs are higher than those of infrared heating.
