Evaluating Locations for Seasonal Thermal Energy Storages
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.52825/isec.v2i.3383Keywords:
Underground Tank Thermal Energy Storage, UTTES, District Heating , TESAbstract
A major challenge in seasonal thermal energy storage (STES) design is the presence of groundwater, which can reduce thermal performance and impose regulatory limits on groundwater temperature. Although mitigation measures such as cut-off walls and additional insulation have proven effective in simulation studies, groundwater conditions remain a technical, economic, and legal constraint that strongly influence design choices and project feasibility. This study analyses the trade-off between constructing an STES close to the DH network in areas with unfavourable ground conditions and building it in more remote locations with favourable geological conditions. Different scenarios are assessed to determine the maximum economically viable distance between the DH system and the storage location.
The results show that investment cost is a key factor in STES integration. If a remote location allows a simpler and less expensive storage design, locations up to approximately 10-17 km from the DH network can remain economically competitive, depending mainly on DH transport pipeline costs. The study also highlights that the number of charge-discharge cycles strongly influence the contribution of the storage investment to the levelized cost of heat. While remote storages benefit from lower construction costs, higher cycling rates may require larger auxiliary components, favouring more centralised storage solutions. Operating the storage with additional cycles during periods of low heat demand can further improve economic performance.
Downloads
References
[1] A. Dahash, F. Ochs, G. Giuliani, und A. Tosatto, „Understanding the interaction between groundwater and large-scale underground hot-water tanks and pits“, Sustain. Cities Soc., Bd. 71, S. 102928, Aug. 2021, doi: 10.1016/j.scs.2021.102928.
[2] Wim van Helden, „Giga-scale thermal energy storage for renewable districts“, Publisha-ble Final Report, Aug. 2021.
[3] Wien Energie, „ScaleUp“, ScaleUp. [Online]. Verfügbar unter: https://www.wienenergie/scaleup/.at
[4] M. Wetter, W. Zuo, T. S. Nouidui, und X. Pang, „Modelica Buildings library“, J. Build. Per-form. Simul., Bd. 7, Nr. 4, S. 253–270, Juli 2014, doi: 10.1080/19401493.2013.765506.
[5] Modelica Association, „Modelica Standard Library“. [Online]. Verfügbar unter: https://github.com/modelica/ModelicaStandardLibrary
[6] F. Ochs, A. Dahash, A. Tosatto, und M. Bianchi Janetti, „Techno-economic planning and construction of cost-effective large-scale hot water thermal energy storage for Renewa-ble District heating systems“, Renew. Energy, Bd. 150, S. 1165–1177, Mai 2020, doi: 10.1016/j.renene.2019.11.017.
[7] Energy storage: technology descriptions and projections for long-tem energy system planning, [New edition]. Danish Energy Agency, 2025.
[8] BRUGG Pipesystems, „PREMANT district heating pipe“, Catalogue. [Online]. Verfügbar unter: https://www.bruggpipes.com/en/long-distance-pipeline-premant/uno/
[9] T. Kusuda und P. R. Achenbach, „Earth temperature and thermal diffusivity at selected stations in the united states.“, National Bureau of Standards Gaithersburg MD., Juni 1965. [Online]. Verfügbar unter: https://nvlpubs.nist.gov/nistpubs/Legacy/RPT/nbsreport8972.pdf
Published
How to Cite
Conference Proceedings Volume
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Carles Ribas Tugores, Matthias Leitner, Gerald Zotter, Wim van Helden

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Funding data
-
European Climate, Infrastructure and Environment Executive Agency
Grant numbers 101136095