The following validation comparing the two simulation tools energyPRO and nPro was conducted by the engineering company sinnogy GmbH based on a real-life application case. We thank sinnogy for providing the results.

Methodology of the tool comparison

The two software tools differ in the modeling of operational behavior:

In energyPRO, the real operational behavior of the generation plants can be modeled in detail (minimum power, start-up and shutdown ramps, minimum operating duration, maximum operating duration).
In nPro, the operational behavior is simplified and represented as an ideally modulating generation unit.

To determine the impact of the different modeling approaches on the result of the generated heat, the identical energy system with the same technology parameters was depicted in both, energyPRO and nPro. For this purpose, a heating plant for a heating network is simulated, which includes a combined heat and power plant (CHP), a natural gas boiler, a biomass boiler, and an air-to-water heat pump. The boundary conditions such as energy purchase costs are also identical. The plant configuration includes the following components:

Biomass boiler with 500 kW_th
Combined heat and power plant (CHP) with 236 kW_th
Air-to-water heat pump with 453 kW_th
Peak load gas boiler with 1,852 kW_th

Figure 3: Setup of the simulated energy system

Table 1: Minimum output, start-up and shutdown ramps, minimum operating duration of generation units in energyPRO

	Biomass boiler	CHP unit	Heat pump	Gas boiler
Nominal power	500 kW	236 kW	300 kW	1,800 kW
Minimum output	300 kW	236 kW	50 kW	600 kW
Start-up ramp	enabled	enabled	enabled	enabled
Shutdown ramp	enabled	enabled	enabled	enabled
Minimum operating duration	72 h	2 h	0.5 h	0.1 h

Table 2: Minimum output, start-up and shutdown ramps, minimum operating duration, maximum operating duration of generation units in nPro

	Biomass boiler	CHP unit	Heat pump	Gas boiler
Nominal power	500 kW	236 kW	300 kW	1,800 kW
Minimum output	x	x	x	x
Start-up ramp	x	x	x	x
Shutdown ramp	x	x	x	x
Minimum operating duration	x	x	x	x

Results of the comparison

The comparison of the heat generation for every technology, the share of the total heat generation, and the deviation of the results from nPro compared to energyPRO is shown in Table 3. The result shows a deviation of less than one percent for all generation technologies. This indicates that the simplified modeling of operational behavior in nPro leads to a very similar result compared to energyPRO. A similar result is found in the scientific study by Wirtz et al. (2021), which examined the impact of depicting detailed operational behavior on the design outcome for mixed-integer optimization models.

Table 3: Heat generation per heat generation technology, share of total heat generation, and deviation of results from nPro compared to energyPRO.

	energyPRO		nPro		Deviation
	Heat generation	Share	Heat generation	Share
Biomass boiler	4,031 MWh	55.6%	4,036 MWh	55.6%	-0.07%
Heat pump	1,520 MWh	21.0%	1,505 MWh	20.7%	0.21%
CHP unit	891 MWh	12.3%	942 MWh	13.0%	-0.70%
Gas boiler	813 MWh	11.2%	774 MWh	10.7%	0.54%
Total	7,255 MWh	100.0%	7,257 MWh	100.0%	-0.03%

This might also interest you

nPro software

Start nPro tool

Plan your energy system with nPro!

We inform you about new tool features and services.

Try nPro today!

Comparison between nPro and energyPRO

Methodology of the tool comparison

Results of the comparison

This might also interest you

nPro software

Newsletter