A common way of calculating the life cycle cost (LCC) of building renovation measures is to approach it from the building side, where the energy system is considered by calculating the savings in the form of less bought energy. In this study a wider perspective is introduced. The LCC for three different energy renovation measures, mechanical ventilation with heat recovery and two different heat pump systems, are compared to a reference case, a building connected to the district heating system. The energy system supplying the building is assumed to be 100% renewable, where eight different future scenarios are considered. The LCC is calculated as the total cost for the renovation measures and the energy systems. All renovation measures result in a lower district heating demand, at the expense of an increased electricity demand. All renovation measures also result in an increased LCC, compared to the reference building. When aiming for a transformation towards a 100% renewable system in the future, this study shows the importance of having a system perspective, and also taking possible future production scenarios into consideration when evaluating building renovation measures that are carried out today, but will last for several years, in which the energy production system, hopefully, will change.

There are different views on whether district heating (DH) or heat pumps (HPs) is or are the best heating solution in order to reach a 100% renewable energy system. This article investigates the economic perspective, by calculating and comparing the energy system life cycle cost (LCC) for the two solutions in areas with detached houses. The LCC is calculated using Monte Carlo simulation, where all input data is varied according to predefined probability distributions. In addition to the parameter variations, 16 different scenarios are evaluated regarding the main fuel for the DH, the percentage of combined heat and power (CHP), the DH temperature level, and the type of electrical backup power. Although HP is the case with the lowest LCC for most of the scenarios, there are alternatives for each scenario in which either HP or DH has the lowest LCC. In alternative scenarios with additional electricity transmission costs, and a marginal cost perspective regarding the CHP investment, DH has the lowest LCC overall, taking into account all scenarios. The study concludes that the decision based on energy system economy on whether DH should expand into areas with detached houses must take local conditions into consideration.