D5.7: Impact Analysis Study

HYPERGRYD. This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement No 101036656 WP5 – TRL5 demonstration in living labs and virtual labs in LEC Task 5.6 Validation and impact assessment analysis D5.7 Impact Analysis Study Ref. Ares(2025)2581031 - 31/03/2025 D5.7 – Impact Analysis Study 2 DISCLAIMER The opinion stated in this report reflects the opinion of the authors and not the opinion of the European Commission. All intellectual property rights are owned by HYPERGRYD consortium members and are protected by the applicable laws. Reproduction is not authorised without prior written agreement. The commercial use of any information contained in this document may require a license from the owner of that information. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement Nº 101036656. D5.7 – Impact Analysis Study 3 Project Project Acronym HYPERGRYD Project Title Hybrid coupled networks for thermal-electric integrated Smart Energy Districts Grant Agreement number 101036656 Call identifier H2020-LC-GD-2020 Topic identifier LC-GD-2-1-2020 Innovative land-based and offshore renewable energy technologies and their integration into the energy system Funding Scheme Research and Innovation Action Project duration 42 months (From 1 October 2021) Coordinator ARCbcn Website http://hypergryd.eu Deliverable Deliverable No. D5.7 Deliverable title Validation and impact assessment analysis Description This task aims at assessing the environmental, economic and social impacts of the HYPERGRYD solutions. The task is divided into 3 sub-tasks, assessing the three pillars of sustainability such as environmental, economic and social impacts. SubTask 5.6.1 Environmental impact study: Life Cycle Assessment (LCA): LCA is the key methodology utilised to perform the environmental study and derive the impacts of the applied technology. LCA is used to analyze given processes and performances of the systems in the Project. The study will also benefit from digital twin simulation study of the living labs as local energy markets with the following KPIs: energy bill cost, self-consumption and self-sufficiency. SubTask 5.6.2 Study on economic impacts and benefits through Life Cycle Costs Analysis (LCC): the economic dimension is another key aspect of the project and will strongly influence the implementation of the targeted technologies in the different scenarios. Life Cycle Cost analysis (LCC) of the developed solutions is performed in accordance with ISO 15686-5:2008 and to the Code of Practice suggested by SETAC “Environmental Life Cycle Costing”. The LCC allows estimating the total costs (OPerating Expense, OPEX and CAPital Expenditure, CAPEX) to be incurred in the design, development, construction, production, operation, maintenance over their life cycle. Furthermore, comparison analysis of all the proposed alternatives with benchmarks will be performed in order to quantify the economic savings and potential benefits of the technical solutions. SubTask 5.6.3 Study on social and health impacts and benefits through Social Life Cycle Assessment (S-LCA): Social impacts along the entire value chain have to be also taken into account when developing or installing new technologies/solutions and services under a sustainable approach. S-LCA, based on the UNEP/SETAC guidelines, also follows a life cycle approach, but the impacts in this case are related to socio-economic aspects and comprise human rights, working conditions, health and safety, socio-economic repercussion, and so forth. WP No. WP5 Related task T5.6 – Validation and impact assessment analysis Lead Beneficiary 12 – RINA-C D5.7 – Impact Analysis Study 4 Author(s) Corinna Ponti (RINA-C), Gloria Anna Carallo, Giovanni Vaccari (RINA-C), Joel Nadal (ARCbcn) Contributor(s) Mauro Cornaglia (EURAC), Nicola Zaccarelli (ENCO), Marco Calderoni, Charlotte Selosse (R2M), Valeria Palomba (CNR), Abdulrahman Dahash (AIT), David Verez (ARCbcn) Type R Dissemination PU Public Language English – GB Due 31/03/2025 Submission date 31/03/2025 Version Date Authors Description V.0.1 24/03/2025 Corinna Ponti, Gloria Anna Carallo and Giovanni Vaccari (RINA-C) Joel Nadal (ARCbcn) First issue of the deliverable V.0.2 25/03/2025 Mauro Cornaglia (ENVI) Review of the draft version V.0.3 26/03/2025 Stephan Preisinger (OCHSNER) Gabriele Pennello (SORTEC) Peter Platell (RANOTOR) General Review and integration of the images of the prototype V.0.4 28/03/2025 Corinna Ponti (RINA-C) Implementation of the modifications requested in v0.2 and v0.3 V0.5 28/03/2025 Cintia Escandell (COMET) Review of v0.4 V.0.6 31/03/2025 Corinna Ponti (RINA-C) Implementation of the modifications requested in v0.5 V.0.7 31/03/2025 Michał Gliński (IMP PAN) WP Leader Final deliverable D5.7 – Impact Analysis Study 5 Table of Contents Table of Contents ................................................................................................................. 5 List of Figures ....................................................................................................................... 8 List of Tables ........................................................................................................................ 8 Executive Summary ............................................................................................................ 10 1 Introduction ............................................................................................................. 11 1.1 Scope................................................................................................................... 11 1.2 Audience ............................................................................................................. 11 1.3 Abbreviations ...................................................................................................... 11 1.4 Contributions of partners .................................................................................... 12 1.5 Relation to other activities ................................................................................... 13 1.6 Structure ............................................................................................................. 13 2 Methodology ............................................................................................................ 15 2.1 Goal and Scope definition .................................................................................... 16 2.2 Life Cycle Inventory (LCI) ..................................................................................... 17 2.3 Life Cycle Impact Assessment (LCIA) .................................................................... 18 2.4 Interpretation of results ...................................................................................... 21 3 Description of the analysed Business cases for LCA & LCC ....................................... 22 3.1 Business case 1: Reversible micro-CHP with steam engine and steam buffer - Envipark 22 3.2 Business case 2: Sorption Storage - Sonnenplatz.................................................. 23 3.3 Business case 3: Heat Pump with PCM storage - Sonnenplatz .............................. 26 4 LCA of HYPERGRYD technologies.............................................................................. 28 4.1 Reversible micro-CHP with steam engine and steam buffer ................................. 28 4.1.1 Goal and scope ............................................................................................................ 28 4.1.2 Inventories ................................................................................................................... 29 4.1.3 Impact Assessment ...................................................................................................... 32 4.2 Sorption Thermal Energy Storage ........................................................................ 35 4.2.1 Goal and scope ............................................................................................................ 35 4.2.2 Inventories ................................................................................................................... 36 4.2.3 Impact Assessment ...................................................................................................... 38 4.3 Modular Heat Pump with short-term storage ...................................................... 42 D5.7 – Impact Analysis Study 6 4.3.1 Goal and scope ............................................................................................................ 42 4.3.2 Inventories ................................................................................................................... 43 4.3.3 Impact Assessment ...................................................................................................... 45 5 LCC of HYPERGRYD technologies .............................................................................. 49 5.1 Reversible micro-CHP with steam engine and steam buffer ................................. 49 5.1.1 Goal and scope ............................................................................................................ 49 5.1.2 Inventories ................................................................................................................... 49 5.1.3 Impact Assessment ...................................................................................................... 50 5.2 Sorption Thermal Energy Storage ........................................................................ 53 5.2.1 Goal and scope ............................................................................................................ 53 5.2.2 Inventories ................................................................................................................... 54 5.2.3 Impact Assessment ...................................................................................................... 55 5.3 Modular Heat Pump with short-term storage ...................................................... 57 5.3.1 Goal and scope ............................................................................................................ 57 5.3.2 Inventories ................................................................................................................... 58 5.3.3 Impact Assessment ...................................................................................................... 59 6 S-LCA of HYPERGRYD technologies........................................................................... 61 6.1 Goal and Scope .................................................................................................... 61 6.2 Inventories .......................................................................................................... 64 6.3 Impact Assessment .............................................................................................. 65 6.3.1 Methodological premise .............................................................................................. 65 6.3.2 Results for S-LCA .......................................................................................................... 67 6.4 Main conclusions for S-LCA .................................................................................. 78 7 Conclusions .............................................................................................................. 80 7.1 Main conclusions for LCA ..................................................................................... 80 7.2 Main conclusions for LCC ..................................................................................... 80 7.3 Main conclusions for S-LCA .................................................................................. 81 8 References ................................................................................................................ 81 9 Appendices ............................................................................................................... 86 9.1 HYPERGRYD LCA Impact Assessment (LCIA) ......................................................... 87 9.1.1 Business case 1: LCIA Reversible micro-CHP with Steam Buffer at Envipark (Turin, IT) .. 87 9.1.2 Business case 2: LCIA Sorption based Thermal Energy Storage at Sonnenplatz ............. 88 9.1.3 Business case 3: LCIA Heat Pumps with PCM storage at Sonnenplatz ........................... 89 D5.7 – Impact Analysis Study 7 9.2 HYPERGRYD LCC Inventories ................................................................................ 90 9.2.1 Inventories Business case 1CHPs ................................................................................ 90 9.2.2 Business case 2Sorption Thermal Energy Storage ....................................................... 91 9.2.3 Business case 3 - Modular Heat Pump with short term storage .................................... 93 9.3 HYPERGRYD S-LCA Inventory Questionnaire ........................................................ 95 9.4 Country-Level Social Impact Indicators ................................................................ 97 D5.7 – Impact Analysis Study 8 List of Figures Figure 1. Life Cycle analysis iterative steps ...................................................................................... 15 Figure 2: the CHP unit developed by RANOTOR ............................................................................... 22 Figure 3: Envipark Technological Park (Environment Park, 2025) ..................................................... 23 Figure 4: Installation of the STES system at KEZO Lab ...................................................................... 24 Figure 5: Sonnenplatz, GrossShoenau district (Sonnenplatz, 2025) .................................................. 24 Figure 6: The modular Heat Pump developed by OCHSNER. ............................................................ 26 Figure 7: Comparative LCA results of Envipark ‘Baseline’, ‘CHPs’ and ‘CHPs & HRES’ Scenarios ........ 33 Figure 8 Comparative LCA results of Envipark ‘Baseline’, ‘CHPs’ and ‘CHPs & HRES’ Scenarios with the contribution of the different energy utilities. .................................................................................. 34 Figure 9: Comparative LCA results of Sonnenplatz ‘Baseline’and ‘STES’ Scenarios ........................... 39 Figure 10: Comparative LCA results of Sonnenplatz ‘Baseline’and ‘STES’ Scenarios with the contribution of the different energy utilities. .................................................................................. 40 Figure 11: Comparative LCA results of Sonnenplatz ‘Baseline’, ‘HPsPCM’ Scenarios......................... 46 Figure 12: Comparative LCA results of Sonnenplatz ‘Baseline’and ‘HPs & PCM’ Scenarios with the contribution of the different energy utilities ................................................................................... 47 Figure 13: Comparative LCC results of the Envipark use case ........................................................... 51 Figure 14: Hotspot analysis on LCC results for Envipark use case ..................................................... 51 Figure 15: Comparative LCC results of the Sonnenplatz STES use case ............................................. 55 Figure 16: Hotspot analysis on LCC results of the Sonnenplatz STES use case .................................. 56 Figure 17: Comparative LCC results of the Sonnenplatz Modular Heat Pump use case ..................... 59 Figure 18: Hotspot analysis on LCC results of the Sonnenplatz Modular Heat Pump use case .......... 60 Figure 19. Steps in the S-LCA process .............................................................................................. 61 Figure 20. Performance Assessment per countries to the stakeholder Local Community ................. 68 Figure 21. Performance Assessment per countries to the stakeholder Consumer ............................ 68 Figure 22. Performance Assessment per countries to the stakeholder Workers .............................. 69 Figure 23. Performance Assessment per countries to the stakeholder Society ................................ 70 Figure 24. Distribution of the Impact Assessment per categories and stakeholders normalized ....... 71 Figure 25. Impact Assessment for stakeholder Local Community .................................................... 72 Figure 26. Impact Assessment for stakeholder Value-Chain Actors .................................................. 73 Figure 27. Impact Assessment for stakeholder Consumer ............................................................... 74 Figure 28. Impact Assessment for stakeholder Workers .................................................................. 75 Figure 29. Impact Assessment for stakeholder Society .................................................................... 76 Figure 30. Comparison of the IA of the three HYPERGRYD technologies .......................................... 77 List of Tables Table 2.1: EF 3.1 impact indicators selected for the LCA study ........................................................ 18 Table 3.1 Details on Energy Supply and Production assets for the different Scenarios analysed in Business case 1. .............................................................................................................................. 23 Table 3.2: Technical information on the Sonnenplatz district .......................................................... 25 D5.7 – Impact Analysis Study 9 Table 3.3: Details on Energy Supply and Production assets for the different Scenarios analysed in Business case 2. .............................................................................................................................. 25 Table 3.4: Details on Energy Supply and Production assets for the different Scenarios analysed in Business case 3 ............................................................................................................................... 27 Table 4.1: LCA Inventory Table of Envipark ‘Baseline’ Scenario ........................................................ 29 Table 4.2: LCA Inventory Table of Envipark ‘CHPs’ Scenario ............................................................. 30 Table 4.3: LCA Inventory Table of Envipark ‘CHPs & HRES’ Scenario ................................................ 31 Table 4.4: Comparative LCA results of Envipark ‘Baseline’, ‘CHPs’ and ‘CHPs & HRES’ Scenarios (25 years).............................................................................................................................................. 32 Table 4.5: LCA Inventory Table of Sonnenplatz ‘Baseline’ Scenario .................................................. 36 Table 4.6: LCA Inventory Table of Sonnenplatz ‘Sorption Thermal Energy Storage( STES)’ Scenario . 37 Table 4.7: Comparative LCA results of Sonnenplatz ‘Baseline’, ‘STES’ Scenarios (25 years) .............. 38 Table 4.8: LCA Inventory Table of Sonnenplatz ‘Baseline’ Scenario .................................................. 43 Table 4.9: LCA Inventory Table of Sonnenplatz ‘Heat Pumps with PCM’ Scenario ............................ 44 Table 4.10: Comparative LCA results of Sonnenplatz ‘Baseline’, ‘HPsPCM’ Scenarios (25 years)....... 45 Table 5.1: LCC Inventory Table of Envipark ’Baseline, ‘CHPs’ and ‘CHP & RES’ Scenarios .................. 50 Table 5.2: Calculation of the Investment Payback time for the Scenarios investigated in business case 1. .................................................................................................................................................... 52 Table 5.3: LCC Inventory Table of Sonnenplatz‘Baseline’and ‘Sorption Thermal Energy Storage’ (STES) Scenario .......................................................................................................................................... 54 Table 5.4: Calculation of the Investment Payback time for the Scenarios investigated in business case 2. .................................................................................................................................................... 56 Table 5.5: LCC Inventory Table of Sonnenplatz‘Baseline’and ‘Heat Pumps with PCM’ (HPsPCM) Scenarios ........................................................................................................................................ 58 Table 5.6: Calculation of the Investment Payback time for the Scenarios investigated in business case 3. .................................................................................................................................................... 60 Table 6.1: Stakeholders, subcategories and Impact Categories ........................................................ 63 Table 6.2: Data sources for the S-LCA country level inventory ......................................................... 64 Table 6.3: Transformation rules from PA to IA. Each cell represents the new IA score ..................... 67 Table 9.1: Comparative LCA Results of the Baseline, CHPs and CHP & HRES Scenario. Results disclosed for the total and different seasons for 25 years ............................................................................... 87 Table 9.2: Comparative LCA Results of the Baseline and STES Scenario. Results disclosed for the total and different seasons for 25 years .................................................................................................. 88 Table 9.3: Comparative LCA Results of the Baseline and HPsPCM Scenario. Results disclosed for the total and different seasons for 25 years .......................................................................................... 89 Table 9.4: LCC Inventory Table of Envipark ‘Baseline’ Scenario – Energy flows ................................ 90 Table 9.5: LCC Inventory Table of Envipark ‘CHPs’ Scenario – Energy flows...................................... 90 Table 9.6: LCC Inventory Table of Envipark ‘CHPs & HRES’ Scenario – Energy flows ......................... 91 Table 9.7: LCC Inventory Table of Sonnenplatz ‘Baseline’ Scenario – Energy flows .......................... 91 Table 9.8: LCC Inventory Table of Sonnenplatz ‘Sorption Thermal Storage’ Scenario – Energy flows 92 Table 9.9: LCC Inventory Table of Sonnenplatz ‘Baseline’ Scenario – Energy flows .......................... 93 Table 9.10: LCC Inventory Table of Sonnenplatz ‘Heat Pumps with PCM’ Scenario – Energy flows ... 93 D5.7 – Impact Analysis Study 16 Indeed, the application of the sustainability assessment methodologies to HYPERGRYD systems is discussed in Chapter 3 to 6. 2.1 Goal and Scope definition The first step of a life cycle study is to define the Goal and Scope, which is crucial for the whole development of the analysis, since it clearly states and establish a list of parameters and settings which underlay the whole assessment. These methodological choices are then applied all along the study duration; for this reason, the Goal and Scope should be outlined at the beginning of all studies in a clear and precise manner, then all the subsequent steps of the analysis should be consistent with it. In Goal definition, the intended application and the purpose of the study should be clarified; while Scope aims to define important parameters which characterise both the object of the study than the methodological procedures of the analysis. For example, the following parameters should be unambiguously stated for all the three assessments: • the object of the study (i.e. a product, a process, a service); • the functional unit (FU), i.e. the metric (i.e. parameter, value, unit) which represents the reference to which the results of the assessment are reported; • consequently, the reference flow, i.e. the technical description of the metric with its features required to fulfil the function expressed by the functional unit; • the system boundaries, i.e. the framework (as processes, life cycle steps, etc.) within which the study is carried out; • the allocation procedures, i.e. the partitioning of input and/or output flows of a process to the system under study; • the data quality requirement (DQR), i.e. relevance of specific (primary) or generic (secondary, e.g. literature) LCA data in accordance with the goal and scope of the study; • assumptions and limitations, if any. As anticipated, besides these general parameters that are common to all the 3 life cycle studies, some peculiarities characterize each of the different analyses in the Goal and Scope definition. For example, among the settings to be defined, for an LCA study is mandatory to declare the methods for the impact assessment which are considered for the analysis (e.g. EF, ReCiPe, etc.). Moreover, once methodology is selected, a clear description of the list of impact indicators should be provided, with their units and related impact category. On the other hand, for an LCC study it is important to define the perspective of the study (e.g. client, end-user or manufacturer point of view): indeed, the point of view is a key-driver of the analysis and the study is carried out taking into account the economic aspects associated to the analyzed perspective, influencing the whole assessment. Finally, for the S-LCA analysis, the definition of stakeholders (e.g. workers, local communities, value chain actors, consumers, society, and children) is required. Building on the stakeholder framework S-LCA, subcategories (e.g. access to material resources, fair competition, child labour, etc.) provide a detailed lens to evaluate specific social impacts. While stakeholders define the groups affected by a product or service, subcategories focus on measurable aspects relevant to each group, forming a D5.7 – Impact Analysis Study 17 structured approach to addressing social sustainability. Moreover, for S-LCA the definition the regionality of the products/services is important for the correct evaluation of their value-chain and social-related aspects. Once all the methodological parameters and settings of the analyses are clearly stated, the studies enter in their second phase, related to data gathering for within the Life Cycle Inventory (LCI). 2.2 Life Cycle Inventory (LCI) The Life Cycle Inventory (LCI) phase directly involves data provider in the building up of an inventory, which includes a list of flows (inputs/outputs) that characterise the object of the study. Data gathered should be consistent with the purposes of Goal and Scope (e.g. functional unit, boundary conditions, etc.) and they are related with the stages of the life cycle which are decided to be included for the specific assessment. In order to ease the collection process, the examined system (i.e. a product, process, service) could be divided into main processes, each one including different inputs (e.g. energy consumption, raw materials, etc.) and outputs (e.g. products, waste, emissions, etc.). To this aim, a block-flow diagram (BFD) could be a useful tool to define the consequentiality of the processes, which is to be replicated in the life cycle inventory structure. Data to be collected are different for source and purpose and they could be divided into two main categories. Background data (referring to background processes) is usually secondary data, which is retrieved from literature, databases, data banks, etc.; while foreground data (referred to foreground processes) are preferably primary data, directly collected from the data providers (e.g. product owners, product developers, end-users, etc.). To have a complete and useful inventory for a sustainability study, both categories of data should be considered, harmonized and well-referenced; however, it is worth to remark that the more primary data is used, the more accurate and reliable is the study. Along with the necessary input/output flows, which are mandatory for the environmental assessment but they also are required for the two other studies, LCC and S-LCA also involve the use of additional categories of data. In particular, LCC requires all the information regarding the cost of the selected input/output flows, in form of aggregate or unitary values. At the same time, economic study also includes the operational costs (OPEX, i.e. maintenance expenses, manpower salaries, etc.) and capital expenditures (CAPEX, for the equipment), which are among the entries of the economic assessment. On the other hand, S-LCA data gathering could be structured across two levels, i.e. country and organisational levels, depending on the type, topic and source of data. In particular, country-level data are collected from databases, literature studies, data banks and could be considered generic, regionalized and aggregated for a specific value-chain; of course, their quality and recognizeness is very high. On the other hand, organisational-level inventory is more focused on the specific scenario of a company, a stakeholder group or a project-related partner, hence more direct (but also less generic and less objective) information is drawn. According to the study purposes and on the mark given by the S-LCA practitioners, the combination of the two approaches or the selection of one is applied, due to certain reasons/limitations behind the specific study. D5.7 – Impact Analysis Study 18 The LCI, made of primary and secondary data, is usually referred to the functional unit of the study and it could be prepared starting from questionnaires, interviews, literature research, spreadsheets. At the end of the data collection, the inventory is reviewed and consolidated, so the process of system model development and, later on, impact assessment could start. 2.3 Life Cycle Impact Assessment (LCIA) Life Cycle Impact Assessment (LCIA) is the stage of the analysis in which results are calculated and analyzed. This phase is made of two consequential steps: 1) the realization of a model of the object under study (based on the LCI) on a software/tool and 2) the elaboration of impacts related to the functional unit, which should be evaluated according to a specific methodology. Despite the global rationale behind LCIA is common to the three assessments, it is evident that in this stage of the analysis the differences between the three studies are in the approach, methodology and calculation of results, so a specific insight about these features is given so far. Regarding the environmental analysis, an LCA model is developed on a dedicated software (e.g. GaBi™, SimaPro™, etc.) with the aim to re-create the realistic process consequentiality, including all input/output flows collected in the LCI. Consequently, the software elaborates the environmental impacts related to one/more life cycle stages of the system considered for the study, being the effective LCIA phase. In this step, the long list of interventions typically found in practice (e.g. energy production, raw materials extraction, etc.) is aggregated into a small set of indicators, aiming to identify processes that contribute most to the overall impact. Indeed, a correlation is established between environmental interventions (e.g. raw materials extractions) and impact categories of midpoint (e.g. Climate change) and endpoint (e.g. Human health) (Margni, 2012). According to the impact categories selected in the LCA Goal and Scope, this correlation is expressed through a list of indicators, which are related to a specific aspect of environmental affection (e.g. ecotoxicity, ecosystems, resource use, etc.). In HYPERGRYD project, the impact assessment methodology selected for the LCA study is Environmental Footprint 3.1 (EF 3.1) (EF3.1, 2025), which encompasses 27 impact indicators related to specific impact categories. The present study is conducted on SimaPro™ 1 software (Analyst v9.6.0.1), including ecoinvent 2 © v3.10 library, applying the EF 3.1 impact assessment methodology, whose complete list of indicators is presented in Table 2.1 Table 2.1: EF 3.1 impact indicators selected for the LCA study Impact category Unit Acronym Impact indicator Acidification [mol H+ eq] ACIDef Accumulated Exceedance – AE Climate change [kg CO2 eq] GWP Radiative forcing as global warming potential – GWP100 1 SimaPro™ website: https://simapro.com/ 2 Ecoinvent© website: https://ecoinvent.org/database/ D5.7 – Impact Analysis Study 19 Impact category Unit Acronym Impact indicator Climate change - Biogenic [kg CO2 eq] GWPb Radiative forcing as global warming potential – GWP100 Climate change - Fossil [kg CO2 eq] GWPf Radiative forcing as global warming potential – GWP100 Climate change - Land use and LU change [kg CO2 eq] GWPlu Radiative forcing as global warming potential – GWP100 Ecotoxicity, freshwater - part 1 [CTUe] FWTOX1 Comparative Toxic Unit for ecosystems Ecotoxicity, freshwater - part 2 [CTUe] FWTOX2 Comparative Toxic Unit for ecosystems Ecotoxicity, freshwater - inorganics [CTUe] FWTOXi Comparative Toxic Unit for ecosystems Ecotoxicity, freshwater - organics - p.1 [CTUe] FWTOXo1 Comparative Toxic Unit for ecosystems Ecotoxicity, freshwater - organics - p.2 [CTUe] FWTOXo2 Comparative Toxic Unit for ecosystems Particulate matter [disease incidencies] PMAT Impact on human health Eutrophication, marine [kg N eq] MWEUT Fraction of nutrients reaching marine end compartment Eutrophication, freshwater [kg P eq] FWEUT Fraction of nutrients reaching freshwater end compartment Eutrophication, terrestrial [mol N eq] TEUT Accumulated Exceedance – AE Human toxicity, cancer [CTUh] HTOXc Comparative Toxic Unit for humans Human toxicity, cancer - inorganics [CTUh] HTOXci Comparative Toxic Unit for humans Human toxicity, cancer - organics [CTUh] HTOXco Comparative Toxic Unit for humans Human toxicity, noncancer [CTUh] HTOXnc Comparative Toxic Unit for humans Human toxicity, noncancer - inorganics [CTUh] HTOXnci Comparative Toxic Unit for humans Human toxicity, noncancer - organics [CTUh] HTOXnco Comparative Toxic Unit for humans Ionising radiation [kBq U235 eq] IORAD Human exposure efficiency relative to U235 Land use [Pt] LUP Soil quality index3 3 Representing the aggregated impact of land use on: Biotic production; Erosion resistance; Mechanical filtration; Groundwater replenishment. D5.7 – Impact Analysis Study 20 Impact category Unit Acronym Impact indicator Ozone depletion] [kg CFC11 eq ODEPL Ozone Depletion Potential – ODP Photochemical ozone formation [kg NMVOC eq] PCHEM Tropospheric ozone concentration increase Resource use, fossils [MJ] ADEPLf Abiotic resource depletion, fossil fuels – ADP-fossil Resource use, minerals and metals [kg Sb eq] ADEPLmu Abiotic resource depletion, fossil fuels – ADP-ultimate reserves Water use [m3 depriv.] WDEPL Weighted user deprivation potential Among these indicators, a selection is applied in order to consider the most relevant for the detailed discussion of results provided in chapter 0: indeed, these 15 indicators (yellow-highligthened) are better correlated with the topic of the analysis (i.e. energy production systems); thus, results of the LCA will be referenced to this selection indicators. Anyway, for a complete overview of the LCA analysis, complete result tables including whole EF 3.1 list of indicators are reported in the Annex section (chapter 9) of this document. Moreover, in line with (ISO14044, 2006) regulations, the LCIA should include the following calculation actions: • Classification: organisation and combination of LCIA results into impact categories. This action is mandatory; • Characterization: LCIA results are categorized and transformed into impacts, according to a specific methodology selected. This action is mandatory; • Normalization: calculation of the magnitude of category indicator results relative to reference information. This action is optional; • Weighing: conversion of indicator results from different impact categories by using numerical factors. This action is optional. In the present LCA study, only classification and characterization are applied during LCIA. Regarding LCC impact assessment, the LCC model is built starting from the inventory analysis, then all costs for each phase of the life cycle should be quantified and related to the functional unit. Thus, cost contributions to the total cost of the analyzed product should be evaluated: the analysis, indeed, may include hotspot identification, net present value (NPV) analysis, calculation of payback period and break-even point as well as sensitivity analysis, depending on the premises defined in the Goal and Scope. In particular, hotspot identification is enabled by a Cost Breakdown Structure (CBS), an essential tool which provides a hierarchical framework for categorizing and organising all cost elements associated with a product, system, or structure over its life cycle. CBS helps in understanding the distribution of costs and identifying key-cost drivers. Finally, the impact assessment in S-LCA starts with the modeling of the system on a dedicated software (e.g. openLCA), using the available libraries or databases (e.g. PSILCA) which correlate the D5.7 – Impact Analysis Study 21 energy and materials flows with cost data. Through an approach similar to LCA correlation, meaningful social performance indicators are put in relation with the economical value-chain of input/output flows at country level, expressing the potential social effects across the product’s lifecycle. From the organisational-level approach, instead, data the inventory sources is processed and transformed into a standardised reference scale (e.g. 1 to 6 ranking or similar), defining the worst and best performances. Then, potential classification, characterization, conversion and, sometimes, normalising and weighting of these impacts are applied to understand their significance in relation to the selected stakeholders. For the present study, a combination of countryand organisational-level approaches is applied to the S-LCA analysis, which ensures both broad contextual relevance and precise organizational applicability, addressing potential gaps between general indicators and the unique characteristics of individual organizations. In conclusion, all the impact assessments could include: • a hotspot (or contributional) analysis, i.e. a breakdown evaluation of the most relevant driver in the global impacts, • a sensitivity analysis, i.e. a focused study where some parameters are tuned in order to evaluate their influence on the global impacts. The obtained results are analyzed and interpreted in the final part of the sustainability study. 2.4 Interpretation of results The last phase of the impact assessment is the interpretation of results obtained by LCIA. The analysis aims to review the results in light of identification, quantification, checking, and validation of information obtained along the study. According to (ISO14044, 2006) standards, the interpretation should consider: • Identification: results should be organized outlining the significant issues, consistently with the goal and scope definition; • Evaluation: results of the evaluation should be presented through a clear and understandable view, which is specific for the type of product analyzed/study performed; • Conclusions, limitations, and recommendations: in the end, the study should draw conclusions, identify limitations, and make recommendations for the LCA addressees. This phase often draw a set of lessons learnt for improving environmental, economic or social performance, which may involve changes in materials selection, production process, use habits, providers location, sourcing practices, working conditions, or community engagement strategies. By providing a comprehensive analysis and actionable insights, the interpretation phase empowers the stakeholders to implement more sustainable practices. D5.7 – Impact Analysis Study 22 3 Description of the analysed Business cases for LCA & LCC In this study the LCA and the LCC methodology are executed to assess the environmental and economic sustainability of the technologies developed in the HYPERGRYD project considering their potential application in the Envipark and Sonneplatz districts, which are two of the LiLs (Live-in labs) studied in the broader scope of the project. The coupling of each technology with the suitable LiL constitutes the Business case for the assessments, which sets the geographical and energy boundaries for the analyses. 3.1 Business case 1: Reversible micro-CHP with steam engine and steam buffer - Envipark The HYPERGRYD technology studied in this use case is the Reversible CHP with Steam Engine. This Combined Heat and Power (CHP) system operates in a reversible mode, i.e. it can switch between electricity and thermal energy production based on demand. The steam engine-based configuration enhances efficiency by recovering and exploiting waste heat, reducing energy waste and emissions. The following figure shows a picture of the prototype developed by Ranotor. Figure 2: the CHP unit developed by RANOTOR In this study the CHP is virtually applied to the Envipark District, located in Turin, Italy. Envipark is an Innovation accelerator hub aiming to partner with enterprises engaged in implementing eco-cleaner and eco-efficient solutions. Shareholders are local institutions and utility companies operating in the energy and cleantech sector. In particular, the complex consists of n.10 buildings, including n.5 office buildings, n.4 laboratories, and a canteen, all interconnected by an internal distribution network for electricity, heating, and cooling. The assessments adopt a comparative approach between three Scenarios: the Baseline reflects the current situation at Envipark, in terms of energy assets and energy consumptions, the CHPs Scenario considers the potential application of a suitable number of units, while the CHPs & HRES Scenario combines the CHPs with a high renewable energy share. D5.7 – Impact Analysis Study 23 Figure 3: Envipark Technological Park (Environment Park, 2025) The following table briefly describes the energy assets in the three analysed Scenarios. Additionally numerical details are provided in the LCA and LCC inventory tables in the respective paragraph. Table 3.1 Details on Energy Supply and Production assets for the different Scenarios analysed in Business case 1. Scenario Energy supply and production Baseline Heating: provided by the DH (District Heating) network of the City of Turin to the internal heating grid through two heat exchangers. Solar Energy is produced by a PV Totem (16 kW) only for self-consumption. Urban mini-hydroelectric plant (480 kW) producing 1,700 MWh electricity currently sold to the national grid. CHPs As in the baseline Scenario, additionally integrating 3 CHPs units with the technical features of the one developed in the project (5kWe 20kWth) CHP & HRES Ad in the CHPs Scenario, plus 120 kW PV and using the mini-hydroelectric plant just for selfconsumption. In this Scenario the electricity provided by the national gris is drastically reduced. 3.2 Business case 2: Sorption Storage - Sonnenplatz The assessed HYPERGRYD technology is the Sorption-based Thermal Energy Storage (STES). The STES uses adsorption and desorption processes to store and release heat with minimal energy losses. This technology enhances seasonal energy storage capacity, contributing to greater flexibility in district heating and cooling networks. The developed technology as itw as installed at KEZO Lab (the third LiL of the project, not assessed in the present study) is shown in the next Figure. D5.7 – Impact Analysis Study 24 Figure 4: Installation of the STES system at KEZO Lab The study investigates the potential application of the system in the Sonnenplatz District, located in Großschönau, Austria. It is an energy citizenship example with the aim of popularising energy-efficient and sustainable construction and renovation. Customers are residential houses, and commercial and public buildings. Figure 5: Sonnenplatz, GrossShoenau district (Sonnenplatz, 2025) Next table reports some information on the destination of each building included in the district, as well as the net and gross floor area. D5.7 – Impact Analysis Study 25 Table 3.2: Technical information on the Sonnenplatz district Building N° GFA of heated area in (m²) NFA of heated area (m²) type of building households residents employees average daily visitors 1.0 683 478 public 4 30 2.0 441 309 public 2 10 3.0 674 472 public 10 60 4.0 2349 1.644 public/commercial 66 110 5.0 160 112 public 4 6.0 338 237 commercial 1 1 3 40 7.0 1610 1.127 hotel 1 2 2 14 8.0 2292 1.604 office, exhibition 7 136 9.0 226 158 residential 1 1 10.0 246 172 residential 1 4 11.0 193 135 residential 1 2 12.0 408 286 residential/farm 2 6 13.0 368 258 residential 1 4 14.0 1.508 1.056 industrial 1 3 6 15.0 380 266 public 1 1 2 16.0 160 112 public 6 17.0 303 212 residential 2 4 18.0 187 131 residential 1 2 19.0 254 178 residential 2 4 20.0 172 120 residential 1 1 21.0 212 148 residential 1 1 22.0 1.309 916 residential 15 24 23.0 415 291 residential 5 7 24.0 193 135 residential 1 1 In this business case the system boundaries are restricted to buildings 7,8,10,11,12,13 because for the other buildings data on the energy production and consumptions with a minute resolution were not available and were needed to perform simulation on the potential adoption of the STES System. A comparative perspective is adopted between a Baseline Scenario and the STES Scenario. The two are described in the table below. Table 3.3: Details on Energy Supply and Production assets for the different Scenarios analysed in Business case 2. Scenario Energy supply and production Baseline Distant heating system of the Municipality of Großschönau based on biomass as heat source Solar Energy is produced by multiple PV plants, which are partially employed for self consumptions and excess energy sold to the grid. D5.7 – Impact Analysis Study 32 4.1.3 Impact Assessment This section describes the environmental impact assessment results obtained 1st business case of HYPERGRYD project. In Table 4.4 the results of the LCA study are reported for the three compared scenarios. Table 4.4: Comparative LCA results of Envipark ‘Baseline’, ‘CHPs’ and ‘CHPs & HRES’ Scenarios (25 years) Impact Categories Baseline CHPs CHPs & HRES Delta % CHPBaseline Delta % CHP&HRESBaseline Acidification [mol H+ eq] 2.04E+05 2.00E+05 1.28E+05 -2% -38% Climate change [kg CO2 eq] 6.28E+07 6.10E+07 4.65E+07 -3% -26% Climate change - Biogenic [kg CO2 eq] 1.33E+05 1.31E+05 7.42E+04 -2% -44% Climate change - Fossil [kg CO2 eq] 6.26E+07 6.09E+07 4.64E+07 -3% -26% Climate change - Land use and LU change [kg CO2 eq] 4.37E+04 4.33E+04 2.49E+04 -1% -43% Ecotoxicity, freshwater - part 1 [CTUe] 5.45E+07 6.14E+07 4.21E+07 11% -20% Ecotoxicity, freshwater - part 2 [CTUe] 4.60E+07 4.59E+07 3.29E+07 0% -28% Ecotoxicity, freshwater - inorganics [CTUe] 9.44E+07 1.01E+08 7.12E+07 7% -23% Ecotoxicity, freshwater - organics - p.1 [CTUe] 1.17E+06 1.18E+06 8.53E+05 0% -27% Ecotoxicity, freshwater - organics - p.2 [CTUe] 4.94E+06 4.92E+06 2.96E+06 0% -40% Particulate matter [disease inc.] 7.97E-01 8.03E-01 5.08E-01 1% -36% Eutrophication, marine [kg N eq] 3.41E+04 3.33E+04 2.26E+04 -2% -34% Eutrophication, freshwater [kg P eq] 1.08E+03 1.06E+03 6.22E+02 -1% -42% Eutrophication, terrestrial [mol N eq] 3.82E+05 3.73E+05 2.52E+05 -2% -34% Human toxicity, cancer [CTUh] 1.49E-02 1.51E-02 9.70E-03 1% -34% Human toxicity, cancer - inorganics [CTUh] 1.04E-02 1.05E-02 6.73E-03 1% -35% Human toxicity, cancer - organics [CTUh] 4.56E-03 4.63E-03 2.97E-03 1% -34% Human toxicity, non-cancer [CTUh] 3.44E-01 3.42E-01 2.26E-01 -1% -34% Human toxicity, non-cancer - inorganics [CTUh] 3.26E-01 3.24E-01 2.13E-01 -1% -35% Human toxicity, non-cancer - organics [CTUh] 1.78E-02 1.77E-02 1.27E-02 -1% -29% Ionising radiation [kBq U-235 eq] 1.64E+06 1.62E+06 9.14E+05 -1% -44% Land use [Pt] 2.18E+08 2.14E+08 1.23E+08 -2% -44% Ozone depletion [kg CFC11 eq] 1.15E+01 1.09E+01 8.59E+00 -5% -25% Photochemical ozone formation [kg NMVOC eq] 1.15E+05 1.12E+05 7.86E+04 -2% -31% Resource use, fossils [MJ] 9.76E+08 9.45E+08 7.15E+08 -3% -27% Resource use, minerals and metals [kg Sb eq] 3.35E+02 3.33E+02 2.32E+02 0% -31% Water use [m3 depriv.] 3.20E+07 3.13E+07 1.81E+07 -2% -44% Results clearly indicates that the two innovative scenarios are advantageous from environmental point of view with respect to the baseline configuration at Envipark. Indeed, CHP system slight reports a reduction of impacts with an average saving of 2%, while the combination of CHP with a HRES system is strongly convenient, determining an average reduction of 34% of impacts with respect to the benchmark scenario. A clear representation of these outcomes is given in the chart of Figure 7. D5.7 – Impact Analysis Study 33 Figure 7: Comparative LCA results of Envipark ‘Baseline’, ‘CHPs’ and ‘CHPs & HRES’ Scenarios The comparative LCA study for the Envipark business case confirms that introducing innovative HYPERGRYD solutions is proficient in terms of the environmental impacts of the district area. Indeed, all impact indicators report a reduction of burdens associated with the use of novel CHPs. Considering the well-known Climate Change indicator, indeed, the CHP system enables a reduction around 3% of impacts, which is even higher when combining this technology with HRES system, achieving 26% of GWP reduction, which is a outstanding result. This reduction trend could be observed in almost all impact indicators selected for the study: in fact, similarly to Climate change, the improvement action of combining CHP novel system with HRES technology enables a global reduction of almost 34% in most all the impact indicators, while the stand-alone CHP determines only a slight reduction (2-3%) of burdens with respect to baseline. Figure 8 provides a deeper insight into the the breakdown of contributions for Envipark use case. Here, hotspot analysis is applied to the three different scenarios for selected and most relevant impact indicators. 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 99% 99% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 98,10% 97,17% 98,14% 97,17% 99,04% 100,00% 100,00% 99,45% 98,62% 98,11% 94,88% 98,01% 96,84% 99,51% 97,89% 62,44% 73,99% 55,68% 74,04% 56,99% 63,32% 64,11% 65,63% 55,70% 56,31% 74,98% 68,51% 73,32% 69,48% 56,45% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Acidification [mol H+ eq] Climate change [kg CO2 eq] Climate change - Biogenic [kg CO2 eq] Climate change - Fossil [kg CO2 eq] Climate change - Land use and LU change [kg CO2 eq] Particulate matter [disease inc.] Human toxicity, cancer [CTUh] Human toxicity, non-cancer [CTUh] Ionising radiation [kBq U-235 eq] Land use [Pt] Ozone depletion [kg CFC11 eq] Photochemical ozone formation [kg NMVOC eq] Resource use, fossils [MJ] Resource use, minerals and metals [kg Sb eq] Water use [m3 depriv.] Hypergryd CHPs & HRES Hypergryd CHPs Baseline D5.7 – Impact Analysis Study 34 Figure 8 Comparative LCA results of Envipark ‘Baseline’, ‘CHPs’ and ‘CHPs & HRES’ Scenarios with the contribution of the different energy utilities. 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Baseline CHPs CHPs & HRES Baseline CHPs CHPs & HRES Baseline CHPs CHPs & HRES Baseline CHPs CHPs & HRES Baseline CHPs CHPs & HRES Baseline CHPs CHPs & HRES Baseline CHPs CHPs & HRES Baseline CHPs CHPs & HRES Baseline CHPs CHPs & HRES Baseline CHPs CHPs & HRES Particulate matter Human toxicity, cancer Human toxicity, non-cancer Ionising radiation Land use Ozone depletion Photochemical ozone formation Resource use, fossils Resource use, minerals and metals Water use Municipal District Heating Electricity National Grid Electricity from Hydroelectric Electricity from PV Electricity from small size CHP Heat from small size CHP D5.7 – Impact Analysis Study 35 The chart points out that the most relevant contribution in all scenarios is Electricity national grid, having the highest impact shares for all categories. This result, determined by the specific energy demand in Envipark district, deeply affects the impact indicators. On the other hand, a relevant role is also given to Municipal district heating system, which specifically prevails in Ozone depletion indicator, probably because of the role of its value-chain (e.g. use of chemicals). 4.2 Sorption Thermal Energy Storage 4.2.1 Goal and scope Goal: This LCA study aims to evaluate the environmental benefits and/or burdens arising from the implementation of the Sorption Thermal Energy Storage in the Sonnenplatz district. It adopts a comparative perspective between a Baseline and the project Scenario (STES Scenario). System Boundaries: The LCA assessment is solely limited to the use phase of the district's energy consumption encompassing all activities related to the generation (e.g. biomass production), distribution, and consumption of energy within the district. Functional Unit: The functional unit for this assessment is defined as the total energy consumed by the district over a 25-year period. Temporal Scope: The assessment will cover a 25-years timeframe, from 2030 to 2055. Geographical Scope: The geographical scope is limited to the portion of the district described in paragraph 3.2 (buildings 7,8,10,11,12,13). Assumptions and Limitations: The assessment assumes that the energy consumption patterns remain consistent over 25-years. The energy flows that would remain unchanged upon the introduction of the new technology are considered a cut-off. D5.7 – Impact Analysis Study 36 4.2.2 Inventories In this paragraph the LCA Inventory tables for Business case 2 for the Baseline and STES scenario are disclosed. The quantification of the seasonal flows for the Baseline scenario was provided by Sonnenplatz while the STES scenario was built with the help of CNR and SORTEC. Table 4.5: LCA Inventory Table of Sonnenplatz ‘Baseline’ Scenario Flow Unit Winter Spring Summer Autumn Total average year Total 25 years Dataset Energy consumption Heat consumption - Biomass MJ 248544 143424 70963 199987 662918 16572960 AT: Heat, central or small-scale, other than natural gas | heat and power cogeneration, biogas, gas engine | APOS, U. Ecoinvent 3.10 Heat consumption – Oil fired boiler MJ 288 173 346 7200 8006 200160 Europe without Switzerland: heat production, light fuel oil, at boiler 100kW, non-modulating | APOS, U. Ecoinvent 3.10 Energy production on site - Renewable PV kWhe 7657 19008 25617 11301 63584 1589592 AT: electricity production, photovoltaic, 3kWp slanted-roof installation, single-Si, panel, mounted | APOS, U. Ecoinvent 3.10 PV self consumption % 62 50 48 50 51 51 - PV to the grid % 38 50 52 50 49 49 - D5.7 – Impact Analysis Study 37 Table 4.6: LCA Inventory Table of Sonnenplatz ‘Sorption Thermal Energy Storage( STES)’ Scenario Flow Unit Winter Spring Summer Autumn Total average year Total 25 years Dataset Energy consumption Heat consumption - Biomass MJ 215505 109731 45826 155647 526708 13167701 AT: Heat, central or small-scale, other than natural gas | heat and power cogeneration, biogas, gas engine | APOS, U. Ecoinvent 3.10 Heat consumption – Oil fired boiler MJ 250 132 223 5604 6209 155219 Europe without Switzerland: heat production, light fuel oil, at boiler 100kW, non-modulating | APOS, U. Ecoinvent 3.10 Energy production on site - Renewable PV kWhe 7657 19008 25617 11301 63584 1589592 AT: electricity production, photovoltaic, 3kWp slanted-roof installation, single-Si, panel, mounted | APOS, U. Ecoinvent 3.10 PV self consumption % 97 97 96 96 97 97 - PV to the grid % 3 3 4 4 3 3 - D5.7 – Impact Analysis Study 38 4.2.3 Impact Assessment This section discusses the results of the Life Cycle Assessment on the business case 2, considering baseline and innovative scenarios. The following table shows the environmental results of the two Scenarios over a 25 years period as well as the percentage difference between them. Table 4.7: Comparative LCA results of Sonnenplatz ‘Baseline’, ‘STES’ Scenarios (25 years) Impact Categories Baseline STES Delta % STES-Baseline Acidification [mol H+ eq] 2.91E+03 2.56E+03 -12% Climate change [kg CO2 eq] 3.31E+05 2.96E+05 -10% Climate change - Biogenic [kg CO2 eq] 2.48E+04 1.98E+04 -20% Climate change - Fossil [kg CO2 eq] 2.99E+05 2.71E+05 -9% Climate change - Land use and LU change [kg CO2 eq] 6.56E+03 5.28E+03 -19% Ecotoxicity, freshwater - part 1 [CTUe] 2.86E+06 2.42E+06 -16% Ecotoxicity, freshwater - part 2 [CTUe] 1.54E+06 1.40E+06 -10% Ecotoxicity, freshwater - inorganics [CTUe] 3.90E+06 3.39E+06 -13% Ecotoxicity, freshwater - organics - p.1 [CTUe] 2.27E+05 1.92E+05 -16% Ecotoxicity, freshwater - organics - p.2 [CTUe] 2.87E+05 2.36E+05 -18% Particulate matter [disease inc.] 2.23E-02 1.99E-02 -11% Eutrophication, marine [kg N eq] 6.71E+02 5.71E+02 -15% Eutrophication, freshwater [kg P eq] 1.98E+01 1.80E+01 -9% Eutrophication, terrestrial [mol N eq] 6.98E+03 5.95E+03 -15% Human toxicity, cancer [CTUh] 4.65E-04 4.18E-04 -10% Human toxicity, cancer - inorganics [CTUh] 3.35E-04 2.97E-04 -11% Human toxicity, cancer - organics [CTUh] 1.30E-04 1.21E-04 -7% Human toxicity, non-cancer [CTUh] 1.45E-02 1.33E-02 -8% Human toxicity, non-cancer - inorganics [CTUh] 1.40E-02 1.28E-02 -8% Human toxicity, non-cancer - organics [CTUh] 4.66E-04 4.29E-04 -8% Ionising radiation [kBq U-235 eq] 1.67E+04 1.47E+04 -12% Land use [Pt] 8.91E+06 7.23E+06 -19% Ozone depletion [kg CFC11 eq] 8.48E-02 7.10E-02 -16% Photochemical ozone formation [kg NMVOC eq] 1.44E+03 1.28E+03 -11% Resource use, fossils [MJ] 3.60E+06 3.30E+06 -8% Resource use, minerals and metals [kg Sb eq] 1.52E+01 1.49E+01 -2% Water use [m3 depriv.] 1.68E+06 1.36E+06 -19% The LCA data reports that the novel technology (STES) enables a net reduction of environmental impacts for the Sonnenplatz district in all the impact categories selected for the study. In particular, Climate change expresses -10% of burdens and the highest values are outlined for Water use (-19%), Land use (-19%) and Ecotoxicity, freshwater (-18%). Figure 9 clearly represents these results. D5.7 – Impact Analysis Study 39 Figure 9: Comparative LCA results of Sonnenplatz ‘Baseline’and ‘STES’ Scenarios The chart clearly demonstrates that the introduction of the STES system is beneficial for the environment, because it determines an average reduction of 20% of burdens associated with the use phase at Sonnenplatz district. Reduction of impacts, indeed, could be associated with a better selection of energy storage systems and proper management of the energy demand over the entire life cycle. In order to better highlight the importance of each input in the overall impact distribution, a hotspot analysis is applied in Figure 10. 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 88,17% 89,62% 79,90% 90,62% 80,50% 88,98% 89,77% 91,55% 88,17% 81,12% 83,77% 88,85% 91,66% 98,05% 80,90% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Acidification [mol H+ eq] Climate change [kg CO2 eq] Climate change - Biogenic [kg CO2 eq] Climate change - Fossil [kg CO2 eq] Climate change - Land use and LU change [kg CO2 eq] Particulate matter [disease inc.] Human toxicity, cancer [CTUh] Human toxicity, non-cancer [CTUh] Ionising radiation [kBq U-235 eq] Land use [Pt] Ozone depletion [kg CFC11 eq] Photochemical ozone formation [kg NMVOC eq] Resource use, fossils [MJ] Resource use, minerals and metals [kg Sb eq] Water use [m3 depriv.] STES Baseline D5.7 – Impact Analysis Study 40 Figure 10: Comparative LCA results of Sonnenplatz ‘Baseline’and ‘STES’ Scenarios with the contribution of the different energy utilities. 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Baseline STES Baseline STES Baseline STES Baseline STES Baseline STES Baseline STES Baseline STES Baseline STES Baseline STES Baseline STES Baseline STES Baseline STES Baseline STES Baseline STES Baseline STES Acidificatio n [mol H+ eq] Climate change [kg CO2 eq] Climate change - Biogenic [kg CO2 eq] Climate change - Fossil [kg CO2 eq] Climate change - Land use and LU change [kg CO2 eq] Particulate matter [disease inc.] Human toxicity, cancer [CTUh] Human toxicity, non-cancer [CTUh] Ionising radiation [kBq U-235 eq] Land use [Pt] Ozone depletion [kg CFC11 eq] Photochem ical ozone formation [kg NMVOC eq] Resource use, fossils [MJ] Resource use, minerals and metals [kg Sb eq] Water use [m3 depriv.] Heat from Biomass Heat from oil Electricity from PV D5.7 – Impact Analysis Study 41 The breakdown analysis indicates that the significant contribution for impacts is Heat produced from biomass, followed by Electricity from PV, having also a high share of burdens. In fact, in all the impact indicators the prevalence of Biomass heat is outlined, often counterpaired by the PV Electricity: this evidence is due to the input energy mix of Sonnenplatz STES district, in which these two energy sources prevail. In fact, the role of other sources (e.g. Heat from oil) is less relevant or, in some categories, quite negligible. From a general point of view, the hotspot analysis confirms that the consumptions (and, in turn, burdens) of the STES novel systems are lower than those of the benchmark, which is a positive result. Consequently, the LCA study proves that the STES technology is a more convenient and sustainable energy solution for the Sonnenplatz district in baseline scenario. D5.7 – Impact Analysis Study 48 In particular, while the implementation of the HPs ensures a remarkable reduction of the environmental burdens in the Climate Change – Biogenic indicators (by breaking the dependence on the biomass boilers), the electrification causes an excess of electricity consumptions from the grid that in the presented energy mix of Austria causes an increase in the Climate Change – Fossil that is also reflected in the Climate Change – Total indicator. This issue could in part be mitigated by making internal use of the excess PV which today is sold to the national grid today, and expanding the solar park. D5.7 – Impact Analysis Study 49 5 LCC of HYPERGRYD technologies This chapter reports the Life Cycle Costing applied to the three business cases of the HYPERGRYD project. Premises, inventory and results are discussed below. 5.1 Reversible micro-CHP with steam engine and steam buffer 5.1.1 Goal and scope Goal: The Goal of the analysis is to evaluate the economic impacts of implementing the micro-CHP units, and eventually achieving higher share of renewable energy in the Envipark district A comparative perspective is adopted between a Baseline and the two project Scenarios (CHPs Scenario and CHP & HRES Scenario). This comparison aims to provide insights into the economic viability over 25 years. System Boundaries: The LCC analysis will focus on the financial aspects of the energy district, including CAPEX, OPEX, and revenues, from the supply of new equipments and their use for the reference period. System decomissioning is excluded. Functional Unit: The functional unit for this assessment is defined as the total energy consumed and produced by the district over 25 years. The perspective adopted in the one of the final user. Geographical Scope and Temporal Scope: As per the LCA study. Assumptions and Limitations: The assessment assumes that the energy consumption patterns remain unchanged over the 25-years period. The energy flows which would remain unchanged upon introducing the new technology are considered a cut-off. The same applies to the Capex and Maintenance cost of the equipment that would stay in place for both Scenarios (pre-existing PV and Hydro-plant, district heating internal network). Energy prices and feed-in tariffs to the grid are assumed to remain constant over the 25-year period. The reference value is the average energy price over a long period to account for cyclical price fluctuations. 5.1.2 Inventories This paragraph reports the economic and technical parameters underlying the LCC analysis. RANOTOR provided data on the selling price, installation and maintenance of the CHPs units. Data on additional PV were estimated with the help of R2M. D5.7 – Impact Analysis Study 50 Table 5.1: LCC Inventory Table of Envipark ’Baseline, ‘CHPs’ and ‘CHP & RES’ Scenarios Flow Baseline Scenario CHPs Scenario CHPs&HRES Scenario Unit Note/ Data source Nominal Power of the CHP - 5/20 5/20 kWe/kWth Number of System to be installed - 3 3 - Life-span of the CHP - 15 15 years Nominal Power of the PV System - - 219 kWe 1 System 19 kWe plus 2 Systems 20 kWe Life-span of the PV - - 25 years Capex Initial Capex 1 CHP - 12.500 12.500 Eur It includes installation costs. Total Capex, 3 CHPs, 25 years 62.500 62.500 Eur Initial Capex PV - 250.000 Eur Opex Maintenance of the CHPs units, 25 years - 29.646 29.646 Eur Yearly Operational hours:4392 (Primary data);Maintenance cost : 0.018 Eur/kWh (Burgis, 2025) ; Maintenance cost PV - - 5.500 Eur 2% of the Initial cost for small size; 1% of the initial cost for big size (SOLAR FAQs, 2025); Total Cost for energy 15.912.033 15.556.786 10.829.762 Eur See Annex 9.2.1 Revenues Total Revenues 2.940.475 2.940.475 0 Eur Hydro energy to the grid. See Annex 9.2.1 5.1.3 Impact Assessment This section reports the economic impact assessment analysis on Envipark (Turin, IT), which is the 1st use case of the HYPERGRYD project. Envipark includes a reversible micro-CHP system with a steam engine and steam buffer. In Figure 13 the global results of the LCC study are reported for the three compared scenarios. The charts presents the total costs for each of the three Envipark scenarios. In particular, the baseline and CHPs configuration have very similar outcomes: indeed, the costs are only inputable to Opex and they have similar extent; moreover, these scenarios also include a good share of Revenues obtained from the electricity sold to the grid. The other innovative scenario (CHPs &HRES) presents a minor cost for the investment (Capex) required for the new technology, while the Operational costs are lower than previous scenarios. D5.7 – Impact Analysis Study 51 Figure 13: Comparative LCC results of the Envipark use case To better understand the contribution of entries to the final costs of the three different configurations, a hotspot analysis is applied and reported in Figure 14. Figure 14: Hotspot analysis on LCC results for Envipark use case The contribution analysis for Envipark results outlines that the main cost driver is the Purchased energy, which is more than 15000 k€ for both CHPs and baseline scenarios and almost 11000 k€ for the combined configuration (CHPs and HRES). The costs related to Capex are null or negligible, and maintenance costs are very low and not visible for the scale of the graph. Finally, revenues of more than 2500 k€ are outlined for baseline and CHPs scenarios. In conclusion, the two CHPs innovative scenarios are competitive with respect to baseline: in fact, stand-alone CHPs have same Revenues as baseline, with slightly lower Opex, while the combination of CHPs & HRES has a minor share of Capex for PV systems no Revenues, but a very lower cost for the Purchased energy. For this reason, they could be considered economically viable and sustainable alternative to the baseline Envipark configuration. The Investment Pay back time was calculated and reported in the next Table, to better express the economic viability of the two projects scenarios. -5000 0 5000 10000 15000 20000 Baseline CHPs CHPs & HRES kEUR Capex Opex Revenues -5000 0 5000 10000 15000 20000 Baseline CHPs CHPs & HRES kEUR Capex CHPs Capex PV Maintenance CHPs Maintenance PV Purchased Energy Revenues D5.7 – Impact Analysis Study 52 Table 5.2: Calculation of the Investment Payback time for the Scenarios investigated in business case 1. Scenario Opex – revenues (€) Opex - revenues/year (€/year) Delta Project vs. Baseline (€/year) pay back time (years) Baseline 12.971.557 518.862 n.a n.a CHPs 12.645.956 505.838 -13.024 4.80 CHPs & HRES 10.864.908 434.596 -71.242 4.74 D5.7 – Impact Analysis Study 53 5.2 Sorption Thermal Energy Storage 5.2.1 Goal and scope Goal: The Goal of the analysis is to evaluate the economic impacts of the implementation of the Sorption storage in the Sonnenplatz district. A comparative perspective is adopted between a Baseline and the project Scenario to provide insights into the financial viability over 25 years. System Boundaries: The LCC analysis will focus on the financial aspects of the energy district, including CAPEX, OPEX, and revenues, from the supply of the new equipments and their use for the reference period. System decomissioning is excluded. Functional Unit: The functional unit for this assessment is defined as the total energy consumed and produced by the district over a 25-years period. Geographical Scope: as per LCA. Temporal Scope Assumptions and Limitations: as per business case 1. D5.7 – Impact Analysis Study 54 5.2.2 Inventories Table 5.3: LCC Inventory Table of Sonnenplatz‘Baseline’and ‘Sorption Thermal Energy Storage’ (STES) Scenario Flow Baseline Scenario Sorption Thermal Storage Scenario Unit Note/ Data source Power Output of the HP - 250 kW Calculated in order to cover the the maximum storing capacity of the Sorption Storage (750 KWhth ) in 3h. Life-span of the HP 15 years Nominal Power of the STES - 5 kW Storing Capacity needed - 750 kWhth Primary data from the project (CNR simulation) Number of STES needed - 15 Primary data from the project (CNR simulation): Total storing capacity needed 750 kWhth Life-span of the STES - 25 years Capex Initial Capex HP - 104.000 (Min) 1.040.000(Max) 572.000(Average) EUR Equipment cost at manufacturer: 100 to 1000 EUR/KW. Project cost = 4.16*Equipment cost. (Kosmadakis, 2020).A sensitivity taking into account the variability of the equipment cost was performed Total Capex, HP, 25 years - 173.333 (Min) 1.733.333(Max) 953.333(Average) EUR Calculated from Initial Capex multiplied per the ratio between the Reference period and technology Life span (25/15=1.67) Total Capex STES - 236.250 (Equipment) 6.480 (Installaton) EUR Primary data from SORTEC: 17500 EUR + 480 EUR for the installation of a 5 kW System. Total Capex for 75 KW = Cost of 15 Systems with a 10% discount. Opex Maintenance HP - 34.667 (Min) 3.467(Max) 19.067(Average) EUR 2% of the Equipment Cost (Kosmadakis, 2020) Maintenance STES - 42.000 (Replacements) 54.250 (Man hours) Eur Primary data from SORTEC: Replacements:3500 EUR per 5KW System. For 15 Systems, 10% discount. Man hours: 300 EUR/year (0.5h online, 2h in presence) for a 5 kW System. For 15 Systems, 50% discount. Total Cost for energy 361034 286.798 Eur See Annex 9.2.2 Revenues Total Revenues 131752 92.230 Eur PV to the grid; See Annex Annex 9.2.2 D5.7 – Impact Analysis Study 55 5.2.3 Impact Assessment This section reports the economic impact assessment analysis on Sorption Storage for the Sonnenplatz (Großschönau, AT) district, which is the 2nd use case of the HYPERGRYD project. The configuration includes the Sorption Thermal Energy Storage (STES) system. In Figure 15, the global results of the LCC study are reported considering three different scenarios for STES, because of a high cost variability present in the literature for this technology. Figure 15: Comparative LCC results of the Sonnenplatz STES use case Results point out that the innovative solutions are still not competitive with respect to the baseline from an economic perspective. Indeed, the high Capex expense for this technology raises the final costs of innovative configurations, making them less sustainable than the benchmark. In this sense, despite the difference between the currently available info, which led to a sensitivity between higher and lower costs reported in the literature, the impact on the final cost is the same. Moreover, at this stage of art, STES scenarios do not enable a remarkable revenue, which is still very low. On the other hand, Opex costs are almost similar between all the compared configurations. The breakdown analysis of Figure 16 reports the contribution cost analysis for Sonnenplatz STES scenarios. In particular, the most relevant entry cost for STES novel solutions is represented by the very high Capex required for the Heat Pump. As already observed, the cost variability of this equipment is one of the limitations of the present assessment, which is mitigated by the applied sensitivity analysis (max, average and min cost scenarios). -500 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 Baseline STES (min) STES (medium) STES (max) kEUR Capex Opex Revenues D5.7 – Impact Analysis Study 56 Figure 16: Hotspot analysis on LCC results of the Sonnenplatz STES use case Novel STES configurations also includes the same share of Capex for the Sorption-TES (about 2500 k€), which is close to the cost amount for Purchased energy (around 2300 k€). Maintenance expenses are quite low, while major revenues are only observed for the baseline scenarios. In conclusion, the Sonnenplatz STES new configurations, at this stage of art, are not economically viable nor convenient concerning baseline, because of higher costs and no revenues: to improve their viability and sustainability, an increase in the revenue incomes and the implementation of the Heat Pump costs are suggested, so as to reduce the associated expenditures with their provision and installation. To better express the obtained results are also described in terms of the Yearly Delta between the project Opex + Revenues, and the same quantity normalised for the number of users expressed as the sum of households (5), office (1) and hotel (1) in the buildings which are part of the assessed business case. As evident from the data reported in the following table, the investment is not paid back in any of the analysed analyses in the present hypothesis. Even with the hypothesis of minimum cost of the Heat Pumps, implementating this Scenario would enhance the yearly expenses by a quantity of 4545 EUR. Table 5.4: Calculation of the Investment Payback time for the Scenarios investigated in business case 2. Scenario Cape/year (€/year) Opex + revenues/year (€/year) Delta Project vs. Baseline (€/year) Delta Capex + Opex Project vs. Baseline (€/year per user) pay back time (years) Baseline 0 9171 n.a STES (max) 79.043 16420 +7.248 +13.637 Not payed back STES (min) 16.643 15172 +6.000 +4.545 Not payed back STES (medium) 47.843 15.796 +6.624 +9.091 Not payed back -500 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 Baseline STES (min) STES (medium) STES (max) kEUR Capex Sorption-TES Capex Heat Pump Maintenance Sorption-TES Maintenance Heat Pump Purchased Energy Revenues D5.7 – Impact Analysis Study 57 5.3 Modular Heat Pump with short-term storage 5.3.1 Goal and scope Goal: The Goal of the analysis is to evaluate the economic impacts of implementing Modular Heat Pumps with PCM Storage in the Sonnenplatz district. A comparative perspective is adopted between a Baseline and the project Scenario to provide insights into the economic viability over a 25-year period. System Boundaries: The LCC analysis will focus on the financial aspects of the energy district, including CAPEX, OPEX, and revenues, from the supply of new equipments and its use for the reference period. System decommissioning is excluded. Functional Unit: The functional unit for this assessment is defined as the total energy consumed and produced by the district over 25 years. Geographical Scope: as per LCA Temporal Scope Assumptions and Limitations: as per business case 1 and 2. D5.7 – Impact Analysis Study 64 Additionally, the assignment of a functional unit remains a challenge in S-LCA, as it is not feasible to base social impact evaluations on standard physical units (e.g., kWh of energy or kg of product) commonly used in Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) or Life Cycle Costing (LCC), especially during the development phase of enabling technologies. The study also encountered difficulties in establishing a baseline for social performance. This challenge arises from the complexity of comparing existing solutions to innovative technologies and the absence of clear thresholds for performance assessments (e.g., determining what level of child labour constitutes the "worst" performance score). Moreover, due to the novelty of the RES-based enabling technology, it was difficult to obtain reliable and comprehensive data from other life cycle stages, such as raw material extraction, usage, and endof-life management. Since the technology is still in the development phase, these data are either unavailable or highly uncertain, limiting the ability to fully assess social impacts across the entire product life cycle. Settled the premises, boundaries (physical and methodological) and parameters of the S-LCA study, the analysis continued with data gathering and LCI building-up. 6.2 Inventories The data inventory for this S-LCA is structured across two levels, following a combined approach: country level and organizational level. Indeed: • Country-Level Inventory is primarily based on country-specific indicators sourced from official reports and reputable NGOs, ensuring reliable and widely recognized data. The data sources used for each stakeholder is presented in Table 6.2: Table 6.2: Data sources for the S-LCA country level inventory Impact category Unit LOCAL COMMUNITY World Bank (WorldBank, 2025) Article 19 (Article19, 2025) Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) (OECD, 2025) Migrant Integration Policy Index (MIPEX, 2025) Eurostat – European Commission (EUROSTAT, 2025) Our World in Data (OWID, 2025) World Justice Project (WJP, 2025) Vision of Humanity (Humanity, 2025) VALUE-CHAIN ACTORS Competition Policy – European Commission (Competition, 2025) CONSUMER European Environment Agency (EEA, 2025) UN Trade and Development (UNCTAD, 2025) WORKERS World Bank (WorldBank, 2025) UNICEF (UNICEF, 2025) World Economic Forum (WEF, 2025) Eurostat – European Commission (EUROSTAT, 2025) Walk Free (WalkFree, 2025) SOCIETY Transparency International (Transparency, 2025) D5.7 – Impact Analysis Study 65 Impact category Unit Eurostat – European Commission (EUROSTAT, 2025) • Organizational-Level Inventory is conducted through a questionnaire distributed to representatives from all partner organizations involved in the project, providing tailored and context-specific information. The questionnaire is mainly based on the level of agreement with around 50 positive -oriented statements related to all the stakeholders, ranging from «strongly agree» to «strongly disagree», alongside with multiple choice questions. The combination of these two levels offers a balanced approach. The country-level data provides an objective foundation, while the organizational-level data offers insights specific to the project participants. This dual approach ensures both broad contextual relevance and precise organizational applicability, addressing potential gaps between general indicators and the unique characteristics of individual organizations. The complete inventory questionnaire for S-LCA is presented in Appendix 9.3. 6.3 Impact Assessment The present S-LCA study applied a certain impact assessment methodology for the calculation of potential socio-economic impacts of the HYPERGRYD solutions, taking into account a combination of countryand organizational-level data. This information is opportunely processes before obtaining the final social performance, as described in the following methodological section, specific for HYPERGRYD project. 6.3.1 Methodological premise Data collected from the inventory sources is transformed with a performance assessment (PA) into a standardized reference 1-to-6 scale (1: best, 6: worst) Since the input data varies across indicators, multiple transformation methods are employed to align the data to this scale according to the following methodology. Processing Questionnaire Data Responses from the organizational-level questionnaire, using an «agree/disagree» system," are converted PA scores. Specifically: • «strongly agree»is assigned a PA score of 1 ; • «strongly disagree» is assigned a PA score of 6 ; • Intermediate responses are interpolated proportionally. Processing Quantitative Country-Level Data Quantitative indicators from country-level sources are transformed into PA scores using one of the following methods: − Reference Point Method: If a reference point exists, it is assigned a PA score of 3.5. Other values are then adjusted by interpolating between the reference point and the most distant value in the dataset ; D5.7 – Impact Analysis Study 66 − Minimum-Maximum Scale Method: For data with a defined range: o If the positive impact increases with higher values, the minimum is assigned a PA score of 6 and the maximum a score of 1 ; o If the positive impact decreases with higher values, the reverse is applied ; o Intermediate values are interpolated linearly. − No Reference or Scale: When no reference point or clear scale is available, the midpoint is set to the average value for European Union member states, and scores are derived relative to this average. After calculating the Performance Assessment (PA) at both the country and organisational levels, the overall PA for the functional unit is determined by evaluating the three main technologies developed within the project. A multi-weight assignment process is applied to account for the varying levels of partner involvement in the development of each technology to aggregate the PA values across these layers. Indeed, for each development within a layer, partner-specific weights are assigned based on their rôle, i.e.: • A weight of 1 is assigned to the main development partner, reflecting their leading role and direct influence on the technology’s design and implementation; • A weight of 0.5 is assigned to collaborators who provide significant support but are not directly leading the development; • Partners with general or coordination roles are assigned lower weights of 5% and 10%, respectively, acknowledging their indirect contributions to the technology without handson involvement in core development tasks. These weight values were carefully established following extensive internal discussions to ensure they accurately represent each partner's actual impact and responsibility within the project. This structured approach guarantees a balanced and fair distribution of influence in the overall social performance assessment, reinforcing the transparency and credibility of the results. Finally, to calculate the total PA for the project, the results from each technology layer are combined using weighted contributions: 65% for Layer 1 (RES-based enabling technologies), 20% for Layer 2 (HYPERGRYD ICT tools), and 15% for Layer 3 (integrated platform and services). To enhance the evaluation of the project's social impact, the performance assessment is analysed through six defined Social Impact Categories (ICs), as introduced in (A.Ciroth, 2011). These categories include Working Conditions (WC), Health & Safety (HS), Human Rights (HR), Socio-Economic Repercussions (SER), Indigenous Rights (IR), and Governance (G). Each subcategory is evaluated for its relationship with these impact categories, which can be classified as strong, weak, or no relationship. As seen in Table 6.1, strong relationships are marked with an "x," weak relationships with "(x)," and no relationship with a "-". The subcategories do not have uniform connections with all impact categories. To account for this variation, a transformation from PA to IA has been designed and presented in Table 6.3, ensuring that each subcategory is appropriately weighted according to its relevance to each impact category (M. C. Caruso, 2022). Depending on the aggregated ∑IC, thresholds are defined to adjust the PA score, allowing for an increment or decrement in the final IA score. For instance, a subcategory with a high PA score but strong relationships across all impact categories may result in a lower IA score to reflect its greater overall impact. D5.7 – Impact Analysis Study 67 Table 6.3: Transformation rules from PA to IA. Each cell represents the new IA score PA ∑IC<2 2<∑IC<4 4<∑IC<5 5<∑IC<6 PA=1 2 1 1 1 PA=2 3 2 1 1 PA=3 4 3 3 2 PA=4 3 4 4 5 PA=5 4 5 6 6 PA=6 5 6 6 6 6.3.2 Results for S-LCA After this methodological premise, the impact assessment for S-LCA study in HYPERGRYD project is discussed on two different levels: • Performance assessment of the involved countries, which acts as a sensitivity analysis on the social performance of the countries involved in the project; • Impact assessment of HYPERGRYD technologies, which focuses on the potential socioeconomic impacts of the project-developed solutions. Both analyses are discussed in the next sections of the document. 6.3.2.1 Performance assessment of the involved countries The country-level performance assessment the present S-LCA study aims to evaluate and compare the social performance of the countries involved in the project, based on various socio-economic indicators reported in Appendix 9.4 of this document. These countries are Austria, Belgium, Germany, Italy, Poland, Spain and Sweden. The assessment considers the average marks assigned to each country across multiple dimensions relevant to key stakeholders, including Workers, Local Communities, Consumers, and Society at large. The evaluation provides insights into how countries are performing in terms of social sustainability and highlights areas where improvements are needed. It is also useful to compare and visualize results that will be used to calculate the Impact Assessment for the HYPERGRYD solutions. In the subsequent sections, the average marks for each stakeholder category will be presented through graphical plots. These plots illustrate the comparative performance of countries, offering a clear visual representation of their strengths and weaknesses in addressing social impacts. This analysis is crucial for identifying best practices and areas requiring policy intervention to enhance social outcomes globally. Local Community The performance assessment for the Local Community stakeholder indicates significant impacts across all countries participating in the project. The impact values (pictured in Figure 20)range from 2.3 in Sweden to 3.4 in Spain. While these findings suggest that there is room for improvement, they also indicate that the overall impact on local communities at the country level is relatively moderate. D5.7 – Impact Analysis Study 68 Figure 20. Performance Assessment per countries to the stakeholder Local Community Consumer The performance assessment of impacts on the Consumer stakeholder indicates consistently low values across the seven countries involved in the project. Specifically, the average impact scores range between 1 and 2, which represents the best-case scenario according to the rating scale employed, where 1 signifies the least negative impact and 6 signifies the most negative impact. This uniform low impact suggests that the project has minimal to no negative effects on consumers across all evaluated countries. The map presented in Figure 21 visually illustrates these findings, highlighting the range of impact values across the assessed countries. Figure 21. Performance Assessment per countries to the stakeholder Consumer D5.7 – Impact Analysis Study 69 The consistently favourable ratings across all countries underscore the project's effectiveness at the national level in safeguarding consumer interests, showcasing a high level of social responsibility towards this stakeholder group. Worker The performance assessment for the Worker stakeholder reveals substantial impacts across all participating countries, indicating negative effects according to the applied scale. Notably, Germany, Sweden, and Belgium are exceptions, with their performance assessments scoring below 3. In contrast, all other countries exhibit scores higher than 3, highlighting significant areas for improvement in worker-related impacts. Figure 22 presents a map of the assessed countries, illustrating these findings. Figure 22. Performance Assessment per countries to the stakeholder Workers Society In the performance assessment of the Society stakeholder there are two clear clusters of countries. In one hand, Austria, Belgium, Germany and Sweden perform very well in the effects on this particular stakeholder, with values close to 1 in all cases. On the other hand, Italy, Poland and Spain present opportunities for enhancement in this field, with values around 3.5 in all the cases. These differences can be observed in the map presented inFigure 23. D5.7 – Impact Analysis Study 70 Figure 23. Performance Assessment per countries to the stakeholder Society Value-Chain Actors In the case of Value-Chain Actors, the results are not presented because there is only one subcategory analysed, and all countries perform the best with an indicator of 1. 6.3.2.2 Impact assessment of HYPERGRYD technologies The impact assessment (IA) of HYPERGRYD technologies is structured in three different parts: first of all, a preliminary overview is presented, then a focus on the stakeholder IA is discussed and finally the IA for organizations and countries is examined. Overview To provide a comprehensive overview of the impact of the technologies involved in HYPERGRYD, distribution of the Impact Assessment (IA) has been studied. This visualization has been constructed through a series of systematic steps. First, the IA values (ranging from 1 to 6) were counted for each stakeholder: these counts were then normalized to allow for comparative analysis. Following normalization, the percentage distribution for each IA value was calculated. It is important to notice that the total area represented by each stakeholder in the plot remains constant, ensuring an equitable comparison across different stakeholders. The stakeholders considered in this assessment include Consumers, Local Community, Society, Value Chain Actors, and Workers. Each segment within the bar plot in Figure 24 corresponds to a specific stakeholder's contribution to the overall impact at each IA value, providing a clear visual representation of how impacts are distributed among different groups. D5.7 – Impact Analysis Study 71 Figure 24. Distribution of the Impact Assessment per categories and stakeholders normalized Notable differences can be observed among the stakeholders. It is important to highlight that, following the conversion from Performance Assessment (PA) to IA, there are no instances of IA values 1 and 6, which represent the best and worst possible values, respectively. In this project, the Consumer stakeholder exhibits a larger percentage of IA value 2, indicating relatively better protection. However, this stakeholder also has significant proportions of IA values 4 and 5. Conversely, the Local Community stakeholder has the highest fraction of IA value 5 and almost no indicators at IA value 2, indicating greater vulnerability. The Society stakeholder shows a uniform distribution of IA values between 2 and 5, suggesting that while the impacts are not excessively negative, there is still considerable room for improvement. Value Chain Actors appear to be relatively well-protected, with the majority of indicators falling at IA values 2 and 3. Lastly, the Worker stakeholder has a more diverse distribution across all IA values, with a noticeable presence at IA value 4 and a lesser presence at IA value 5. This distribution indicates a moderate to high level of impact on Workers, necessitating targeted interventions to mitigate these effects. Stakeholder Impact Assessment Local Community D5.7 – Impact Analysis Study 72 The Impact Assessment for the stakeholder Local Community is presented in Figure 25. Figure 25. Impact Assessment for stakeholder Local Community As observed, the results for the three technologies are similar across almost all subcategories, except for Access to Material and Immaterial Resources. In these subcategories, only three subcategories show a slightly positive impact, while the others range from slightly negative to negative impacts. The average result for all three technologies is approximately 3.5 on the Impact Assessment (IA) scale, indicating a neutral impact overall. This suggests that there is still room for improvement, particularly in the subcategories Safe and Healthy Living Conditions and Local Employment. Value-Chain Actors The social impact assessment for all technologies concerning the stakeholder Value Chain Actors indicates a slightly positive overall impact, with a notable positive effect in the subcategory Respect for Intellectual Property Rights. As illustrated in Figure 26, the results range from positive to slightly positive, with a slightly negative impact observed in the subcategory Promotion of Social Responsibility caused by the Reversible Micro-CHP and Modular Heat Pump technologies. D5.7 – Impact Analysis Study 73 Figure 26. Impact Assessment for stakeholder Value-Chain Actors Consumer The social impact assessment for the stakeholder Consumer is presented in Figure 27. The three technologies demonstrate a positive impact across most subcategories. However, the subcategories Transparency and End-of-life Responsibility show slightly negative to negative impacts for all three technologies, resulting in an overall average Impact Assessment (IA) that is only slightly positive. These areas represent clear hotspots for improvement, indicating a need for targeted actions to enhance performance in these specific subcategories. D5.7 – Impact Analysis Study 80 7 Conclusions 7.1 Main conclusions for LCA • Business case 1: The comparative LCA study for Envipark business case confirms that the introduction of innovative HYPERGRYD solutions is proficient in terms of environmental impacts of the district area. Indeed, all impact indicators reports a reduction of burdens associated with the implementation of the innovative scenarios. combining the CHP novel system with HRES technology enables a reduction of the impacts from a minimum of 20% up to 44% in specific indicators like Water use and Climate Change biogenic, while the standalone CHP determines only a slight reduction (2-3%) of burdens with respect to baseline. • Business case 2 : The LCA data reports that the novel technology (STES) enables a net reduction of environmental impacts for Sonnenplatz district in respect to the baseline scenario in all the impact categories selected for the study. In particular, Climate change expresses -10% of burdens and also highest values are outlined for Water use (-19%), Land use (-19%) and Ecotoxicity, freshwater (-18%). • Business case 3 : The analysis confirms a substantial reduction of impacts in the novel configuration with Modular Heat Pump: indeed, a positive decrease of burdens is observed for several indicators, including Water use (-86%), Ecotoxicity freshwater (-78%), Land use (- 64%) and Ozone depletion (-38%). However, some indicators report an increase of their impacts for the HYPERGRYD scenario: for example, Climate change (+28%), Resource use, fossils (+37%) and Eutrophication, freshwater (+44%) indicators are affected by this increment. In particular while the implementation of the HPs ensures a remarkable reduction of the environmental burdens in the Climate Change – Biogenic indicators (by breaking the dependence on the biomass boilers), the electrification causes an excess of electricity consumptions from the grid that in the present energy mix of Austria causes an increase in the Climate Change – Fossil that is also reflected in the Climate Change – Total indicator. This issue could in part be mitigated by making internal use of the excess PV which today is sold to the national grid and expanding the solar park. It is worth mentioning that the present assessment has a restricted system boundary, focused on the use phase. The approach is justified by the lack of comprehensive data on the raw material sourcing, usage, and end-of-life stages due to the novelty of the technologies. Dedicated studies could expand the sustainability assessment by focusing on the ecodesign of the prototypes. However when taking into account the context of the analyses, that is the one of energy related equipments, the great parts of environmental impacts is generally associated with their use phase and therefore even the expansion of the system Boundaries should not alter significantly the presents results. 7.2 Main conclusions for LCC - Business case 1: the implementation of the two innovative scenarios in the assumptions of the present study resulted economically viable. The bay back time of the investment Capex is around 5 years for both the ‘CHPs’ and ‘CHPs & HRES’ scenarios. After this time the innovative D5.7 – Impact Analysis Study 81 energy assets configurations ensure net economic savings in terms of maintenance costs and energy expenses greater than 13000 €/year and 71000 €/year respectively. - Business case 2: the implementation of the investigated scenario in the hypothesis of this study is not economically feasible nor convenient with respect to baseline, because of the higher costs in term of Capex are not compensated by the potential savings achievable in terms of maintenance and energy expenses. It is also worth mentioning that the higher Capex Cost is mainly associated with the implementation of the high temperature Heat Pumps rather than with the Sorption Storage it self. Different results may therefore be obtained building a different configuration for the integration of the novel technology in a similar energy community. - Business case 3: the integration of the Modular Heat Pump with the PCM storage is proven to be sustainable from economic point of view and it is more convenient than baseline scenario, because it allows a reduction of the Opex cost greater than 40000 €/year ensuring an investment pay-back time around 13 years. The conclusions of the LCA study are strictly dependent on the assumptions that were necessary to estimate the Capex and Opex of the novel and baseline technologies, but also on the energy purchase and selling price. Regarding the last point the mid and long-term future scenarios will be strongly effected by the real trend in the energy market prices that today are difficulty predictable. 7.3 Main conclusions for S-LCA The Social Life Cycle Assessment (S-LCA) performed for HYPERGRYD project has provided valuable insights into the social impacts associated with the development of the Renewable Energy Sources (RES)-based enabling technology within the HYPERGRYD project. By evaluating the technology across various stakeholder groups—Workers, Local Communities, Value Chain Actors, Consumers, and Society—the study identified both positive contributions and critical social hotspots. Notably, the project demonstrated positive social performance in areas such as consumer safety and value chain ethics, while areas like worker health and safety, fair salaries, and local community well-being require further attention. The multi-layered analysis, covering the RES technologies, ICT tools, and integrated platform, allowed for a comprehensive understanding of the social dynamics throughout the technology development process. However, the assessment also highlighted several methodological and data-related challenges that limit the full capture of social impacts. These include the difficulty in balancing diverse stakeholder perspectives, handling different scales of assessment, and the challenge of assigning a suitable functional unit during the development phase. Additionally, the lack of comprehensive data on the raw material sourcing, usage, and end-of-life stages due to the novelty of the technology restricted the scope of the assessment. Addressing these limitations in future research—through more refined frameworks, improved data collection across life cycle stages, and stakeholder engagement—will be essential for enhancing the accuracy and depth of S-LCA in evaluating emerging energy technologies. 8 References A.Ciroth, J. (2011). LCA of an Ecolabeled Notebook Consideration of Social and Environmental Impacts Along the Entire Life Cycle. Berlin, Germany: GreenDeltaTC GmbH . D5.7 – Impact Analysis Study 82 Article19. (2025). Defending freedom of expression and information. Retrieved from https://www.article19.org/ Burgis, E. (2025, 03 18). Understanding CHP and the Cost of Installation. Retrieved from https://understandingchp.com/blog/understanding-chp-and-the-cost-of-installation/ Competition. (2025). Competition Policy - European Commission. Retrieved from https://competitionpolicy.ec.europa.eu/index_en E. (2025, February 13). Retrieved from https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/databrowser/view/ten00117__custom_15351676/default/ta ble?lang=en E.Borri, G. a. (2024). Evaluation of the social impact of an energy system for residential heating applications based on a novel seasonal thermal energy storage. J Energy Storage, 111210. doi:doi: 10.1016/j.est.202 EEA. (2025). European Environment Agency | Homepage. Retrieved from https://www.eea.europa.eu/en EF3.1. (2025). Environmental Footprint EF 3.1 Package. Retrieved from European Platform on LCA | EPLCA: https://eplca.jrc.ec.europa.eu/LCDN/developerEF.xhtml Environment Park. (2025, 03 24). Parco Tecnologico. Retrieved from https://www.envipark.com/campus/ EUROSTAT. (2025). Database. Retrieved from https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/main/data/database Eurostat. (2025, 02 13). Electricity prices by type of user. Retrieved from https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/databrowser/view/ten00117__custom_15351676/default/ta ble?lang=en Eurostat. (2025, 02 13). Gas prices by type of user. Retrieved from https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/databrowser/view/ten00118/default/table?lang=en&categor y=t_nrg.t_nrg_indic%20%2013.02.202 GME. (2025, 02 13). MGP - Esiti - Prezzi Zonali. Retrieved from https://www.mercatoelettrico.org/itit/Home/Esiti/Elettricita/MGP/Esiti/PrezziZonali Heiz_pellets24. (2025, 03 19). Retrieved from https://www.heizpellets24.at/pelletpreise?UnknownZipCode=74376 Humanity. (2025). Vision of Humanity | Destination for Peace. Retrieved from https://www.visionofhumanity.org/ IlTeleriscaldamento.eu. (2025, 02 13). Retrieved from https://www.ilteleriscaldamento.eu/teleriscaldamento_piemonte.htm ISO14044. (2006). ISO 14044-2006: Environmental Management – Life Cycle Assessment: Requirements and Guidelines. Geneva, Switzerland: ISO. D5.7 – Impact Analysis Study 83 ISO15686. (2008). ISO 15686-5: 2008: Buildings and constructed assets - Service-life planning - Part 5: Life-cycle costing. Geneva, Switzerland: ISO. JRC, E. (2010). International Reference Life Cycle Data System (ILCD) Handbook - General guide for Life Cycle Assessment - Detailed guidance. Luxembourg: EU Commission, Joint Research Center (JRC). Kosmadakis, G. A. (2020). Techno-economic analysis of high-temperature heat pumps with low-global warming potential refrigerants for upgrading waste heat up to 150 C. Energy Conversion and Management. M. C. Caruso, C. P. (2022, 2). Comparative environmental and social life cycle assessments of off-shore aquaculture rafts made in ultra-high performance concrete (UHPC). International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 281-300. doi:10.1007/s11367-021-02017-6 Margni, M. (2012). Guidance on how to move from current practice to recommended practice in Life Cycle Impact Assessment. Paris, France: UNEP/SETAC Life Cycle Initiative. MIPEX. (2025). Migrant Integration Policy Index | MIPEX 2020 . Retrieved from https://www.mipex.eu/ OECD. (2025). Indicators | OECD. . Retrieved from https://www.oecd.org/en/data/indicators.html OWID. (2025). Database. Retrieved from https://ourworldindata.org/ SETAC. (2010). Environmental life cycle costing: a code of practice. Brussels, Belgium: Society of Environmental Chemistry and Toxicology (SETAC). SOLAR FAQs. (2025, 03 19). Retrieved from MYSUN: https://www.itsmysun.com/faqs/what-would-bethe-annual-maintenance-cost-for-a-solar-pv-system/ Sonnenplatz. (2025, 03 24). Retrieved from https://www.sonnenplatz.at/page.asp%2Clang%3Den/vision Statistik_Austria. (2025, March 19). Retrieved from https://www.statistik.at/en/databases/statcubestatistical-database Transparency. (2025). Transparency | Homepage. Retrieved from https://www.transparency.org/en/ Traverso, M. (2021). Methodological sheets for subcategories in social life cycle assessment (S-LCA). Kenya, Nairobi: United Nations Environment Programme. UNCTAD. (2025). UN Trade & Development | Homepage. Retrieved from https://unctad.org/ UNEP. (2020). Guidelines for Social Life Cycle Assessment of Products and Organizations. Nairobi, Kenya: United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). UNICEF. (2025). UNICEF DATA - Child Statistics . Retrieved from https://data.unicef.org/ WalkFree. (2025). Walk Free. Retrieved from https://www.walkfree.org/ WEF. (2025). The World Economic Forum . Retrieved from https://www.weforum.org/ WJP. (2025). World Justice Project | Advancing the rule of law worldwide. Retrieved from https://worldjusticeproject.org/ D5.7 – Impact Analysis Study 84 WorldBank. (2025). World Bank Open Data. Retrieved from https://data.worldbank.org/ D5.7 – Impact Analysis Study 85 D5.7 – Impact Analysis Study 86 9 Appendices The present Annex encloses the additional information that have been used to perform the sustainability assessment in HYPERGRYD project. D5.7 – Impact Analysis Study 87 9.1 HYPERGRYD LCA Impact Assessment (LCIA) 9.1.1 Business case 1: LCIA Reversible micro-CHP with Steam Buffer at Envipark (Turin, IT) Table 9.1: Comparative LCA Results of the Baseline, CHPs and CHP & HRES Scenario. Results disclosed for the total and different seasons for 25 years Impact Categories Baseline CHPs CHPs & HRES Baseline CHPs CHPs & HRES Baseline CHPs CHPs & HRES Baseline CHPs CHPs & HRES Baseline CHPs CHPs & HRES Total 25 years Winter 25 years Spring 25 years Summer 25 years Autumn years Acidification [mol H+ eq] 2.04E+05 2.00E+05 1.28E+05 6.46E+04 6.23E+04 4.38E+04 4.42E+04 4.32E+04 2.35E+04 5.08E+04 5.10E+04 3.14E+04 4.49E+04 4.39E+04 2.89E+04 Climate change [kg CO2 eq] 6.28E+07 6.10E+07 4.65E+07 2.82E+07 2.73E+07 2.36E+07 1.28E+07 1.24E+07 8.42E+06 9.97E+06 1.00E+07 6.08E+06 1.18E+07 1.13E+07 8.35E+06 Climate change - Biogenic [kg CO2 eq] 1.33E+05 1.31E+05 7.42E+04 3.40E+04 3.27E+04 1.84E+04 2.95E+04 2.89E+04 1.35E+04 3.85E+04 3.86E+04 2.33E+04 3.12E+04 3.06E+04 1.90E+04 Climate change - Fossil [kg CO2 eq] 6.26E+07 6.09E+07 4.64E+07 2.82E+07 2.73E+07 2.36E+07 1.28E+07 1.23E+07 8.41E+06 9.92E+06 9.96E+06 6.05E+06 1.18E+07 1.13E+07 8.32E+06 Climate change - Land use and LU change [kg CO2 eq] 4.37E+04 4.33E+04 2.49E+04 1.10E+04 1.07E+04 6.01E+03 9.71E+03 9.62E+03 4.62E+03 1.28E+04 1.28E+04 7.89E+03 1.03E+04 1.02E+04 6.41E+03 Ecotoxicity, freshwater - part 1 [CTUe] 5.45E+07 6.14E+07 4.21E+07 1.62E+07 1.94E+07 1.44E+07 1.19E+07 1.36E+07 8.43E+06 1.43E+07 1.44E+07 9.28E+06 1.22E+07 1.40E+07 1.00E+07 Ecotoxicity, freshwater - part 2 [CTUe] 4.60E+07 4.59E+07 3.29E+07 1.61E+07 1.59E+07 1.24E+07 9.81E+06 9.82E+06 6.33E+06 1.04E+07 1.05E+07 7.16E+06 9.75E+06 9.72E+06 7.02E+06 Ecotoxicity, freshwater - inorganics [CTUe] 9.44E+07 1.01E+08 7.12E+07 3.06E+07 3.37E+07 2.58E+07 2.03E+07 2.21E+07 1.40E+07 2.30E+07 2.31E+07 1.53E+07 2.06E+07 2.23E+07 1.61E+07 Ecotoxicity, freshwater - organics - p.1 [CTUe] 1.17E+06 1.18E+06 8.53E+05 3.01E+05 2.98E+05 1.99E+05 2.60E+05 2.62E+05 1.79E+05 3.39E+05 3.42E+05 2.69E+05 2.75E+05 2.75E+05 2.06E+05 Ecotoxicity, freshwater - organics - p.2 [CTUe] 4.94E+06 4.92E+06 2.96E+06 1.34E+06 1.31E+06 8.04E+05 1.09E+06 1.09E+06 5.53E+05 1.38E+06 1.39E+06 8.70E+05 1.14E+06 1.13E+06 7.31E+05 Particulate matter [disease inc.] 7.97E-01 8.03E-01 5.08E-01 2.30E-01 2.25E-01 1.49E-01 1.75E-01 1.77E-01 9.69E-02 2.15E-01 2.19E-01 1.41E-01 1.81E-01 1.82E-01 1.21E-01 Eutrophication, marine [kg N eq] 3.41E+04 3.33E+04 2.26E+04 1.23E+04 1.18E+04 9.06E+03 7.24E+03 7.04E+03 4.13E+03 7.47E+03 7.53E+03 4.65E+03 7.14E+03 6.92E+03 4.72E+03 Eutrophication, freshwater [kg P eq] 1.08E+03 1.06E+03 6.22E+02 2.71E+02 2.62E+02 1.49E+02 2.39E+02 2.36E+02 1.17E+02 3.14E+02 3.15E+02 1.98E+02 2.53E+02 2.49E+02 1.59E+02 Eutrophication, terrestrial [mol N eq] 3.82E+05 3.73E+05 2.52E+05 1.37E+05 1.31E+05 1.00E+05 8.12E+04 7.90E+04 4.60E+04 8.45E+04 8.51E+04 5.24E+04 8.03E+04 7.78E+04 5.29E+04 Human toxicity, cancer [CTUh] 1.49E-02 1.51E-02 9.70E-03 4.41E-03 4.31E-03 2.90E-03 3.26E-03 3.32E-03 1.86E-03 3.97E-03 4.08E-03 2.65E-03 3.38E-03 3.41E-03 2.29E-03 Human toxicity, cancer - inorganics [CTUh] 1.04E-02 1.05E-02 6.73E-03 3.02E-03 2.94E-03 1.96E-03 2.27E-03 2.31E-03 1.30E-03 2.79E-03 2.87E-03 1.88E-03 2.35E-03 2.38E-03 1.60E-03 Human toxicity, cancer - organics [CTUh] 4.56E-03 4.63E-03 2.97E-03 1.39E-03 1.37E-03 9.44E-04 9.93E-04 1.01E-03 5.62E-04 1.18E-03 1.21E-03 7.69E-04 1.02E-03 1.03E-03 6.91E-04 Human toxicity, non-cancer [CTUh] 3.44E-01 3.42E-01 2.26E-01 9.33E-02 9.11E-02 5.94E-02 7.57E-02 7.54E-02 4.45E-02 9.58E-02 9.66E-02 6.72E-02 7.93E-02 7.86E-02 5.45E-02 Human toxicity, non-cancer - inorganics [CTUh] 3.26E-01 3.24E-01 2.13E-01 8.70E-02 8.48E-02 5.44E-02 7.20E-02 7.16E-02 4.20E-02 9.19E-02 9.27E-02 6.46E-02 7.56E-02 7.49E-02 5.18E-02 Human toxicity, non-cancer - organics [CTUh] 1.78E-02 1.77E-02 1.27E-02 6.36E-03 6.27E-03 4.93E-03 3.78E-03 3.76E-03 2.43E-03 3.93E-03 3.95E-03 2.67E-03 3.74E-03 3.70E-03 2.67E-03 Ionising radiation [kBq U-235 eq] 1.64E+06 1.62E+06 9.14E+05 4.10E+05 3.96E+05 2.18E+05 3.65E+05 3.59E+05 1.67E+05 4.81E+05 4.82E+05 2.92E+05 3.87E+05 3.81E+05 2.36E+05 Land use [Pt] 2.18E+08 2.14E+08 1.23E+08 5.74E+07 5.54E+07 3.24E+07 4.81E+07 4.71E+07 2.23E+07 6.17E+07 6.17E+07 3.70E+07 5.06E+07 4.95E+07 3.09E+07 Ozone depletion [kg CFC11 eq] 1.15E+01 1.09E+01 8.59E+00 5.56E+00 5.26E+00 4.69E+00 2.31E+00 2.16E+00 1.54E+00 1.55E+00 1.55E+00 9.33E-01 2.06E+00 1.90E+00 1.44E+00 Photochemical ozone formation [kg NMVOC eq] 1.15E+05 1.12E+05 7.86E+04 4.34E+04 4.20E+04 3.33E+04 2.42E+04 2.36E+04 1.44E+04 2.37E+04 2.39E+04 1.49E+04 2.35E+04 2.29E+04 1.60E+04 Resource use, fossils [MJ] 9.76E+08 9.45E+08 7.15E+08 4.37E+08 4.21E+08 3.63E+08 2.00E+08 1.92E+08 1.29E+08 1.56E+08 1.57E+08 9.46E+07 1.84E+08 1.76E+08 1.29E+08 Resource use, minerals and metals [kg Sb eq] 3.35E+02 3.33E+02 2.32E+02 8.43E+01 8.22E+01 5.26E+01 7.43E+01 7.41E+01 4.80E+01 9.76E+01 9.85E+01 7.49E+01 7.88E+01 7.81E+01 5.69E+01 Water use [m3 depriv.] 3.20E+07 3.13E+07 1.81E+07 8.50E+06 8.14E+06 4.79E+06 7.06E+06 6.90E+06 3.29E+06 9.02E+06 9.04E+06 5.46E+06 7.42E+06 7.24E+06 4.52E+06 D5.7 – Impact Analysis Study 88 9.1.2 Business case 2: LCIA Sorption based Thermal Energy Storage at Sonnenplatz Table 9.2: Comparative LCA Results of the Baseline and STES Scenario. Results disclosed for the total and different seasons for 25 years Impact Categories Baseline STES Baseline STES Baseline STES Baseline STES Baseline STES Total 25 years Winter 25 years Spring 25 years Summer 25 years Autumn 25 years Acidification [mol H+ eq] 2.91E+03 2.56E+03 7.58E+02 6.77E+02 7.21E+02 6.39E+02 6.74E+02 6.12E+02 7.52E+02 6.34E+02 Climate change [kg CO2 eq] 3.31E+05 2.96E+05 7.57E+04 6.83E+04 8.16E+04 7.40E+04 8.31E+04 7.73E+04 9.03E+04 7.68E+04 Climate change - Biogenic [kg CO2 eq] 2.48E+04 1.98E+04 9.15E+03 7.94E+03 5.40E+03 4.17E+03 2.81E+03 1.89E+03 7.41E+03 5.79E+03 Climate change - Fossil [kg CO2 eq] 2.99E+05 2.71E+05 6.41E+04 5.82E+04 7.48E+04 6.87E+04 7.95E+04 7.48E+04 8.09E+04 6.94E+04 Climate change - Land use and LU change [kg CO2 eq] 6.56E+03 5.28E+03 2.37E+03 2.06E+03 1.45E+03 1.13E+03 8.01E+02 5.65E+02 1.94E+03 1.52E+03 Ecotoxicity, freshwater - part 1 [CTUe] 2.86E+06 2.42E+06 8.84E+05 7.77E+05 6.68E+05 5.59E+05 5.07E+05 4.26E+05 8.06E+05 6.54E+05 Ecotoxicity, freshwater - part 2 [CTUe] 1.54E+06 1.40E+06 3.59E+05 3.25E+05 3.97E+05 3.62E+05 4.08E+05 3.82E+05 3.80E+05 3.28E+05 Ecotoxicity, freshwater - inorganics [CTUe] 3.90E+06 3.39E+06 1.08E+06 9.59E+05 9.49E+05 8.26E+05 8.33E+05 7.40E+05 1.03E+06 8.60E+05 Ecotoxicity, freshwater - organics - p.1 [CTUe] 2.27E+05 1.92E+05 7.11E+04 6.26E+04 5.37E+04 4.50E+04 4.06E+04 3.41E+04 6.18E+04 5.02E+04 Ecotoxicity, freshwater - organics - p.2 [CTUe] 2.87E+05 2.36E+05 9.14E+04 8.00E+04 6.23E+04 5.06E+04 4.19E+04 3.30E+04 9.11E+04 7.25E+04 Particulate matter [disease inc.] 2.23E-02 1.99E-02 5.63E-03 5.05E-03 5.63E-03 5.04E-03 5.44E-03 4.99E-03 5.61E-03 4.78E-03 Eutrophication, marine [kg N eq] 6.71E+02 5.71E+02 2.02E+02 1.78E+02 1.59E+02 1.35E+02 1.26E+02 1.08E+02 1.83E+02 1.50E+02 Eutrophication, freshwater [kg P eq] 1.98E+01 1.80E+01 4.63E+00 4.19E+00 5.19E+00 4.74E+00 5.36E+00 5.03E+00 4.65E+00 4.05E+00 Eutrophication, terrestrial [mol N eq] 6.98E+03 5.95E+03 2.09E+03 1.84E+03 1.66E+03 1.41E+03 1.33E+03 1.14E+03 1.90E+03 1.56E+03 Human toxicity, cancer [CTUh] 4.65E-04 4.18E-04 1.14E-04 1.03E-04 1.20E-04 1.08E-04 1.19E-04 1.10E-04 1.12E-04 9.67E-05 Human toxicity, cancer - inorganics [CTUh] 3.35E-04 2.97E-04 8.73E-05 7.81E-05 8.46E-05 7.52E-05 7.99E-05 7.28E-05 8.34E-05 7.08E-05 Human toxicity, cancer - organics [CTUh] 1.30E-04 1.21E-04 2.71E-05 2.48E-05 3.51E-05 3.28E-05 3.90E-05 3.73E-05 2.91E-05 2.60E-05 Human toxicity, non-cancer [CTUh] 1.45E-02 1.33E-02 3.24E-03 2.95E-03 3.83E-03 3.53E-03 4.07E-03 3.85E-03 3.34E-03 2.94E-03 Human toxicity, non-cancer - inorganics [CTUh] 1.40E-02 1.28E-02 3.14E-03 2.86E-03 3.71E-03 3.41E-03 3.94E-03 3.72E-03 3.23E-03 2.84E-03 Human toxicity, non-cancer - organics [CTUh] 4.66E-04 4.29E-04 1.01E-04 9.22E-05 1.23E-04 1.14E-04 1.33E-04 1.26E-04 1.09E-04 9.58E-05 Ionising radiation [kBq U-235 eq] 1.67E+04 1.47E+04 4.06E+03 3.64E+03 4.00E+03 3.56E+03 3.85E+03 3.51E+03 4.82E+03 4.03E+03 Land use [Pt] 8.91E+06 7.23E+06 3.14E+06 2.74E+06 1.98E+06 1.57E+06 1.17E+06 8.57E+05 2.62E+06 2.06E+06 Ozone depletion [kg CFC11 eq] 8.48E-02 7.10E-02 2.58E-02 2.26E-02 1.90E-02 1.58E-02 1.42E-02 1.18E-02 2.58E-02 2.08E-02 Photochemical ozone formation [kg NMVOC eq] 1.44E+03 1.28E+03 3.64E+02 3.26E+02 3.62E+02 3.23E+02 3.49E+02 3.20E+02 3.68E+02 3.12E+02 Resource use, fossils [MJ] 3.60E+06 3.30E+06 7.13E+05 6.52E+05 9.07E+05 8.46E+05 1.01E+06 9.59E+05 9.69E+05 8.39E+05 Resource use, minerals and metals [kg Sb eq] 1.52E+01 1.49E+01 2.19E+00 2.12E+00 4.42E+00 4.35E+00 5.70E+00 5.64E+00 2.89E+00 2.79E+00 Water use [m3 depriv.] 1.68E+06 1.36E+06 5.98E+05 5.20E+05 3.72E+05 2.93E+05 2.14E+05 1.55E+05 4.91E+05 3.87E+05 D5.7 – Impact Analysis Study 89 9.1.3 Business case 3: LCIA Heat Pumps with PCM storage at Sonnenplatz Table 9.3: Comparative LCA Results of the Baseline and HPsPCM Scenario. Results disclosed for the total and different seasons for 25 years Impact Categories Baseline HPsPCM Baseline HPsPCM Baseline HPsPCM Baseline HPsPCM Baseline HPsPCM Total 25 years Winter 25 years Spring 25 years Summer 25 years Autumn 25 years Acidification [mol H+ eq] 2.09E+04 1.86E+04 5.79E+03 6.48E+03 5.64E+03 2.72E+03 4.65E+03 4.52E+03 4.82E+03 4.88E+03 Climate change [kg CO2 eq] 3.29E+06 4.55E+06 8.11E+05 1.77E+06 8.36E+05 5.67E+05 7.98E+05 9.82E+05 8.45E+05 1.22E+06 Climate change - Biogenic [kg CO2 eq] 1.58E+05 1.17E+04 6.15E+04 4.44E+03 4.50E+04 1.54E+03 1.92E+04 2.63E+03 3.18E+04 3.13E+03 Climate change - Fossil [kg CO2 eq] 3.09E+06 4.53E+06 7.33E+05 1.77E+06 7.79E+05 5.64E+05 7.73E+05 9.77E+05 8.05E+05 1.22E+06 Climate change - Land use and LU change [kg CO2 eq] 4.25E+04 6.94E+03 1.62E+04 2.59E+03 1.21E+04 9.25E+02 5.58E+03 1.57E+03 8.69E+03 1.85E+03 Ecotoxicity, freshwater - part 1 [CTUe] 1.77E+07 6.27E+06 5.89E+06 1.81E+06 4.95E+06 1.11E+06 3.02E+06 1.77E+06 3.87E+06 1.58E+06 Ecotoxicity, freshwater - part 2 [CTUe] 1.14E+07 1.21E+07 2.86E+06 4.20E+06 3.04E+06 1.79E+06 2.79E+06 2.96E+06 2.67E+06 3.17E+06 Ecotoxicity, freshwater - inorganics [CTUe] 2.60E+07 1.77E+07 7.68E+06 5.84E+06 7.13E+06 2.77E+06 5.33E+06 4.52E+06 5.84E+06 4.59E+06 Ecotoxicity, freshwater - organics - p.1 [CTUe] 1.32E+06 2.91E+05 4.53E+05 5.19E+04 3.77E+05 6.84E+04 2.19E+05 1.03E+05 2.70E+05 6.83E+04 Ecotoxicity, freshwater - organics - p.2 [CTUe] 1.79E+06 3.98E+05 6.12E+05 1.18E+05 4.86E+05 6.91E+04 2.58E+05 1.10E+05 4.34E+05 1.01E+05 Particulate matter [disease inc.] 1.35E-01 8.88E-02 3.70E-02 2.47E-02 3.72E-02 1.62E-02 3.02E-02 2.56E-02 3.00E-02 2.23E-02 Eutrophication, marine [kg N eq] 4.71E+03 3.06E+03 1.48E+03 1.09E+03 1.30E+03 4.36E+02 8.94E+02 7.28E+02 1.04E+03 8.06E+02 Eutrophication, freshwater [kg P eq] 3.03E+02 5.36E+02 7.45E+01 2.21E+02 7.65E+01 6.07E+01 7.76E+01 1.08E+02 7.42E+01 1.46E+02 Eutrophication, terrestrial [mol N eq] 5.00E+04 3.46E+04 1.56E+04 1.25E+04 1.37E+04 4.85E+03 9.63E+03 8.13E+03 1.11E+04 9.15E+03 Human toxicity, cancer [CTUh] 3.00E-03 2.49E-03 8.00E-04 7.75E-04 8.27E-04 4.14E-04 7.11E-04 6.67E-04 6.65E-04 6.38E-04 Human toxicity, cancer - inorganics [CTUh] 2.23E-03 1.78E-03 6.24E-04 5.77E-04 6.14E-04 2.82E-04 5.01E-04 4.59E-04 4.93E-04 4.59E-04 Human toxicity, cancer - organics [CTUh] 7.69E-04 7.16E-04 1.75E-04 1.98E-04 2.12E-04 1.32E-04 2.10E-04 2.07E-04 1.72E-04 1.79E-04 Human toxicity, non-cancer [CTUh] 8.73E-02 7.49E-02 2.14E-02 2.12E-02 2.41E-02 1.35E-02 2.24E-02 2.14E-02 1.93E-02 1.88E-02 Human toxicity, non-cancer - inorganics [CTUh] 8.45E-02 7.25E-02 2.07E-02 2.05E-02 2.34E-02 1.31E-02 2.17E-02 2.07E-02 1.87E-02 1.82E-02 Human toxicity, non-cancer - organics [CTUh] 2.81E-03 2.48E-03 6.67E-04 7.00E-04 7.70E-04 4.48E-04 7.31E-04 7.08E-04 6.38E-04 6.23E-04 Ionising radiation [kBq U-235 eq] 1.84E+05 2.60E+05 4.66E+04 1.05E+05 4.62E+04 3.08E+04 4.30E+04 5.41E+04 4.77E+04 7.04E+04 Land use [Pt] 6.20E+07 2.23E+07 2.25E+07 8.83E+06 1.73E+07 2.72E+06 9.09E+06 4.74E+06 1.31E+07 6.02E+06 Ozone depletion [kg CFC11 eq] 6.17E-01 3.85E-01 1.94E-01 1.44E-01 1.65E-01 5.10E-02 1.09E-01 8.69E-02 1.50E-01 1.03E-01 Photochemical ozone formation [kg NMVOC eq] 1.04E+04 9.69E+03 2.80E+03 3.35E+03 2.80E+03 1.43E+03 2.38E+03 2.37E+03 2.40E+03 2.54E+03 Resource use, fossils [MJ] 4.11E+07 6.58E+07 9.40E+06 2.60E+07 1.02E+07 8.04E+06 1.06E+07 1.40E+07 1.09E+07 1.77E+07 Resource use, minerals and metals [kg Sb eq] 7.81E+01 9.27E+01 1.15E+01 2.17E+01 2.16E+01 1.90E+01 2.73E+01 2.93E+01 1.76E+01 2.26E+01 Water use [m3 depriv.] 1.06E+07 1.47E+06 4.02E+06 4.86E+05 3.02E+06 2.31E+05 1.41E+06 3.76E+05 2.16E+06 3.82E+05 D5.7 – Impact Analysis Study 96 • Mechanisms for consumer feedback and complaint resolution. • Internal policies for handling consumer data and privacy protection. • Frequency and transparency of sustainability reporting. • Communication of end-of-life options for products, if applicable. 3. Local Communities This section assesses the organization’s engagement with and impact on the communities where it operates, focusing on: • Collaboration with educational institutions and training programs. • Adoption of certified environmental management systems. • Employee participation in community volunteer programs. • Support for local non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and social initiatives. • Contributions to preserving cultural heritage and historical sites. • Presence of cultural heritage sites that could benefit from organizational activities. • Assistance provided to migrant workers for integration and communication. • Policies promoting local hiring and workforce development. • Percentage of spending allocated to local suppliers and service providers. 4. Value Chain Actors (Suppliers, Partners, and Business Ethics) This section examines the organization’s approach to ethical sourcing, supplier relations, and fair competition, including: • Market competitiveness and absence of monopolistic control. • Social responsibility expectations within the supply chain. • Training and resources provided to employees for understanding ethical sourcing and corporate social responsibility. • Fair treatment and collaboration with suppliers without power imbalances. • Engagement with universities, research institutions, or start-ups for intellectual property and technology development. • Active participation in industry advocacy groups and professional associations. 5. Society and Governance D5.7 – Impact Analysis Study 97 This section explores the broader societal impact of the organization, including governance, sustainability commitments, and contributions to economic development: • Job creation and economic contribution at local and national levels. • Skill level requirements for newly created job positions. • Anti-corruption policies and ethical business practices. • Social responsibility strategies with a focus on poverty alleviation. • Business operations in regions affected by conflicts. • Public commitment to sustainability and corporate responsibility. • Mechanisms for monitoring and ensuring compliance with sustainability commitments. • Participation in technology transfer initiatives and innovation projects. • Investment in research and development activities. 9.4 Country-Level Social Impact Indicators This appendix presents key social impact indicators at the country level, categorized by stakeholder groups. These indicators help assess the broader socio-economic context in which the HYPERGRYD project operates, providing insight into national-level regulations, policies, and socio-economic conditions that may influence the project's social sustainability performance. 1. Consumer • End-of-Life Responsibility – Strength of national legislation covering product disposal and recycling. • Feedback Mechanisms – Presence of feedback mechanisms (e.g., after-sales services) at the sector or national level. • Privacy Regulations – Country ranking related to regulations on data-sharing. • Data Protection – Strength of laws protecting privacy against organizations and government. 2. Local Community • Access to Immaterial Resources – Patent filings and intellectual property rights. • Freedom of Expression – National policies and rankings related to freedom of speech. • Access to Material Resources – Percentage of population with access to improved sanitation facilities. D5.7 – Impact Analysis Study 98 • Community Trust – Public trust in political institutions. • Cultural Heritage Protection – Prevalence of racial discrimination and inclusivity measures. • Migration & Relocation Trends – Percentage of international migrants in the population. • Employment & Economic Stability – National unemployment statistics and poverty levels. • Public Health & Safety – Burden of disease and national pollution levels. • Construction Safety & Housing – Strength of laws on building safety regulations. • Security & Human Rights – National security rankings and public safety perception. 3. Society & Governance • Corruption & Transparency – Risk of corruption at the country and regional levels. • Technology & Innovation Development – National investment in research and development (R&D). 4. Value Chain Actors • Fair Competition & Market Regulation – Presence of national laws and regulations ensuring fair competition. 5. Workers & Labor Rights • Child Labor Incidence – Percentage of children working by country and sector. • Gender Equality & Non-Discrimination – Gender equality index and female labor force participation rate. • Wage Fairness & Income Standards – Minimum wage levels and purchasing power parity. • Forced Labor Risks – Estimated percentage of forced labor occurrences by region. • Freedom of Association – Evidence of restrictions on unionization and collective bargaining rights. • Workplace Health & Safety – National occupational accident rates. • Social Security & Worker Benefits – Social security expenditure across sectors, covering healthcare, maternity, and unemployment.