TRANSITION TOWARDS AN "ALL-ELECTRIC WORLD" - DEVELOPING A MERIT-ORDER OF ELECTRIFICATION FOR THE GERMAN ENERGY SYSTEM - FFE GMBH

10. Internationale Energiewirtschaftstagung an der TU Wien IEWT 2017

 Transition Towards an “All-electric World” -
 Developing a Merit-Order of Electrification for the German
 Energy System
 Strom- und Wärmeerzeugung sowie Speicher
 Andrej GUMINSKI1(1), Serafin VON ROON(1)
 (1)
 Forschungsgesellschaft für Energiewirtschaft mbH

Abstract:
Implementing vast amounts of renewable energy sources, to decarbonize the electricity
supply-side is frequently perceived as the central element of the German energy system
transition. To achieve the set greenhouse gas emission reduction target levels, it is, however,
inevitable to also decarbonize the energy demand-side. An emission-free electricity supply-
side facilitates demand-side decarbonization via the electrification of fossil-fueled processes
and applications. This paper analyzes the costs of electrifying Germany’s final energy
demand on a sector-by-sector basis. Costs are determined from a private project cost
perspective and are stated as specific annualized additional or avoided costs of
electrification, compared to a set of conventional reference systems. The analysis shows that
the electrification of 1265 TWh of fossil final energy consumption leads to additional costs
due to electrification of €58 bn in 2050. This value exceeds the annual spending on the
German renewable energy levy of €~24 bn by a factor of three and results in an increase of
the gross electricity consumption by ~70 %, to approximately 970 TWh in 2050.
Keywords: Electrification, Merit-order of electrification, Demand-side electrification, Power-
to-heat, Energy system transition, Cost of electrification

1 Introduction
In Germany, it is the Energiewende that should ensure a transition from a currently fossil fuel
based and therefore emission-intensive society, towards an energy system based on
emission-free renewable energy. Implementing vast amounts of renewable energy sources
(RES), to decarbonize the electricity supply-side is thereby frequently perceived as the
central element of this transition [1, 2]. It is however only one step towards achieving the
over-arching national goal of reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by 80 - 95 %, with
respect to the level of 1990 [3].
With most of the focus on the energy supply-side, decarbonizing the energy demand-side is
an often neglected key aspect of the Energiewende. A clear path towards an emission-free
energy demand-side has yet to be defined. It is, however, inevitable to substitute currently
fossil-fueled applications through low-carbon-emitting alternatives, to achieve the defined
GHG emission targets. Under the precondition that, in 2050, at least 80 % of Germany’s
electricity will be produced by RES, electricity will become an almost emission-free fossil fuel
substitute. Replacing applications such as conventional cars, oil and gas boilers or fossil-
fueled industrial processes with electrical alternatives can therefore be considered a
decarbonization strategy.

1
 Jungautor, Am Blütenanger 71, 80995 München, +49 89 15812134, aguminski@ffe.de,
 www.ffegmbh.de

 Seite 1 von 31

10. Internationale Energiewirtschaftstagung an der TU Wien IEWT 2017

The electrification2 of the demand-side requires the active participation of the domestic
sector (DOM), vehicle owners in the transport sector (TP) and decision makers in the
industry (IND), and small and medium enterprise (SME) sectors. These players will only
exchange fossil-fueled processes and applications for electrical substitutes if this is
economically beneficial for them. This is the case if the electrical substitute, with or without
government support, can provide an equally satisfying service at a lower lifetime cost.
Recently published, government issued policy papers such as the Climate Action Plan 2050
and the Green Paper on Energy Efficiency acknowledge, that demand-side electrification will
play a vital role in achieving Germany’s GHG emission targets [4, 5]. Hence, policymakers
will require a clear picture of the costs that electrification entails for the individual players.
Holistic knowledge about these costs can reveal which sectors are best suited for
electrification and where further incentives are necessary to enable the transition.
Taking the visionary goal of an All-electric World as a starting point, this paper calculates the
theoretical (section 2) and technical electrification potential (section 4), explores how
electrification costs can be assessed (section 3) and determines the costs of realizing the
identified potential across all end-user sectors in Germany, by 2050 (section 4 and 5).3

2 Electrification – current state and potentials
Basis for the development of the electrification cost methodology is the analysis of the
current state of electrification, using final energy consumption (FEC) data. The sectoral
analysis reveals that the majority of applications and processes which are currently not
powered electrically are heating and hot water (H&HW) in the domestic, industry and SME
sector as well as mechanical energy in the transport sector.4 The latter build the theoretical
electrification potential (TEP), which is defined as the maximum possible FEC which can be
supplied by electrical appliances and is currently not supplied electrically or through RES.5
Figure 1 visualizes the sectoral TEP and shows that the total TEP amounts to 1880 TWh in
2013, or ~74 % of total FEC. The TEP depends on the energy consumed in each sector and
therefore varies over time. The FE consumed varies depending on factors such as the
weather, the state of the global economy or demographics. To determine the adjusted TEP,
the effect of such influences should be quantified. However, between 2008 and 2013 the
total FEC varied less than 5 % above or below the average FEC of 2501 TWh in this time
frame. Considering the time frame of this study, fluctuations caused by the effects mentioned
are not drastic and are therefore not considered in the further analysis.
Figure 1 shows that after deducting the FEC currently powered by RES and electricity, three
electrifiable forms of energy remain: H&HW, process heat and mechanical energy. The
electrification of means of transport accounts for 706 TWh or 38 % of the total TEP. 62 % of
the total TEP can therefore be attributed to converting power to heat. Technologies

2
 Electrification is hereby defined as “expanding the use of electricity at the point of energy service
 demand” [1].
3
 The following paper is based on the Master’s thesis: “Transition Towards an “All-electric World” –
 Developing a Merit-Order of Electrification for the German Energy System” [6].
4
 Following Gruber et al. [7], FEC for H&HW is considered jointly in this paper.
5
 The definition excludes the replacement of RES by electrical appliances. This follows the logic that
 CO2 reductions cannot be reduced further if the application is already powered by RES.

 Seite 2 von 31

10. Internationale Energiewirtschaftstagung an der TU Wien IEWT 2017

necessary to perform the electrification of the demand-side are therefore power-to-heat
technologies as well as technologies which enable electrical transportation.

 Transport Domestic Industry SME

 FEC
 [TWh] 800
 720 723 Process heat
 715
 675 Mechanical energy
 94 % H&HW
 600
 503 % TEP as percentage of FEC
 476
 70 %
 66 % 389
 400

 226
 200 58 %

 0
 TEPTP TEPDOM TEPIND TEPSME

 Figure 1 – Sectoral theoretical electrification potential 2013 in TWh [8, 9]

The lack of an electrical substitute which can supply the energy service at the same quality
and quantity can be one of several factors which reduce the TEP. This calls for the definition
of the technical electrification potential (techEP) which is a subset of the TEP [10]. Currently
prevailing technical, ecological, infrastructural and other limiting factors reduce the TEP to
the techEP. The derivation of the techEP is the first step of the methodology implemented to
derive electrification costs. The techEP is subject to sector-specific assumptions and is
therefore analyzed in section 4. In the following section, the general methodology and
costing approach are discussed.

3 Merit-order of electrification methodology and assumptions
The general procedure, used to calculate and visualize the specific differential costs of
electrification for each sector, involves 4 steps and is depicted in Figure 2 on the following
page. In step one, a top-down approach is used to derive the techEP. The TEP is sub-
divided into classes, which are then analyzed to reveal if electrification is technically possible.
In step two, fossil reference technologies and electrical alternatives are defined for the
technically electrifiable processes and applications. In step three, the costs of electrification
are calculated. In step four sectoral costs are displayed using a merit-order curve. Lastly, the
sectoral merit-order curves are combined in the Merit-order of Electrification 2050, which
allows for inter-sectoral cost comparisons.

 Seite 3 von 31

10. Internationale Energiewirtschaftstagung an der TU Wien IEWT 2017

 Sectoral analysis:
 Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 4
 TEP refined to give Conventional Costs of The merit-order of
 techEP reference and electrification are electrification is
 electrical alternative determined assembled
 technology defined

 • Processes and • Type, size and • Specific • Specific
 applications costs of reference differential costs differential costs
 suitable for and alternative of electrification are visualized in a
 electrification are system are are determined for merit-order
 defined defined considered
 replacements

 Figure 2 – General procedure for the sectoral analysis

Table 1 shows which classes are created for each sector, in steps one and two. Furthermore
the selection of conventional and electrical technologies used to model the electrification
procedure in each class is displayed. Size, type and characteristics of technologies and
therefore costs differ across, but not within classes. Where possible, the most efficient
electrical technology and most common reference technology are implemented. The most
common technology is used as a reference technology because technology adoption rates of
systems with high market shares are significantly higher than those of other systems [11, 12].
The selection of the technologies considered is discrete and limited to technology solutions
which are commercially available to end-users and for which cost parameters exist.
 Sector TEP energy type Classes Technologies used
 distH H&HW Industrial and Currently installed distH mix
 household/SME Industrial heat pump
 Domestic H&HW 7 Building Gas condensing boiler, Air & ground
 types source heat pump, Electrical boiler
 Industry Process heat and 8 segments and Low&high pressure gas boiler,
 H&HW H&HW Electrode boiler, Industrial heat pump,
 Flat, container and electrical glass furnace,
 Blast & Electrical arc furnace
 SME H&HW, process heat 7 segments Gas condensing boiler
 and mechanical Ground source heat pump
 energy
 Transport Mechanical energy 19 vehicles Lead free, diesel and electrical vehicles
 types

 Table 1 – Sectoral class types and implemented technologies

Since this paper aims to reveal the costs of following the path towards an all-electric world, it
assumes that, where technically possible, all processes and applications are electrified. It is
assumed that electrification commences in 2015 and ends in 2050. All cost results and merit-
order curves reflect the year 2050. As is frequently the case in energy system transformation
scenarios natural technology exchange rates are used as an opportunity to implement new
technologies [12 - 14]. This means that electrification only takes place if an appliance
reaches its end-of-life (EOL). The replaced system is termed the previously installed system
and is not necessarily identical to the reference system. These assumptions enable costs to
be expressed as additional or avoided costs resulting from the installation of the electrical
system, when compared to the reference system. The reference system therefore forms a
base line against which the costs of the electrical system are measured.

 Seite 4 von 31

10. Internationale Energiewirtschaftstagung an der TU Wien IEWT 2017

In this paper the electrification rate, which is “the ratio of electricity to final energy (FE)
demand,” is independent of the costs of electrification which are presented as specific
differential costs of electrification and are assessed from a private project cost perspective
[1].

Private project costs are monetary total costs incurred by investors as a result of the
electrification. In order to obey the private project cost perspective, the costs of electrification
of district heat (distH) are allocated to the distH provider because distH is mainly supplied by
vertically integrated companies responsible for the production and distribution of distH [15].
Hence, distH is treated as a separate end-user sector.

Specific differential costs of electrification for a process or application are calculated using a
costing method referred to as relevant costing. Relevant costs can be defined as “(…) costs
that will be different between alternatives” [16]. Relevant costing applies a total cost
approach to a decision situation, which ensures the comparability of costs for technologies
with different lifetimes and allows different discount rates to be applied across sectors. In this
case the two alternatives are always a defined conventional reference system and an
electrical alternative system. Costs are split into relevant operating expenditure ( ) and
relevant capital expenditure ( ). In mathematical terms, this can be expressed as
follows:

 ∑ 
 =1( , , , − , , , )+∑ =1( , , − , , )
(1) , , =
 
 = = = 
 = sec = sector = 
 = = = 
 = = . = 

The numerator calculates absolute differential costs, which are interpreted as avoided or
additional costs incurred by using an electrical ( ) instead of a fossil fuel powered
application ( ). The red term is used to derive annualized ( ) differential of
electrification. are treated as real annual costs and are therefore not discounted. 
are mainly fuel costs, which can differ according to the technology, the sector ( ) and the
application or process ( ) electrified within a sector. The blue term is used to calculate
annualized differential of electrification. are annualized using an annuity
factor, which is calculated for each fossil reference and electrical technology in every sector.
Basis for calculations are technology cost curves, lifetimes and sector dependent
interest rate assumptions. Total differential costs are divided by the fossil FEC which is
displaced due to electrification, to derive specific electrification costs. Using specific costs
allows for cross-sectoral cost comparisons.
In the analysis, Germany is viewed as a single region and uniform costs and operating
parameters are assumed over time. It is assumed that the supply-side does not restrict the
electrification rates and possible system rebound effects are not considered. Germany is
considered a copper plate; transmission and distribution constraints which might arise due to
the electrification are therefore irrelevant. The FEC in 2050 is only affected by the modeled
electrification processes. The interpretation of the merit-order curve is therefore restricted
due to cost assumptions and by the fact that each class summarizes numerous unique

 Seite 5 von 31

10. Internationale Energiewirtschaftstagung an der TU Wien IEWT 2017

replacement processes, which can differ in cost due to site-specific parameters. These
limitations are partially alleviated by the inclusion of sensitivity analyses, which complement
the results.

4 Sectoral merit-order curves
In this section, methodology explained in section 3 is applied to each individual sector. For
every sector, the TEP is split into classes according to its energy consumption structure. The
classes allow a detailed analysis of the sectoral fuel consumption. Classes which contribute
less than 1 % to the sectoral TEP are excluded from the analysis. The remaining classes are
subsequently reviewed to determine the techEP of each class. If a techEP is identified, the
electrical and conventional technologies are selected and the size of each system is
estimated based on the characteristics of the class. Technology cost information, obtained in
literature research, is then used to determine the annualized specific differential costs of
electrification for each technology set. Assumptions concerning technology costs, lifetimes,
efficiencies and fuel prices are summarized in Appendix A.

4.1 Electrifying district heat
The analysis of the TEP shows that FEC for process heat and H&HW is a major source of
electrification potential. A share of this energy for process heat and H&HW is covered by
distH (see Figure 3).
 Domestic Industry SME

 [TWh] 500
 453 Process heat
 418 Mechanical energy
 400 H&HW
 District heat
 300

 213
 200

 100
 50 58
 13
 0

 Figure 3 – Theoretical electrification potential excluding district heat [9]

Figure 3 builds on Figure 1 on page 3 and shows the amount of district heat in each sector
and the TEP excluding distH, . 
 . It shows that the TEP for district heat amounts to
121 TWh. Electrical distH network projects have not surpassed the pilot project phase in
Germany. In Sweden, Switzerland and Denmark a partial electrification of distH networks
using electrode boilers and ground source heat pumps (GSHP) has been performed [2, 17].
This proves that electrification is not only theoretically, but also technically possible. The
techEP for distH therefore equals the total TEP of 121 TWh.

 Seite 6 von 31

10. Internationale Energiewirtschaftstagung an der TU Wien IEWT 2017

An industrial GSHP is selected as the electrical alternative system. A seasonal performance
factor (SPF) of 2.7 is selected to model the GSHPs in the context of distH, to take possibly
higher temperature levels in distH networks into account. The conventional reference
technology is set to a mixture of the currently installed distH supply technologies [18].6 The
age and state of the existing infrastructure permits the assumption that the entire techEP is
electrified until 2050.
The additional or avoided costs incurred by the electrification of distH in any of the relevant
sectors are calculated by subtracting the levelized cost of heat production (LCOH) for the
reference system, from the LCOH after a full electrification of distH. The Working Group on
District Heat (AGFW) provides an average value of 53 €/MWh for the LCOH of the current
reference distH technology mix [19]. To derive the LCOH of the electrical system, it is
necessary to determine the installed power and energy provided by these heat pumps. The
installed power is used to determine . The energy is required to derive .
Synthetic distH load profiles in hourly resolution, created at the FfE, form the data basis for
the cost calculation [20]. DistH in the domestic and SME sector are considered jointly.
Electrification costs are calculated based on the values for thermal energy and power and
the technology and fuel cost. The resulting LCOH values are shown in the following table:

 Industry [ct/kWh] Domestic & SME [ct/kWh]
 
 6.8 9.2
 
 ∆ 1.5 3.9

 Table 2 – District heat electrification costs [6]
 
The differential LCOH, ∆ , for the industry sector of 1.5 ct/kWh and of 3.9 ct/kWh for
the domestic & SME sector indicate additional costs due to electrification. The values differ
due to the difference in the ratio of peak load to thermal energy demand in the sectors.
Although the amount of distH produced is similar in each sector, the ratio is three times
higher in the domestic and SME sector compared to the industrial sector. Heat pumps are
characterized as baseload technologies due to their high specific investment costs and high
efficiencies. Low peak loads at high annual energy demands and consequently high full-load
hours (FLH) improve the economics of a heat pump. The electrification costs in the industrial
sector are therefore lower compared to the domestic and SME sector due to a lower ratio of
installed thermal power to thermal energy demand in the industry.
The Table 3 on the following page summarizes the results of a ceteris paribus sensitivity
analysis. A reduction of 100 % or more indicates a shift from additional to avoided costs.
Reducing the specific investments of HPs by 50 % is not sufficient to make the electrification
of distH attractive to private investors. Both sectors react more sensitively to changes in the
SPF and electricity price because the share of of the total annualize cost is higher.
Ceteris paribus, an electricity price of ~11 ct/kWh leads to a cost equilibrium between the
electrical and reference system. The implemented electricity price of 15 ct/kWh, is above the
levelized cost of electricity production of most power plants and RES [21]. It is therefore
possible that utilities can produce distH at lower electricity prices, thereby lowering
electrification cost towards the break-even point.

6
 The mix includes peak load boilers, combined heat and power plants and waste-fueled heat plants.

 Seite 7 von 31

10. Internationale Energiewirtschaftstagung an der TU Wien IEWT 2017

 Affects… 
 Variable change Fuel cost SPF Spec. investment Discount rate
 from  to 15.0  7.5 [ct/kWh] 270  540 [%] 400  200 [€/kW] 10.5  5.3 [%]
 Percentage change
 -191 -191 -41 -27
 ∆ 
 Percentage change
 -72 -72 -47 -31
 ∆ & 

 Table 3 – Sensitivity analysis for electrification costs of district heat 7

Simultaneously, higher electricity demand can necessitate investments in grids and power
plants. This could put an upward pressure on the electricity price. The degree to which the
electricity price is affected depends on the rebound effects of the distH electrification on the
electricity supply and distribution side.

4.2 Electrifying the domestic sector
The starting point is the domestic TEP of 454 TWh, excluding district heat. Electrification in
the household sector is confined to the electrification of H&HW. As derived in Gruber et al.,
the supply of H&HW is fully electrifiable [7]. The TEP therefore equals the techEP in this
sector. The domestic techEP is sub-divided into building classes to allow for a more precise
estimate of the electrification costs (see Figure 4).

 [TWh] 550
 509 509 Statistical error
 500 6 24 Heating & Hot water
 32 453 Double house (DH)
 450 14
 35 Terraced house (TH)
 23
 400 41 31 Semi-detached house (SDH)
 33 Multi-family house (MFH) (>12)
 350
 84 31 MFH (3-6)
 300 63 MFH (7-12)
 250 503 90 Single family house (SFH)
 66
 200

 150

 100 203 193

 0
 Segmented

 Figure 4 – Classification of domestic techEP according to FfE building typology in TWh [22, 25, 26]

The thermal energy demand for H&HW differs amongst building classes and affects the size
of the electrical and reference heating system and thereby the electrification costs. The
distribution of the domestic techEP for H&HW according to building classes is shown in
Figure 4 page. The depicted building classes are a map of the current building infrastructure
in Germany [22]. Additionally, two further classes are defined to map the construction of new

7
 OPEX are fuel costs only. Hence, effects of changes in SPF and fuel costs are identical.

 Seite 8 von 31

10. Internationale Energiewirtschaftstagung an der TU Wien IEWT 2017

single and multi-family houses in Germany by 2050. Predefined building classes are used,
which are constructed to meet building standards according to the German Energy Saving
Ordinance 2012 [23]. Finally, the effect of decommissioned buildings/systems on FEC in
2050 is considered. The average annually decommissioned building area from 1995 to 2010
is used to model the projected annual decommissioned area by 2050 [24].
Based on the characteristics of the building classes a conventional reference and an
alternative electrical technology are defined. Different types of HPs are implemented as
electrical technologies in all classes. The conventional reference system is set to a gas
condensing boiler for the building stock [27]. For new builds the reference system is set to a
combination of gas condensing boiler and solar thermal plant. This combination is sized to
meet the minimum share of 15 % renewable H&HW in German new builds starting from the
year 2013 [28].
The electrified techEP in the domestic sector is calculated under the assumption of heating
system exchange rates. The latter are boiler exchange rates determined on the basis of the
age distribution of existing boilers. The assumed annual exchange rates are 3 % for oil and
gas boilers [27, 29, 30].
Based on the FfE building model data the thermal energy demand and installed thermal
power are calculated per building class and then disaggregated to the technology level. Cost
data obtained from literature research is used to calculate annualized and for
each technology. The annualized specific differential costs of electrification are determined
according to the costing methodology described in section 3.The following figure shows the
domestic merit-order curve.
 Specific differential
 costs of electrification
 [ct/kWh] DH Double house
 25 TH Terraced house
 SDH Semi-detached house
 MFH (#-#) Multi-family house (units)
 SFH Single family house
 20 newMFH Multi-family house new build
 newSFH Single family house new build
 Ob Oil or coal boiler
 Gb Gas boiler
 15 ST Solar thermal

 10

 5
 8
 7
 5 5 5 5 5 5 6 D
 6
 3 3 3 3 3 3 Electrified
 0 A C final energy
 0 40 80 120 160 200 240 280 320 360 400 440 [TWh]

 B

 Figure 5 – Domestic merit-order of electrification in 2050

The classes are labeled according to the following logic: , , , . Subscript,
 , indicates the currently installed system, which can differ from the reference system.
Squares A, B, C and D mark critical points on the merit-order curve and are therefore used
as a guideline for analysis.

 Seite 9 von 31

10. Internationale Energiewirtschaftstagung an der TU Wien IEWT 2017

Square A: The domestic merit-order shows no potential for avoided costs. This results from
the significantly higher initial investment of the electrical technologies. The effect of operating
costs of electrification costs is low, as the ratio of utilization of the gas boilers to the seasonal
performance factor of the heat pumps is similar to the ratio of gas to electricity price
(approximately 3:1). Initial investments in the implemented heat pumps are higher than
investments in the gas boiler. Consequently electrification imposes additional costs.
Square B: Two main aspects are visible in the merit-order. Firstly, the MFH exhibit lower
electrification costs than the remaining buildings because of the lower specific in
MFH compared to the remaining building stock. A second finding is that electrification costs
of new builds are higher than comparable buildings of the building stock. This results from
the installation of a solar thermal plant, which leads to a reduction of the annual gas
consumption. Consequently, the electrical system cannot realize its efficiency advantage to
the same extent compared to systems in the building stock.
Square C&D: The electrification of households displaces 428 TWh of conventional FEC.
This results in an additional electricity demand of 110 TWh and annual additional costs of
€~21 bn, which corresponds to an additional cost of €~500 per household [25]. The current
average annual household spending for H&HW is €~1200 [9]. Electrification would therefore
result in significant cost increases for H&HW on a household level.
The sensitivity analysis in the domestic sector shows that the order of classes in the
domestic sector is robust. This results from the fact that altering parameters such as the gas
to electricity price ratio, the interest rate or the technology cost parameters simultaneously
affects all building classes. Hence, position changes mainly occur with respect to new builds,
because the reference system differs from that implemented in the building stock. For
instance: halving the gas price from 7 ct/kWh to 3.5 ct/kWh causes new MFH to shift several
positions to the right. This results from the fact that only 85 % of the thermal energy demand
of new builds is covered by the gas boiler. In relation to the other classes, the new MFH
therefore does not benefit as much from this price reduction. On average, electrification costs
increase by €~300 per household, compared to the original merit-order, as conventional
systems become more attractive. Furthermore, doubling the discount rate in the domestic
sector from 3.5 % to 7 % results in an electrification cost increase of €~200 per year and
household, compared to the original merit-order.

4.3 Electrifying the industry sector
The industrial TEP amounts to 476 TWh, of which 62 TWh are H&HW and 414 TWh are
process heat. In a first step, the TEP is subdivided into classes. This enables a detailed
analysis of the underlying technology structure [31, 32]. The classes analyzed in this paper
are shown in the pie chart in Figure 6.

 Seite 10 von 31

10. Internationale Energiewirtschaftstagung an der TU Wien IEWT 2017

 Industry TEP according to segments Analyzed industrial classes

 [TWh] 500 476 476
 62 62 4 Blast furnace &
 400 4 rolled steel; 25 %
 12 Not covered; 42 %
 34 19
 36
 300 Total
 46
 476
 [TWh]
 200 414 106 DH; 12 %

 100 H&HW; 11 %
 153 Dairy products; 1 %
 Pulp&Paper; 6%
 0 Sugar; 1 % Flat glass; 1 %
 TEPIND Segmented TEPIND Container glass; 1%

 H&HW Other segments Quarrying, other mining
 Process heat Glass and ceramics Chemical industry
 Manufacture of machinery & transport equipment Food and tobacco (Non-ferrous) Metal manufacture and processing
 Rubber and plastic products Paper DH

 Figure 6 – Classification of industrial TEP according to segments in TWh [6]

The FfE defines 8 industry segments [33]. Each segment encompasses numerous individual
processes. Industrial segments which account for less than 1 % of process heat TEP are
excluded from the analysis. Furthermore, the segments Quarrying, other mining, Chemical
industry and Other segments are excluded from the analysis as a result of low cost data
availability for industrial process technologies.
The H&HW TEP is considered fully, as the supply of H&HW is not subject to process specific
parameters [7]. In order to determine the techEP, each class in the pie chart of Figure 6 is
analyzed in detail. Based on process-specific knowledge, a conventional and an electrical
technology are defined, where electrification is technically possible. The selection of the
electrical alternative in the industry sector is contingent upon the temperature level at which a
process is operated [7]. The following table summarizes the techEP and the technology
choices made for H&HW and the industrial processes.
 Electrified class Electrical system Reference system techEP [TWh]
 H&HW Industrial GSHP Low pressure gas boiler 51
 Paper Industrial GSHP High pressure gas boiler 27
 Sugar Electrode boiler High pressure gas boiler 4.5
 Dairy products Electrode boiler High pressure gas boiler 6.1
 Steel Electric arc furncace Blast furnace steel 52
 Flat glass Electrical glass furnace Flat glass furnace 6.0
 Container glass Electrical glass furnace Container glass furnace 6.6

 Table 4 – Summary of technology sets and techEP in the industry [6]

Based on the selected technology sets and the cost parameters in Appendix A, electrification
costs are calculated. Figure 7 on the following page summarizes the results in a merit-order
curve.

 Seite 11 von 31

10. Internationale Energiewirtschaftstagung an der TU Wien IEWT 2017

 Specific differential
 costs of electrification
 [ct/kWh]

 25 BF Blast furnace
 EAF Electric arc furnace
 HPGb High pressure gas boiler
 20
 LPGb Low pressure gas boiler
 CG(F) Container glass (furnace)
 15 FG(F) Flat glass (furnace)
 EGF Electrical glass furnace
 IGSHP Industrial GSHP
 10

 5 9
 6 6
 2 2 3 D Electrified
 0 A C final energy
 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 [TWh]
 -5
 B

 Figure 7 – Industrial merit-order of electrification in 2050

Square A: In the paper industry, the high thermal energy demand at low temperatures favors
the use of HPs to supply process heat. Compared to the reference system, the HP has a
significant operating cost advantage which, under the given assumptions, outweighs the
higher initial investment. The latter results from a low electricity price in the paper industry. In
general, the energy-intensive industry is more susceptible to electrification than industry
segments in which the ratio of electricity to gas price is higher.
The paper process represents 27 TWh of techEP at avoided costs of €~0.3 bn. In 2013 the
total 2013 revenue in the paper industry was €~14 bn [34]. Considering that reductions of the
energy bill have a direct effect on profit, the cost savings through electrification are
noticeable. The additional electrical FEC in 2050 is 23 TWh, which equals ~10 % of the
industrial electricity consumption in 2013.
Square B: The order of processes is best explained by paired comparison. Both the sugar
and dairy products processes require steam as process heat. In both cases assumptions
concerning the technologies and prices are identical. This results in identical specific
differential for each process. The electrification cost difference originates from a higher
ratio of peak load to thermal energy demand in the sugar industry compared to the dairy
products industry. Consequently, specific differential in the sugar industry are higher.
This effect occurs due to low FLH of 3000 hours in the sugar industry and comparably high
FLH of 6000 hours in the dairy products industry [35]. This in turn results from production-
specific parameters. Sugar is produced in sugar campaigns which require high power over a
short time frame, while dairy products are produced continuously throughout the year.
Square C&D: ~160 TWh of fossil-fueled FE is displaced by 2050. This results in an
additional electricity demand of ~63 TWh. Total additional costs amount to €3.7 bn. The
entire energy-intensive industry in Germany has annual energy costs of €16 bn [36]. Total
annual industry energy costs in 2013 amounted to €~38 bn [9]. When compared to these
figures, the additional costs are significant.

 Seite 12 von 31

10. Internationale Energiewirtschaftstagung an der TU Wien IEWT 2017

The sensitivity analysis shows that halving the interest rate from 10.5 % to 5.25 % leads to a
shift of the H&HW costs to the left end of the curve. This shift results from a noticeable cost
decrease of the heat pump compared to the low pressure gas boiler. The effect outweighs
the cost reduction in the dairy products class because the IGSHP exhibits a higher capital
cost compared to the electrode boiler. Furthermore, adjusting fuel costs has a stronger effect
on the electrification costs than adjusting specific investments because the majority of the
annualized costs are , with playing a secondary role. Avoided electrification
costs of €~1 bn are the result of halving the electricity to gas price ratio.

4.4 Electrifying small and medium enterprises
In this section, the costs for the electrification of the SME sector are calculated. The SME
TEP amounts to 213 TWh, of which 164 TWh is H&HW, 31 TWh is mechanical energy and
18 TWh is process heat. In line with the implemented methodology in the other sectors, the
TEP is sub-divided into classes. This step is significantly impeded by the lack of FEC data on
an SME segment level. The Working Group on Energy Balances divides the SME sector into
14 segments [37]. However, there are no statistics that show the FEC for the SME segments
on an end-use application level. An exact determination of the TEP on a segment level is
therefore not possible. It is, however, possible to estimate the FEC on an end-use level
within each SME segment by combining the segmental FEC by energy-carrier and the
segmental FEC by end-use. The resulting TEP split is shown in the following diagram.
 SME TEP according to segments Analyzed SME classes

 [TWh] 220 213 213
 Not covered; 8 %
 200 19 19
 Office style
 Process heat; 9 %
 180 31 31 businesses; 23 %
 160 Excavators; 2 %
 8
 140 12 Tractors; 12 %
 Total
 120 23
 213
 100 Textiles, clothing, [TWh]
 28
 80 164 Freight; 1 % Trade; 15 %
 31
 60 Manufacturing; 2 %
 40 Construction; 4 %
 20 50
 Hospitals, schools, Lodging, guesthouses,
 0 public swimming pools; 11 % homes; 13 %
 Segmented

 Process heat Textiles, Clothing, Freight Construction Lodging, Guesthouses, Homes
 Mechanical energy Other Farming Trade
 H&HW Manufacturing Hospitals, Schools, Public swimming pools Office style businesses

 Figure 8 – Classification of SME TEP according to segments in TWh [38]8

The classes depicted in the pie chart in Figure 8 are analyzed with respect to their technical
electrification potential.

8
 Segments < 1 % of TEP are categorized as not covered.

 Seite 13 von 31

10. Internationale Energiewirtschaftstagung an der TU Wien IEWT 2017

Heating and hot water
As mentioned in the previous sections, H&HW is considered technically electrifiable. The
H&HW techEP excluding distH is 145 TWh. A GHSP is selected as the electrical alternative.
A gas condensing boiler is used as the conventional reference technology.
Mechanical energy
Non-electrical mechanical energy in the SME sector is used for special purpose vehicles in
the segments Construction, Farming and Airports [37]. This means fuel consumption by
excavators, tractors, aircraft movers, freight haulers and baggage movers. Literature
research shows that full-electric excavators, tractors, freight haulers and baggage movers
have not passed the trial stage [39, 40]. The electrification of aircraft movers is, however,
possible, has reached a commercial stage and cost data is accessible [39]. Together these
vehicles consume an equivalent of 0.02 TWh/a of fuel and thus do not pass the 1 %
relevancy criterion. No technical electrification potential is calculated for mechanical energy
in the SME sector.
Process heat
Due to low data availability in the SME sector it is not possible to determine the underlying
technology for the identified process heat TEP [41]. The reason for this is the extreme
heterogeneity of the sector, which results from the fact that it captures the amounts of energy
which could not be allocated clearly to any of the other sectors [42]. Process heat in the SME
sector is therefore considered non-electrifiable. The supply of H&HW is consequently the
only end-use for which electrification costs are calculated.
The resulting average electrification costs for heating and hot water in the SME sector are
9.2 ct/kWh. This results in total electrification costs of €~13.3 bn, a displaced amount of
conventional FEC of 145 TWh and an additional electrical FEC in 2050 of 33 TWh. These
average costs are higher than the industrial average of 2.8 ct/kWh and the domestic average
of 4.9 ct/kWh. The difference compared to the industrial sector is mainly due to the fact that
the SME sector is not free of the taxes, levies and surcharges on the electricity price. The
ratio of electrical to conventional fuel prices is consequently higher. Furthermore, the FLH in
the SME sector are lower compared to H&HW in the industry and domestic sectors.
Consequently, the share of installed power to thermal energy demand is higher. As electrical
systems are more capital-intensive than conventional systems, this results in higher specific
differential CAPEX than in the industry and domestic sectors.

4.5 Electrifying the transport sector
The TEP in the transport sector amounts to 675 TWh of mechanical energy. Non-electrical
means of transportation are mainly airplanes, ships, cars and trucks. Classes in this sector
are constructed based on means of transportation. Similar to the SME sector, energy end-
use balances on a class level do not exist in the transport sector. Hence, it is not possible to
determine the class specific TEP. Classes are therefore constructed based on the FEC.
Figure 9 on following page shows the FEC in the transport sector is segmented.
The bar chart shows a broad categorization of the transport sector according to transport
types [43]. In the second bar, the category Road transport is sub-divided into passenger

 Seite 14 von 31

10. Internationale Energiewirtschaftstagung an der TU Wien IEWT 2017

transport by fuel type and Road freight. A similar division of the air transport and rail transport
sector is possible, but not depicted for visualization purposes. A further class refinement step
is depicted in the pie chart in Figure 9.
 Transport TEP class overview Analyzed transport classes

 [TWh] 800
 726 3
 700 16 Not covered; 27 % Lead free medium; 19 %
 104 104
 600
 Road
 500 190 freight
 190
 Total Lead free small; 7 %
 400 726
 602 Passenger
 Rail transport; 2 % [TWh]
 174 transport 174
 300 diesel
 Lead free large; 6 %
 200 Air transport; 14 %
 Passenger
 100 239 transport 239 Diesel large; 11 %
 lead free

 0 Diesel small; 2 %
 Diesel medium; 7 %
 FECTP FECTP Diesel other; 5 %

 Coastal&inland-waterway transport Air transport Road freight
 Rail transport Road transport Diesel

 Figure 9 – Classification of transport TEP according to means of transportation in TWh [39, 43 – 47]

To divide the passenger road transport by fuel type into classes, car categories are created
and calibrated to reproduce the total FEC in the sector, using the following procedure [6, 39,
43, 45 – 47]:
 1. The total number of cars is divided into the classes small, medium, large and other,
 based on the type of car
 2. Each class is split into diesel and lead-free fueled cars
 3. Average annual driving distances for diesel and lead-free cars are adapted to give
 average driving distances for each car size and fuel type
 4. The classes small, medium and large are further sub-divided into average, below
 average and above average driving distance classes for each car size and fuel type
 5. Average fuel consumption is used to calculate the FEC in each class.

The following table shows a selection of the constructed classes.
 Annual driving Fuel consumption FEC
 Class Vehicles
 performance [km] [L/100km] [TWh]
 Diesel small (avg.) 1,080,008 16,442 5.0 9
 Diesel small (> avg.) 74,866 42,000 5.0 2
 Diesel medium (avg.) 4,696,751 21,194 6.0 60
 Lead-free large (avg.) 538,527 25,000 8.9 11

 Table 5 – Exemplary vehicle classes and techEP [6]

Table 5 illustrates the differences between the constructed car classes. To derive the techEP
in the transport sector, the three dominant fuel-consuming transport types, rail, air and

 Seite 15 von 31

10. Internationale Energiewirtschaftstagung an der TU Wien IEWT 2017

passenger road transport are analyzed, with respect to their electrification potential. Road
transport is addressed as one category. Road freight and road public transport are not
analyzed.
Rail transport
Rail transport FEC amounts to 15 TWh. Of this, 75 % is electrical FE, leaving ~3.6 TWh of
fossil FEC in the rail transport sector. The share of fuel consumption of total TEP (675 TWh)
in the transport sector is therefore less than one percentage point. The electrification of rail
freight is consequently not considered in the further analysis [48].
Air transport
Air transport is responsible for 15 % of the FEC in the transport sector and ~2 % of global
GHG emissions [44]. Pilot projects, such as the Airbus S.A.S, prove that electrical flying is
possible [49]. It is, however, currently not a commercial application and therefore non-
electrifiable according to the criteria laid out in this paper.
Passenger road transport
The number of electric vehicles (EVs) reached 19,000 at the beginning of 2015 [50]. The
dominant limiting factor to vehicle adoption is the concern that not all trip lengths can be
covered using commercially available EVs [51]. A paper by Plötz et al. shows that
approximately 90 % of the vehicles in Germany drive less than 140 km per day [52]. This is a
distance which can be covered with commercially available electric vehicles. Consequently
this barrier to adoption, which could limit the TEP of private passenger road transport in
Germany, is irrational to a large extent and not considered a limiting factor for the
widespread electrification of the transport sector. For the purpose of this paper it is assumed
that sufficient charging infrastructure for electric vehicles exists, so that all journeys can be
covered. The techEP for road transport equals the FEC for road transport for lead-free and
diesel cars, which amounts to 413 TWh. The electrification process entails the replacement
of a conventional vehicle by an electrical vehicle of equal size and annual driving distance.
The calculation of electrification costs for personal road transport is performed under the
assumption that the entire techEP is realized by 2050. Considering that vehicle lifetimes
rarely exceed 25 years, this assumption is justified. The electrification cost calculation
presented in this section is based on a total cost of ownership (TCO) study for electric
vehicles conducted by Plötz et al [39, 46]. Cost components included in the calculation are
vehicle, battery, wall box, fuel and operation and maintenance costs. Detailed assumptions
are listed in Appendix A. An extensive discussion concerning the implemented costs and
sensitivities can be found in the study by Plötz et al.
The following figure shows the transport merit-order curve. The classes are labeled using the
following logic: , , . Subscript, , indicates the conventional fuel, which is either
diesel, , or lead-free, . , explains the size of the vehicle which is either
 , , or ℎ . Subscript, , shows if the vehicle drives the annual
average, , or above, > , or below, < , average driving distance.

 Seite 16 von 31

10. Internationale Energiewirtschaftstagung an der TU Wien IEWT 2017

Specific differential
costs of electrification
[ct/kWh]
30

25

20

15
 26

10

 5
 7 8
 A 4 5 5 6 D
 3 4 Electrified
 0 -1 C final energy
 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 [TWh]

 -5 B

 Figure 10 – Merit-order of electrification for the transport sector in 2050

Square A: The resulting negative electrification costs for large lead-free cars with above
average driving distances (25,000 km or more) are -1 ct/kWh. Negative costs occur for this
car class due to the operating cost advantage of the electrical vehicle compared to this
conventional class. The latter is largely a result of higher fuel costs and consumption in
comparison to the diesel equivalent. The resulting annual avoided electrification costs
amount to €0.1 bn or €~200 per annum and car in the class.
Square B: The order of classes shows three major trends. Firstly, below average driving
distances result in high electrification costs. This is the case because the operating cost
advantage of electric cars is not realized to the same extent in comparison to average and
above average driving distances. Secondly, electrification costs of lead-free cars are lower
compared to diesel cars for average and above average driving distances. And thirdly, the
electrification of below average driving distance imposes higher costs on the owners of lead-
free compared to diesel cars due to the relative advantage of diesel cars compared to lead-
free cars when driving longer annual distances. The latter results from lower diesel costs and
lower per kilometer fuel consumption. Compared to the electrification of lead-free cars, the
electrification of diesel cars is therefore not as attractive for large annual driving distances.
By the same logic, the electrification of lead-free cars with below annual driving distances is
more costly compared to the electrification of the diesel equivalent.
Square C&D: Total electrification costs amount to €16.8 bn. This is equivalent to additional
costs of ~400 €/a per vehicle. Total annual household spending on fuel in 2013 was €~1200.
Although this figure does not include the conventional vehicle cost it is sufficient to
benchmark the additional costs for the electrical vehicle. The total displaced conventional
FEC is 413 TWh. The additional electrical FEC in 2050 is 133 TWh.
As the sensitivities of battery and electricity price changes are explored in Plötz et al., Table
6 shows the effect that changing the electricity price, battery cost and discount has on the
total and per vehicle electrification cost in the transport sector.

 Seite 17 von 31

10. Internationale Energiewirtschaftstagung an der TU Wien IEWT 2017

 Affects… 
 Variable change Electricity price Spec. investment battery Discount rate
 from  to 28.8  14.4 [ct/kWh] 380  190 [€/kW] 3.5  7 [%]
 Electrification cost [bn €] -2.3 -5.3 26.0
 Electrification cost [€/vehicle] -56 -126 612

 Table 6 – Sensitivity analysis for electrification costs in the transport sector

The sensitivity analysis shows that negative electrification costs are possible, if the electricity
or battery prices are reduced. Plötz et al. project a decrease of the battery price to 280 €/kW
by 2020 [46]. Continuing this price development could enable negative electrification costs in
2050. However, the annual per vehicle avoided electrification costs are low. As mentioned in
section 3, there are other non-monetary costs exist which can hinder electrification even
though negative costs are observed. Further research is needed to quantify these costs.
The transport sector concludes the sectoral analysis. The results are summarized in a total
merit-order curve of electrification in section 5.

 Seite 18 von 31

10. Internationale Energiewirtschaftstagung an der TU Wien IEWT 2017

5 Merit-order of electrification in 2050
The results from the sectoral analysis are summarized and combined in a total merit-order
curve (see Figure 11).

 Specific differential
 costs of electrification
 [ct/kWh]
 30 INDPH CG,CGF,EGF Households (HH)
 TPD,l,>avg
 DOMnewMFH,GCB+ST,ASHP,GSHP DOMnewSFH,GCB+ST,GSHP Transport (TP)
 25 TPD,other TPD,s,avg Industry (IND)
 DistHDOM&SME,GSHP TPD,m,avg District Heat (DistH)
 TPL,s,avg
 20 DOMTH,Gb,GCB,GSHP Small & Medium
 DOMMFH (3-6),Gb,GCB,ASHP
 TPD,s,>avg Enerprises (SME)
 DO;MFH (3-6),Ob,GCB,ASHP
 TPD,m,>avg
 15 DOMMFH (7-12),Gb.GCB,ASHP
 INDPH sugar,LPGb,Eb
 DOMMFH (>12),Gb,GCB,ASHP
 DOMMFH (>12),Ob,GCB,ASHP DOMSFH,Gb,GCB,GSHP
 10
 DOMMFH (7-12),Ob.GCB,ASHP DOMTH,Ob,GCB,GSHP
 INDH&HW casses,Gb,GSHP
 5 TPL,m,avg D
 A Electrified
 0 C final energy
 INDPH FG,FGF,EGF [TWh]
 INDPH Steel,BF,EAF SMEH&HW,GCB,IGSHP
 -5 DistHIND,GSHP
 DOMSFH,Ob,GCB,GSHP
 TPD,m,avg DOMSFH,Ob,GCB,GSHP
 B DOMSDH,Gb,GCB,GSHP
 TPD,s,avg TPD,l,

10. Internationale Energiewirtschaftstagung an der TU Wien IEWT 2017

2050. The technical potential for electricity production from wind and solar power in Germany
is 300 and 400 TWh respectively [54, 55].
 Domestic Industry SME Transport Total
 Electrified FEC [TWh] 428 157 145 413 1,143
 Percentage of [%] 94 38 68 61 67
 Additional electrical FEC 2050 [TWh] 110 63 33 133 339
 Total cost [bn €] 21 4 13 17 58
 Avoided cost [bn €] - -0.3 - -0.1 -0.4

 Table 7 – Electrification cost overview

The comparison shows that the electricity demand would exceed the potential of renewables
in 2050. Furthermore it is probable that the evolving peak load, which is not quantified in this
paper, would require a significant amount of additional production and network capacity.
Figure 11 shows that 43 of 45 displayed classes exhibit additional electrification costs.
Avoided costs through electrification total to €0.4 bn and occur solely in the paper industry
and for large lead-free vehicles with above average driving distances. Including distH, total
additional costs of €58 bn accrue for the electrification of 1265 TWh of fossil-fueled energy.
The calculated annual additional costs due to electrification exceed the annual spending on
the German renewable energy levy of €~24 bn by a factor of three [56]. Assuming that
private investors only pursue electrification at an avoided cost, a significant amount of
government support is required to realize electrification under the current cost conditions.

6 Conclusion and ideas for further research
This paper provides an overview of the costs incurred to private investors by substituting
fossil-fueled processes and applications with electrical technologies, in Germany by 2050..
The first finding of this paper is that determining an electrification cost overview requires an
initial audit of the energy end-use balances to show where electrification potentials lie. This
analysis reveals that mechanical energy and energy used for H&HW and process heat is
theoretically electrifiable and that all four end-use sectors exhibit electrification potentials. In
numerical terms, the total TEP amounts to ~1880 TWh.
Combining the results of the sectoral analysis in a total merit-order curve shows that none of
the sectors exhibits a clear electrification cost advantage or disadvantage. Within each sector
a range of electrification costs exist. As effects on the supply-side and distribution network
are not considered in this paper, a finite statement about whether or not electrification to this
extent is beneficial cannot be made. High annual additional costs of electrification of €58 bn
across all sectors, including distH, permit for the conclusion that the transformation towards
an all-electric world requires state subsidies. This is supported by comparing these costs to
Germany’s annual spending on the renewable energy levy, which is approximately €24 bn.
However, these costs have to be viewed in comparison to possible financial and non-
financial benefits that electrification imposes on the energy system and society as whole. By
comparing the economic value and the investor cost it is possible to determine whether
electrification should be pursued actively. The interpretation of the merit-order of
electrification is therefore limited.

 Seite 20 von 31

10. Internationale Energiewirtschaftstagung an der TU Wien IEWT 2017

Furthermore, the order of classes presented in the merit-order does not necessarily indicate
the order in which electrification occurs. Firstly, the end-user does not think in terms of
displaced final energy, when judging whether an electrical application should be purchased.
This decision occurs based on absolute savings or additional costs. Considering the capital
constraints of most end-users, a high initial investment as required for most electrical
technologies, can be a barrier to electrification, even if annualized total differential costs
indicate cost savings. Ultimately also a variety of non-monetary factors can influence
purchasing decisions. The concept of displaying costs in a merit-order curve is nevertheless,
useful to attain an initial cost overview, which is the goal of this paper.
The sensitivity analysis provided for the sectoral results shows that assumptions concerning
the electricity and fuel prices have a significant impact on electrification costs. Due to the
high sensitivities in this regard and due to the time frame of the study, the results are subject
to a high degree of uncertainty.
Ideas for further research can be categorized into aspects which improve the data quality,
increase the degree of detail and expand the number of electrified processes and
applications. Firstly, the underlying data quality for both the FEC and technology cost data
could be improved by the collection of primary data. This is especially necessary in the SME
and industry sector where the data basis does not allow for the calculation of accurate
electrification results. Secondly, there are a number of ways in which the accuracy of the
results can be improved. Examples are: including further cost components as well as
technology learning curves and different price scenarios, increasing the technology pool of
electrical and conventional technologies and selecting the appropriate technology sets based
on cost optimization criteria. Furthermore, the granularity of the approach can be increased
by creating more classes and by adding further criteria to determine the fit of a technology
within a respective class. Moreover, the interpretability of the resulting cost data can be
improved by considering the resulting interactions with other components of the energy
system (e.g. rebound effects on the network and generation side) and by estimating the
economic benefits of electrification. The latter also entails the quantification of avoided CO 2
emissions.
Lastly, the approach could be transferred to other countries. Exploring the option of a high
degree of electrification could prove less costly in other regions, making electrification not
only a viable, but also a cost-efficient path towards decarbonization.

 Seite 21 von 31

10. Internationale Energiewirtschaftstagung an der TU Wien IEWT 2017

7 Bibliography
[1] Sugiyama, Masahiro: Climate change mitigation and electrification in: Energy Policy
 (44) 2012. Tokyo: Elsevier Ltd., 2012
[2] Gerhardt, Norman et al.: Potenziale für Strom im Wärmemarkt bis 2050 -
 Wärmeversorgung in flexiblen Energieversorgungssystemen mit hohen Anteilen an
 erneuerbaren Energien. Frankfurt am Main: VDE Verband der Elektrotechnik
 Elektronik Informationstechnik e. V., 2015
[3] Nitsch, Joachim; et al.: Langfristszenarien und Strategien für den Ausbau der
 erneuerbaren Energien in Deutschland bei Berücksichtigung der Entwicklung in
 Europa und global - Leitstudie 2011. Bonn: Deutsches Zentrum für Luft- und
 Raumfahrt, Institut für Technische Thermodynamik, Abteilung Systemanalyse und
 Technikbewertung, 2012
[4] Klimaschutzplan 2050 - Klimaschutzpolitische Grundsätze und Ziele der
 Bundesregierung. Berlin: Bundesministerium für Umwelt, Naturschutz, Bau und
 Reaktorsicherheit (BMU), 2016
[5] Grünbuch Energieeffizienz - Diskussionspapier des Bundesministeriums für
 Wirtschaft und Energie. Berlin: Bundesministerium für Wirtschaft und Energie
 (BMWi), 2016
[6] Guminski, Andrej: Transition Towards an “All-electric World” – Developing a Merit-
 Order of Electrification for the German Energy System in: Masterarbeit
[7] Gruber, Anna; Biedermann, Franziska; von Roon, Serafin: Industrielles Power-to-
 Heat Potenzial in: Vortrag bei der IEWT 2015 in Wien. München:
 Forschungsgesellschaft für Energiewirtschaft mbH, 2015
[8] Guminski, Andrej; von Roon, Serafin: Dekarbonisierung des deutschen
 Energiesystems durch sinkenden oder steigenden Stromverbrauch? in: et -
 Energiewirtschaftliche Tagesfragen 66. Jg. (2016) Heft 10. Essen: etv Energieverlag
 GmbH, 2016
[9] Bundesministerium für Wirtschaft und Technologie (BMWi): Zahlen und Fakten -
 Energiedaten - Nationale und Internationale Entwicklung. Berlin: BMWi, 16.3.2015
[10] von Roon, Serafin; Gobmaier, Thomas: Demand Response in der Industrie - Status
 und Potenziale in Deutschland. München: Forschungsstelle für Energiewirtschaft e.V.
 (FfE), 2010
[11] The potential to reduce CO2 emissions by expanding end-use applications of
 electricity. Palo Alto: Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI), 2009
[12] Dieckhöner, Caroline; Hecking, Harald: Greenhouse Gas Abatement Cost Curves of
 the Residential Heating Market - a Microeconomic Approach. Köln: Institute of Energy
 Economics at the University of Cologne (EWI), 2012

 Seite 22 von 31