Economic Aspects of Geothermal District Heating and Power Generation German Experience Transferable?
Dr. Thomas Reif, Sonntag & Partner
1 Tallinn University of Technology, 17. April 2009 The topics:
1. Deep geothermal potential and its use in Germany 2. Business environment for district heating and electricity generation 3. Economic analysis electricity generation 4. Economic analysis district heating 5. Project design - project optimization (CHP) 6. „Parameters“ (simplified assumptions) for Estonian project examples 7. „Simulation“ of an electricity project in Estonia 8. „Simulation“ of a district heating project in Estonia 9. Summary Backup: 10. Geothermal systems 11. About us
2 Tallinn University of Technology, 17. April 2009 1. Deep geothermal potential and its use in Germany a) Hydrothermal sources in Germany
North German Basin
Upper Rhine Molasse Basin
source: Bayerischer Geothermieatlas
3 Tallinn University of Technology, 17. April 2009 b) Geological situation in the Bavarian Molasse Basin
Å North South Æ
Hot water aquifer with good flow rates! Geothermal gradient: ca. 3°C per 100 m TVD
fresh-water Molasse shalkstone marine transgression upper sea Molasse malm disturbance zones
lower sea Molasse dogger
Eocene crystal source: Bernried Erdwärme AG
4 Tallinn University of Technology, 17. April 2009 c) Major district heating and electricity generation projects
Waren / Müritz Neubrandenburg Neustadt-Glewe Prenzlau
district heating projects electricity projects
Speyer Landau Landau - Straubing -Erding Offenbach - Riem a.d. Queich - Pullach Insheim - Simbach/ Soultz-sous-Forêts Unterhaching Braunau Dürrnhaar - Unterschleisheim Bad Urach Kirchstockach - Aschheim/Feldkichen/ Mauerstetten Kirchheim Sauerlach - Unterföhring
5 Tallinn University of Technology, 17. April 2009 d) Geothermal project-features
geothermal supply flow rates depth location status power use temperature in l/s in m in MW in °C Erding operation 8,0 district heating, balneology 65 55 2.200
München Riem operation 9,0 district heating 90 64 2.747
Pullach operation 5,2 district heating 102 30 3.443
Simbach-Braunau operation 7,0 district heating 80 80 1.942
Straubing operation 4,0 district heating, balneology 37 45 825
Unterhaching operation 30,0 district heating, power generation 120 118 3.446
Unterschleißheim operation 13,0 district heating 81 90 1.960
Neubrandenburg operation 3,8 district heating 53 28 1.267
Neustadt-Glewe operation 6,5 district heating, power generation 95 35 2.300
Landau operation 8,0 district heating, power generation 150 unknown 3.400
Aschheim, Feldkirchen, Kirchheim under construction 6,2 (intended) district heating 84 55 2.500
Unterföhring under construction 10,4 (intended) district heating 85 75 2.500
Sauerlach under construction 8,0 (intended) district heating, power generation 130 240 4.000
Dürrnhaar under construction unknown district heating, power generation unknown unknown 3.700
Kirchstockach under construction unknown district heating, power generation unknown unknown 3.700
Mauerstetten under construction 5,0 (intended) district heating, power generation 130 80 4.660
Insheim under construction district heating, power generation >155 unknown 3.000 source: GeotIS, Soultz-sous-Forêts under construction 30,0 (intended) district heating, power generation 175 140 5.000 Geothermische Vereinigung
6 Tallinn University of Technology, 17. April 2009 e) Low enthalpy - but huge contribution to energy supply Example 1 district heating: annual load duration curve 10.000 inhabitants 30000 installed load (customer): 46.756 kW, heat capacity (system): 24.232 kW, temperature: 25000 heat production: 86.164 MWh, 3.556 full use hours 84°C flow rate: 20000 55 kg/s medium load biomass 4.000 kWth (17%), heat production: 4.301 MWh (5%), 1.075 full use hours peak load
capacity in kW peak boiler (oil): 24.232 kWth (100%), heat production: 15000 increased 2.334 MWh (3%), 96 full use hours geothermal load
10.700 heat pump 10.552 kWth (44%), 10000 heat production: 37.894 MWh (44%), 3.591 full use hours
6.200 5000 base load geothermal energy 6.217 kWth (26%), geothermal load heat production: 41.635 MWh (48%), 6.697 full use hours
0 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000 5500 6000 6500 7000 7500 8000 8500 hours source: KESS GbmH
7 Tallinn University of Technology, 17. April 2009 Example 2 district heating: annual load duration curve 30.000 inhabitants
80000
installed load (customer): 110.418 kW, 70000 temperature: heat capacity (system): 59.868 kW, heat production: 231.122 MWh, 3.861 full use hours 84°C 60000 flow rate: peak load 55 kg/s 50000 peak boiler (oil): 59.868 kWth (100%),
capacity inkW heat production: 14.648 MWh (6%), 245 full use hours 40000 increased medium load biomass 19.000 kWth (32%), geothermal load 30000 heat production: 64.628 MWh (28%), 3.401 full use hours
20000 heat pump 16.234 kWth (27%), 13.000 heat production: 101.063 MWh (44%), 6.225 full use hours
10000 base load geothermal energy 6.217 kWth (10%), 6.200 heat production: 50.782 MWh (22%), 8.168 full use hours
0 geothermal load 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000 5500 6000 6500 7000 7500 8000 8500 hours source: KESS GmbH
8 Tallinn University of Technology, 17. April 2009 2. Business environment for heat and electricity generation
geothermal electricity generation geothermal district heating
feed-in tarif based on the market heat-price Renewable Energy Sources Act (EEG)
Fixed price per „marketable“ MWh - subsidized by all price competitive to traditional power customers energies oil, gas, biomass etc. Geothermal energy supplies (Almost) no subsidies! base-load!
9 Tallinn University of Technology, 17. April 2009 revenues from the German feed-in tarif (EEG)
EEG 2004 EEG 2009 basic compensation ct/kWh up to 5 MWel 15,00 16,00 up to 10 MWel 14,00 16,00 up to 20 MWel 8,95 10,50 beyond 20 MWel 7,16 10,50 bonus for fast projects ct/kWh operation by 31.12.2015 - 4,00 bonus for thermal use ct/kWh facilities up to 10 MWel -3,00 technology-bonus ct/kWh petrothermal technique (EGS etc.) - 4,00 excluding VAT
• EEG subsidizes the gross electricity output, station demand of 20-30% of the capacity / energy is not deducted!
10 Tallinn University of Technology, 17. April 2009 3. Economic analysis electricity generation a) Project features Project scenario geology flow rate in l/s 120 delivery temperature in °C 140 number of wells 2 drilling depth per well in m (TVD) 4.800 power plant cycle process ORC temperature after power plant process in °C 70 degree of efficiency 11,50% electricity generation nominal capacity in kW 3.961 investment total investment (without reinvestment) ca. 42.244.000
11 Tallinn University of Technology, 17. April 2009 b) Investment overview Æ ca. 2,5 Mio.€ / 1.000 m MD 2009 2010 2011 (wells >4.000 m land 500.000 0 0 TVD and 8 1/2 “ exploration 3.000.000 0 0 diameter at total depth including drilling site 1.000.000 0 0 typical “troubles” / contingencies) wells 0 24.000.000 0 discovery inurance 4.200.000 0 0 power plant (incl. technique) 0 3.272.000 3.272.000 delivery pumps 0 0 600.000 pump electrical connection 0 0 400.000 grid connection / infrastructure 0 0 300.000 outlying structures 0 0 500.000 power plant building 0 0 500.000 SUM switchgears 0 0 200.000 heat delivery 0 0 500.000 SUM 8.700.000 27.272.000 6.272.000 42.244.000
12 Tallinn University of Technology, 17. April 2009 c) Electricity generation costs End of depreciation of wells and plant Electricity generation costs 180,0 170,0 material / energy 160,0 150,0 labour costs / 140,0 administration 130,0 120,0 insurances 110,0 100,0 90,0 service / maintenance 80,0 € / MWh € / 70,0 depreciation 3 years construction60,0 period (2009 - 2011)50,0 40,0 interest 30,0 20,0 other operating 10,0 costs 0,0 2009 2011 2013 2015 2017 2019 2021 2023 2025 2027 2029 2031 2033 2035 2037
• Depreciation of wells and plant within 20 years (feed-in-period: 20 [+1] yrs.) • Inflation included (e.g. 4 % p.a. increase in energy prices for station supply!)
13 Tallinn University of Technology, 17. April 2009 d) Project profitability
Geothermal electricity project - earnings preview 8 „market price break“ after the end of feed-in-tarif-period 7
6
5
4
3
2 Mio. €
1 break-even-point 0 2009 2011 2013 2015 2017 2019 2021 2023 2025 2027 2029 2031 2033 2035 2037
-1 ye ar -2
-3
earnings EBITDA EBIT EBT interest, repayments
• Internal Rate of Free Cash Flow (IRR) before taxes Æ ca. 10% • Thus just matching the benchmarks of typical energy investors
14 Tallinn University of Technology, 17. April 2009 e) Profitability and geology - geology is crucial
14,00%
12,00%
10,00%
8,00%
6,00% 7% increase in temperature Æ >30% increase in profitability Æ and vice versa 4,00%
2,00%
Internal Rate of FCF before taxes before FCF of Rate Internal 0,00% to secure by 80 90 100 110 120 discovery insurance flow rate in l/s
IRR of FCF b. taxes with 140 °C IRR of FCF b. taxes with 150 °C
15 Tallinn University of Technology, 17. April 2009 f) Profitability and investment (flow rate 120 l/s)
18,00% s 16,00% 14,00% 12,00% 10,00% 8,00% 10 % increase in investment 6,00% Æ ca. 10 % loss of profitability 4,00% Æ and vice versa 2,00% Internal Rate of FCF before taxe 0,00% 120 110 100 90 80 investment volume in % of planning IRR of FCF b. taxes with 140 °C IRR of FCF b. taxes with 150 °C
16 Tallinn University of Technology, 17. April 2009 4. Economic analysis heat generation a) Project features (e.g.: town with ca. 30.000 inhabitants) Project scenario geology delivery temperature in °C 84 flow rate in kg/s 55 geothermal capacity in kW 6.217 district heat process / sales biomass (medium load) operation after 3 years heat pump (medium load) operation after 4 years installed load (customer) in kW ca. 110.000 total heat consumption in MWh ca. 180.000 total number of connected objects 4.300 investment total investment (without reinvestment) ca. 171.000.000 thereof drilling and drilling site 16.200.000 land, outlying structures, biomass, heat pump, reserves 20.900.000 distribution network, service connections, heat-transfer stations 134.000.000
17 Tallinn University of Technology, 17. April 2009 b) Investment overview
Investment district heating project
geothermal drilling, station and peak-load drilling site equipment heating plant land 8% 2% reserves 1% outlying 1% biomass 2% structures 1% equipment planning 2% heat-pump network equipment 7% 5%
heat-transfers stations 12%
service distribution connections network 15% Distribution system is by far dominating 44%
18 Tallinn University of Technology, 17. April 2009 c) Project profitability
District heating project - earnings preview 30
25
20 Usually 5 - 15 years to break-even, if a 15 distribution network has to be built up
10 Mio. € Mio. 5
0 2009 2011 2013 2015 2017 2019 2021 2023 2025 2027 2029 2031 2033 2035 2037
-5 Losses accrued year -10
earnings EBT EBT accumulated
19 Tallinn University of Technology, 17. April 2009 • Competitive (average) heat price is around 70 € / MWh (excl. VAT) Æ 10-15% below oil or gas to get the customers connected • Initial investment in drilling, energy center and backbone of the distribution network is stressing economics! Existing network as a large advantage! • Thus 100% cost covering is not possible during the first years of operation • Losses will occur for 5 - 15 years, varying on customer density, marketing … • Assumed inflation of heat price based on escalation clause is 3-4% • Initial ratio of connected customers is 30-60% per construction phase / street, depending on town / client structures • Final ratio will be around 75-80%
20 Tallinn University of Technology, 17. April 2009 d) Heat production costs Increase in cost of heat / MWh, primarily because of increase in cost of material (biomass, electricity, oil) Cost of heat sold to customers 170 160 expenses of 150 material 140 Decrease in cost of heat / MWh because labour costs / 130 of increase in connected customers (= economies of scale and scope) administration 120 110 insurances, dues, advertising 100 90 service / 80 maintenance
€ / MWh € / 70 depreciation 60 50 40 interest expense 30 20 other operating 10 costs 0 2009 2011 2013 2015 2017 2019 2021 2023 2025 2027 2029 2031 2033 2035 2037
21 Tallinn University of Technology, 17. April 2009 e) Energy prices vs. geothermal heat prices
450%
400% Based on a typical escalation clause for the geothermal district heating energy rate (e.g. 10% oil, 20% electricity, price basis: 30% biomass, 30% invest, 10% wages) 350% 1998
300%
250%
200%
150%
100%
50% Jul 98 Jul 99 Jul 00 Jul 01 Jul 02 Jul 03 Jul 04 Jul 05 Jul 06 Jul 07 Jul 08 Jul Apr 98 Apr 99 Apr 00 Apr 01 Apr 02 Apr 03 Apr 04 Apr 05 Apr 06 Apr 07 Apr 08 Okt 98 Okt 99 Okt 00 Okt 01 Okt 02 Okt 03 Okt 04 Okt 05 Okt 06 Okt 07 Okt 08 Okt Jan 98 Jan 99 Jan 00 Jan 01 Jan 02 Jan 03 Jan 04 Jan 05 Jan 06 Jan 07 Jan 08 Jan 09
natural gas fuel oil geothermal energy
22 Tallinn University of Technology, 17. April 2009 5. Project design - project optimization (CHP) project: high temperature middle temperature low temperature >120°C < 120°C < 90°C electricity 150 °C 140 °C 130 °C electricity 120 °C 110 °C 100 °C heat heat "electricity heat 90 °C bottleneck 80 °C "BOTTLENECK" 70 °C range 60 °C 50 °C 40 °C 30 °C "waste" "waste" "waste" 20 °C 10 °C
at the location the available temperature range heat pump regularly to the electricity production used temperature range (return cooling) too "cold" for the electricity regularly to the heat supply necessary temperature range regularly unused temperature range
23 Tallinn University of Technology, 17. April 2009 • District heating project - peak load covering by additional energy source - integration of a medium load component - improved efficiency of the geothermal source by cooling the return flow via heat pump - refinement of the medium load (second medium load component) etc.
capital costs instead of „fuel costs “ maximum use of the most capital-intensive geothermal energy as base load
24 Tallinn University of Technology, 17. April 2009 • Combined heat and power projects - heat-focused vs. power-focused (geothermal heating vs. amortization of the power station) - parallel vs. serial use of thermal water - regime change after power station amortization etc. - hybrid forms (heating the residual temperature of power plant for the heat use) - value of “cold” heat at 70-75°C > 15 € / MWh
• The bottleneck situation is only partly solvable (especially with temperatures < 140°C) - when no / less energy for heating is needed (day / night, summer / winter), the power station efficiency is approximately 30% below average! - “electricity in the summer and heat in the winter” is a simplified concept
Geothermal (low enthalpy!) CHP requires permanent optimization!
25 Tallinn University of Technology, 17. April 2009 6. „Parameters“ for Estonian project examples very simplified assumptions! • Geology in Estonia - Low geothermal gradient (Ø ca. 1,2°C/100 m) - or just lack of wells / statistics? Æ lower supply temperatures comp. to Germany with comparable / larger depths Æ Necessity of research / identification of favorable geothermal sites (e.g. gradients > 2°C/100 m) - small probability of naturally high flow rates Æ EGS instead of hydrothermal (flow rate about 50 l/s as Soultz-sous-Forêts)
• Energy prices in Estonia - Heat prices ca. 55-60 €/MWh (in Germany ca. 70 €/MWh) - Purchase price for electricity ca. 40 €/MWh (in Germany ca. 80 €/MWh) Æ advantageous relation earnings / expense
26 Tallinn University of Technology, 17. April 2009 • Operating expenses - labour costs Æ substantially lower compared to Germany (assumption -50%) - interest on borrowed capital Æ scarcely under / around the EU-average
• Investment - Drilling, plant, feed pumps etc. Æ world market costs - in total higher exploration costs compared to Germany because of • deeper drillings • stimulation measures for enhanced geothermal systems (EGS / HDR / HFR) - cheaper buildings, connectors, distribution network and energy centers because of reduced labour / construction costs Æ (assumption -50%)
advantage: possible use of already existing distribution network
27 Tallinn University of Technology, 17. April 2009 7. „Simulation“ of an EGS electricity project in Estonia a) Project features Project scenario geology geothermal gradient in °C/100m 2 flow rate in l/s 50 delivery temperature in °C (2°C / 100 m + 5°C surface) 125 number of wells 2 drilling depth per well in m (TVD) 6.000 power plant cyclic process Kalina temperature after power plant process in °C 55 degree of efficiency 12,10% electricity generation nominal capacity in kW 1.736 investment / expenses total investment (without reinvestment) ca. 42.854.000 construction costs in % from German standard (except drilling, plant etc.) 50%
28 Tallinn University of Technology, 17. April 2009 b) Investment overview EGS / HDR / HFR
year 1 year 2 year 3 Æ ca. 2,5 Mio.€ land 250.000 0 0 / 1.000 m MD
exploration 1.500.000 0 0 (wells >5.000 m reservoir stimulation / engineering 4.000.000 0 0 TVD and 6 1/8 “ diameter at total drilling site 500.000 0 0 depth including contingencies) wells 0 30.000.000 0 power plant (incl. technique) 0 2.652.000 2.352.000 delivery, injecting pumps 0 0 400.000 pump electrical connection 0 0 200.000 grid connection / infrastructure 0 0 150.000 outlying structures 0 0 250.000 power plant building 0 0 250.000 switchgears 0 0 100.000 SUM heat delivery 0 0 250.000 SUM 6.250.000 32.652.000 3.952.000 42.854.000
29 Tallinn University of Technology, 17. April 2009 c) Electricity generation costs End of depreciation of wells and plant Electricity generation costs 400,0 material / energy
350,0 labour costs / 300,0 administration insurances 250,0
service / 200,0 maintenance € / MWh € / 150,0 depreciation 3 years construction period (2009 - 2011) 100,0 interest expense
50,0 other operating costs 0,0 year 1 year 3 year 5 year 7 year 9 year year 11 year 13 year 15 year 17 year 19 year 21 year 23 year 25 year 27 year 29
30 Tallinn University of Technology, 17. April 2009 Sensitivity of electricity cost to changes in parameters
Sensitivity of parameters (change +/- 10%) 450 flow rate in kg/s 400 Average price during project period 350 delivery temperature in °C
€ 300 investment
250
200 station supply
average electricity production costs production in electricity costs average (energy) 150 -10% -8% -6% -4% -2% 0% 2% 4% 6% 8% 10%
sensitivity of parameters in %
The delivery temperature has by far the largest influence on the electricity production costs / project profitability.
31 Tallinn University of Technology, 17. April 2009 d) Summary geothermal power generation in Estonia
Based on the (very) simplified assumptions: • Investment per MW / for an EGS-project in Estonia would be about twice the amount compared to an hydro-geothermal project in Germany • Geothermal electricity would cost about 340 € / MWh (first project years) that would still be below the feed-in-tarif for solar power in Germany! • that could become competitive in reasonable time - in case there will be a certain learning curve and - an increase in electricity prices by > 3-4% p.a. • Project optimization by CHP Essential: Geological research and research drilling in Estonia (gradients!)
32 Tallinn University of Technology, 17. April 2009 8. „Simulation“ of a district heating project in Estonia a) Project features (with ca. 30.000 inhabitants)
Project scenario geology geothermal gradient in °C/100m 2 number of wells 2 drilling depth per well in m (TVD) 5.000 delivery temperature in °C (2°C / 100 m + 5°C surface) 105 flow rate in kg/s 50 geothermal capacity in kW 10.048 district heat process / sales use of biomass and heap pump (medium load) x installed load (customer) in kW ca. 110.000 total heat consumption in MWh ca. 180.000 total number of connected objects 4.300 investment total investment (without reinvestment) ca. 110.600.000 thereof drilling and drilling site 31.400.000 land, outlying structures, biomass, heat pump, reserves 12.300.000 distribution network, service connections, heat-transfer stations 66.900.000 construction costs in % from German standard (except drilling etc.) 50%
33 Tallinn University of Technology, 17. April 2009 b) Investment overview
Investment district heating project
geothermal biomass station and equipment equipment 2% heat-pump equipment distribution drilling, drilling 2% 4% site, stimulation network 33% 26%
reserves 2% service planning connections network heat-transfers 12% 6% stations 10%
34 Tallinn University of Technology, 17. April 2009 c) Energy concept (Estonian town with 30.000 inhabitants)
80.000 installed load (customer): 110.418 kW, 70.000 heat capacity (system): 59.868 kW, heat production: 231.122 MWh, 3.861 full use hours temperature: 105°C 60.000
flow rate: peak load peak boiler (oil): 59.868 kWth (100%), 50.000 50 kg/s heat production: 12.616 MWh (5%), 211 full use hours
Increased 40.000 geothermal medium load biomass 18.000 kWth (30%), Capacity in kW heat production: 55.339 MWh (24%), 3.074 full use hours load 30.000
heat pump 14.758 kWth (25%), 17.300 20.000 heat production: 83.443 MWh (36%), 5.654 full use hours
10.050 10.000 base load geothermal energy 10.048 kWth (17%), heat production: 79.724 MWh (34%), 7.934 full use hours geothermal load 0 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000 5500 6000 6500 7000 7500 8000 8500 Stunden Projektjahr 23 source: KESS GmbH
35 Tallinn University of Technology, 17. April 2009 d) Heat production costs Usual increase in cost of heat / MWh, because of increase in cost of material (biomass, electricity, oil) Cost of heat sold to customers
110 material / energy
100 Decrease in cost of heat / MWh because of lower cost of labour costs / 90 network construction than in Germany and significant administration economies of scale concerning capital costs of the wells. 80 insurances, dues, 70 advertising
60 service / maintenance €/MWh 50 depreciation 40
30 interest expense 20
10 other operating costs 0 year 1 year 3 year 5 year 7 year 9 year 11 year 13 year 15 year 17 year 19 year 21 year 23 year 25 year 27 year 29 year
36 Tallinn University of Technology, 17. April 2009 e) Summary geothermal district heating in Estonia
Based on the (very) simplified assumptions: • Geothermal heat (base load) could be produced and distributed at fairly competitive prices in Estonia Æ as part of a district heating system with medium load based on biomass at matching rates (here: 50 € / t at 30-40% humidity) Æ if geothermal energy / capacity with relatively high cost of capital will have more than 7.000 full utilization hours
• Economic aspects of geothermal district heating will improve significantly if an existing network (suitable for < 100°C) can be used / extended Essential: Knowledge about geothermal gradients at sites close to larger towns > 10.000 inhabitants!
37 Tallinn University of Technology, 17. April 2009 9. Summary
Examples: cost of reservoir exploration / Pth in MW
3,50 2,89 3,00 2,53 2,50 2,34
2,00 in Mio. € th 1,50 0,95 1,00
0,50 Cost / MW / Cost 0,00 electricity project heat project electricity project heat project Germany Germany Estonia Estonia project example
“Affordable” differences in exploration costs at least for heating purposes
38 Tallinn University of Technology, 17. April 2009 • Deep geothermal energy in Estonia will most likely be explored by EGS / HDR / HFR systems Æ alternative / additional possibility: shallow geothermal energy • Geothermal district heating seems to be technically and economically feasible under current (near future) market conditions • Geothermal electricity generation could contribute to a sustainable energy supply and energy independence in mid- to long-term view Essential: - Estonia playing an active part in EGS research programs - Geological research and research drilling in Estonia (knowledge about geothermal gradients!)
39 Tallinn University of Technology, 17. April 2009 Backup
40 Tallinn University of Technology, 17. April 2009 10. Geothermal systems a) Open / closed systems
closed systems: geothermal heat geothermal probe deep geothermal collector probe shallow geothermal energy - closed distribution - closed U-tube in - closed double network wells to 150 m tube in wells of depth 2.000 to 3.000 - use: heating and meter depth also: cooling of small - use: heating and building cooling of buildings - use: heating for deep geothermal probe industry, large building, network (> 400m)
source: fesa e.V. Freiburg
41 Tallinn University of Technology, 17. April 2009 Hot-Dry-Rock open systems: - system of heat exchange deep geothermal energy - use: heat and electricity • hydrothermal geothermal production energy - for industry, large building, Æ possible in Germany distribution hydrothermal network • HDR / HFR / EGS geothermal energy Æ most likely in Estonia - well in deep thermal water areas
- use: heat and also: electricity production ground-water heat pump - for industry, large building, distribution network source: fesa e.V. Freiburg
42 Tallinn University of Technology, 17. April 2009 b) Hydrothermal geothermal energy
• at least two wells needed: production and injection well „geothermal doublet“ • direct use for heating, indirect use for electricity generation • depending on particular local conditions (hot water aquifer, disturbance zones etc.) • vertical or distracted drilling
source: Bernried Erdwärme AG
43 Tallinn University of Technology, 17. April 2009 c) Enhanced Geothermal Systems (EGS) / Hot-Dry-Rock (HDR) / Hot Fractured Rock (HFR)
• enhanced extraction of hot water after hydraulic stimulation • generation of artificial cracks in hot, dry rock formations • generation of new (rather extension of already existing flow paths) by water pressure example: Soultz-sous-Forêts)
source: Geothermal Explorers Ltd
44 Tallinn University of Technology, 17. April 2009 d) electricity generation
techniques of power plants: • Organic Rankine Cycle - based on organic working media (usually hydrocarbon) - preheated and evaporated with the thermal water • Kalina Cycle - based on a mixture of media (usually ammonia and water) - cycle efficiency higher than ORC
source: Bernried Erdwärme AG
45 Tallinn University of Technology, 17. April 2009 11. About us
a) S&P geothermal-team Dr. Thomas Reif Dipl.-Volkswirt, Rechtsanwalt, Fachanwalt für Steuerrecht
Birgit Maneth Harald Asum Rechtsanwältin, LL.M., Dipl.-Betriebswirt Fachanwältin für gewerblichen Rechtsschutz
Irene Lang Dr. Martina Vollmar Dipl.- Betriebswirtin Rechtsanwältin, Fachanwältin für Steuerrecht, Steuerberaterin
Ramona Trommer Karin Gohm Dipl.-Kauffrau, Rechtsanwaltsfachangestellte Wiss. Assistentin
Gerd Wolter, C.P.A. Dipl.-Kaufmann, Steuerberater, Wirtschaftsprüfer
Gerd Wolter, C.P.A. 46 Tallinn University of Technology, 17. April 2009 b) Some reference projects - www.geothermiekompetenz.de
• geothermal project Riem (heat) – realized • geothermal project Pullach (heat) – realized • geothermal project Mauerstetten/Kaufbeuren (electricity/heat) – in realization • geothermal project Aschheim/Feldkirchen/Kirchheim (heat) – in realization • geothermal project Sauerlach (electricity/heat) – in realization • geothermal project Dürrnhaar (electricity/heat) – in realization • geothermal project Unterföhring (heat) – in realization • geothermal project Oberhaching (heat) – in realization • geothermal project Geretsried (electricity/heat) – in planning • geothermal project Garching (heat) – in realization • geothermal project Grünwald (heat) – in realization • geothermal project Vaterstetten/Grasbrunn – in planning • geothermal project Holzkirchen – in planning • geothermal project Traunstein (electricity/heat) – in planning • and further more ...
47 Tallinn University of Technology, 17. April 2009 Dr. rer. pol. Thomas Reif Dipl.-Volksw., Rechtsanwalt, Fachanwalt für Steuerrecht
www.geothermiekompetenz.de
Sonntag & Partner Wirtschaftsprüfer Steuerberater Rechtsanwälte Schertlinstraße 23 · 86159 Augsburg Telefon 0821/57058-0 · Telefax 0821/57058-153 Elektrastraße 6 · 81925 München Telefon 089/2554434-0 · Telefax 089/2554434-9 www.sonntag-partner.de
48 Tallinn University of Technology, 17. April 2009