Economic Aspects of Geothermal District Heating and Power ...€¦ · geothermal power in MW use supply temperature in °C flow rates in l/s depth in m ... base load geothermal energy

Tallinn University of Technology, 17. April 2009 1

Economic Aspects of Geothermal District Heating and Power Generation German Experience Transferable?

Dr. Thomas Reif, Sonntag & Partner

Tallinn University of Technology, 17. April 20092

The topics:1. Deep geothermal potential and its use in Germany2. Business environment for district heating and electricity generation3. Economic analysis electricity generation4. Economic analysis district heating5. Project design - project optimization (CHP)6. „Parameters“ (simplified assumptions) for Estonian project examples7. „Simulation“ of an electricity project in Estonia8. „Simulation“ of a district heating project in Estonia9. SummaryBackup:10. Geothermal systems11. About us


1. Deep geothermal potential and its use in Germany a) Hydrothermal sources in Germany

source: Bayerischer Geothermieatlas

North German Basin

Molasse BasinUpper Rhine


b) Geological situation in the Bavarian Molasse Basin

fresh-water Molasse

upper sea Molasse

lower sea Molasse

Eocene

shalkstone

malmdogger

crystalsource: Bernried Erdwärme AG

marine transgression

disturbance zones

North

Geothermal gradient: ca. 3°C per 100 m TVD

Hot water aquifer with good flow rates!

South


c) Major district heating and electricity generation projects

district heating projects electricity projects

- Straubing- Erding- Riem- Pullach- Simbach/

Braunau- Unterschleisheim- Aschheim/Feldkichen/

Kirchheim- Unterföhring

Neustadt-Glewe

Waren / MüritzNeubrandenburgPrenzlau

Offenbacha.d. Queich

Speyer

Unterhaching

Landau

DürrnhaarKirchstockach

Mauerstetten SauerlachBad Urach

InsheimSoultz-sous-Forêts

Landau


d) Geothermal project-featureslocation status

geothermal power in MW

usesupply

temperature in °C

flow rates in l/s

depthin m

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

Soultz-sous-Forêts under construction 30,0 (intended) district heating, power generation 175 140 5.000source: GeotIS, Geothermische Vereinigung


e) Low enthalpy - but huge contribution to energy supply

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

30000

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000 5500 6000 6500 7000 7500 8000 8500hours

capa

city

in k

W

peak load peak boiler (oil): 24.232 kWth (100%),

heat production: 2.334 MWh (3%), 96 full use hours

base load geothermal energy 6.217 kWth (26%), heat production: 41.635 MWh (48%), 6.697 full use hours

installed load (customer): 46.756 kW, heat capacity (system): 24.232 kW,

heat production: 86.164 MWh, 3.556 full use hours

medium load biomass 4.000 kWth (17%), heat production: 4.301 MWh (5%), 1.075 full use hours

heat pump 10.552 kWth (44%), heat production: 37.894 MWh (44%), 3.591 full use hours

source: KESS GbmH

6.200

geothermal load

increased geothermal load

10.700

temperature: 84°C

flow rate: 55 kg/s

Example 1 district heating: annual load duration curve 10.000 inhabitants


0

10000

20000

30000

40000

50000

60000

70000

80000

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000 5500 6000 6500 7000 7500 8000 8500hours

capa

city

in k

W








source: KESS GmbH

temperature: 84°C

flow rate: 55 kg/s

6.200

geothermal load

13.000

increased geothermal load

Example 2 district heating: annual load duration curve 30.000 inhabitants


2. Business environment for heat and electricity generation

geothermal electricity generation geothermal district heating

feed-in tarif based on theRenewable Energy Sources Act (EEG)

Fixed price perMWh - subsidized by all

power customersGeothermal energy supplies

base-load!

market heat-price

„marketable“price competitive to traditional energies oil, gas, biomass etc.

(Almost) no subsidies!


revenues from the German feed-in tarif (EEG)

EEG 2004 EEG 2009

up to 5 MWel 15,00 16,00up to 10 MWel 14,00 16,00up to 20 MWel 8,95 10,50beyond 20 MWel 7,16 10,50

operation by 31.12.2015 - 4,00

facilities up to 10 MWel - 3,00

petrothermal technique (EGS etc.) - 4,00

basic compensation ct/kWh

bonus for thermal use ct/kWh

bonus for fast projects ct/kWh

technology-bonus ct/kWhexcluding VAT

• EEG subsidizes the gross electricity output, station demand of 20-30% of the capacity / energy is not deducted!


3. Economic analysis electricity generation a) Project features

geology

flow rate in l/s 120

delivery temperature in °C 140

number of wells 2

drilling depth per well in m (TVD) 4.800power plant

cycle process ORC

temperature after power plant process in °C 70degree of efficiency 11,50%

electricity generation nominal capacity in kW 3.961investment

total investment (without reinvestment) ca. 42.244.000

Project scenario


b) Investment overview2009 2010 2011

land 500.000 0 0

exploration 3.000.000 0 0

drilling site 1.000.000 0 0

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

switchgears 0 0 200.000

heat delivery 0 0 500.000

SUM 8.700.000 27.272.000 6.272.000 42.244.000

SUM

ca. 2,5 Mio.€/ 1.000 m MD

(wells >4.000 m TVD and 8 1/2 “ diameter at total depth including typical “troubles” / contingencies)


Electricity generation costs

0,010,020,030,040,050,060,070,080,090,0

100,0110,0120,0130,0140,0150,0160,0170,0180,0

2009

2011

2013

2015

2017

2019

2021

2023

2025

2027

2029

2031

2033

2035

2037

€ / M

Wh

material / energy

labour costs /administration

insurances

service /maintenance

depreciation

interest

other operatingcosts

c) Electricity generation costs End of depreciation of wells and plant

• 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!)

3 years construction period (2009 - 2011)


d) Project profitabilityGeothermal electricity project - earnings preview

-3

-2

-1

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

2009

2011

2013

2015

2017

2019

2021

2023

2025

2027

2029

2031

2033

2035

2037

year

Mio

. €

earnings EBITDA EBIT EBT interest, repayments

break-even-point

„market price break“ after the end of feed-in-tarif-period

• Internal Rate of Free Cash Flow (IRR) before taxes ca. 10%• Thus just matching the benchmarks of typical energy investors


e) Profitability and geology - geology is crucial

0,00%

2,00%

4,00%

6,00%

8,00%

10,00%

12,00%

14,00%

80 90 100 110 120flow rate in l/s

Inte

rnal

Rat

e of

FCF

bef

ore

taxe

s

IRR of FCF b. taxes with 140 °C IRR of FCF b. taxes with 150 °C

to secure by discovery insurance

7% increase in temperature>30% increase in profitabilityand vice versa


f) Profitability and investment (flow rate 120 l/s)

0,00%

2,00%

4,00%

6,00%

8,00%

10,00%

12,00%

14,00%

16,00%

18,00%

120 110 100 90 80

investment volume in % of planning

Inte

rnal

Rat

e of

FC

F be

fore

taxe

s

IRR of FCF b. taxes with 140 °C IRR of FCF b. taxes with 150 °C

10 % increase in investmentca. 10 % loss of profitabilityand vice versa


4. Economic analysis heat generation a) Project features (e.g.: town with ca. 30.000 inhabitants)

geology

delivery temperature in °C 84

flow rate in kg/s 55

geothermal capacity in kW 6.217district 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 4.300investment

total investment (without reinvestment) ca. 171.000.000thereof 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

Project scenario


b) Investment overview

Investment district heating project

outlyingstructures

1%

geothermal station and equipment

2%

peak-loadheating plant

1%biomass

equipment2% heat-pump

equipment5%

drilling, drilling site

8%land1%reserves

2%

planningnetwork

7%

heat-transfers stations

12%

distribution network

44%

service connections

15% Distribution system is by far dominating


c) Project profitability

District heating project - earnings preview

-10

-5

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

2009

2011

2013

2015

2017

2019

2021

2023

2025

2027

2029

2031

2033

2035

2037

year

Mio

. €

earnings EBT EBT accumulated

Usually 5 - 15 years to break-even, if a distribution network has to be built up

Losses accrued


• Competitive (average) heat price is around 70 € / MWh (excl. VAT)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%


Cost of heat sold to customers

010

2030

405060

7080

90100

110120130

140150

160170

2009

2011

2013

2015

2017

2019

2021

2023

2025

2027

2029

2031

2033

2035

2037

€ / M

Wh

expenses ofmaterial


insurances, dues,advertising


depreciation

interest expense


d) Heat production costs

Decrease in cost of heat / MWh because of increase in connected customers (= economies of scale and scope)

Increase in cost of heat / MWh, primarily because of increase in cost of material

(biomass, electricity, oil)


e) Energy prices vs. geothermal heat prices

50%

100%

150%

200%

250%

300%

350%

400%

450%

Jan

98

Apr 9

8

Jul 9

8

Okt

98

Jan

99

Apr 9

9

Jul 9

9

Okt

99

Jan

00

Apr 0

0

Jul 0

0

Okt

00

Jan

01

Apr 0

1

Jul 0

1

Okt

01

Jan

02

Apr 0

2

Jul 0

2

Okt

02

Jan

03

Apr 0

3

Jul 0

3

Okt

03

Jan

04

Apr 0

4

Jul 0

4

Okt

04

Jan

05

Apr 0

5

Jul 0

5

Okt

05

Jan

06

Apr 0

6

Jul 0

6

Okt

06

Jan

07

Apr 0

7

Jul 0

7

Okt

07

Jan

08

Apr 0

8

Jul 0

8

Okt

08

Jan

09

natural gas fuel oil geothermal energy

price basis:1998

Based on a typical escalation clause for the geothermal district heating energy rate (e.g. 10% oil, 20% electricity, 30% biomass, 30% invest, 10% wages)


electricity150 °C140 °C130 °C electricity120 °C110 °C100 °C heat heat "electricity heat90 °C80 °C70 °C60 °C50 °C40 °C30 °C "waste" "waste" "waste"20 °C10 °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

>120°C < 120°C < 90°C

"BOTTLENECK"

project: high temperature middle temperature low temperature

bottleneck range

5. Project design - project optimization (CHP)


• 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


• 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!


• Geology in Estonia- Low geothermal gradient (Ø ca. 1,2°C/100 m) - or just lack of wells / statistics?

lower supply temperatures comp. to Germany with comparable / larger depthsNecessity of research / identification of favorable geothermal sites (e.g. gradients > 2°C/100 m)

- small probability of naturally high flow ratesEGS 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)

advantageous relation earnings / expense

6. „Parameters“ for Estonian project examples very simplified assumptions!


• Operating expenses- labour costs substantially lower compared to Germany (assumption -50%)- interest on borrowed capital scarcely under / around the EU-average

• Investment

- Drilling, plant, feed pumps etc. 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 (assumption -50%)

advantage: possible use of already existing distribution network


7. „Simulation“ of an EGS electricity project in Estonia a) Project features

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) 6.000power plant

cyclic process Kalina

temperature after power plant process in °C 55

degree of efficiency 12,10%

electricity generation nominal capacity in kW 1.736investment / expenses

total investment (without reinvestment) ca. 42.854.000construction costs in % from German standard (except drilling, plant etc.) 50%

Project scenario


b) Investment overviewyear 1 year 2 year 3

land 250.000 0 0

exploration 1.500.000 0 0

reservoir stimulation / engineering 4.000.000 0 0

drilling site 500.000 0 0

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

heat delivery 0 0 250.000

SUM 6.250.000 32.652.000 3.952.000 42.854.000

SUM

EGS / HDR / HFR

ca. 2,5 Mio.€/ 1.000 m MD

(wells >5.000 m TVD and 6 1/8 “ diameter at total depth including contingencies)


c) Electricity generation costs

Electricity generation costs

0,0

50,0

100,0

150,0

200,0

250,0

300,0

350,0

400,0

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

€ / M

Wh

material / energy


insurances


depreciation

interest expense


3 years construction period (2009 - 2011)

End of depreciation of wells and plant


Sensitivity of electricity cost to changes in parameters

The delivery temperature has by far the largest influence on the electricity production costs / project profitability.

Sensitivity of parameters (change +/- 10%)

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

-10%

-8%

-6%

-4%

-2%

0% 2% 4% 6% 8% 10%

sensitivity of parameters in %

aver

age

elec

tric

ity p

rodu

ctio

n co

sts

in

€

flow rate inkg/s

deliverytemperaturein °C

investment

stationsupply(energy)

Average price during project period


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!)


8. „Simulation“ of a district heating project in Estonia a) Project features (with ca. 30.000 inhabitants)

geology

geothermal gradient in °C/100m 2number of wells 2drilling depth per well in m (TVD) 5.000delivery temperature in °C (2°C / 100 m + 5°C surface) 105flow rate in kg/s 50geothermal capacity in kW 10.048district heat process / sales

use of biomass and heap pump (medium load) xinstalled load (customer) in kW ca. 110.000total heat consumption in MWh ca. 180.000total number of connected objects 4.300investment

total investment (without reinvestment) ca. 110.600.000thereof drilling and drilling site 31.400.000

land, outlying structures, biomass, heat pump, reserves 12.300.000distribution network, service connections, heat-transfer stations 66.900.000

construction costs in % from German standard (except drilling etc.) 50%

Project scenario


b) Investment overview

Investment district heating project

geothermal station and equipment

2%

biomass equipment

2% heat-pump equipment

4%drilling, drilling site, stimulation

26%

reserves2%

planningnetwork

6%heat-transfers

stations10%

distribution network

33%

service connections

12%


c) Energy concept (Estonian town with 30.000 inhabitants)

0

10.000

20.000

30.000

40.000

50.000

60.000

70.000

80.000

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000 5500 6000 6500 7000 7500 8000 8500Stunden

Cap

acity

in k

W








Projektjahr 23 source: KESS GmbH

temperature: 105°C

flow rate: 50 kg/s

10.050

geothermal load

17.300

Increased geothermal load


d) Heat production costs

Cost of heat sold to customers

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

110

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

€/M

Wh

material / energy


insurances, dues,advertising


depreciation

interest expense


Usual increase in cost of heat / MWh, because of increase in cost of material (biomass, electricity, oil)

Decrease in cost of heat / MWh because of lower cost of network construction than in Germany and significant economies of scale concerning capital costs of the wells.


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

as part of a district heating system with medium load based onbiomass at matching rates (here: 50 € / t at 30-40% humidity)

if geothermal energy / capacity with relatively high cost of capitalwill 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!


9. Summary

Examples: cost of reservoir exploration / Pth in MW

0,95

2,34 2,532,89

0,00

0,50

1,00

1,50

2,00

2,50

3,00

3,50

electricity projectGermany

heat projectGermany

electricity projectEstonia

heat projectEstonia

project example

Cos

t / M

Wth

in M

io. €

“Affordable” differences in exploration costs at least for heating purposes


• Deep geothermal energy in Estonia will most likely be explored by EGS / HDR / HFR systems

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!)


Backup


10. Geothermal systems a) Open / closed systems

geothermal heatcollector

- closed distributionnetwork

- use: heating andcooling of small building

geothermal probe

- closed U-tube in wells to 150 mdepth

- use: heating andcooling of buildings

deep geothermal probe

- closed double tube in wells of 2.000 to 3.000 meter depth

- use: heating forindustry, largebuilding, network

closed systems:shallow geothermal energy

also: deep geothermal probe (> 400m)

source: fesa e.V. Freiburg


Hot-Dry-Rock

- system of heatexchange

- use: heat andelectricityproduction

- for industry,large building,distributionnetworkhydrothermal

geothermal energy

- well in deep thermalwater areas

- use: heat andelectricity production

- for industry, largebuilding, distributionnetwork

open systems:deep geothermal energy

• hydrothermal geothermal energy

possible in Germany

• HDR / HFR / EGSmost likely in Estonia

also: ground-water heat pump

source: fesa e.V. Freiburg


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


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


d) electricity generation

source: Bernried Erdwärme AG

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


11. About us a) S&P geothermal-team Dr. Thomas Reif

Dipl.-Volkswirt, Rechtsanwalt,Fachanwalt für Steuerrecht

Birgit ManethRechtsanwältin, LL.M.,Fachanwältin für gewerblichenRechtsschutz

Dr. Martina VollmarRechtsanwältin, Fachanwältinfür Steuerrecht, Steuerberaterin

Karin GohmRechtsanwaltsfachangestellte

Gerd Wolter, C.P.A.Dipl.-Kaufmann, Steuerberater,Wirtschaftsprüfer

Irene LangDipl.- Betriebswirtin

Ramona TrommerDipl.-Kauffrau, Wiss. Assistentin

Gerd Wolter, C.P.A.

Harald AsumDipl.-Betriebswirt


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 ...


Dr. rer. pol. Thomas ReifDipl.-Volksw., Rechtsanwalt, Fachanwalt für Steuerrecht

www.geothermiekompetenz.de

Sonntag & PartnerWirtschaftsprüfer Steuerberater Rechtsanwälte

Schertlinstraße 23 · 86159 AugsburgTelefon 0821/57058-0 · Telefax 0821/57058-153

Elektrastraße 6 · 81925 MünchenTelefon 089/2554434-0 · Telefax 089/2554434-9

www.sonntag-partner.de

Documents

Economic Aspects of Geothermal District Heating and Power ...€¦ · geothermal power in MW use supply temperature in °C flow rates in l/s depth in m ... base load geothermal energy