See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/263847078

The German load curve in 2050: Structural changes through energy efficiency
measures and their impacts on the electricity supply side

Conference Paper · January 2013

CITATIONS READS

8 136

4 authors, including:

Tobias Boßmann Rainer Elsland

Artelys Fraunhofer Institute for Systems and Innovation Research ISI
32 PUBLICATIONS   140 CITATIONS    79 PUBLICATIONS   116 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Martin Wietschel
Fraunhofer Institute for Systems and Innovation Research ISI
158 PUBLICATIONS   1,694 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Mapping and analyses of the current and future (2020 - 2030) heating/cooling fuel deployment (fossil/renewables) View project

Heatroadmap Europe View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Tobias Boßmann on 21 July 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

The German load curve in 2050: structural
changes through energy efficiency measures
and their impacts on the electricity supply side
Tobias Boßmann
Fraunhofer Institute for Systems and Innovation Research ISI
Breslauer Straße 48
D-76139 Karlsruhe
Germany
tobias.bossmann@isi.fraunhofer.de
Rainer Elsland
Fraunhofer Institute for Systems and Innovation Research ISI
Breslauer Straße 48
D-76139 Karlsruhe
Germany
rainer.elsland@isi.fraunhofer.de
Keywords
electricity use, long-term scenarios, consumption dynamics,
electricity load curve, long-term electricity demand
Abstract
The shape of the electricity load curve has crucial impacts on
the design of the future electricity supply system with regard
to capacity dispatch, need for storage and grid investments
or demand side management measures. Assessing historic
load curves of Germany shows that their shape changes over
time, e.g. volatility is continuously decreasing. Reasons for
load curve deformation result from changes in technology
and application specific electricity demand or from modifica-
tions in the respective electricity consumption pattern. When
estimating the future load curve it is crucial to take into ac-
count such deforming effects. Hence, we develop a partial
decomposition approach that generates national hourly load
curves based on the annual electricity demand projection of
the bottom-up simulation model FORECAST. Applications
featuring the most significant change in demand over time
are modelled in a separate manner by means of technology
specific load profiles. In the framework of a case study, we first
analyse the deformation of the German load curve when ap-
plying the partial decomposition approach. Compared to this
calculation, the most common approach of load curve fore-
cast – the simple scaling of a historic load curve – underesti-
mates volatility and load in evening hours but overestimates
load in morning hours. Secondly, we assess the impacts of an
introduction of energy saving options on the load curve. We
observe a further increase of load volatility as well as a dislo-
cation of load into evening and night hours. The load curves
are applied in the electricity market model PowerACE to in-
Fridolin Lickert
Fraunhofer Institute for Systems and Innovation Research ISI
Breslauer Straße 48
D-76139 Karlsruhe
Germany
fridolin.lickert@isi.fraunhofer.de
Martin Wietschel
Fraunhofer Institute for Systems and Innovation Research ISI
Breslauer Straße 48
D-76139 Karlsruhe
Germany
martin.wietschel@isi.fraunhofer.de
vestigate a scenario with high share of fluctuating renewable
energy sources. The analyses indicate that the load dislocation
entails an increased number of hours with negative residual
load as well as an increasing amount of curtailed renewable
electricity. Hence, demand side related energy saving options
complicate the integration of renewable electricity sources,
increasing the urgent need for integration strategies through
demand side management, grid extension or additional stor-
age capacities.
Introduction
The German government has committed to reduce greenhouse
gas emissions by at least 80 % until 2050 compared to the level
of 1990 (BMU & BMWi 2010). It combines two major strate-
gies in order to achieve the desired objective: the application
of low carbon electricity generation technologies and the more
efficient use of energy sources, in particular of final energy car-
riers such as heat and electricity.
However, the simple outline of such strategies neglects the
question whether the conceived electricity generation mix is
actually fitting the future electricity demand structure. Indeed,
hourly electricity demand has crucial impacts on the dispatch
of power plants, the integrability of electricity from fluctuat-
ing renewable energy sources (RES) and the requirements
for investment in electricity generation capacity. At the same
time, the application of energy saving options implies changes
in overall electricity demand, triggering a deformation of the
hourly consumption structure, i.e. the load curve. Hence, the
aim of the present work is to analyse changes in the load curve
through energy saving options and their impacts on the elec-
tricity supply side.
ECEEE SUMMER STUDY proceedings  1199
5A-206-13 Bo SSmann et al
In a first step we specify criteria for the evaluation of load
curves. They are applied on historic load curves in order to as-
sess potential deformations over the past years. Subsequently
we develop an approach that allows for considering changes in
annual electricity demand when estimating future load curves.
This approach is then applied in the framework of a case study.
We analyse two scenarios applying two approaches. By using
the evaluation criteria we are able to analyse the resulting dif-
ferences. The load curves then serve as input for an electricity
market model to quantify the impacts on the electricity supply
side. In the last step we draw our conclusions and give a short
outlook.
Assessment of historic load curves
In order to detect potential shape deformations over the past
years we analyse historic German load curves. We assess the
deformation regarding different aspects and identify continu-
ous developments – if existing. In order to carry out the analy-
sis a number of evaluation criterions are introduced. They are
also applied when assessing the shape of the future load curve
(cf. case study section). The hourly German electricity load
curves (only available from the year 2006 onwards) are pro-
vided by the Entso-e platform (ENTSO-E 2013). They serve as
the basis for the analysis.
Before assessing the load curves we ensure comparability of
the time series data. Given the fact that we focus on the impacts
of structural changes in electricity demand on the shape of the
electricity load curve, we need to clear up the load curves from
side effects. The most prominent disturbing factor is electric-
ity based heat generation that strongly depends on the ambi-
ent temperature. Since the ambient temperature significantly
varies among the different years, hourly electricity demand for
heat generation is removed from all load curves. This is done by
generating load curves for heat pumps, direct electric heating
and night storage heating based on assumptions regarding the
annual electricity demand for heat generation (Enerdata 2012),
the market shares of the different technologies (IWU 2012), the
technology specific temperature-based load profiles1 (EnBW
2012) and the hourly mean temperature for Germany (NASA
2012), for every single year. The impact of inter-annual outside
temperature variations on the electricity consumption of other
applications such as air-conditioning, refrigeration and specific
industry processes is neglected in the present case. The subse-
quent normalization of the load curves permits a comparative
assessment regarding specific electricity demand patterns and
load situations.
As basis to evaluate a load curve (Dallinger et al. 2013) pro-
pose three types of criteria. The first type relates to the load
duration curve and disregards the chronological order of the
hourly load situations. It contains the capacity factor cf as quo-
tient of the annual electricity consumption, the maximum load
and the number of hours per year. It gives information about
the mean distribution of occurring load situations in compari-
son to the maximum load. Moreover the ratio of minimum and
maximum demand, Pmin/Pmax, defines the overall range of load
situations. The second type of criteria refers to the load change
1. These load profiles differ among municipal utilities. The applied profile has
proved being representative.
1200  ECEEE 2013 SUMMER STUDY – RETHINK, RENEW, RESTART
5A. Cutting the energy use of buildings: Projects and technologies
between consecutive hours. The ramp rate factor rrf is defined
as the sum of positive or negative ramp rates2, i.e. the sum of
hourly load increase (or decrease), divided by the maximum
load and the total number of hours. It serves as an indicator for
the overall volatility of the load curve, i.e.it is a measurement
of the cumulated hourly electricity demand increase (or de-
crease). The average, µrr,pos and µrr,neg, and the standard deviation
of the positive and negative ramp rates, σrr,pos and σrr,neg, charac-
terise the irregularities of the fluctuations. When plotting the
ramp rate in descending order, the intersection of the curb with
the x-axis, xy=0, represents the share of hours featuring a de-
crease in load compared to the previous hour. The third type of
criteria is related to the average duration of specific load levels.
Defining different load levels in the range between the mini-
mum and the maximum load of a load curve permits determin-
ing the mean duration, e.g. µ∆t,90%-100%, of such load situations as
well as the standard deviation, e.g. σ∆t,90%-100%. They indicate the
frequency and statistical dispersion of specific load situations
such as base or peak load.
The before mentioned criteria are extended by the introduc-
tion of two additional types of criteria. Apart from the assess-
ment of concrete stable load situations, we assess the continu-
ous change of load situations. Relevant indicators are the mean
duration of continuous load increase, µ∆t,pos, (or decrease, µ∆t,neg),
the mean as well as maximum load change over several hours,
µ∆P and Max∆P,pos (Max∆P,neg respectively) as share of the maxi-
mum load and the number of alternations from load increase
to decrease and vice versa, naltern. The other type of criteria
concerns the assessment of load situations with regard to their
specific temporal occurrence in specific seasons, days or hours
of a day. Therefore we use the mean distribution of load on
the 24 hours of nine specific typical days that are distinguished
by season (summer, winter, transition period3) and weekday
(working day, Saturday, Sunday).
Table 1 gives an overview of the evaluation criteria applied
on the temperature adjusted and normalized load curves for
Germany from the year 2006 until 2010. In the following, we
analyse the load curves by illustrating and interpreting the five
types of criteria. The short observation period of five years
makes it difficult to derive concrete trends for the evolution of
the load curve. Hence we limit ourselves to a simple identifica-
tion of variabilities and continuous developments, if existing.
Figure 1 depicts the load duration curves for the years 2006
until 2010. While there is hardly any change observable during
the first three years, the intermediate load range is considerably
decreasing in the year 2010. This is confirmed by the decline of
the capacity factor from 69.0 % in 2006 to 66.6 % in 2010 and
the general shift towards lower load situations observable in the
last two years. The most frequently occurring load situations
experience a dislocation from the range of 50 % and 80 % (of
the normalized load difference between maximum and mini-
mum load) towards the range of 40 % and 70 %.
On the one hand the assessment of load change between con-
secutive hours reports a steady reduction (cf. Figure 2, left side)
2. Assuming a nearly congruent load level at the beginning and at the end of a year,
the positive ramp rate factor approximately equals the negative ramp rate factor.
3. According to (Eon 2012) winter period is defined from 1st of November until
20th of March, summer period from 15th of May until 14th of September and transi-
tion period equals the time between summer and winter period.
5A. Cutting the energy use of buildings: Projects and technologies 5A-206-13 BoSSmann et al

Table 1. Evaluation criteria for the German load curves for the years 2006 until 2010. Source: own calculations based on data from (ENTSO-E 2013).

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Load duration Capacity factor cf 69.0% 69.9% 69.9% 67.2% 66.6%
curve Minimum load Pmin/Pmax 25.1% 28.1% 27.7% 24.7% 31.6%
Ramp rate factor rrf 0.90% 0.88% 0.83% 0.87% 0.76%
Mean ramp rate µrr,pos 4.06% 3.89% 3.64% 3.77% 3.24%
Load change
µrr,neg -3.23% -3.23% -3.08% -3.25% -2.84%
between
Standard deviation σrr.pos 3.0% 2.9% 2.7% 3.0% 2.6%
consecutive
σrr,neg 3.5% 3.4% 3.4% 3.3% 2.9%
hours
Intersection with x- xy=0 55.4% 54.4% 53.5% 53.1% 52.7%
axis
Stable load Mean duration µ∆t,90%-100% 2.8 h 3.1 h 2.8 h 3.6 h 2.8 h
situations Standard deviation σ∆t,90%-100% 2.5 h 2.5 h 2.0 h 2.8 h 2.2 h
Mean duration µ∆t,pos 4.9 h 5.0 h 4.9 h 4.8 h 4.9 h
µ∆t,neg 6.1 h 6.0 h 5.8 h 5.6 h 5.6 h
Standard deviation σ ∆t,pos 3.1 h 3.2 h 3.2 h 3.1 h 3.1 h
σ ∆t,neg 3.9 h 3.8 h 3.6 h 3.1 h 3.2 h
Continuous
Mean load change µ∆P 19.8% 19.4% 17.9% 18.2% 15.8%
load change
capacity
sequences
Maximum load Max∆P,pos 55.1% 53.6% 50.6% 52.2% 46.0%
change capacity Max∆P,neg -51.7% -49.7% -48.0% -51.7% -42.8%
Number of naltern 1591 1590 1636 1678 1677
alternations

Figure 1. Normalized load duration curve and frequency of load situations for Germany for the years 2006 until 2010. Source:
own illstration.

as indicated by the decreasing ramp rate factor from 0.90 %
in 2006 to 0.76 % in 2010. This is synonymous to a declining
volatility in terms of cumulated load change. In every analyzed
year load reduction dominates the number of load changes (xy=0
being larger than 50 %) while occurring at lower step size (µrr,neg
smaller than µrr,pos). On the other hand, especially the year 2010
features a shortened duration of stable load situations which
can be explained by a more frequent switch between different
load levels.
With regard to the dispatch of conventional power plants, it
is even more important to assess the continuous load change
sequences, since they determine what kind of power plants are
required to cover the load change. The right hand side of Fig-
ure 2 depicts the average and maximum positive and negative
load change capacity, plotted over the duration of load change
sequence. One can primarily observe a steady decline of the
maximum as well as average continuous load increase. The
mean load change capacity decreases from 19.8 % (compared
to the maximum load) in 2006 to 15.8 % in 2010, the maximum
continuous load increase and decrease decline by 19  % and
37 %, respectively. At the same time the number of alternations
from continuous load increase to decrease and vice versa (1591
in 2006, 1677 in 2010), confirms the observation that volatility
is decreasing over time in terms of amount of varying electric-
ity demand, but not in terms of load change frequency. Con-
tinuous load decrease occurs over much longer time periods
than load increase (µ∆t,pos is smaller than µ∆t,neg). This is mainly
related to the fact that load decrease frequently appears during
night times, from evening hours until morning hours of the
subsequent day. The duration of the continuous load decrease
periods exhibits a marginal reduction. The significant standard
deviation of load change periods compared to the mean value
signals a high variability. Hence, we assess the load curves on
a daily level.
The temporal occurrence of load proves a constant increase
during morning hours (second until fifth hour of the day), like-

ECEEE SUMMER STUDY proceedings  1201

5A-206-13 Bo SSmann et al 5A. Cutting the energy use of buildings: Projects and technologies
Figure 2. Sorted normalized ramp rate and continuous load change capacity for Germany for the years 2006 until 2010. Source:
own illustration.
wise in all seasons and typical days. Instead, constant decrease
of distributed load occurs for all typical days in function of
the season: in summer time during morning hours (8th until
11th hour), in transition period during midday hours (10th un-
til 14th hour) and in winter times during late afternoon hours
(17th until 19th hour).
The reasons for the load curve deformation are diverse. We
distinguish two types of reasons. This is on the one hand the
technology or application specific electricity demand intensity
which can be influenced through fuel substitution, technol-
ogy substitution, efficiency measures, macro-economic effects
etc. A change in electricity demand intensity implies that the
contribution of the respective technology/application specific
consumption pattern to the overall load curve occurs with a
different weighting. On the other hand, the weighting can re-
main constant if the technology/application specific electricity
demand remains the same but the consumption pattern might
vary over time, e.g. through changes in individual behavior pat-
terns or the explicit modification of load patterns via demand
side management (DSM) measures.
Methodology: Partial decomposition approach (PDA)
As described at the beginning, knowledge about the electricity
load curve is crucially important for the design of the future
electricity supply system since the power plant park needs to
cover the electricity demand at any time of the year. In the con-
text of energy system modelling, the most common method in
long-term forecasting of load curves consists of scaling a his-
toric load curve according to the assumed future annual elec-
tricity consumption (this is for instance done in (SRU 2010),
(Ramachandran Kannan 2012), (Fraunhofer IWES 2009)). This
approach implies that the shape of the future load curve exactly
correlates with the shape of the historic load curve. As shown
in the previous section, the shape of the load curve is chang-
ing over time. Hence, the scaling approach represents a very
simplified estimation of the future load curve that implies a
specific error.
The full decomposition of the historic load curve by means
of application specific electricity load profiles represents an
alternative approach. In this case, the historic load curve is
split up into a number of individual load curves for specific ap-
plications (Elsland, Boßmann, Hartel, et al. 2012). These load
1202  ECEEE 2013 SUMMER STUDY – RETHINK, RENEW, RESTART
curves are then scaled according to the application-discrete an-
nual electricity demand projection and set together again. On
the one hand this approach features the drawback of requiring
knowledge about the specific load profiles of every single ap-
plication which is very difficult to obtain. On the other hand,
the use of synthetic load profiles for every single application
leads to a synthetisation of the aggregated load curve. Hence,
characteristic outliers and irregularities are neglected.
The approach that is developed and applied in the present
case represents a combination of the two before mentioned
procedures (cf. Figure 3). It is referred to as partial decompo-
sition approach, PDA (see also (Boßmann et al. 2013)). The
calculation of the future electricity load curve is primarily
based on a technology discrete forecast of the annual electric-
ity demand, e.g. from the electricity demand projection model
FORECAST. FORECAST is a bottom-up simulation model
(Elsland, Boßmann & Wietschel 2012), (Fleiter et al. 2012),
(ESA2 2013). It calculates the future annual energy demand
for all countries of the European Union as well as for Norway,
Switzerland and Turkey until the year 2050 based on assump-
tions on socio-economic data (such as growth of GDP and
population as well as evolution of energy carrier prices) and
techno-economic data (e.g. specific consumption, equipment
rate, operation time, life time, investment cost). The deter-
mined electricity demand projection is distinguished by coun-
try, year, sector, application and technology. Thus it allows for
calculating the application specific electricity demand evolu-
tion between the base year and a future year (in the following
named as projection year) wherefore we want to determine
the load curve.
In a first step we cluster all applications that feature a sig-
nificant change in annual electricity demand between base
and projection year in the group of relevant applications. All
remaining applications belong to the group of less relevant ap-
plications. To distinguish the applications, the absolute change
in electricity is compared to the sum of changes of all applica-
tions. The definition of a specific threshold determines which
and how many applications are rated as relevant. A high thresh-
old leads to a small number of relevant applications and hence
to a limited requirement for application-specific load profiles.
A low threshold triggers a high number of relevant applica-
tions and a more holistic coverage of all appearing application
specific demand changes.
5A. Cutting the energy use of buildings: Projects and technologies
Figure 3. Overview of the partial decomposition approach for determination of future load curves (exemplarily shown for two relevant
applications and a time slot of 24 hours). Source: own illustration.
We assume that the relevant applications have a significant
impact on the shape of the future load curve. Hence, they are
treated in a particular manner. In step two we construct load
curves for every single relevant application by using load pro-
files. These profiles exist for entire years or for specific typical
days (distinguished by season and weekday) that need to be
assembled to yearly load profiles (cf. (Fünfgeld 2001), (Lübke
et al. 1998)). Some profiles, e.g. for heat generation or air-con-
ditioning applications, do additionally depend of the ambient
temperature. The load profiles as well as the temperature time
series are included in a data base. The yearly load profiles are
scaled according to the application specific change in electricity
demand between base and projection year. Hence, the result-
ing load curves consist of negative values in case of decreasing
annual energy demand and vice versa. In a third step, the load
curves of all relevant applications are summed up to a single
load curve. Its integral equals the cumulated change in annual
electricity demand of all relevant applications.
The less relevant applications are assumed to have a minor
impact on the shape of the future load curve. Hence, in step
four we simply scale the historic load curve of the base year ac-
cording to the cumulated change in annual electricity demand
of all less relevant applications. This step corresponds to the
scaling approach which is commonly applied in various elec-
tricity market models (see beginning of this section).
In a final step, we add the aggregated load curve of the rel-
evant applications on top of the scaled historic load curve of
the less relevant applications. This gives the total load curve for
the projection year.
5A-206-13 BoSSmann et al
The scheme in Figure 3 depicts the before-mentioned pro-
cedure exemplarily, assuming two relevant applications (heat
pumps and night storage heaters) and showing only a 24 hour
section of the entire load curve.
The presented approach implies that the structure of the pro-
jection year with regard to the distribution of weekdays is iden-
tical to the base year. This simplification is acceptable given the
fact that we aim on estimating a representative load curve for a
specific long-term scenario instead of predicting the load curve
as close to reality as possible, as it is done in short-term forecast4.
The same applies for the ambient temperature profile and the
application specific load profiles which are assumed to be the
same in base and projection year. Nevertheless, a calculation of
varying ambient temperature time profiles (e.g. in the case of a
scenario assuming temperature increase as a consequence of cli-
mate change) is feasible. In this case, the electricity load curves
of all applications depending on the outdoor temperature need
to be extracted from the historic load curve in the base year
and need to be calculated separately for the projection year, con-
sidering the new temperature profile and annual electricity de-
mand. The obstacle for using different load profiles for base and
projection year does not consist in the calculation procedure but
in the estimation of future load profiles. Determining the defor-
mation of load profiles due to changing consumer behavior or
demand side management measures requires profound research
on the evolution of electricity consumption patterns.
4. Further information on the differences between short-term and long-termload
forecast are given in (Srinivasan & Lee 1995).
ECEEE SUMMER STUDY proceedings  1203
5A-206-13 Bo SSmann et al 5A. Cutting the energy use of buildings: Projects and technologies
Generally speaking, for estimating the shape of the future
load curve the PDA features the advantage of considering
structural changes in the evolution of annual electricity de-
mand through explicit modeling of change in electricity de-
mand of the most relevant applications while preserving the
characteristic abnormalities and outliers of historic load curves
by scaling the remaining part. The distinction of applications
regarding the significance of their impact on the deformation
of the load curve reduces the need for research of application
specific load profiles on a minimum. Finally, using the results
of bottom-up electricity demand projections entails benefitting
from the strengths of this approach, such as the representation
of a variety of applications and technologies being used, the dif-
fusion of new technologies, the evolution of technology specific
characteristics (e.g. the specific electricity consumption) and
the impact of policy measures and macro-economic drivers on
the before-mentioned issues.
To assess the impacts of load curve deformations on the
electricity supply side, we use the electricity market optimi-
zation model PowerACE (Power Agent based Computational
Economics). It aims to match hourly demand and supply while
considering reserve markets and power flows between coun-
tries (Sensfuß 2007), (Genoese 2010). The model is linked to
extensive databases for power plants, electricity demand and
installed capacities of renewable energy sources, for which gen-
eration profiles based on detailed meteorological data are used.
The model can be used to simulate the whole electricity sector
of the EU-27 plus Norway and Switzerland and specific coun-
tries of Northern Africa until the year 2050.
Case study
In the following we apply the before mentioned methodology
in the framework of a case study. This case study has three ob-
jectives. We demonstrate to what extent the results from the
partial decomposition approach differ from the simple scal-
ing approach. Moreover, we assess the impacts of ambitious
energy saving options (Decarbonisation scenario, in the fol-
lowing named as DS) on the shape of the future load curve in
comparison with a business as usual development (Reference
scenario, in the following named as RS). In both scenarios we
apply the two approaches. Finally, we evaluate the impacts of
these load-curves on the dispatch of a given power plant park.
The case study is carried out for Germany. The base year is
2008, the projection year is 2050. For the calculation of the
electricity demand with the FORECAST model, we assume the
socio-economic parameters in both scenarios being the same.
The GDP features an average annual growth rate of 1.1 % per
year. Since population is in total declining by 12 % between
2008 and 2050, the average annual growth of GDP per capita
mounts up to 1.4 % (cf. Table 2). These inputs serve as input for
the determination of the sectoral drivers.
Energy carrier prices feature a further increase in both sce-
narios until the year 2030. Up to the year 2050, in the RS, prices
are further augmenting, while in the DS we assume a global
action for climate protection triggering a reduced demand for
fossil energy carriers and hence stagnating or even declining
prices (following assumptions for the decarbonisation sce-
narios of the Energy Roadmap 2050 (European Commission
2011)). However, end consumer prices for final energy are like-
1204  ECEEE 2013 SUMMER STUDY – RETHINK, RENEW, RESTART
wise continuously growing due to the enhancement of energy
taxes and levies.
The DS follows an explorative approach. It is mainly charac-
terised through an intensified diffusion of energy saving tech-
nologies (e.g. more efficient household appliances, more ambi-
tious insulation of new and existing buildings, technology shift
towards efficient industry processes such as the use of mem-
brane technology in chlorine production), the increased use of
recycling products (e.g. in aluminium or paper production), an
increase of the refurbishment rate of existing buildings and a
comprehensive introduction of new technologies such as heat
pumps and electric vehicles.
With respect to the electricity supply side, we do not dis-
tinguish between a RS and a DS capacity mix (for the purpose
of assessing the impacts of the modified load curves ceteris
paribus). Instead we use just a single mix in order to ensure
comparability of results. The power plant mix that is used in
the PowerACE model is given in Table 3. It is based on figures
from (ESA2 2013). Conventional power plants represent 35 %
of the overall installed capacity. Due to the nuclear phase out in
Germany, all nuclear power plants are shut down. Lignite and
hard coal based power plants only exist in combination with
carbon capture and storage technology5 (CCS). Only oil and
the majority of gas power plants are not equipped with CCS
technology. Given the high share of renewable energy sources
(65 % of the overall capacity) flexible oil and gas turbines (with-
out CCS) account for nearly two thirds of the installed fossil ca-
pacity. In terms of RES capacity, wind power clearly dominates
with more than 50 %, directly followed by photovoltaic instal-
lations of about 40 % of all RES capacity. The installed capacity
of RES electricity and the respective generation profiles give the
electricity generation that serves as an input for the PowerACE
model. More than 60 % come from wind power plants, about
16 % each from photovoltaic and biomass. The energy carrier
prices used in the PowerACE model equal the ones from the
Reference scenario in Table 2.
The results from FORECAST are shown for both scenarios
in Figure 4. In the RS annual electricity demand will increase
by 2 % between base and projection year to 564 TWh in 2050.
The demand reduction in the households, tertiary and agricul-
ture (cf. “Others”) sector is compensated by growing industrial
electricity demand and the introduction of electric vehicles
that increase annual electricity demand in the transport sector
(cf. Figure 4). Between RS and DS there is an electricity saving
gap until the year 2030, which is continuously diminishing in
subsequent years through an even stronger increase of demand
in the transport sector as well as a renewed growth in the in-
dustry sector. By 2050, electricity demand in the DS is about
0.5 % below the base year value, at 554 TWh. Hence, the goal
of the German government to reduce electricity consumption
by 25 % compared to 2008 is not met in this scenario, given its
explorative character. The main reasons are represented by the
comprehensive electrification of heat generation in the house-
holds and tertiary sector as well as in the transport sector.
In order to identify relevant applications that trigger the most
significant electricity savings and increases, we apply the selec-
5. CCS power plants are assumed to feature a 10 percentage point loss in conver-
sion efficiency and a capture rate of 95 %.
5A. Cutting the energy use of buildings: Projects and technologies 5A-206-13 BoSSmann et al

Table 2. Overview of main assumptions for the FORECAST model for Germany for the year 2050. Source: based on (European Commission 2011), partially
modified.

2050 Reference scenario Decarbonisation scenario

GDP Bn €2008 3531
Population M 72.1
Wholesale energy Uranium €2008/GJ 0.8 0.8
carrier prices Lignite €2008/GJ 1.6 1.6
Hard coal €2008/GJ 3.8 3.0
Natural gas €2008/GJ 10.9 6.9
Crude oil €2008/GJ 14.1 10.4
Emissions allowance price €2008/tCO2 50.0 292.3

Table 3. Overview of main assumptions for the PowerACE model for Germany for the year 2050 for the RS and DS. Source: own calculations, conventional
capacity data based on (ESA2 2013).

Conventional power Installed capacity Renewable energy Installed capacity Generation [GWh]
plants [GW] sources [GW]
Lignite CCS 12.4 Wind onshore 50.5 116.4
Hard coal CCS 16.9 Wind offshore 36.3 131.9
Natural gas CCS 7.4 Solar 63.5 67.3
Natural gas without CCS 22.1 Biomass 10.6 62.8
Oil 30.9 Hydro 4.2 23.4
Geothermal 0.1 1.1

Figure 4. Annual electricity demand projection from the FORECAST model for Germany for the years 2008 until 2050.
Source: own illustration.

tion criterion (relative change in annual demand compared to
the sum of all changes) to all applications. The selection crite-
rion is s et at 0.8 %. Hence, 33 applications are labelled as rel-
evant in the RS and 30 applications in the DS. Table 4 displays
the most significant of the relevant applications, their change in
annual demand and their share of total changes.
In the RS, the exhaustive introduction of electric vehicles
and heat pumps in the household and tertiary sector represents
the most important driver for electricity demand increase. On
the other hand, the phase-out of night-storage heaters and the
improved efficiency of residential and tertiary lighting limit a
further demand growth. In the DS, these phenomena occur at
an even higher intensity. Both scenarios also have in common
the technology shift from diaphragm and mercury to mem-
brane technology in chlorine production, a fuel shift through
the substitution of blast furnaces with electric arc furnaces in
steel production, as well as the increased use of recycled mate-
rial, e.g. secondary instead of primary aluminium or recycled
paper instead of production of new pulp and paper.
Based on the selection of relevant applications and respective
load profiles that are contained in our internal data base, we
are able to construct load curves for both scenarios by applying
the partial decomposition approach (PDA). In the following
we assess the resulting load curves for the projection year and
compare them with the load curves generated by simple scal-
ing (SCA) of the historic load curve of 2008. Table 5 shows the
results of the evaluation criteria being applied on all four load
curves6.
6. All load curves are based on the same temperature time series and feature the
same composition of weekdays, Saturdays and Sundays. Hence, an adjustment is
not required and absolute values are included in the overview.

ECEEE SUMMER STUDY proceedings  1205

5A-206-13 Bo SSmann et al 5A. Cutting the energy use of buildings: Projects and technologies

Table 4. Examples for relevant applications in the Reference and Decarbonisation scenario, comparing the annual demand of 2008 and 2050. Source: own
calculations.

Sector Application Reference scenario Decarbonisation scenario

Change in Compared to Change in Compared to
demand [TWh] sum [%] demand [TWh] sum [%]
TR Electric mobility +30.5 14.6% +68.5 22.3%
HH Heat pumps for space heating +7.6 3.7% +29.3 9.5%
TE Lighting -14.4 6.9% -19.6 6.4%
HH Night storage heater for space heating -7.0 3.4% -7.7 2.5%
HH Heat pumps for sanitary hot water +6.3 3.0% +8.2 2.7%
HH Lighting -5.9 2.9% -6.7 2.2%
IN Membrane process for chlorine +5.9 2.8% +5.9 1.9%
production
IN Primary aluminium for aluminium -5.5 2.7% -5.7 1.9%
production
TE Heat pumps for space heating +4.7 2.3% +4.4 1.5%
Others Agriculture, forestry, fishery -4.7 2.1% -4.7 1.5%
IN Pumps in paper industry -4.2 2.0% -3.8 1.2%
HH TV sets -3.0 1.5% -4.3 1.4%
All All relevant applications 83.5% 84.1%
HH: households; TE: tertiary sector; IN: industry sector; TR: transport sector; Others: other sectors

Table 5. Evaluation criteria for the German load curves for the year 2050. Source: own calculations.

RS - SCA RS - PDA DS - SCA DS – PDA

Load Capacity factor cf 71.9% 66.4% 71.9% 61.4%
duration Maximum load Pmax 89.8 GW 97.3 GW 87.7 GW 102.7 GW
curve Minimum load Pmin 39.0 GW 34.6 GW 38.1 GW 33.6 GW
Minimum load Pmin/Pmax 43.4% 35.6% 43.4% 32.7%
Load Ramp rate factor rrf 0.58% 0.70% 0.58% 0.78%
change Mean ramp rate µrr,pos 2.67% 2.62% 2.67% 2.71%
between µrr,neg -2.07% -2.98% -2.07% -3.65%
consecutive Standard σrr.pos 2.45% 2.05% 2.45% 1.91%
hours deviation σrr,neg 1.55% 2.48% 1.55% 2.87%
Intersection with xy=0 56.3% 46.7% 56.3% 42.6%
x-axis
Stable load Mean duration µ∆t,90%-100% 2.2 h 1.8 h 2.2 h 1.6 h
situations Standard σ∆t,90%-100% 1.35 h 0.49 h 1.35 h 0.57 h
deviation
Continuous Mean duration µ∆t,pos 4.4 h 4.6 h 4.4 h 4.7 h
load change µ∆t,neg 5.6 h 4.0 h 5.6 h 3.5 h
sequences Standard σ ∆t,pos 2.9 h 2.8 h 2.9 h 2.6 h
deviation σ ∆t,neg 3.6 h 2.7 h 3.6 h 2.6 h
Mean capacity µ∆P 10.5 GW 11.6 GW 10.2 GW 13.1 GW
Maximum Max∆P,pos 31.9 GW 35.8 GW 31.2 GW 38.5 GW
capacity Max∆P,neg -30.3 GW -40.2 GW -37.5 GW -48.9 GW
Number of naltern 1759 2051 1759 2138
alternations

Applying the PDA leads to an increase of maximum load
which is even reinforced in the DS. The reverse trend applies
for the minimum load which is diminished by the PDA and
in the DS. This results in a larger variety of load situations
(e.g. between 39 and 90 GW in the RS-SCA case and between
34 and 103 GW in the DS-PDA case, see also left part of Fig-
ure 5) which has significant impacts on the requirements of
electricity generation capacities. At the same time the reduced
capacity factor indicates that the utilisation of power plants will
differ from their nowadays use. Peak load situations are occur-
ring less frequently when applying the PDA, as can be seen in
the right part of Figure 5. While the scaling approach leads to
an identical distribution of load situations, the RS-PDA case
features a shift from peak towards intermediate load situations.
In the DS-PDA case, this shift is further enhanced and the fre-
quency of base load situations increases, too.
One can observe an increase of volatility in terms of cumu-
lated change of load between subsequent hours. The ramp rate
factor under the PDA is 0.70 % and 0.78 % in the Reference
and Decarbonisation scenario, respectively, instead of 0.58 %
under the scaling approach. While the mean positive ramp rate,
µrr,pos, is only marginally influenced through the PDA and the

1206  ECEEE 2013 SUMMER STUDY – RETHINK, RENEW, RESTART

5A. Cutting the energy use of buildings: Projects and technologies
introduction of energy saving options, we notice a considerable
increase of the mean negative ramp rate, µrr,neg, from -2.07 % in
the RS-SCA and DS-SCA case to -2.98 % in the RS-PDA case
and to -3.65 % in the DS-PDA case (cf. left part of Figure 6).
This means that under the scaling approach, load increase oc-
curs in shorter time steps than load decrease (in 56.3 % of all
hours we observe a load decrease, as indicated by the intersec-
tion with the x-axis, xy=0, in the left part of Figure 6). This trend
is reversed when applying the PDA, where load decrease takes
place more rapidly, in particular in the DS (46.7 % in the RS and
42.6 % in the DS, respectively).
The increase in volatility implies a diminished mean dura-
tion of stable load situations. For all load levels above 20 % of
the normalized load difference, the mean duration in the RS-
PDA case is about 23 % lower and in the DS-PDA case about
39 % lower than the mean duration in the SCA cases (see for
instance µ∆t,90%-100%).
When having a look on the continuous change of load
situations, there is likewise a trend reversion between load
increase and decrease. Comparing PDA with the scaling ap-
proach shows an extension of mean duration of continuous
load increase, µ∆t,pos, but in particular a significantly dimin-
ishing mean duration of load decrease. Continuous load in-
crease takes place during not more than 10 consecutive hours
with a maximum load increase, Max∆P,pos, of 31 to 32 GW in
the SCA case. In the RS-PDA case, load increase can take up
to 17 hours with Max∆P,pos of 39 GW (see right part of Fig-
ure 6). Likewise, the DS-PDA case reports a higher maximum
Figure 5. Load duration curve and frequency of load situations for Germany for the year 2050. Source: own illustration.
Figure 6. Sorted normalized ramp rate and continuous load change capacity for Germany for the year 2050. Source: own illustration.
5A-206-13 BoSSmann et al
duration of continuous load increase, but only of 12 hours.
Max∆P,pos is about 39  GW in this case. For continuous load
decrease, the maximum duration is shortened from 19 hours
in the SCA cases to 13 hours in the PDA cases. The maximum
load reduction, Max∆P,neg, is further increasing from 30  and
38 GW in the SCA cases to 40 and 49 GW in the RS-PDA and
DS-PDA case.
The reduced duration of continuous load change sequences
is also proven by the number of alternations between load in-
crease and decrease and vice versa. It increases from 1,759 al-
ternations in the SCA case to 2,051 in the RS-PDA case and
to 2,138 in the DS-PDA case, underlining that the introduc-
tion of energy saving options, as assumed in the DS, has a
driving effect on the volatility of the load curve. To under-
stand, which technologies and changes in annual electricity
demand trigger a deformation of the load curve, we have a
detailed look on the load curve on a daily level. The left part
of Figure 7 illustrates the mean daily load distribution in the
RS-PDA case (for every weekday in every season and the
24 hours per day) minus the daily distribution of the RS-SCA
case. Negative values represent lower values in the RS-PDA
case and positive values the opposite. The general appearance
of the table plot underlines that a simple scaling of the load
curve (SCA case) significantly underestimates the load in
evening hours. Due to the PDA we observe a strong increase
in the period between hour 17 and 21 due to the charging of
electric vehicles after their last journey. This additional load
would prove more severe if there was no simultaneous load
ECEEE SUMMER STUDY proceedings  1207
5A-206-13 Bo SSmann et al 5A. Cutting the energy use of buildings: Projects and technologies

Difference  between  RS-­‐SCA  and  RS-­‐PDA Difference  between  RS-­‐PDA  and  DS-­‐PDA
Summer Transition Winter Summer Transition Winter
Hour We Sa Su We Sa Su We Sa Su We Sa Su We Sa Su We Sa Su
1 1,5% 3,1% 2,3% -­‐2,4% -­‐3,7% 5,1% -­‐5,7% -­‐5,3% 3,8% 2,6% 8,4% 8,8% 3,7% 8,4% 9,5% 3,3% 7,3% 7,6%
2 -­‐2,6% -­‐2,0% 0,0% -­‐7,6% -­‐8,3% 2,1% -­‐8,0% -­‐8,2% -­‐4,6% 1,4% 5,2% 8,0% 2,5% 5,4% 9,1% 2,7% 5,0% 7,4%
3 -­‐6,2% -­‐6,8% -­‐1,9% -­‐7,0% -­‐7,4% -­‐7,9% -­‐6,6% -­‐7,2% -­‐9,9% 0,5% 3,0% 6,7% 2,1% 3,8% 7,2% 3,1% 4,2% 7,2%
4 -­‐6,0% -­‐5,8% -­‐4,2% -­‐4,6% -­‐3,8% -­‐11,8% -­‐3,8% -­‐3,9% -­‐11,8% 1,4% 2,8% 6,0% 3,0% 4,1% 6,7% 4,3% 4,5% 6,9%
5 -­‐5,8% -­‐4,7% -­‐7,3% -­‐3,6% -­‐1,7% -­‐11,1% -­‐2,7% -­‐1,4% -­‐9,5% 2,3% 2,6% 4,5% 3,9% 4,4% 6,2% 5,7% 5,3% 7,0%
6 -­‐6,3% -­‐5,0% -­‐7,3% -­‐4,1% -­‐2,0% -­‐6,8% -­‐3,7% -­‐1,3% -­‐5,3% -­‐2,3% 0,1% 2,1% -­‐0,3% 2,5% 4,9% 2,3% 4,8% 7,0%
7 -­‐6,1% -­‐5,6% -­‐6,3% -­‐4,3% -­‐3,2% -­‐4,3% -­‐3,9% -­‐2,3% -­‐1,9% -­‐9,1% -­‐4,5% -­‐3,0% -­‐7,4% -­‐2,5% 0,0% -­‐7,1% 0,5% 4,8%
8 -­‐5,7% -­‐5,2% -­‐5,5% -­‐4,4% -­‐3,6% -­‐3,4% -­‐3,9% -­‐2,6% -­‐0,9% -­‐8,5% -­‐7,3% -­‐6,5% -­‐7,7% -­‐6,5% -­‐4,7% -­‐7,5% -­‐4,7% -­‐0,7%
9 -­‐4,9% -­‐4,3% -­‐4,4% -­‐4,3% -­‐3,7% -­‐3,2% -­‐3,7% -­‐2,9% -­‐1,7% -­‐9,0% -­‐10,5% -­‐10,1% -­‐8,8% -­‐10,8% -­‐10,2% -­‐7,5% -­‐10,3% -­‐9,3%
10 -­‐4,3% -­‐3,6% -­‐2,8% -­‐4,0% -­‐3,7% -­‐2,1% -­‐2,8% -­‐3,2% -­‐0,9% -­‐7,9% -­‐9,0% -­‐11,4% -­‐8,3% -­‐10,2% -­‐12,2% -­‐7,1% -­‐9,7% -­‐12,2%
11 -­‐3,1% -­‐2,8% -­‐1,9% -­‐3,8% -­‐3,4% -­‐1,6% -­‐3,6% -­‐2,1% 0,0% -­‐7,4% -­‐6,8% -­‐10,4% -­‐9,0% -­‐8,6% -­‐12,0% -­‐8,1% -­‐6,5% -­‐10,4%
12 -­‐2,9% -­‐1,5% -­‐2,4% -­‐4,2% -­‐2,6% -­‐2,7% -­‐4,6% -­‐2,1% -­‐1,0% -­‐8,4% -­‐7,7% -­‐12,1% -­‐11,0% -­‐9,6% -­‐13,7% -­‐12,2% -­‐7,8% -­‐11,1%
13 -­‐1,4% -­‐1,6% -­‐1,3% -­‐2,5% -­‐3,0% -­‐2,2% -­‐2,4% -­‐1,0% -­‐0,2% -­‐9,6% -­‐8,0% -­‐10,8% -­‐11,1% -­‐9,8% -­‐12,6% -­‐10,8% -­‐7,4% -­‐9,4%
14 -­‐1,0% 0,4% -­‐0,4% -­‐1,6% -­‐1,2% -­‐1,5% -­‐0,1% -­‐0,5% 0,5% -­‐6,5% -­‐3,5% -­‐5,9% -­‐6,8% -­‐4,5% -­‐7,2% -­‐4,3% -­‐2,6% -­‐4,4%
15 -­‐1,0% 1,7% 1,5% -­‐1,4% 0,5% 0,5% 0,1% 2,5% 3,0% -­‐2,8% 0,4% -­‐1,1% -­‐2,9% -­‐0,3% -­‐2,1% 0,5% 3,1% 1,4%
16 0,4% 3,2% 2,2% 0,3% 2,3% 1,9% 0,9% 3,2% 3,7% 0,3% 3,6% 1,7% 0,9% 3,7% 1,9% 4,9% 7,3% 5,5%
17 2,9% 4,4% 3,3% 2,9% 4,3% 3,7% 2,9% 5,1% 6,0% 5,5% 5,9% 5,4% 5,7% 6,1% 5,3% 8,5% 7,8% 7,2%
18 6,8% 7,3% 5,9% 6,5% 7,2% 6,3% 5,2% 6,1% 6,0% 9,7% 7,8% 6,1% 8,4% 6,9% 5,0% 6,9% 4,0% 1,1%
19 9,9% 8,4% 7,7% 9,7% 8,4% 7,7% 7,8% 5,7% 5,4% 13,1% 7,6% 7,1% 11,0% 6,1% 5,0% 6,2% 0,3% -­‐1,9%
20 11,6% 8,3% 7,5% 11,5% 8,4% 7,5% 10,6% 4,4% 5,2% 14,2% 7,7% 6,3% 12,0% 6,6% 4,2% 4,1% -­‐1,4% -­‐3,5%
21 8,2% 4,6% 4,7% 8,9% 5,5% 6,0% 9,4% 2,6% 4,2% 10,1% 3,8% 4,5% 8,9% 3,8% 4,1% 3,1% -­‐1,4% -­‐1,6%
22 5,7% 2,1% 2,7% 6,9% 3,4% 4,6% 7,4% 2,7% 4,3% 5,8% 0,1% 2,0% 5,7% 0,7% 2,4% 4,1% -­‐0,3% 0,8%
23 5,2% 1,7% 1,8% 6,5% 3,9% 4,2% 5,2% 3,8% 1,9% 3,4% -­‐1,3% 0,9% 3,8% -­‐0,2% 2,0% 3,9% -­‐0,7% 2,8%
24 4,4% 3,3% 1,3% 3,4% 5,2% 2,5% -­‐1,7% 4,1% -­‐3,7% 2,1% 2,4% 2,8% 3,0% 2,9% 4,4% 2,5% 1,7% 5,1%

Figure 7. Differences in mean load distribution in 2050 over the typical days between RS-SCA and RS-PDA (left) and between RS-PDA and
DS-PDA (right). Source: own illustration.

reduction through increased efficiency in residential TV sets
as well as in residential and commercial lighting. At the same
time, the scaling approach overestimates load in early morn-
ing hours. In the period between hour one and seven, load
is actually diminishing given the phase-out of night storage
heaters, the reduced use of direct electric heating, efficiency
improvements in lighting technologies but also reduced load
from energy intensive industries (e.g. chlorine and alumini-
um production) and agricultural companies that are also run-
ning in night times. In other periods of the day the differences
appear to be lower which can be explained by compensation
effects of various simultaneously occurring load curve defor-
mations.
The right part of Figure 7 displays the differences in the mean
load distribution between RS and DS, both applying the PDA.
Hence, it shows the additional load increase/decrease (posi-
tive/negative values) in the DS compared to the RS due to the
diffusion of energy saving technologies. The increased load in
night times stems from the extensive diffusion of heat pumps
for space heating and sanitary hot water generation. From hour
seven onwards, the increasing trend reverses into a decrease of
load that persists until hour 15. This development is driven by
the limited use of direct electric heating, the efficiency increase
in household appliances (driers, washing machines, dish wash-
ers, and in particular electric stoves in Sunday midday hours)
and ICT appliances as well as efficient commercial refrigeration
and industry processes. In the evening hours, the reduced load
is compensated by an even stronger diffusion of electric vehi-
cles and heat pumps, triggering a load increase that takes until
midnight or even the next morning.
In order to answer the question how these load curve de-
formations impact the electricity generation mix, we use them
as an input for the electricity market model PowerACE. We
carry out three different runs, using the load curves from the
RS-SCA, the RS-PDA and the DS-PDA case, ceteris paribus
(i.e. same generation capacities, fuel prices, generation from
renewable energy sources and import/export with neighbour-
ing countries). Table 67, 8 gives an overview of the main results
from the RS-SCA case (in absolute terms) and shows on the
one hand the relative difference between the RS-PDA and the
RS-SCA case in order to highlight the effects deriving from the
two different approaches. On the other hand it provides the
relative difference between the DS-PDA and the RS-PDA case
to assess the effects of a distorted load curve due to energy sav-
ing measures on the demand side.
In the RS-SCA case, renewable energy sources represent
70 % of the entire electricity generation9. Since they are sup-
posed to have feed-in priority, full load hours of base load
technologies such as lignite CCS and hard coal CCS equal
only 5,482  and 4,521  hours, respectively. Peak load capaci-
ties (gas turbines without CCS and oil) feature 500 full load
hours. The relatively high share of RES implies even in this
case 1,669 hours where RES generation exceeds load (nega-
tive residual load). This results in 11.3 TWh or 2.8 % of all
RES generation that needs to be curtailed. When looking at
the results of the Reference scenario based on the PDA, one
can observe a decrease in full load hours of base load capaci-
ties of about 1 % and an increase for peak load capacities of
about 10 %. Reasons are the enhanced volatility as well as the
7. For RES, the value represents the available amount of energy based on the in-
stalled capacity and the generation profiles, disregarding curtailment.
8. The mean energy conversion efficiency of hydro pump storage assets of 71 %
results in losses of 4.6 TWh in the RS-SCA case.
9. This value falls below the aim of the German government of a 80 % RES share in
gross electricity consumption by 2050 (BMU & BMWi 2010) due to the explorative
approach of the scenario.

1208  ECEEE 2013 SUMMER STUDY – RETHINK, RENEW, RESTART

5A. Cutting the energy use of buildings: Projects and technologies 5A-206-13 BoSSmann et al

Table 6. Overview of main results from PowerACE for Germany for the year 2050. Source: own calculations.

RS-SCA RS-PDA vs. RS-SCA DS-PDA vs. RS-PDA

Total electricity demand 563.7 TWh ±0% -1.7%
Generation [TWh] / Lignite CCS 73.8 TWh / 5482 h -1.0% -6.8%
full load hours [h] Hard coal CCS 80.1 TWh / 4521 h -0.4% -4.0%
Gas CCS 19.4 TWh / 2601 h +0.3% -1.2%
Gas without CCS 8.6 TWh / 508 h +9.9% +18.1%
Oil 12.2 TWh / 507 h +9.5% +18.5%
Import -17.8 TWh ±0% ±0%
RES 402.9 TWh / 2439 h ±0% ±0%
Total input into pump storage 15.7 TWh +3.8% +10.6%
Number of hours with negative residual load 1669 +3.1% +16.3%
Share of curtailed RES 2.8% +7.6% +41.5%

Figure 8. Excerpt of electricity generation curves for four days (Fri, 25th–Mon, 28th of April) for Germany for the year 2050. Source: own
illustration.

higher maximum load but also the dislocation of load towards
evening hours (cf. left part of Figure 7) which diminishes the
use of midday power generation from photovoltaic plants (cf.
chart on bottom left of Figure 8). The total amount of curtailed
RES electricity increases by 7.6  %, the use of pump storage
capacities by 3.8 %.
The before mention phenomena appear even more explic-
itly when comparing the two scenarios. In particular base load
capacities experience an additional increase of full load hours
by 18 %. Simultaneously, the temporary displacement between
RES generation and peak load situations aggravates (cf. chart
on bottom right of Figure 8), driving a further increase of cur-
tailed RES electricity by 42 %. The need for balancing pump
storage capacity increases by 11 %.
Conclusion and outlook
The results of the case study can be summarized as follows:
When estimating future load curves it is crucial to reconsider
the shape. A simple scaling of historic load curves neglects
transformation processes due to changes in technology and
application specific electricity demand and consumption
patterns. By applying the partial decomposition approach
on the German load curve10 we take into account the evolv-
ing annual electricity demand through the use of technology
specific demand projections from the bottom-up simulation
model FORECAST. Using the partial decomposition approach
10. The presented approach is likewise applicable on any other national load curve
provided that the required information is available.

ECEEE SUMMER STUDY proceedings  1209

5A-206-13 Bo SSmann et al
(PDA), it turns out that in particular the diffusion of electric
vehicles and other new appliances significantly increases load
volatility under the given Reference scenario and load peaks
are shifted to evening hours. This trend is even reinforced
under the Decarbonisation scenario. In this case electric ve-
hicles and heat pumps lead to a net increase of load in evening
and night hours, whereas efficient household appliances and
industry processes imply a net decrease in morning hours.
Consequently, load is continuously displaced from midday
hours with maximum generation of RES electricity. On the
one hand this results in an increasing number of hours with
negative residual load and an enhanced amount of curtailed
RES generation if no additional measures are undertaken,
meaning that demand side related energy saving options com-
plicate the integration of renewable electricity sources. On
the other hand base load power plants feature a diminishing
number of full load hours while peak load capacities record
an increase in utilisation. Measures for a better integration of
RES can consist of either a temporal shifting of RES electricity
to evening hours by short term storage, a local shifting of RES
electricity to neighbouring countries through further grid
extension11 or temporal shifting of electricity demand from
night and evening to midday hours by means of demand side
management. Given the fact that electric vehicles, heat pumps
and specific industry processes are the main drivers for the re-
spective load peaks and at the same time most suitable for de-
mand side management (cf. (Klobasa 2007), (Stadler 2005)),
the last option should primarily be considered by policy, utili-
ties and transmission system operators. With regard to fossil
electricity generation capacity, the modified number of full
load hours and the increased number of ramp processes af-
fects the profitability of existing power plants as well as the
investment decision of utilities for the construction of new
power plants. Hence, the deformation of load curves should
particularly be considered when designing a future electricity
supply system under the constraints of significant changes in
electricity appliance specific consumption. To give a final an-
swer to such questions further detailed modelling work needs
to be carried out, then also considering eventual variations of
electricity consumption patterns over time due to modifica-
tion in behaviour.
References
BMU & BMWi, 2010. Energiekonzept für eine umweltscho-
nende, zuverlässige und bezahlbare Energieversorgung,
Berlin.
Boßmann, T. et al., 2013. Die deutsche Stromnachfrage im
Jahr 2050: Strukturelle Änderungen der Lastkurve und
ihre Auswirkungen auf die Angebotsseite. In 8. Interna-
tionale Energiewirtschaftstagung an der TU Wien, IEWT
2013. Wien.
Dallinger, D., Schubert, G. & Wietschel, M., 2013. Integra-
tion of intermittent renewable power supply using
grid-connected vehicles – A 2030 case study for Cali-
fornia and Germany. Applied Energy, 104, pp.666–682.
11. In the case study no grid restrictions are assumed inside Germany (copper
plate) whereas the hourly exchange with neighbouring countries was given ex-
ogenously.
1210  ECEEE 2013 SUMMER STUDY – RETHINK, RENEW, RESTART
5A. Cutting the energy use of buildings: Projects and technologies
Available at: http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/
S0306261912007970 [Accessed January 7, 2013].
Elsland, R., Boßmann, T., Hartel, R., et al., 2012. Analysis
of structural changes of the load profiles of the German
residential sector due to decentralized electricity genera-
tion and e-mobility. In Fourth International Conference
on Sustainability in Energy and Buildings, 3–5 September
2012, Stockholm.
Elsland, R., Boßmann, T. & Wietschel, M., 2012. Analysis
of the European residential building stock until 2050 –
Contribution of an energy-efficient building envelope to
reduce space heating demand. In 1st KIC InnoEnergy
Scientist Conference, Leuven, 2012.
EnBW, 2012. Lastprofile und Einspeiseprofile der EnBW
Regional AG. Available at: http://www.enbw-regional.de/
content/de/netznutzer/stromverteilnetz/netznutzung/
lastprofile/index.jsp.
Enerdata, 2012. ODYSSEE database on energy efficiency data
& indicator. Available at: http://odyssee.enerdata.net/
nrd_web/site/ [Accessed December 6, 2012].
ENTSO-E, 2013. Hourly load values of a specific country for
a specific month. Available at: https://www.entsoe.eu/
db-query/consumption/mhlv-a-specific-country-for-a-
specific-month/ [Accessed October 11, 2012].
Eon, 2012. Standardlastprofile. Available at: http://www.eon-
bayern.com/pages/eby_de/Netz/Stromnetz/Netzzugang/
Lastprofilverfahren/Standard_Lastprofile/index.htm.
ESA2, 2013. Shaping our energy system – combining Euro-
pean modelling expertise Case studies of the European
energy system, Karlsruhe.
European Commission, 2011. Impact Assessment of the Ener-
gy Roadmap 2050, SEC(2011) 1565/2, Brussels. Available
at: http://ec.europa.eu/energy/energy2020/roadmap/doc/
sec_2011_1565_part1.pdf.
Fleiter, T. et al., 2012. Energy efficiency in the German pulp
and paper industry – A model-based assessment of
saving potentials. Energy. Available at: http://dx.doi.
org/10.1016/j.energy.2012.02.025.
Fraunhofer IWES, 2009. Dynamische Simulation der Strom-
versorgung in Deutschland nach dem Ausbauszenario der
Erneuerbaren-Energien-Branche, Kassel.
Fünfgeld, C., 2001. Die “Repräsentativen VDEW-Lastprofile”
– Ziele und Hintergründe. VEÖ Journal, pp. 33–36.
Genoese, M., 2010. Energiewirtschaftliche Analysen des
deutschen Strommarkts mit agentenbasierter Simulation.
Karlsruher Institut für Technologie.
IWU, 2012. “TABULA” – Entwicklung von Gebäudetypolo-
gien zur energetischen Bewertung des Wohngebäudebe-
stands in 13 europäischen Ländern. Available at: http://
www.iwu.de/forschung/energie/laufend/tabula/ [Accessed
November 11, 2012].
Klobasa, M., 2007. Dynamische Simulation eines Lastman-
agements und Integration von Windenergie in ein Elek-
trizitätsnetz auf Landesebene unter regelungstechnischen
und Kostengesichtspunkten. ETH Zürich.
Lübke, N., Holst, A. & Tolzmann, R., 1998. Entwicklung eines
synthetischen Jahreslastprofils für Haushaltsabnahme aus
Elt. – Versorgungsnetzen, pp. 1–6.
 5A. Cutting the energy use of buildings: Projects and technologies
NASA, 2012. MERRA Data Holdings. Available at: http://disc.
sci.gsfc.nasa.gov/daac-bin/DataHoldings.pl?LOOKUPID_
List=MAT1NXSLV.
Ramachandran Kannan, H.T., 2012. The Swiss TIMES Elec-
tricity Model ( STEM-E ) Updates to the model input data
and assumptions, Villingen.
Sensfuß, F., 2007. Assessment of the impact of renewable
electricity generation on the German electricity sector An
agent-based simulation approach. Universität Karlsruhe.
View publication stats
5A-206-13 BoSSmann et al
Srinivasan, D. & Lee, M.A., 1995. Survey of Hybrid Fuzzy
Neural Approaches to Electric Load Forecasting. In IEEE
International Conference on Systems, Man and Cybernet-
ics. pp. 4004–4008.
SRU, 2010. Climate-friendly, reliable, affordable: 100 % renew-
able electricity supply by 2050, Berlin.
Stadler, I., 2005. Demand Response – Nichtelektrische
Speicher für Elektrizitätsversorgungssysteme mit hohem
Anteil erneuerbarer Energien. Universität Kassel.
ECEEE SUMMER STUDY proceedings  1211