Series of articles: Creation of practical transformation plans by FfE

To achieve Germany’s climate targets (65% reduction in emissions by 2030 and climate neutrality by 2045), all sectors, including industry, must make their contribution. In the past, some measures to increase energy efficiency and save energy have already been implemented in the industrial sector. The next step is now to transform the energy supply as completely as possible. Transformation plans are being developed to systematically implement this and provide companies with support.

Creation of practical transformation plans by FfE

In recent years, FfE has already successfully processed and completed several funded transformation plans on behalf of companies from a wide range of industries.

Although each transformation plan is individual, the FfE methodology has proven its worth in these projects. The procedure that covers the minimum requirements of Module 5 (EEW3) and goes beyond them in some areas is presented below. In this way, a transformation plan is developed that is as practical as possible.

Basic determination

The basis for a transformation plan is a definition of overarching goals, e.g. by which year a certain reduction in emissions is to be achieved. However, the above-mentioned minimum requirements of Module 5 (see website article 1) must be met. The recording of the current situation serves as a further basis. For this purpose, all (energy-related) relevant systems and processes are discussed and analyzed in detail in an on-site meeting at the company. As a basis for the on-site appointment, a questionnaire on the existing cross-sectional technologies and processes is completed by the company in advance. It can also be useful to identify sufficiency and efficiency potential in this context in order to reduce energy consumption as much as possible before a transformation and then to size the transformation measures appropriately based on the reduced future consumption. Based on the data collected, the energy sources are allocated. The result, an energy balance at plant and process level, serves as the basis for the resulting emissions balance.

Identification of disruptive measures

The on-site inspection is followed by a one-day workshop moderated and led by FfE. The aim of this workshop is to identify and discuss (disruptive) measures2 . This is necessary because even after successfully tapping into all potential efficiency gains (if these have been identified) and in the event of a future change in production or location, there will still be an energy requirement that needs to be covered from sustainable sources in the future. Once the measures have been collected, they are evaluated by the participants using a benefit analysis, for example. It is crucial that all relevant interest groups (within the company) take part in this workshop. The background to this is that for a successful transformation in a company, the most important stakeholders are involved right from the start. These include, for example, energy management officers, sustainability officers, management, but also maintenance, plant management and the finance department. Ideas for measures are collected from different perspectives and their advantages and disadvantages are evaluated from various points of view in the benefit analysis.

In this divergent process, the workshop participants cumulate all potential options for action and disruptive measures to achieve the climate neutrality targets. As the measures are evaluated further in the subsequent steps, none of the options identified are initially excluded in this step. It is also possible to create not only individual measures but also direct combinations of measures. For example, a reduction in the temperature of the heating network could be combined with the installation of a heat pump. Depending on the number of measures, it may make sense to structure these measures (and their combinations) into different areas such as space heating, process heat, electricity and mobility.

Before the identified measures can be evaluated, criteria are developed on the basis of which the evaluation is carried out. Possible criteria could include economic efficiency, space requirements, acceptance and market readiness. Here, too, it is important to involve various stakeholders from different areas of the company. The collected evaluation criteria are then weighted. There are various options here. The “SIMOS” procedure is often used at FfE, in which all stakeholders have the same voting rights and the individual evaluation criteria can be ranked up and down in several rounds. In order to keep the time required for the subsequent evaluation of the measures within reasonable limits, no more than ten to twelve criteria should be used based on practical experience. If more criteria are identified during the collection process, it is possible to exclude the lowest-rated criteria from further evaluation.

The collected measures are then evaluated on the basis of the criteria. Advantageous evaluations of a measure in relation to a higher weighted criterion are included in the overall evaluation with more points. The more measures (or combinations thereof) are collected, the more time-consuming the evaluation is. Practical experience has shown that stakeholders usually do not want to spend much more than 1-2 hours on the evaluation. It is also advisable to carry out the evaluation during the workshop, as it is often not sufficiently clear and complete to process it afterwards due to questions, everyday tasks, etc. The assessment should be carried out by all participants from the different areas of the company so that the knowledge and experience from the different areas can be incorporated. This is not necessarily a fact-based classification and evaluation of the measures, but rather a subjective assessment by the individual participants. There are various options for evaluating the measures (combinations) based on the identified criteria. In practice, ranking and scoring systems have proven to be suitable.

In the ranking system, the competing measures per category are ranked according to the individual criteria: Specifically, the measure that performs best in the criterion under consideration is ranked first, while the worst measure is ranked last.

A classic scoring system for measures has also proven its worth in practical applications. Here, each measure or combination of measures is rated with points from 1 to 5, for example, based on each criterion. A score of 1 means that the measure performs poorly for this criterion and 5 means that the measure is rated as very good for this evaluation criterion. This is illustrated by the example of a ground-mounted photovoltaic system for the “space requirement” criterion: here the technology performs poorly and only receives one point, whereas it is given a higher score for the “operating costs” criterion.

Other evaluation methods, such as the pairwise comparison, are also possible, but these are sometimes much more time-consuming than the two methods mentioned above.

As a further point of the workshop, fundamental assumptions for the further processing of the transformation plan, such as interest rate, energy prices (or price time series) or the handling of the available data, the data quality and also future developments of the site should be discussed.

Concept development

Following the workshop, sensible and coherent overall concepts are developed. The measures that are incorporated into the concepts are based on the evaluation from the benefit analysis, supplemented by the expertise of the FfE employees. The findings from the first on-site appointment regarding the systems and processes and the framework conditions on site are also incorporated here. When creating the combinations of measures and concepts, it is possible to incorporate different trends. For example, the various concepts could be characterized by a focus on different energy sources, e.g. focus on electrification, biomass, synthetic fuels or hydrogen. Another option would be to create a main concept and to develop a very ambitious, a medium and a rather pessimistic concept with regard to the assumptions made.

The focus of the transformation in the company is often on the areas of space and process heating, as decarbonization is sometimes much more difficult here than with electricity. The concepts created are then discussed with the company so that concepts that can be used and supported by the company can be further developed.

Energy evaluation of concepts

The next step is to evaluate the energy efficiency of the selected concepts. As part of the energy assessment, the dimensions of the individual technologies (e.g. heat pump or PV system) are estimated based on the (resulting future) consumption and local conditions and further technical system data (such as efficiency or a minimum partial load) is determined and the resulting consumption of the various energy sources is then calculated (e.g. electricity consumption of a heat pump) or the generation (especially in the case of renewable energy systems) is mapped. Depending on the technology, it may be useful to contact various manufacturers to collect the system data. The system-specific load profiles are then combined and blended according to the concepts. Ideally, the consumption and generation load profiles are compared on an hourly basis in order to better map the operation in practice. This step in the energy evaluation of concepts is illustrated using the example of a company’s internal waste heat utilization: In order to be able to optimally intersect waste heat sources and sinks, the corresponding load profiles are compared with each other. This is used to determine whether a waste heat sink can probably be supplied by the source – in terms of output, temperature, time availability and other site-related framework conditions. A storage tank can decouple the source and sink from each other to a certain extent, so this should also be modeled if necessary. If the temperature level of a heat source is too low, this could be used as a heat source for a heat pump, which in turn requires electricity. When comparing generation and consumption load profiles, however, it must be borne in mind that the load profiles may deviate from the assumptions or measurements in the base year depending on the production and time period.

If no measured load profiles are available, either synthetic load profiles can be created or the concept is evaluated on the basis of a lower time resolution. However, both cases also lead to less robust results. The results are the energy requirements per measure, per energy source and per time unit, which are used to cover future consumption.

Economic evaluation of concepts

The economic assessment is based on the energy assessment. Here, all relevant costs are mapped over the service life. As economic efficiency is often a relevant basis for decision-making, the procedure and the assumptions made should be clearly documented and comprehensible.

This usually includes the investment as well as the fixed and variable operating costs, whereby other costs or revenues can also be taken into account. Depending on the technology, as with the technical system data, it may make sense to enter into an exchange with manufacturers or installers. In addition, there should also be an exchange with the company regarding a cost estimate of individual measures in order to improve the quality of the final results. However, no (preliminary) planning services take place or concrete offers are obtained as part of a transformation concept.

As the transformation of a company usually takes place over several years, it is recommended to work with appropriate time series, especially with regard to energy source prices. In addition, the investments can be mapped using the annuity method in order to obtain an estimate of the costs that is as close to reality as possible. Other influencing factors such as the year of investment or system installation are also taken into account. The costs can be presented either as a total over a certain period of time (e.g. on an annual basis) or over the first 10 years, for example. Figure 1 shows an example of the costs broken down into operating costs and investments for various concepts. The costs of the individual measures and energy purchases up to 2045 are added up and stacked so that the total costs for each concept are shown.

Assessment on the emissions side

The assessment of CO2 emissions is also based on the energy assessment. The reduction in emissions can be calculated and reported for entire concepts or individual measures. The reduction in emissions is usually shown as a waterfall diagram for entire concepts (see Figure 2).

Preparation of results

The assumptions, the approach and the results to be presented are discussed with the company in advance. Adjustments can be made if necessary. Based on the results of the concept comparison (in terms of energy, economy and emissions), the company decides which of the concepts a roadmap should be developed for. As a rule, the company opts for the concept that performs well economically and is classified as relatively easy to implement in practice. The roadmap serves as a clear synthesis of the transformation plan, which focuses on the time dimension of the implementation of measures. A close exchange with the company should also take place when scheduling the individual measures, as this allows personnel capacities, financial resources and other factors to be better planned. Examples of the roadmap are shown in the two figures below.

The final results are prepared in the form of a report, which is checked by the funding body. It is important to present the procedure in an understandable way, supplemented by an easily comprehensible presentation of the results that is also immediately tangible for outsiders.

A further website article deals in extracts with the results and challenges of creating transformation plans.