Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com

ScienceDirect
Energy Procedia 99 (2016) 392 – 400

10th International Renewable Energy Storage Conference, IRES 2016, 15-17 March 2016,
Düsseldorf, Germany

Necessity and impact of power-to-gas on energy transition in

Germany
Martin Themaa*, Michael Sternera, Thorsten Lenckb, Philipp Götzb
a
Technical University of Applied Sciences Regensburg, Research Center on Energy Transmission and Energy Storage (FENES),
Seybothstraße 2, D-93059 Regensburg, Germany
b
Energy Brainpool GmbH & Co. KG, Brandenburgische Straße 86/87, D-10713 Berlin

Abstract

The present paper gives an outlook on a bandwidth of required installed power-to-gas capacity in the German power
sector fed by 100 % renewable generation until 2050. Two scenarios were simulated to quantify cost effects of
power-to-gas on the electricity system: once with, once without additional short-term flexibility options to a system
using fossil natural gas as sole flexibility option instead.
As a result, at latest in 2035, power-to-gas capacity expansion has to take place to reach required installed capacities
of up to 89-134 GW in 2050. Application of power-to-gas as long-term flexibility leads to cost savings of up to
11,7-19 bn Euro enabling a fully renewable system in 2050.
© 2016
© 2016TheTheAuthors.
Authors.Published
Publishedby by
Elsevier Ltd.Ltd.
Elsevier This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
Peer-review under responsibility of EUROSOLAR - The European Association for Renewable Energy.
Peer-review under responsibility of EUROSOLAR - The European Association for Renewable Energy
Keywords: power-to-gas; energy storage; renewable energy; system costs; surplus energy; supply security; energy transition; decarbonization.

1. Introduction

Facing climate change, the German federal government made a commitment to own energy policy objectives within
their coalition agreement and energy concept in 2010: greenhouse gas emissions in Germany shall be reduced by 40 %

* Corresponding author: Martin Thema. Tel.: +49-941-943-9200; fax: +49-941-943-1424.

E-mail address: martin.thema@oth-regensburg.de

1876-6102 © 2016 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
Peer-review under responsibility of EUROSOLAR - The European Association for Renewable Energy
doi:10.1016/j.egypro.2016.10.129
 Martin Thema et al. / Energy Procedia 99 (2016) 392 – 400 393

until 2020 and by 80-95 % until 2050 compared to the amount of 1990. Power consumption is supposed to decline by
one quarter in the same period of time (10 % until 2020, 25 % until 2050) while shares of renewable energy generation
ought to rise up to 80 % in 2050 (40-45 % in 2025, 55-60 % in 2035). Furthermore, the aim is to reduce the final
energy consumption in the heat sector by -80 %, the one in the transport sector -40 % until 2050.

To avert dangerous consequences of climate change, these aims are not sufficient. A fully renewable power supply
in the year 2050 is required and feasible [1]. Because of highest potentials and lowest costs, the main supporting
columns of energy transition in Germany will be wind and solar power (photovoltaics). Therefore, one of the major
tasks will be balancing the fluctuating, weather-dependent generation of wind and solar power at contemporary high-
level security of supply. For this, amongst different flexibility options, energy storage becomes increasingly important.
In the following, necessity and impact of power-to-gas (PtG) for energy transition in Germany [2-4] will be introduced.

2. Methodology

The need for renewable energy storage options is depending on a variety of aspects such as upcoming extensions
in renewable power plant capacity, national and international grid expansion or demand side integration. Today, there
are no final and reliable answers to tell how exactly the future energy system will look like. For this reason, evidence
at which point of time power-to-gas is needed, only can be given throughout a range of time.

2.1. Assumptions

To determine the role of power-to-gas as energy storage option, a simplified approach is introduced: the German
power supply at 100 % renewable generation in 2050 outgoing from a trend-scenario set up by the environmental
organization Greenpeace e.V. (Table 1). To turn out the effect of power-to-gas on the system, its costs are calculated
once with and once without power-to-gas as a flexibility and storage option while alternative flexibility options are
not considered. At assumed CO2-costs of 100 €/t CO2 [5], coal is not profitable anymore. For this, maximum balancing
costs for fluctuations in power generation (with the use of power-to-gas) become clear as a ‘worst-case-scenario’ [2]
and can be compared to a system whose supply security is assured only by fossil natural gas. In reality, a renewable
power system gets cheaper because of other flexibility options get into market which are at lower price for specific
situations. This is the reason why in an extended analysis of Götz et al. [3], the effect of short-term storage respectively
flexibility options were examined. There, fluctuations below two days get balanced through short-term options, for
cycles above this benchmark, power-to-gas gets into action.

Table 1. Trend-scenario for a 100 % renewable power supply system in Germany on specifications of the environmental organization
Greenpeace e.V. Assumptions made for generation capacity to be installed in GW, gross electricity production in TWh and full load hours (VLH)
of different renewable generation capacities. As a basis of this expansion phase, the real German generation situation in 2013 is taken from AG
Energiebilanzen1) [6] and German Ministry for Economic Affairs and Energy2) [7]. * Including not-appearing other sources e.g. domestic waste
(difference: 5,2 TWh).

Installed Capacity GW Gross electricity production in TWh Full load hours

Trend-Scenario Trend-Scenario Trend-Scenario
(2013) (2013)
100 % 100 % 100 %
Wind Onshore 131 33,662) 262 2000
49,81)
Wind Offshore 30 0,522) 120 4000
Photovoltaics 135 35,92) 135 28,31) 1000
Hydro power 5,6 5,62) 22,4 21,21) 4000
Biomass 8,1 8,12) 48,5 42,61) 6000
Geothermal 3 0,0312) 18 0,042) 6000
Sum renewable energy generation 606 TWh 147,11)*
Shares of renewable energy on gross electricity consumption in Germany 100 % 23,4 % 1)
Gross electricity consumption/demand 569 TWh 629 TWh 1)
394 Martin Thema et al. / Energy Procedia 99 (2016) 392 – 400

The trend scenario (Table 1) particularly passes forward the expansion of wind and photovoltaic generation. For
ecological reasons, biomass and hydropower generation is not and geothermal generation is build up only limited. It
is valid that throughout Germany, grid expansion entirely follows network development plans. Additionally, energy
exchange at cross-border interconnections is permitted for balanced imports and exports in an annual average. Further
substantially assumptions for the simulations are summarized in Table 2.

Table 2. Additional assumptions for the simulation of the German energy system.

Indication Assumed value

Costs natural gas 30 €/MWh
Costs emission certificates 100 €/tCO2
Efficiency gas-fired power plants and their 60 %
emission factor 0,2 tCO2/MWh thermal energy
2015: 49-54 %
2020: 58-70 %
Efficiency power-to-gas [10]
2030: 68-75 %
2050: 77-84 %
2015: 1000-4000 €/kW, 0,1-0,6 €/kWh
2023: 800-1300 €/kW, 0,1-0,5 €/kWh
Costs power-to-gas
2033: 400-900 €/kW, 0,05-0,4 €/kWh
2050: 250-700 €/kW, 0,05-0,3 €/kWh
Power purchase for power-to-gas plants 0-35 €/MWh
All surpluses get stored in, only differing costs are considered in the comparison of the two systems with and without power-to-gas (for more
information, see Fig. 5).

2.2. Simulation model: Power2Sim

The hourly coverage of power consumption throughout the years and electricity prices were simulated with the
fundamental model Power2Sim by Energy Brainpool. The model falls back to established and, if possible, public and
independent data sources like Eurostat, ENTSO-E or highly respected surveys such as Capros et al. [5]. It consists out
of a number of modules in which different component models are implemented, simulating various components of the
energy market such as electricity demand, particular controllable loads, fossil and renewable power generation or
import- and exportation of electricity. An overview of the different modules of Power2Sim is given in Fig. 1.

Fig. 1. Functional diagram and structure of the different modules of the fundamental model Power2Sim (Energy Brainpool GmbH).
 Martin Thema et al. / Energy Procedia 99 (2016) 392 – 400 395

2.3. Storage capacity

With 88 %, the main part of the German demand for natural gas is imported from which 40 % comes from Russia,
the rest mainly from European countries like Norway and the Netherlands. Supply security in the gas sector is
guaranteed by big underground storage facilities which can theoretically cover the demand for 37 days [8] and
compensate over- and undersupply. Originating from this underground storage capacity, estimations for power-to-gas
storage capacity are based in this survey. The maximal feasible receptivity of the caverns and aquifers is determined
for hydrogen and methane production.

3. Results

3.1. Surplus energy and demand for power-to-gas capacity at rising shares of renewable energy

It was calculated, that energy surpluses of 154 TWh with power peaks up to 134 GW are to be expected until 2050.
This corresponds to about 20 % of the German gross electricity production in 2012. Other studies as well predict
energy surpluses of 80-100 TWh per year and more at high shares of renewable power generation (Fig. 2).
To take up every surplus production peak (Table 2) and transform it into renewable gas, resulting from the
simulations, an installed power-to-gas-capacity of 89-134 GW (Fig. 3) is required until 2050. The worst-case scenario
(high demand for power-to-gas, no alternative flexibility) calculated, sets the upper benchmark [2], the lower one is
set by Götz et al. [3] where at latest in 2035 expansion of power-to-gas capacity in a gigawatt-scale has to occur to
reach the needed level of at least 89 GW in 2050.

Surplus electricity (mean value from literature) in TWh/a

Share of renewable energy (RE) in the trend-scenario in %
Share of RE (simulation results in a system with power-to-gas) in %
Share of RE (simulation results in a system without power-to-gas) in %
Share of RE on power generation (goals of German federal government) in %
Surplus electricity (simulation results) in TWh/a
100
90 140
80 120
70
100
60
Percent

50 80

TWh/a
40 60
30
40
20
20
10
0 0
2013/15 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050
Year
Fig. 2. Surplus electricity at increasing shares of fluctuating renewable power generation until 2050 [1, 9-20].
396 Martin Thema et al. / Energy Procedia 99 (2016) 392 – 400

Range for needed power-to-gas capacity in GW

Installed power-to-gas capacity in GW without short-therm flexibility
Installed power-to-gas capacity in GW incl. 48-h-short-term flexibility
Installed renewable generation capacity in GW
Power generation from renewable energy in TWh/a
300 600

250 500

TWh/a
200 400
GW

150 300

100 200

50 100

0 0
2013/15 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050
Year

Fig. 3. Required power-to-gas capacity for uptaking of renewable surpluses compared to cumulated built up capacity of fluctuating renewable
generation (wind and photovoltaics).

3.2. German storage capacity for power-to-gas

Based on the long-term-available storage capacity of about 30,6 billion m³(Vn) [8] for natural gas in German storage
facilities, a storage potential for hydrogen of 612 million m³(Vn) results from volumetric feed-in limits of at maximum
2 Vol.-% hydrogen (H2) in natural gas. This is equal to a stored energy of about 2,2 TWh (Table 3). At a rise of the
feed-in limitation to 10 Vol.-% H2, 3,06 billion m³(Vn) or about 11 TWh of hydrogen could be stored in the German
gas storage infrastructure.

Table 3: Long-term-available power-to-gas storage capacity in German aquifers (pore storage) and caverns (without gas grid). Calculations based
on gross calorific values of hydrogen 3,55 kWh/m³(Vn) and methane 11,0 kWh/m³(Vn) [8].

Containing
Storage technology Storeable volume (long-term) Storage capacity for Storage capacity for
hydrogen in TWh methane in TWh
Pore storage/aquifers 10,8 bn m³(Vn) -- 119
Caverns 19,8 bn m³(Vn) 70,3 218
Sum 30,6 bn m³(Vn) 337
Gas storage total
612 m m³(Vn) 2,17
2 Vol.-%-hydrogen
Gas storage total
3,06 bn m³(Vn) 10,9
10 Vol.-%-hydrogen

A distinction has to be made between power-to-gas producing either hydrogen or methane: caverns, in general can
be charged with both renewable gases – hydrogen and methane. But aquifers, to present knowledge, only can uptake
methane at very low shares of hydrogen.
 Martin Thema et al. / Energy Procedia 99 (2016) 392 – 400 397

If renewable hydrogen is further converted into methane, because of the higher volumetric energy density of
methane and more ascertainable storage potential (no feed-in limits), 337 TWh could get stored in.

3.3. Cost development of the power-to-gas-technology

At present, investment costs of power-to-gas are so high, that viable operation only is possible in niches [2, 21].
Investment costs for power-to-gas will basically fall with scale and amount of built up facilities. Upcoming cost
development will mainly base on learning effects, improvement in efficiency and new, cost-cutting progress due to
research and development for market introduction. Based on present investment costs (see Table 2 for cost-
development) of 1000-3000 €/kW for power-to-gas with hydrogen production and 2000-4000 €/kW with methane
production, with a realistic decreasing trend in costs of 13 % per doubling of the installed power-to-gas capacity [22],
investment costs for both technologies will even out at around 500 €/kW (Fig. 4).

Fig. 4. Learning curve. Comparison of cost development for power-to-gas producing hydrogen (H2) and methane (CH4) at decreasing trend in
costs of 13 % per doubling of the installed power-to-gas capacity.

3.4. Impact of power-to-gas on energy system costs in Germany

In evidence, the effect of power-to-gas on the German electricity system simulated with Power2Sim in this survey
is cost-cutting in comparison to a system without power-to-gas: Initially, system costs will decrease in both scenarios
(with and without power-to-gas) because of rising renewable generation replacing expensive production from gas fired
power plants. Between 2020 and 2035, expansion of power-to-gas storage infrastructure causes higher costs in relation
to the system without power-to-gas (Fig. 5). From 2035 on, the variant without power-to-gas starts to cost-increase
due to significantly rising expenditures for remunerated curtailment. In addition, residual gaps have to be filled with
costly gas power to guarantee supply security. Meanwhile, in the system with power-to-gas, investment costs get
overcompensated by the use of surpluses. In 2040, annual savings sum up to 2-6 billion € and rise up to 18 billion €
in 2050. The considerably lower-priced system with power-to-gas is able to reach full renewable supply in 2050 while
only 86 % are reached without power-to-gas.
398 Martin Thema et al. / Energy Procedia 99 (2016) 392 – 400

Fig. 5. Surplus assimilation cost development for a German power supply system levelling fluctuating renewable feed-in at power purchase for
power-to-gas plants between zero and 35 €/MWh. The figure shows costs for a system once using power-to-gas with, once without additional
short-term flexibility and the other using conventional gas-fired power plants for production balance. The spread between both variants is shown
as well as shares of renewable generation achievable. In the comparison, only differing costs are considered. These are electricity costs for gas
power plants and curtailment of wind and pv generation in the system without power-to-gas. In the system with power-to-gas, costs for invest
and operation of power-to-gas accrue. Prices for alternative short-term flexibility are not included to emphasize the effect of power-to-gas [2, 3].

4. Discussion

4.1. The need for power-to-gas capacity

The large range of power-to-gas demand examined (Fig. 3) is to be understood as guideline. The upper benchmark
stands for the unlikely case that no alternative flexibility options than power-to-gas get carried out. Nonetheless, the
calculations show that even with assumed short-term options and scheduled grid expansion, there is a need for at least
89 GW of power-to-gas until 2050 by only considering the power sector.
Throughout the decarbonization, even if this high power-to-gas capacity is not necessary for the conventional
electricity sector alone, the other energy sectors mobility, chemistry and heat will have considerably a high demand
on renewable gas for which building up power-to-gas capacities seems to be meaningful in any case.

4.2. Storage capacity, allocation and use

Most of the existing gas storages are former crude oil and natural gas reservoirs. Since the commissioning of the
German gas grid in 1955, their working gas volume is steadily increasing until today to one of the biggest in the world.
Most of the more flexible and latter built facilities are, for geological reasons, located in the northern half of the country
in favourable proximity to prior wind sites [23]. There, they can directly collect surpluses at the origin of bottlenecks
and minimize losses.
At determined storage capacities of 2,2-11 TWh for renewable hydrogen and up to 337 TWh for renewable
methane, after reconversion into electricity in a combined-cycle gas turbine power plant with an efficiency of 60 %
results an electricity-to-electricity storage capacity of 1,3-6,6 TWh (hydrogen) and 202 TWh (methane). Thereby, a
complete renewable supply with a backup capacity of 66 GW gas power plants run by the renewable gas could be
 Martin Thema et al. / Energy Procedia 99 (2016) 392 – 400 399

guaranteed for a duration of over three months. Present existing pumped hydro storage in Germany only can render
about a tenth of this service for an average of six hours. The gas storage disposes the 33-5.000-fold of the storage
capacity of all German pumped hydro storage.

4.3. Cost development and cost benefits of power-to-gas and its impact on system costs

If costs for storage capacity will fall mainly because of learning effects like explained in Fig. 4 and prices for
emissions certificates, and with it for fossil fuels, will rise as assumed in [24], power-to-gas can exist at procurement
costs for electricity between 4-7 ct/kWh at rising full load hours. With power-to-gas, electricity surpluses which get
lost in the comparative simulation without power-to-gas, can be used to fill the gaps in supply.
As shown in this examinations, power-to-gas will achieve system relevance as storage and flexibility option at
shares of about 70 % renewable power generation in about 2035. From then on, a system with power-to-gas gets more
cost effective as a comparative system using only natural gas as flexibility option and saves several billions of Euros
every year (Fig. 5). If consequently thought to the end, even under adverse conditions, power-to-gas effects cost-
cutting on a supply system with high shares of renewable energy generation.
If necessary grid expansion ought to be retarded, massive bottlenecks and surpluses are predicted already from
2020 onwards. In this case and at constant building up of renewable generation capacity, energy storage capacity is
needed on an earlier occasion.
For optional implemented methanation, CO2-sources are adequate. Especially if the CO 2 is taken from the
atmosphere, it is not relevant for the climate footprint of power-to-gas technology. As for every other flexibility option
in energy transition, it is important for power-to-gas to take stored-in electricity only from renewable generation.
Benndorf et al. [25] assume fuels made from power-to-gas with an energy content of 360 TWh/a in 2050 only for
the mobility sector. Moreover it is postulated that the chemical industry needs to substitute feedstocks with an energy
equivalent of about 293 TWh/a. This indicates, that a decarbonization beyond the electricity sector without renewable
gas as raw material for present mineral oil and chemical industry is barely not possible. Electricity as high-quality
primary energy is today still often regarded separated from the other energy sectors. But as an intersectoral connecting
element, power-to-gas will play a key-role in energy transition – not only in Germany.

5. Conclusion

To sum up, power-to-gas on the long run effects cost-efficient on energy transition in the electricity system. It
allows higher shares of renewable electricity generation in the power system and is the only present storage option
with significant large long-term capacities. At least, power-to-gas and its derivates power-to-liquid and power-to-
chemicals enable a comprehensive decarbonization of mobility and chemistry sectors as well.
There is a dilemma which needs to be resolved: from an economical point of view, power-to-gas is a prospective
required technology which is not worthwhile to operate today mainly because of an unsuitable framework. To reach
the technically required power-to-gas capacity at the right point of time, we have to start building up the necessary
infrastructure now.

Acknowledgements

Hereby, we express our appreciation to all colleagues involved during the process leading to this paper: Fabian
Eckert from FENES in Regensburg, Fabian Huneke and Carlos Linkenheil from Energy Brainpool in Berlin and last
but not least to Marcel Keiffenheim and Michael Friedrich from Greenpeace Energy who initiated the work done on
this topic.
400 Martin Thema et al. / Energy Procedia 99 (2016) 392 – 400

References

[1] Klaus T, Vollmer C, Werner K et al. Energieziel 2050: 100 % Strom aus erneuerbaren Quellen. Dessau-Roßlau; 2010.
[2] Thema M, Sterner M, Eckert F et al. Bedeutung und Notwendigkeit von Windgas für die Energiewende in Deutschland.
Hamburg, Regensburg, Berlin; 2015.
[3] Götz P, Huneke F, Lenck T et al. Minimaler Bedarf an langfristiger Flexibilität im Stromsystem bis 2050:
Studienerweiterung. Hamburg, Berlin; 2016.
[4] Sterner M. Bioenergy and renewable power methane in integrated 100 % renewable energy systems – Limiting global
warming by transforming energy systems. Thesis, Kassel University; 2009.
[5] Capros P, De Vita A, Tasios N et al. Trends to 2050: Reference Scenario 2013. EU Energy, Transport and GHG Emissions.
Bruxelles; 2013.
[6] Arbeitsgemeinschaft Energiebilanzen e.V. Auswertungstabellen zur Energiebilanz Deutschland: 1990 bis 2013; 2014.
[7] Arbeitsgruppe Erneuerbare Energien-Statistik (AGEE-Stat). Erneuerbare Energien im Jahr 2013: Erste vorläufige Daten
zur Entwicklung der erneuerbaren Energien in Deutschland, Berlin; 2014.
[8] Sedlacek R. Underground Gas Storage in Germany. Erdgasspeicherung. Erdöl Erdgas Kohle 129(11); 2013. p. 378-388.
[9] Sterner M, Stadler I. Energiespeicher: Bedarf, Technologien, Integration. Springer Vieweg, Heidelberg, Dordrecht, London,
New York; 2014.
[10] Bauknecht D, Koch T, Tröster E et al. Systematischer Vergleich von Flexibilitäts- und Speicheroptionen im deutschen
Energiesystem zur Integration der erneuerbaren Energien und Analyse entsprechender Rahmenbedingungen. Berlin; 2013
[11] Breuer C, Drees T, Echternacht D et al. Identification of Potentials and Locations for Power-to-Gas in Germany. 6th
International Renewable Energy Storage Conference. Eurosolar. Berlin; 2011.
[12] Breuer C et al. Standorte und Potenziale für Power-to-Gas. e/m/w Zeitschrift für Energie, Markt, Wettbewerb 2012(4);
2012.
[13] Gerhard N, Sandau F, Zimmermann B et al. Geschäftsmodell Energiewende: Eine Antwort auf das „Die Kosten-der-
Energiewende“-Argument. Kassel; 2014.
[14] Henning H, Palzer A. A comprehensive model for the German electricity and heat sector in a future energy system with a
dominant contribution from renewable energy technologies – Part I Methodology. In: Renewable and Sustainable Energy
Reviews; 2014. p. 1003-1018.
[15] Nitsch J, Pregger T, Naegler T et al. Leitstudie 2011: Langfristszenarien und Strategien für den Ausbau der erneuerbaren
Energien in Deutschland bei Berücksichtigung der Entwicklung in Europa und global. Berlin; 2012.
[16] Palzer A, Henning H. A Future German Energy System with a Dominating Contribution from Renewable Energies: A
Holistic Model Based on Hourly Simulation. Energy Technology 2(1); 2014. p. 13-28.
[17] Schill W. Stromspeicher als zentrales Element der Integration von Strom aus erneuerbaren Energien (StoRES – Storage for
Renewable Energy Sources). In: DIW Wochenbericht 34. Berlin; 2013.
[18] Schlesinger M, Lindenberger D, Lutz C. Energieszenarien für ein Energiekonzept der Bundesregierung. Projekt Nr. 12/10.
Basel, Köln, Osnabrück, Berlin; 2010.
[19] Stolzenburg K. Large Wind-Hydrogen Plants in Germany: The Potential for Success. Results from the study „Integration
von Wind-Wasserstoffsystemen in das Energiesystem“. Berlin; 2013.
[20] Adamek F, Aundrup T, Glaunsinger W et al. Energiespeicher für die Energiewende: Speicherungsbedarf und Auswirkungen
auf das Übertragungsnetz für Szenarien bis 2050. Frankfurt am Main; 2012.
[21] Sterner M, Jentsch M, Holzhammer U. Energiewirtschaftliche und ökologische Bewertung eines Windgas-Angebotes:
Gutachten. Hamburg, Kassel; 2011.
[22] Wirth H Aktuelle Fakten zur Photovoltaik in Deutschland. Fraunhofer-Institut für Solare Energiesysteme (ISE). Freiburg;
2014.
[23] Jentsch M. Potenziale von Power-to-Gas Energiespeichern: Modellbasierte Analyse des markt- und netzseitigen Einsatzes
im zukünftigen Stromversorgungssystem. Thesis, Universität Kassel; 2014.
[24] Sterner M, Thema M, Eckert F et al. Stromspeicher in der Energiewende: Untersuchung zum Bedarf an neuen Stromspeichern
in Deutschland für den Erzeugungsausgleich, Systemdienstleistungen und im Verteilnetz. Studie, Berlin; 2014.
[25] Benndorf R, Bernicke M, Bertram A et al. Treibhausgasneutrales Deutschland im Jahr 2050. THGND 2050. Dessau-Roßlau;
2014.