All-Electric Quarter:
approx. 2.5M EUR CAPEX Savings
Anonymised model study: HSG and Frank Hummel did not plan, deliver, install or operate this project. The information describes a scenario and is not evidence of measured operating results.
Metric status: the site description provides project context. Power demand and own generation are stated scenario assumptions; the CAPEX saving is the calculated difference in the comparison shown.
Site Area
Historic Industrial Site
Project context · no area figure stated
Total Power Demand
approx. 5 MW
Scenario assumption · power demand
CAPEX Savings
approx. 2.5M EUR
Calculated difference · CAPEX comparison
Own Generation
up to 4,500 MWh/a
Scenario assumption · annual generation potential
An Industrial Monument Before Its Restart
Status: the historic site and existing-system description follows the available project information. No operating measurement period is stated, so no measured operating values are inferred from it.
Built in the 1860s, the industrial site sits directly on a southern German river. Production continued until 2020 — after which the site faced a fundamental realignment: a forward-looking mixed-use quarter for living and working, with areas for gastronomy, culture and retail. The project was selected as an official project for a supra-regional architecture and building exhibition program.
The existing power supply was extremely complex with four voltage levels (10 / 5 / 0.5 / 0.4 kV) and three hydropower turbines. Documentation was only fragmentary, many system components had reached or significantly exceeded their service life. Immediate action was required at several points.
The Conventional Concept: Expensive and Complex
An external planning office created a comprehensive power supply concept. Total power demand was approx. 5 MW (with simultaneity approx. 4.2 MW). The largest shares were charging infrastructure (2.1 MW) and a central large heat pump (1.2 MW). The rough costs for the energy distribution network alone amounted to approx. 4M EUR.
Conventional Grid Costs
Cost status: stated rough costs for the conventional planning approach. They are model inputs, not quotations, invoices or settled project costs.
Radically Simplified: All-Electric Without Central Heat Pump
The model study contrasts the conventional planning approach with an all-electric approach. It considers decentralised heat and hot-water solutions as well as charging infrastructure sized to the assumed demand as scenario components.
Infrared Heating Instead of Central HP
Infrared panels are an assumed alternative to the central large heat pump in the model. Which option fits requires separate assessment of envelope, use and temperature needs.
Status: comparison assumptions. Feasibility, sizing and impact require site-specific assessment; this study does not represent delivery or installation work by HSG.
Decentralized Hot Water
Decentralised hot-water supply is a comparison assumption. Planning, hygiene and comfort requirements must be assessed for the individual property.
Status: comparison assumptions. Feasibility, sizing and impact require site-specific assessment; this study does not represent delivery or installation work by HSG.
Realistic Charging Infrastructure
Charging capacity of 300–500 kW is a scenario assumption. In an individual project, sizing follows the actual usage and load profile.
Status: comparison assumptions. Feasibility, sizing and impact require site-specific assessment; this study does not represent delivery or installation work by HSG.
Hydropower and Photovoltaics: Two Sources, One Goal
Status: capacity, generation and expansion figures are project or scenario inputs. No published measurement period is available, so the values are not presented as measured annual results.
The site has three existing hydropower turbines with a total capacity of 776 kW and annual generation of around 2,500 MWh. Supplemented by photovoltaic systems with 800 kWp (expandable to 2,000 kWp), this creates a complementary generation profile: hydropower delivers consistently, PV supplements in summer months.
In the scenario shown, a self-supply share above 70% produces an electricity-mix cost of 8–11 ct/kWh. This is a calculated result under the stated generation and consumption assumptions, not a commitment on operating costs or an energy offer.
776 kW
approx. 2,500 MWh/a
3 turbines, existing
Existing asset · project input
800–2.000 kWp
approx. 800–2,000 MWh/a
Roof + optional open area
Expansion option · scenario assumption
Total Generation
up to 4,500 MWh/a
Scenario assumption · annual generation potential
Electricity Mix Cost
8–11 ct/kWh
Calculated scenario result
Economic context: model comparison, not a commitment
The following tables put rounded inputs and derived comparison values into context. The CAPEX difference relates to the two total-cost approaches shown; the annual OPEX range is a scenario assumption. No return, saving or payback is guaranteed.
CAPEX Comparison: Conventional vs. All-Electric Concept
Status: calculated comparison of rounded model costs including planning allowance; not a cost estimate or invoice.
| Item | Conventional | All-Electric Concept | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Grid Infrastructure | ca. 4,0 Mio. € | ca. 2,8 Mio. € | −1,2 Mio. € |
| Heat Pump / Energy Center | ca. 2,8 Mio. € | ca. 1,1 Mio. € | −1,7 Mio. € |
| Thermal Distribution / Transfer | ca. 2,2 Mio. € | ca. 0,8 Mio. € | −1,4 Mio. € |
| Infrared Panels (new) | — | ca. 1,0 Mio. € | +1,0 Mio. € |
| Charging Infrastructure | ca. 1,9 Mio. € | ca. 0,9 Mio. € | −1,0 Mio. € |
| PV System (expanded) | ca. 0,9 Mio. € | ca. 2,2 Mio. € | +1,3 Mio. € |
| Battery Storage (new) | — | ca. 0,6 Mio. € | +0,6 Mio. € |
| EMS / Metering / Billing | ca. 0,7 Mio. € | ca. 0,7 Mio. € | ±0 |
| Planning Buffer (10%) | ca. 1,2 Mio. € | ca. 1,0 Mio. € | −0,2 Mio. € |
| Total CAPEX | ca. 13,7 Mio. € | ca. 11,1 Mio. € | −2,5 Mio. € |
Scroll table sideways
Net CAPEX Savings
approx. 2.5M EUR
Economics: CAPEX
Calculated difference in the CAPEX comparison shown
OPEX Savings per Year
approx. 50,000–120,000 EUR
Economics: OPEX
Annual scenario assumption
Heating Full-Cost Comparison
On a per-kWh basis, both variants are nearly equal — the decisive difference lies in complexity and investment costs.
Status: model full-cost comparison per kWh of useful heat, not measured billing costs. Results depend on the respective assumptions.
| Variant | Energy Costs | CAPEX/Maintenance | Full Costs |
|---|---|---|---|
| Infrared (Own Power) Minimal CAPEX, no hydraulics, no technical rooms | 8–11 ct/kWh | 1–2 ct/kWh | 9–13 ct/kWh |
| Central HP (COP 3.5) High CAPEX (approx. 2.8M €), complex hydraulics, maintenance, heating cost billing | 3–4 ct/kWh | 5–9 ct/kWh | 8–13 ct/kWh |
Scroll table sideways
All figures are rounded orders of magnitude based on our own analyses and serve to illustrate the conceptual approach. They do not constitute a binding cost calculation.
Context for an investment decision
Technical space in the model
The model treats the omission of central infrastructure as a possible space effect. The actual usable area is not determined without a specific design.
Construction sequence in the model
Decentralised components can structure delivery differently. This is not a schedule, delivery or installation commitment; planning and construction are outside this model study.
Operating model as an assumption
The assumed self-supply share and electricity mix can inform an operating model. Whether an offer is commercially and legally viable depends on the individual case.
Economic comparison
The CAPEX and OPEX values shown provide decision context. They do not guarantee return, lettability, savings or payback.
Transferable Insights
This study does not show a measured reference or a universally valid solution. It identifies questions to test for comparable quarter conversions; transferability depends on each building, load profile, permits, tariffs and project organisation.
Case-study roles and boundaries
Industrial quarter: anonymised model study. No planning, delivery, installation or operating responsibility is attributed to HSG, Frank Hummel or HUMMEL energize for this project.
Innovation HUB: HSG's own practical site; HSG owns the site and systems. HUMMEL energize is a legally and entrepreneurially independent specialist partner there; that role is separate from this model study.
Weckermann: external practical example of August Weckermann KG, visited by Frank Hummel on 19 March. Weckermann is not an HSG client; planning, delivery and operation are the responsibility of the company and its project partners.
The sizing of central and decentralised heat supply must be compared in the site-specific model; no generally preferred option follows from this study.
Infrared heating can be an option in the scenario. Building envelope, use, comfort requirements and costs need separate assessment for each property.
Charging capacity must be sized against the actual usage and load profile; the range in the model is not a general factor.
Hydropower and photovoltaics can complement each other in the model. Generation, consumption and storage demand remain time-dependent considerations.
A cost comparison structures an investment decision, but does not replace specialist planning, quotations or a site-specific economic assessment.
Conclusion status: model-based context, not measured impact.
Similar Project?
Let us check in a non-binding sparring session whether the all-electric approach also works for your project.