If you have any further questions regarding our services or see potential for cooperation, please contact us by email or phone number given below:
© heatbeat engineering GmbH & heatbeat nrw GmbH 2017-
Dear Reader,
in the 66th issue of our heatbeat newsletter, we present a recent research article. It examines the spatial assessment of potential in municipal heat planning and introduces a new approach with a stronger focus on feasibility. In addition, this newsletter provides a brief overview of the most important developments and news regarding heatbeat and our Digital Twin.
Municipal heat planning is a key focus of the heatbeat Digital Twin: We are convinced that the results from the MHP offer significant added value when they can be seamlessly integrated into detailed heat network planning. In March, we were able to add new analytical layers to the map and now support an even finer classification of suitability zones —including, among other things, heat networks subdivided according to different operator models.
In addition, a major focus of our digital twin development in March was on improving support for secondary networks in network design and simulation. This means that users of our design module can now not only independently map substations and secondary networks in network designs, but also consistently utilize automated network sizing and simulation in complex networks with varying temperature levels and multiple secondary networks.
At the same time we also advanced our IT security: Effective immediately, we are offering our customers the option to further secure their access to the heatbeat Digital Twin with two-factor authentication. Organizations now have the option to make this additional security measure mandatory for all employees if desired or if their own corporate policies require it.
As always, you can find more information about the latest developments in our Digital Twin in the Feature Update on our blog.
Rack et al., Technical University of Applied Sciences Augsburg
In recent years, municipal heat planning has evolved into one of the most important strategic tools for the heat transition—and is now at the center of both political and planning expectations. Yet while the legal framework established by the Building Energy Act (Gebäudeenergiegesetz – GEG) and the Heat Planning Act (Wärmeplanungsgesetz –WPG) sets increasingly clear targets, the methodological quality of the underlying potential analyses remains highly inconsistent. This is precisely where the study by Rack et al. comes in: It examines why current potential assessments often have only limited utility for subsequent implementation and what a methodological fresh start might look like, one that more closely integrates technical options, spatial feasibility, and local decision-making logic.
The authors first demonstrate that many existing heating plans in Germany are heavily influenced by theoretical and technically maximum potentials. These figures often paint a picture of vast possibilities—but say little about which sources can actually be tapped under real-world infrastructural, spatial, or legal conditions. Experts interviewed as part of the study clearly confirm this gap. They describe how heating plans often list only “maximum capacities” that prove to be of little practical use in implementation, as they do not take into account issues such as accessibility, ownership structures, the correct spatial allocation of sources to demand areas, or local obstacles. At the same time, it becomes apparent that the quality and availability of certain data—despite a generally good geodata foundation in Bavaria, for example—vary greatly or are only partially openly accessible. This leads to significant differences between municipalities and makes reliable comparability difficult.
Based on a comprehensive literature review, an analysis of existing district heating plans, and interviews with experts, Rack et al. develop an alternative methodological approach. At its core is a two-stage potential analysis framework that systematically expands upon the generic projections currently in use by incorporating spatially contextual criteria and local expertise. The first stage serves as a data-driven, GIS-based screening process. Using open geodata, heat sources are first preselected based on objective spatial criteria—such as distance relationships, elevation differences, protected areas, grid connection points, or land-use restrictions. This step is primarily intended to ensure that options which appear theoretically attractive but have no chance of implementation under real-world conditions are weeded out at an early stage.
The second step then refines the most promising options by integrating detailed local information. This brings into focus aspects that are rarely available in open datasets but are critical to feasibility: ownership structures, technical or administrative barriers along potential routes, synergies with future construction projects, local soil conditions, or social factors that influence acceptance and demand trends. Only this step bridges the gap between an abstract assessment of potential and the feasibility perspective necessary for investment decisions.
The study makes it clear that many of the discrepancies currently observed between potential analyses and subsequent feasibility studies are structural in nature. The frequent failure to integrate spatial criteria results in heating plans identifying potential that must be discarded in the next step—an inefficient process that ties up time and resources. The proposed framework addresses this problem by aligning the potential analysis itself more closely with feasibility, thereby strengthening its role as a strategic tool for the municipal heating transition. By systematically combining spatial suitability, local data, and qualitative expertise, municipal heating planning gains a more robust foundation for prioritizing measures and developing realistic transformation pathways.
Overall, this work impressively demonstrates that the future of heating planning does not lie in increasingly complex modeling, but rather in methodological clarity, spatial precision, and a new balance between generic analysis and local knowledge. The two-stage framework offers a practical and adaptable proposal for this purpose—and could establish itself as a central building block for more professional, comparable, and, above all, implementation-oriented heating plans.
As always, we recommend that you read the full article. We are already working closely with experts in the district heating sector on municipal heating planning and can draw on a wealth of experience in the implementation of district heating networks. As a result, the potential assessment in our heatbeat Digital Twin always takes realistic feasibility into account. Our engineering team, in combination with our heatbeat Digital Twin, can support you at any time in realizing potential and implementing heating networks, as well as in creating municipal heating plans.
The next edition of our Feature Update Live webinar will take place on April 22, 2026. Register now for free to see the latest developments in our heatbeat Digital Twin from the past three months. In addition, we will have a booth at the District Heating Conference in Kassel from April 28–29 and look forward to speaking with you there.
The next issue of our newsletter will be published on May 6, 2026.