Ende der 1970er Jahre sah sich die SED in der DDR gezwungen angesichts hoher Auslandsverschuldung und gestiegener Importpreise für fossile Energieträger stärker in heimische Energiequellen und rationellere Energieanwendung zu investieren. In diesem Kontext und um Anschluss an die internationale Entwicklung zu halten wurde Ende der 1970er und in den 1980er Jahren die Nutzung oberflächennaher und tiefer Geothermie gefördert. Im Rahmen dieser Arbeit wird neben einer chronologischen Darstellung der Geothermieförderung in der DDR eine Einordnung in deren Energiepolitik, der Wärmeversorgung und der Förderung anderer erneuerbarer Energien geleistet. Aufgrund des geringen historischen Forschungsstandes zur Geothermie und der Wärmeversorgung in der DDR allgemein wurde dieser Arbeit ein explorativer Ansatz zugrunde gelegt. Als Quellenbasis dienten unter anderem Artikel aus wissenschaftlichen Zeitschriften der DDR und verschiedene Archivbestände. Ende der 1970er Jahre bis 1983 versuchte die SED den Einsatz von Wärmepumpen für die Wärmeversorgung zu fördern. Obwohl zahlreiche Pilotprojekte wie die Wärmepumpenheizzentrale Dresden fertiggestellt wurden stießen die politischen Planvorgaben auf materielle Engpässe und wenig Nachfrage in der Wärmeversorgung. Nach der abrupten Reduzierung der Zielvorgaben für die Wärmepumpenförderung wurde ab 1984 mit besonderem politischem Interesse die Tiefengeothermie gefördert und hierfür der Spezialbetrieb VEB Geothermie Neubrandenburg gegründet. Von den geplanten Anlagen zur Versorgung von Wohngebieten mit insgesamt 110 MW thermischer Leistung konnten bis zum Ende der DDR tiefengeothermische Heizzentralen in Waren, Neubrandenburg und Prenzlau fertiggestellt werden, was 22% der geplanten Leistung entsprach. Somit scheiterte auch das Großprojekt einer geothermischen Wärmeversorgung von Schwerin. Grund waren unter anderem übersteigerte Planvorgaben, der materielle Mangel in der Wirtschaft der DDR und nicht ausreichende Erfahrungen mit der jungen Technologie.:1. Einleitung 3 2. Energiepolitik in der DDR 7 2.1 Energiepolitik der SED 7 2.2 Regenerative Energiequellen in der Energiepolitik 9 3. Erdwärme in der Energiewirtschaft der DDR 13 3.1 Akteure der Energiewirtschaft 13 3.2 Wärmeversorgung 15 3.3 Nutzung regenerativer Energiequellen 18 4. Oberflächennahe und tiefe Geothermie 22 4.2 Wärmepumpen zur Nutzung von Umweltwärme 22 4.2.1 Wärmepumpen für die rationelle Energieanwendung 22 4.2.2 Fallbeispiel Wärmepumpen-Heizzentrale Dresden 28 4.2.3 Vorzeitiges Ende der Wärmepumpenförderung 33 4.3 Tiefengeothermie im Norden der DDR 35 4.3.1 Hohe Erwartungen an die Tiefengeothermie 35 4.3.2 Grenzen der Leistungsfähigkeit des VEB Geothermie 41 5. Zusammenfassung 48 Literatur 51 Archivalische Quellen 54 Abbildungs- und Tabellenverzeichnis 56 Abkürzungsverzeichnis 57 Physikalisch-technischer Anhang 58 / At the end of the 1970s the socialist party of the GDR was forced by high debts in foreign currency and risen import prices for fossil fuels to invest in indigenous energy sources and more rational energy applications. In this context and to take pace with the international development the SED began at the end of the 1970s and during the 1980s to support the use of geothermal heating. This thesis consists of a chronological representation of the geothermal energy support in the GDR and contextualizes East German energy policy, heat supply and use of other renewable energy sources. Historical sources consist to the main extent on archive material and scientific papers from the GDR. Until 1983 the SED tried to promote the application of heat pumps for heat supply. Even though several pilot projects like the heat pump station in Dresden were successfully erected, the political plan targets collided with material short supply and low demand in the heating business. After the sudden reduction of the political targets concerning heat pumps, special political interest was given to geothermal energy in higher depths since 1984. Therefore a special company the VEB Geothermie Neubrandenburg was founded. From the planned stations for heat supply of residential areas with a total power of 110 MW only 22% were actually finished until the end of the GDR in 1990. Those stations were located in Waren, Neubrandenburg and Prenzlau in the northern part of East Germany. Consequently failed the major project of a geothermal heat supply of the city of Schwerin. Reasons were excessive plan targets, the material short supply in the East German economy and a lack of experiences in the young technology.:1. Einleitung 3 2. Energiepolitik in der DDR 7 2.1 Energiepolitik der SED 7 2.2 Regenerative Energiequellen in der Energiepolitik 9 3. Erdwärme in der Energiewirtschaft der DDR 13 3.1 Akteure der Energiewirtschaft 13 3.2 Wärmeversorgung 15 3.3 Nutzung regenerativer Energiequellen 18 4. Oberflächennahe und tiefe Geothermie 22 4.2 Wärmepumpen zur Nutzung von Umweltwärme 22 4.2.1 Wärmepumpen für die rationelle Energieanwendung 22 4.2.2 Fallbeispiel Wärmepumpen-Heizzentrale Dresden 28 4.2.3 Vorzeitiges Ende der Wärmepumpenförderung 33 4.3 Tiefengeothermie im Norden der DDR 35 4.3.1 Hohe Erwartungen an die Tiefengeothermie 35 4.3.2 Grenzen der Leistungsfähigkeit des VEB Geothermie 41 5. Zusammenfassung 48 Literatur 51 Archivalische Quellen 54 Abbildungs- und Tabellenverzeichnis 56 Abkürzungsverzeichnis 57 Physikalisch-technischer Anhang 58

A fundamental change in societal values and economic structures is required to address increasing pressures on ecosystems and natural resources. Transition research has developed in the last decades to analyze the co-dynamics of technological, institutional, social and economic elements in the provision of key functions such as energy, water and food supply. This doctoral dissertation provides conceptual and methodological contributions to the pro-active governance of sustainability transitions. Three research gaps are identified that are addressed in this dissertation. First, a comprehensive conceptualization of learning in sustainability transitions is currently missing that comprises learning at multiple societal levels (ranging from individuals to policy-actors). Learning concepts are often not explicitly discussed in transition research even though learning is considered as fundamental for innovation processes, niche formation and development as well as breakthrough and diffusion of innovations. Second, methods for the analysis and design of transition governance processes are lacking that specify case-specific intervention points and roles of actors in the implementation of innovations. Third, participatory modeling approaches are only applied to a limited extent in transition research despite a high potential for supporting communication and learning. The conceptualization of multi-level learning developed in this doctoral research conceptualizes learning at different societal levels as specific learning contexts ranging from individual and group contexts to organizational and policy contexts. The conceptual framework further differentiates between learning processes, intensity, objects, outcomes, subjects and factors, allowing for a more detailed analysis of learning within and across learning contexts. Thus, learning contexts can be linked by processes that involve actors from different learning contexts (e.g., community groups and policy-makers), as well as exchanges of physical aspects, institutions and knowledge (in the form of ‘learning factors’). This research has also provided a classification of model uses in transition research that supports a purposeful discussion of the opportunities of modeling and promising future research directions. The methodology developed in this doctoral research aims at the analysis and design of transition governance processes by specifying the various opportunities to contribute to sustainability transitions through purposeful action at different societal levels, as well as related roles of stakeholders in implementing such processes of change. The methodology combines different streams of previous research: 1) a participatory modeling approach to identify problem perceptions, case-specific sustainability innovations as well as related implementation barriers, drivers and responsibilities; 2) a systematic review to identify supportive and impeding learning factors from the general literature that can complement case-specific factors; and 3) a method for the analysis and design of case-specific transition governance processes. Three case studies in Canada (topic: sustainable food systems), Cyprus (water-energy-food nexus) and Germany (sustainable heating supply) have been selected to test and iteratively develop the methodology described above. The results for each case study reveal that there are learning objects (i.e., learning requirements) in all learning contexts, which underscores the importance of multi-level learning in sustainability transitions, ranging from the individual to the group, organizational and policy levels. Actors have various opportunities to actively facilitate societal transformations towards sustainable development either directly through actions at their particular societal levels (i.e., context-internal learning) or indirectly through actions that influence learning at other societal levels. In fact, most of the learning factors require cooperation across learning contexts during the implementation process. The comparing of learning factors across case studies underline the importance of several factor categories, such as ‘physical a ‘disturbance or crisis’, ‘information and knowledge’. Of the 206 factors identified by stakeholders, 40 factors are case-specific and not contained in the general, review-based factor list. This underscores the value of participatory research, as general, top-down analyses might have overlooked these case-specific factors. The methodology presented in this dissertation allows for the identification and analysis of case-specific intervention points for sustainability transitions at multiple societal levels. The methodology furthermore permits the analysis of interplay between individual, group, organizational and policy actions, which is a first step towards their coordination. The focus on sustainability innovations links the broad topic of sustainability transitions to a set of opportunities for practical interventions and overcoming their implementation barriers. The methodology presented allows for the analysis and design of these interlinkages between learning contexts. While the methodology cannot provide any ‘silver bullets’ for inducing sustainability transitions, it is flexible enough to identify an appropriate abstraction level for analyzing and designing transition governance processes. The methodology developed in this doctoral research also provides several contributions for the development of participatory modeling methods in transition research. Thus, the participatory method supports an integrated analysis of barriers and drivers of sustainability innovations, and allows application in practice and education. The concepts and methods developed in this research project allow for reflection on transition governance processes from a systemic viewpoint. Experiences in the case studies underline the applicability of the concepts and methods developed for the analysis of case-specific transition governance processes. Despite substantial differences in the geographic location, culture and topics addressed, all case studies include promising sustainability innovations and the engagement of multiple actors in their implementation. The diversity and multitude of initiatives in the case study regions provides an optimistic outlook on future opportunities for large-scale sustainability transitions.