nach oben

Erschienen in:

2018 | OriginalPaper | Buchkapitel

10. The Electricity Mix in the European Low-Carbon Transformation: Coal, Nuclear, and Renewables

verfasst von : Roman Mendelevitch, Claudia Kemfert, Pao-Yu Oei, Christian von Hirschhausen

Erschienen in: Energiewende "Made in Germany"

Verlag: Springer International Publishing

Einloggen

Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche, um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.

search-config

KI-gestützte Suche

Aus

Abstract

The European Union has embarked on the transformation of its energy and electricity system to low-carbon energy sources, just like Germany and many other countries. This chapter analyzes the European strategy for low-carbon transformation in relation to specific aspects and features of the German energiewende. Due to the different preferences, objectives, and institutional settings of decision-making processes in Germany and Europe, lessons from the German context are not directly applicable to the European context and vice versa. While some lessons apply to both—such as the German experience with ambitious CO₂ reduction targets—others do not, such as the potential role of coal and nuclear energy in the longer-term energy mix. The chapter begins with a brief survey of European energy (and later climate) policies going back to 1951, with the decisions to establish the European Community for Steel and Coal (ECSC) and subsequently Euratom in 1957. Section 10.2 covers the creation of the European internal market in the 1990s and its application to the energy sectors (mainly electricity and natural gas); it also covers more recent discussions, such as the energy and climate package to 2020, the 2030 targets, and the parallel discussion about longer-term orientations up to 2050. Sections 10.3, 10.4, and 10.5 analyze the three pillars of European transformation towards a low-carbon energy system: coal with CO₂ sequestration, nuclear power, and renewables. In this context, we discuss a major difference between the European transformation to a low-carbon economy and the German energiewende: The two energy sources that Germany has banned from its energy mix, coal and nuclear, are still high on the European agenda. Meanwhile, the potential of renewables has been systematically underestimated in European scenario documents, due mainly to an overestimation of costs and an underestimation of the technical potential. Section 10.6 then compares two alternative scenarios for a low-carbon transformation in Europe: one is the EU Reference Scenario, which is based on the traditional triad of coal (with CCTS), nuclear, and renewables. In the other scenario, based on our own modelling work, neither CCTS nor nuclear are available at a reasonable cost and renewables carry the major burden of decarbonisation. Section 10.7 concludes.

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 102.000 Bücher
über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 67.000 Bücher
über 390 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 67.000 Bücher
über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Vorheriges Kapitel Sector Coupling for an Integrated Low-Carbon Energy Transformation: A Techno-Economic Introduction and Application to Germany

Nächstes Kapitel Energy Infrastructures for the Low-Carbon Transformation in Europe

The European Community for Steel and Coal (ECSC) (1951) was subsequently integrated into the European treaty (EEC Treaty 1957) and became part of the European Union; the ECSC ended in 2002.

The signatories of the EURATOM Treaty (1957) even wrote in the preamble that this had been concluded “…recognising that nuclear energy represents an essential resource for the development and invigoration of industry and will permit the advancement of the cause of peace...“and”…desiring to associate other countries with their work and to cooperate with international organizations concerned with the peaceful development of atomic energy…”.

Hydroelectricity is of course a renewable resource, although it will play a minor role in subsequent discussions due to technical constraints on its further expansion in Europe.

Unbundling in Germany was pushed forward by the Ministry for Environment (led at that time by SPD Minister Sigmar Gabriel) in an effort to jump-start implementation of the European Directives by creating a more sustainable energy mix among the unbundled energy companies (see BMUB. 2007. “Gabriel Welcomes European Commission’s Legislative Package for the EU Electricity and Gas Markets.” Press release 251/07. Berlin, Germany; and Theobald, Christian, and Christiane Theobald. 2013. Grundzüge Des Energiewirtschafts-rechts. 3rd ed. Munich, Germany: Verlag C.H. Beck.)

European Climate and Energy Package.2009. This includes Directives 2009/28/EC on the promotion of the use of energy from renewable source, 2009/29/EC on emissions trading, 2009/31/EC on carbon storage, and Decision 406/2009/EC on effort sharing.

See EC. 2012. Directive 2012/27/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2012 on energy efficiency, amending Directives 2009/125/EC and 2010/30/EU and repealing Directives 2004/8/EC and 2006/32/EC, Brussels, Belgium: European Commission.

See EC. 2011. Energy Efficiency Plan 2011. COM (2011) 109 final, Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions, Brussels, Belgium: European Commission.

See EC. 2014. A policy framework for climate and energy in the period from 2020 up to 2030. Commission Staff Working Document Impact Assessment COM(2014) 015 final, Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions, Brussels, Belgium: European Commission.

To put these goals into context, the European Commission has defined the following “dimensions” for the Energy Union strategy of 2015: (1) a fully integrated European energy market; (2) energy security, solidarity and trust; (3) energy efficiency contributing to moderation of demand; (4) decarbonising the economy; and (5) research, innovation and competitiveness. See EC. 2015. A Framework Strategy for a Resilient Energy Union with a Forward-Looking Climate Change Policy. COM(2015) 080 final, Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions, Brussels, Belgium: European Commission.

In order to keep the target in sight despite a high surplus of allowances, the annual reduction factor for the ETS sector was increased from 1.74% to 2.2%. In addition, a mechanism was put in place to stabilize the price of emission trading through a market stability reserve for the European Emissions Trading System, see EC. 2014. Proposal for a decision of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the establishment and operation of a market stability reserve for the Union greenhouse gas emission trading scheme and amending Directive 2003/87/EC. COM(2014) 20/2, Brussels, Belgium: European Commission.

One might consider the renewables target ambitious, considering that the target for renewable energy in primary energy of 27% by 2030 translates into an equivalent of approximately 50% of the electricity sector. This is fairly similar to the German target.

The scenario builds on statistical data from 2010 and assumes a continuation of current economic trends and future demographic developments. Further, policy proposals that were agreed on or implemented prior to spring 2012 were also taken into consideration.

See EC (2014).

A problematic area is effort-sharing among the Member States of the EU with regard to sectors not covered by the EU-ETS. Currently, this is based inter alia on per capita GDP to reduce impact on the poorer countries. In view of these distribution issues, protracted negotiations can be expected in the future (Kemfert et al. 2014).

The plan is to announce the level of surplus certificates on mid-May each year (permits issued + credits from abroad—verified emissions—permits in the market stability reserve = permits in circulation). Based on this calculation, permits have accumulated since 2008, i.e., since the beginning of the second trading period. If the cumulative surplus exceeds 833 mn permits, up to 12% of the surplus certificates to be auctioned in that particular year (i.e., at least 100 mn) will be transferred to the reserve. The maximum certificates which can be transferred is temporarily doubled from 12% to 24%. Conversely, if the number of permits in circulation dips below 400 mn, the Commission will release 100 mn permits from the reserve back into the market the following year. The remaining long-term surplus should correspond to the hedging demand of the power sector. It is assumed that this occurs because in many cases power producers have sold their power production up to three years in advance and issue it with certificates at the point of sale.

See EC (2018).

Eurostat, Europe 2020 indicators (2013).

A new governance system has been proposed, based on national plans, with the aim of facilitating a competitive, secure, and sustainable energy supply. Improvements are needed in competitiveness, transparency, security of investment, and EU-wide coordination. These plans are to be implemented in an iterative process between the Commission and the Member States to facilitate compliance with legal requirements and provide long-term prospects.” European Commission. 2030. Climate and energy goals – Press Release, Brussels, Belgium: European Commission.

See EC. 2012. Directive 2012/27/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2012 on Energy Efficiency, Amending Directives 2009/125/EC and 2010/30/EU and Repealing Directives 2004/8/EC and 2006/32/EC.

Diekmann, Jochen, Wolfgang Eichhammer, Anja Neubert, Heilwig Rieke, Barbara Schlomann, and Hans-Joachim Ziesing. 1999. Energie-Effizienz-Indikatoren. Statistische Grundlagen, theoretische Fundierung und Orientierungsbasis für die politische Praxis. Heidelberg, Germany: Physica-Verlag Heidelberg.

See EC. 2008. Communication from the Commission – Energy efficiency: delivering the 20% target. COM/2008/0772 final, Brussels, Belgium: European Commission.

EC. 2012. Directive 2012/27/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2012 on Energy Efficiency, Amending Directives 2009/125/EC and 2010/30/EU and Repealing Directives 2004/8/EC and 2006/32/EC.

EC. 2017. “2017 Assessment of the Progress Made by Member States towards the National Energy Efficiency Targets for 2020 and towards the Implementation of the Energy Efficiency Directive as Required by Article 24(3) of the Energy Efficiency Directive 2012/27/EU.” COM(2017) 687 final. Brussels, Belgium: European Commission. 2017 assessment of the progress made by Member States towards the national energy efficiency targets for 2020 and towards the implementation of the Energy Efficiency Directive as required by Article 24(3) of the Energy Efficiency Directive 2012/27/EU.

Meeus et al. (2012) provide a comparison of the energy roadmap in relation with other policy documents on the same topic.

EC. 2011. A Roadmap for Moving to a Competitive Low Carbon Economy in 2050. COM(2011) 112. Brussels, Belgium: European Commission.

EC. 2011. “Energy Roadmap 2050.” Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions. Brussels, Belgium: European Commission.

See EC. 2011. Roadmap to a Single European Transport Area – Towards a competitive and resource efficient transport system. White Paper COM(2011) 144, Brussels, Belgium: European Commission.

The updated 2013 EU Reference Scenario was more conservative about CCTS but still forecasted 38 GW of installed CCTS capacity in 2050 (EC 2013). This number was even further reduced in the 2016 EU Reference Scenario with 17 GW of installed CCTS capacity in 2050 (EC 2016, 66). In this EU Reference Scenario the introduction of CCTS in the EU is supposed to be based on three demonstration plants (White Rose, UK; Peterhead, UK; ROAD, NL), that were assumed to be running by 2020/25. However, all three named projects were canceled by the year 2017, see below.

At the Boundary Dam Integrated Carbon Capture and Storage Project (CA) captured CO₂ is used for EOR. Only surplus CO₂ not needed for EOR is stored in the research storage project Aquistore.

See EC. 2013. The Future of Carbon Capture and Storage in Europe. COM/2013/0180 final, Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee of the Regions on the Future of Carbon Capture and Storage in Europe, Brussels, Belgium: European Commission.

The major share of captured CO₂ is used for EOR, while a minor share is stored at an experimental geological storage site http://sequestration.mit.edu/tools/projects/boundary_dam.html. In the eyes of the operator, this constitutes sufficient reason to continue burning coal: “Through the development of the world’s first and largest commercial-scale CCS project of its kind, SaskPower is making a viable technical, environmental and economic case for the continued use of coal.” (http://saskpowerccs.com/ccs-projects/boundary-dam-carbon-capture-project/, downloaded April 1, 2016).

At Petra Nova the captured CO₂ is used for EOR: https://www.nrg.com/case-studies/petra-nova.html, last accessed May 07, 2018.

EASAC. 2013. “Carbon Capture and Storage in Europe.” EASAC policy report 20. Halle (Saale), Germany: German National Academy of Sciences. The Crown Estate, Carbon Capture & Storage Association, and DECC. 2013. “CCS Cost Reduction Taskforce – Final Report.” London, UK: UK Carbon Capture and Storage Cost Reduction Task Force.

See EC. 2009. List of 15 energy projects for European economic recovery. MEMO/09/542, Brussels, Belgium: European Commission.

The estimates for capital costs and the timing of the CCTS roll-out were slightly modified in the subsequent Reference Scenario 2013, but this had little impact on the overall trend in the scenario, see Kemfert et al. (2014).

See Lévêque (2014, 172): “Who can doubt, if the entire body of the world’s scientists and engineers had adequate amounts of fissionable material with which to test and develop their ideas, that this capability would rapidly be transformed into universal, efficient, and economic usage.”

The signatories even wrote in the preamble of the contract that this had been concluded “…recognising that nuclear energy represents an essential resource for the development and invigoration of industry and will permit the advancement of the cause of peace...” and “…desiring to associate other countries with their work and to cooperate with international organizations concerned with the peaceful development of atomic energy… .” (EURATOM Treaty 1957).

Two arguments can be lodged against this approach. First, discounting uncertain, and highly dangerous, events in the future is ethically not possible, so that for these events a discount rate of 0% should be used (Schulze et al. 1981). Second, these costs eventually arise, and without making careful provisions, they may pose an existential challenge to nuclear energy companies as currently observed in several European countries such as Germany, France, and Belgium.

The cost of disposing of spent fuel elements is still largely unknown because even after six decades of nuclear energy use, there are no permanent disposal sites anywhere in the world that guarantee the safe storage of nuclear fuel rods for tens of thousands of years.

Based on 2010 prices. See Rangel and Lévêque (2015) and Grubler (2010), based on cost data from the French Court of Auditors (Cour de Compte).

The reasons for this were, in particular, changing standards, a lack of continuity in the construction of nuclear power plants, and more stringent safety regulations.

In 2006, the original estimate was €1500/kW. Since then it has risen to €4500/kW (mid-2008) (Thomas 2010), has climbed to €5100/kW (December 2012, see EnergyMarketPrice. 2012. EdF Unveils a Sharp Rise in Costs for Flamanville Nuclear Reactor Construction), and was estimated somewhere in the range of €8000/kW in 2016. Specific reasons for this increase include planning errors, problems with the automatic control systems, and also revised safety requirements, see Reuters. 2012. Finland’s Olkiluoto 3 Reactor Delayed Again.” July 16, 2012.

See for example Diekmann, Jochen. 2011. “Verstärkte Haftung und Deckungsvorsorge für Schäden nuklearer Unfälle – Notwendige Schritte zur Internalisierung externer Effekte.” Zeitschrift für Umweltpolitik und Umweltrecht 34 (2).

The economic viability of nuclear power is also diminished by a further tightening of safety regulations that are currently being developed at the European level. EU Energy Commissioner Günther Oettinger responded to the nuclear accident in Fukushima by recommending the mandatory stress testing of European nuclear power plants, which revealed an urgent need for some to be retrofitted. A draft regulation will form the basis for binding rules on liability and compulsory inspection routines to be introduced in all countries; see EC (2013). Draft proposal for a Directive amending Nuclear Safety Directive IP/13/532. Press Release, Brussels, Belgium: European Commission.

The project is an attempt to update the UK's outdated nuclear power stations; in the medium-term, the UK's nuclear program envisages new builds with a total output of 16 GW (HOC-ECCC 2013).

The two state-owned companies are China General Nuclear Power Group (CGN) and China National Nuclear Corporation (CNNC).

Clercq, Geert De, and Karolin Schaps. 2013. “UK Gives Unprecedented Support to £16 Billion Nuclear Deal.” Reuters UK. October 21, 2013.

DECC. 2013. “Initial Agreement Reached on New Nuclear Power Station at Hinkley.” Press release. London, UK.

By way of comparison, this roughly the same as the “strike price” for onshore wind turbines in the UK, but this has only been granted for 15 years.

Gosden, Emily. 2014. “Nuclear Setback as EC Attacks Hinkley Point Subsidy Deal.” The Telegraph, January 31, 2014.

The European Commission is planning to make liability insurance mandatory after the Fukushima accident.

See EC. 2013. State aid SA. 34947 (2013/C) (ex 2013/N) – United Kingdom Investment Contract (early Contract for Difference) for the Hinkley Point C New Nuclear Power Station, p. 18.

Polish Ministry Of Economy. 2014. “Polish Nuclear Program: Program Polskiej Energetyki Jądrowej.” Warsaw, Poland: Ministerstwo Gospodark.

Particularly in the wake of the nuclear disaster in Fukushima, the European Commission has been striving to improve safety standards and liability conditions, although, in accordance with the Euratom Treaty, the oversight of nuclear power plants remains the responsibility of the individual Member States. In an initial step, in 2011, all nuclear reactors were subject to a “stress test” and safety provisions were reviewed. As a result, virtually all nuclear power stations would have to be upgraded at a cost of approximately €25 bn for the 132 reactor units investigated.

This value is calculated assuming a lifespan of 40 years, an interest rate of 10%, and a capacity factor of 83.3%. If a capacity of 50% is assumed, which may be quite realistic in a future with increasing feed-in from renewable energy sources, this figure increases to €165/MWh.

The cost of photovoltaics is made up of module costs, inverter costs, installation, maintenance, and area, also known as the “balance of system” (BOS). Module costs make up about 50% but are following a downward trend given the rapidly falling specific module prices.

PV has won in auctions in Peru and Chile, in 2016, with bids of about 4 $cents/kWh, and further cost reductions are likely.

Offshore wind farms will not be discussed here due to more uncertain cost estimates.

See Meiß, Jan. 2013. “Prospective Energy Generation Costs – Topic 1: Solar.” presented at the Workshop on Prospective Generation Costs until 2050, DIW Berlin, Berlin, Germany, March 8.

BMWi, and BMU. 2010. Energy concept – for an environmentally sound, reliable and affordable energy supply. Berlin, Germany.

Brunnengräber, Achim, Maria Rosaria Di Nucci, Ana Maria Isidoro Losada, Lutz Mez, and Miranda A. Schreurs. 2015. Nuclear waste governance: an international comparison. Berlin, Germany: Springer.CrossRef

Burandt, Thorsten, Konstantin Löffler, and Karlo Hainsch. 2018. GENeSYS-MOD v2.0 – enhancing the global energy system model. DIW Data Documentation, no. 94 (July).

Cantor, Robin, and James Hewlett. 1988. The economics of nuclear power: further evidence on learning, economies of scale, and regulatory effects. Resources and Energy 10 (4): 315–335.CrossRef

Cox, Emily, Phil Johnstone, and Andy Stirling. 2016. Understanding the intensity of UK policy commitments to nuclear power. SPRU Working Paper Series 2016–16. Sussex, UK: University of Sussex.

Creutzig, Felix, Peter Agoston, Jan Christoph Goldschmidt, Gunnar Luderer, Gregory Nemet, and Robert C. Pietzcker. 2017. The underestimated potential of solar energy to mitigate climate change. Nature Energy 2 (9): 17140.CrossRef

D’haeseleer, William D. 2013. Synthesis on the economics of nuclear energy – study for the European Commission, DG Energy. Final Report. Leuven, Belgium: KU Leuven.

Davis, Lucas W. 2012. Prospects for nuclear power. Journal of Economic Perspectives 26 (1): 49–66.CrossRef

EC. 2011a. Energy roadmap 2050: impact assessment, Part 1/2. SEC(2011) 1565/2. Commission Staff Working Paper. Brussels, Belgium: European Commission.

———. 2011b. Energy roadmap 2050: impact assessment, Part 2/2. SEC(2011) 1565. Commission Staff Working Paper. Brussels, Belgium: European Commission.

———. 2011c. A roadmap for moving to a competitive low carbon economy in 2050. COM 2011: 112.

———. 2011d. Energy roadmap 2050. Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions. Brussels, Belgium: European Commission.

———. 2013. EU Energy, Transport and GHG Emissions Trends to 2050: Reference Scenario 2013. Brussels, Belgium: European Commission.

———. 2014. A policy framework for climate and energy in the period from 2020 up to 2030. Commission staff working document impact assessment COM(2014) 015 final. Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions. Brussels, Belgium: European Commission.

———. 2016. EU Reference Scenario 2016: Energy, Transport and GHG Emissions – Trends to 2050. Brussels, Belgium: European Commission.

———. 2018. Publication of the total number of allowances in circulation in 2017 for the purposes of the market stability reserve under the EU Emissions Trading System Established by Directive 2003/87/EC. C(2018) 2801 final. Brussels, Belgium: European Commission.

ECSC. 1951. Treaty establishing the European Coal and Steel Community, ECSC Treaty.

EEC Treaty. 1957. Treaty establishing the European Economic Community, EEC Treaty. United Nations Treaty Series (UNTS).

EURATOM Treaty. 1957. Treaty establishing the European Atomic Energy Community (EURATOM). United Nations Treaty Series (UNTS).

GCCSI. 2014. The global status of CCS: 2014. Canberra, Australia: Global CCS Institute.

———. 2017. The Global Status of CCS: 2017. Canberra, Australia: Global CCS Institute.

Grau, Thilo, Molin Huo, and Karsten Neuhoff. 2011. Survey of photovoltaic industry and policy in Germany and China. DIW Discussion Paper 1132. Berlin, Germany: DIW Berlin.

Grubb, Michael, Jean-Charles Hourcade, and Karsten Neuhoff. 2014. Planetary Economics – Energy, Climate Change and the Three Domains of Sustainable Development. London, UK: Routledge.CrossRef

Grubler, Arnulf. 2010. The costs of the French nuclear scale-up: a case of negative learning by doing. Energy Policy 38 (9): 5174–5188.CrossRef

HOC-ECCC. 2013. Building new nuclear: the challenges ahead – 6th report of session 2012–2013. House of Commons, Energy and Climate Change Committee. London, UK: House of Commons, Energy and Climate Change Committee.

IEA. 2009. Energy balances of OECD countries 2009. IEA statistics. Paris, France: OECD.

———. 2015. World Energy Outlook Special Report 2015: Energy and Climate Change. Paris, France: OECD.

IPCC. 2005. IPCC Special report on carbon dioxide capture and storage. Prepared by Working Group III of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Joskow, Paul L., and John E. Parsons. 2012. The future of nuclear power after Fukushima. Economics of Energy & Environmental Policy 1 (2): 99–113.CrossRef

Kemfert, Claudia, Christian von Hirschhausen, and Casimir Lorenz. 2014. European energy and climate policy requires ambitious targets for 2030. DIW Economic Bulletin 4 (8): 17–26.

Kemfert, Claudia, Christian von Hirschhausen, Felix Reitz, Clemens Gerbaulet, and Casimir Lorenz. 2015. European climate targets achievable without nuclear power. DIW Economic Bulletin 5 (47): 619–625.

Lévêque, François. 2014. The Economics and Uncertainties of Nuclear Power. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRef

Löffler, Konstantin, Karlo Hainsch, Thorsten Burandt, Pao-Yu Oei, Claudia Kemfert, and Christian von Hirschhausen. 2017. Designing a model for the global energy system—GENeSYS-MOD: an application of the Open-Source Energy Modeling System (OSeMOSYS). Energies 10 (10): 1468.CrossRef

Lovins, Amory B. 1976. Energy strategy: the road not taken? Foreign Affairs 6 (20): 9–19.

Lovins, Amory B., and L. Hunter Lovins. 1980. Energy/War: Breaking the Nuclear Link. 1st ed. San Francisco, CA: Friends of the Earth.

Meeus, Leonardo, Isabel Azevedo, Claudio Marcantonini, Jean-Michel Glachant, and Manfred Hafner. 2012. EU 2050 low-carbon energy future: visions and strategies. The Electricity Journal 25 (5): 57–63.CrossRef

Metayer, Matthieu, Christian Breyer, and Hans-Josef Fell. 2015. The projections for the future and quality in the past of the world energy outlook for solar PV and other renewable energy technologies. In 31st European PV Solar Energy Conference and Exhibition, September 14–18, 2015. Hamburg, Germany.

Mohn, Klaus. 2018. The gavity of status quo: a review of IEA’s world energy outlook. Economics of Energy & Environmental Policy 8: 2.

Molly, J.P. 2012. Design of wind turbines and storage: a question of system optimisation. DEWI Magazin 40: 23–29.

Neuhoff, Karsten, and Anne Schopp. 2013. Europäischer Emissionshandel: Durch Backloading Zeit für Strukturreform gewinnen. 11. DIW Wochenbericht. Berlin, Germany.

Oei, Pao-Yu, Claudia Kemfert, Felix Reitz, and Christian von Hirschhausen. 2014. Braunkohleausstieg – Gestaltungsoptionen im Rahmen der Energiewende. 84. Politikberatung kompakt. Berlin, Germany: DIW.

Pahle, Michael, Brigitte Knopf, Oliver Tietjen, and Eva Schmid. 2012. Kosten des Ausbaus erneuerbarer Energien: eine Metaanalyse von Szenarien. 23/2012. Umweltbundesamt. Dessau-Roßlau, Germany: Federal Environment Agency.

Raack, Wolfgang, Paul Schorn, and Emil Schrödter. 1957. Jahrbuch des deutschen Bergbaus. Essen: Glückauf GmbH.

Radkau, Joachim, and Lothar Hahn. 2013. Aufstieg und Fall der deutschen Atomwirtschaft. Munich, Germany: Oekom Verlag.

Rai, Varun, David G. Victor, and Mark C. Thurber. 2010. Carbon capture and storage at scale: Lessons from the growth of analogous energy technologies. Energy Policy 38 (8): 4089–4098.CrossRef

Rangel, Escobar Lina, and Francois Leveque. 2015. Revisiting the cost escalation curse of nuclear power: new lessons from the French experience. Economics of Energy & Environmental Policy 4 (2): 103–126.

Reiner, David M. 2016. Learning through a portfolio of carbon capture and storage demonstration projects. Nature Energy 1 (1): 15011.CrossRef

Rubin, Edward S., and Haibo Zhai. 2012. The cost of carbon capture and storage for natural gas combined cycle power plants. Environmental Science & Technology 46 (6): 3076–3084.CrossRef

Schröder, Andreas, Friedrich Kunz, Jan Meiß, Roman Mendelevitch, and Christian von Hirschhausen. 2013. Current and prospective costs of electricity generation until 2050. DIW Data Documentation 68. Berlin.

Schulze, William D., David S. Brookshire, and Todd Sandler. 1981. The social rate of discount for nuclear waste storage: economics or ethics? Natural Resources Journal 21 (4): 811–832.

Thomas, S. 2010. The EPR in Crisis. London: University of Greenwich.

Toke, David. 2012. Nuclear power: how competitive is it under electricity market reform? Presentation given at the HEEDnet Seminar presented at the HEEDnet Seminar, London, UK, July 17.

von Hirschhausen, Christian. 2017. Nuclear power in the 21st Century – an assessment (Part I). DIW Discussion Paper 1700. Berlin, Germany.

von Hirschhausen, Christian, and Felix Reitz. 2014. Nuclear power: phase-out model yet to address final disposal issue. DIW Economic Bulletin 4: 27–35.

von Hirschhausen, Christian, Johannes Herold, and Pao-Yu Oei. 2012a. How a ‘low carbon’ innovation can fail – tales from a ‘lost decade’ for Carbon Capture, Transport, and Sequestration (CCTS). Economics of Energy & Environmental Policy 1 (2): 115–123.

von Hirschhausen, Christian, Johannes Herold, Pao-Yu Oei, and Clemens Haftendorn. 2012b. CCTS-Technologie ein Fehlschlag: Umdenken in der Energiewende notwendig. 6. Berlin, Germany: DIW Wochenbericht.

von Hirschhausen, Christian, Claudia Kemfert, Friedrich Kunz, and Roman Mendelevitch. 2013. European electricity generation post-2020: renewable energy not to be underestimated. DIW Economic Bulletin 3 (9): 16–28.

Wealer, Ben, Simon Bauer, Nicolas Landry, Hannah Seiß, and Christian von Hirschhausen. 2018. Nuclear power reactors worldwide – technology developments, diffusion patterns, and country-by-country analysis of implementation (1951–2017). DIW Berlin, Data Documentation 93. Berlin, Germany: DIW Berlin, TU Berlin.

Wirth, Harry. 2016. Aktuelle Fakten zur Photovoltaik in Deutschland. Freiburg, Germany: Fraunhofer ISE.

Zerrahn, Alexander, and Wolf-Peter Schill. 2015. A greenfield model to evaluate long-run power storage requirements for high shares of renewables. DIW Discussion Paper 1457. Berlin, Germany: DIW.

Titel: The Electricity Mix in the European Low-Carbon Transformation: Coal, Nuclear, and Renewables
verfasst von: Roman Mendelevitch
Claudia Kemfert
Pao-Yu Oei
Christian von Hirschhausen
Verlag: Springer International Publishing
Buch: Energiewende "Made in Germany"
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-95125-6

Electronic ISBN: 978-3-319-95126-3

Copyright-Jahr: 2018
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-95126-3_10

Springer Professional

Abstract

Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu Ihrer Lizenz zu erhalten.

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Springer Professional "Technik"

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"