Alternative low-carbon electricity pathways in Switzerland and it’s neighbouring countries under a nuclear phase-out scenario

Pattupara, Rajesh; Kannan, Ravindran

doi:10.1016/j.apenergy.2016.03.084

Cited by 73 publications

(29 citation statements)

References 22 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Tranberg et al [29] introduced a method to assign the shares of capital and operational costs associated with imported electricity from generation capacities abroad to the importing countries through tracing the power flow. Pattupara and Kannan [15] incorporated revenue from electricity trade in the system cost and evaluated the effect of electricity trade on the national electricity system cost. We use a similar approach in this paper by introducing the concept of nodal net average system cost (NNASC) to represent the net electricity system cost for each node in the model.…”

Section: Nodal Net Average System Costmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Germany, Belgium, and Switzerland have decided to phase out nuclear power, while Finland and France are building new nuclear power plants.The cost difference for decarbonizing the electricity system with and without nuclear power has been subject to recent debate in the scientific community [9][10][11][12]. Some studies show that excluding nuclear power increases the electricity system cost modestly [13][14][15], while others claim that the increase in cost is substantial [16,17]. Jägemann et al [13] investigated the decarbonization pathways of the European electricity sector and found that the total electricity system cost, together with the cost of decarbonization, would increase by 11% if nuclear power and carbon capture and storage (CCS) were excluded.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Zappa et al [14] evaluated the cost of a 100% renewable power system for Europe and found that the system cost would be 30% higher than a carbon-neutral electricity system which excludes nuclear and CCS. Pattupara and Kannan [15] analyzed the low-carbon electricity pathways in Switzerland and its neighboring countries and showed that the net electricity system cost in the deep decarbonization scenario would increase by 15% if nuclear power were not included. In stark contrast, Buongiorno et al [16] found that excluding nuclear power would double or triple the average electricity cost for deep decarbonization.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

The cost of a future low-carbon electricity system without nuclear power – the case of Sweden

Kan

Hedenus

Reichenberg

2020

Energy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

To achieve the goal of deep decarbonization of the electricity system, more and more variable renewable energy (VRE) is being adopted. However, there is no consensus among researchers on whether the goal can be accomplished without large cost escalation if nuclear power is excluded in the future electricity system. In Sweden, where nuclear power generated 41% of the annual electricity supply in 2014, the official goal is 100% renewable electricity production by 2040. Therefore, we investigate the cost of a future low-carbon electricity system without nuclear power for Sweden. We model the European electricity system with a focus on Sweden and run a techno-economic cost optimization model for capacity investment and dispatch of generation, transmission, storage and demand-response, under a CO2 emission constraint of 10 g/kWh. Our results show that there are no, or only minor, cost benefits to reinvest in nuclear power plants in Sweden once the old ones are decommissioned. This holds for a large range of assumptions on technology costs and possibilities for investment in additional transmission capacity. We contrast our results with the recent study that claims severe cost penalties for not allowing nuclear power in Sweden and discuss the implications of methodology choice.2 for electricity supply [4][5][6]. In the case of Sweden, the government has set a goal of 100% renewable power production for the electricity sector by 2040 [7]. Currently, nuclear power accounts for 41% of the annual electricity production [8], however the nuclear fleet is aging and decommissioning is planned in the coming decades for economic reasons. This has spurred a political discussion about replacing the old nuclear reactors with new ones. Nuclear power is facing an uncertain future in the transition towards a low-carbon electricity system in Europe due to the risk of radiation leakage, social acceptance, and high investment cost, among other factors. Germany, Belgium, and Switzerland have decided to phase out nuclear power, while Finland and France are building new nuclear power plants.The cost difference for decarbonizing the electricity system with and without nuclear power has been subject to recent debate in the scientific community [9][10][11][12]. Some studies show that excluding nuclear power increases the electricity system cost modestly [13][14][15], while others claim that the increase in cost is substantial [16,17]. Jägemann et al. [13] investigated the decarbonization pathways of the European electricity sector and found that the total electricity system cost, together with the cost of decarbonization, would increase by 11% if nuclear power and carbon capture and storage (CCS) were excluded. Zappa et al. [14] evaluated the cost of a 100% renewable power system for Europe and found that the system cost would be 30% higher than a carbon-neutral electricity system which excludes nuclear and CCS. Pattupara and Kannan [15] analyzed the low-carbon electricity pathways in Switzerland and its neighboring countries and showed that t...

show abstract

Section: Nodal Net Average System Costmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The cost of a future low-carbon electricity system without nuclear power – the case of Sweden

Kan

Hedenus

Reichenberg

2020

Energy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Under Article 4, more developed countries are expected to take a leading role. Examples of deep decarbonisation analysis can be found for multiple countries, including China [2,3] , the United States [4], Germany [5], Denmark [6], Ireland [7] , Switzerland [8], Portugal [9] , and the United Kingdom [10,11]. The United Kingdom (UK) is one example of an advanced economy which is already committed to ambitious long-term decarbonisation targets.…”

Section: Introduction: Investment Needs and The Key Uncertainties Facmentioning

confidence: 99%

Investment appraisal of cost-optimal and near-optimal pathways for the UK electricity sector transition to 2050

Trutnevyte

2017

Applied Energy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Deep decarbonisation of the electricity sector is central to achieving the United Kingdom's (UK) climate policy targets for 2050 and meeting its international commitments under the Paris Agreement. While the overall strategy for decarbonising the energy system has been well established in previous studies, there remain deep uncertainties around the total investment cost requirements for the power system. The future of the power system is of critical importance because low carbon electricity may create significant opportunities for emissions reduction in buildings and transport. A key policy application of quantitative analysis using models is to explore how much investment needs to be mobilised for the energy transition. However, past estimates of energy transition costs for the UK power sector have focused only on 2030 rather than 2050 and consider a relatively narrow range of uncertainties. This paper addresses this important research gap. The UK government's main whole system energy economy model is linked to a power system model that employs an advanced approach to uncertainty analysis, combining Monte Carlo simulation with Modelling-to-Generate Alternatives (MGA), producing 800 different scenario pathways. These pathways simultaneously consider uncertainties in policy, technology and costs. The results show that with No Climate Policy, installed generation capacities in 2050 are found in the range 60-75GW, while under an 80% Reduction in GHG Emissions, between 100GW and 130GW of plant are required. Meeting climate targets for 2050 is also found to increase the investment requirements for new electricity generation. The interquartile range for cumulative investments in new generation under the No Climate Policy scenario ranges from £60bn to £75bn, while under an 80% Reduction in GHG Emissions, investment requirements approximately double to £110bn -£140bn. The exercise demonstrates the importance of uncertainty analysis to policy evaluation, yielding insights for future research practice both in the UK and internationally.

show abstract

“…Additionally, ecoinvent 3.1. Average CO 2 emissions were also developed in [20,21]. However, these studies did not analyze the temporal variability of CO 2 based on the resources used to cover the national demand when the demand reaches maximum values.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Potential Role of Flexibility During Peak Hours on Greenhouse Gas Emissions: A Life Cycle Assessment of Five Targeted National Electricity Grid Mixes

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

On the path towards the decarbonization of the electricity supply, flexibility and demand response have become key factors to enhance the integration of distributed energy resources, shifting the consumption from peak hours to off-peak hours, optimizing the grid usage and maximizing the share of renewables. Despite the technical viability of flexible services, the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions has not been proven. Traditionally, emissions are calculated on a yearly average timescale, not providing any information about peak hours’ environmental impact. Furthermore, peak-hours’ environmental impacts are not always greater than on the base load, depending on the resources used for those time periods. This paper formulates a general methodology to assess the potential environmental impact of peak-hourly generation profiles, through attributional life cycle assessment. This methodology was applied to five different countries under the INVADE H2020 Project. Evaluation results demonstrate that countries like Spain and Bulgaria could benefit from implementing demand response activities considering environmental aspects, enhancing potential greenhouse gas reductions by up to 21% in peak hours.

show abstract

Alternative low-carbon electricity pathways in Switzerland and it’s neighbouring countries under a nuclear phase-out scenario

Cited by 73 publications

References 22 publications

The cost of a future low-carbon electricity system without nuclear power – the case of Sweden

The cost of a future low-carbon electricity system without nuclear power – the case of Sweden

Investment appraisal of cost-optimal and near-optimal pathways for the UK electricity sector transition to 2050

The Potential Role of Flexibility During Peak Hours on Greenhouse Gas Emissions: A Life Cycle Assessment of Five Targeted National Electricity Grid Mixes

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About