Costs of meeting international climate targets without nuclear power

Abstract

Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen:Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden.Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen.Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. Terms of use: Documents in Costs of meeting international climate targets without nuclear power AbstractThis paper assesses the impact of a global phase-out of nuclear energy on the costs of meeting international climate policy targets for 2020. The analyses are based on simulations with a global energy systems model. The phase-out of nuclear power increases greenhouse gas emissions by 2% globally, and 7% for Annex I countries. The price of certificates increases by 24% and total compliance costs of Annex I countries rise by 28%. Compliance costs increase the most for Japan (+58%) and the USA (+28%). China, India and Russia benefit from a global nuclear phase-out because revenues from higher trading volumes of certificates outweigh the costs of losing nuclear power as a mitigation option. Even for countries that face a relatively large increase in compliance costs, such as Japan, the nuclear phase-out implies a relatively small overall economic burden. When trading of certificates is available only to countries that committed to a second Kyoto period, the nuclear phase-out results in a larger increase in the compliance costs for the group of Annex I countries (but not for the EU and Australia). Results from sensitivity analyses suggest that our findings are fairly robust to alternative burden-sharing schemes and emission target levels

Role of Nuclear Power in the Future: Cost and Public Acceptance

“…According to a report after the Fukushima, coal power would benefit if the renewable energy can't meet the demand, a 370 Mt increase in carbon dioxide emissions from Germany generators would attribute to the burning of fossil fuel. The phase-out of nuclear would increase Greenhouse gas emissions by 2% globally and 7% for Annex I countries under the Kyoto Protocol [15]. Costs.…”

A Critical Review of the Premises Underlying Korea's Nuclear Energy Policy

“…A recent study by Resch et al [19] predicted that nuclear power phase-out in the EU can be realized by 2030, assuming that targets of reducing GHG emissions by 20% in 2020 and by 80%-95% in 2050 (as compared with 1990 levels) are met. Duscha et al [20], based on analyses of scenarios and a literature review, argued that the impact of a global phase-out of nuclear energy on global mitigation costs is quite modest.…”

Energy market impacts of nuclear power phase-out policies

“…According to Duscha et al (2013) most studies exploring the interaction between climate mitigation and nuclear power find that the additional cost of climate mitigation amounts to less than a percentage of global GDP. Our approach does not include a climate policy, but imposing various scenarios with nuclear power constraints tends to reduce regional GDP compared with the BAU as shown in Figure 10.…”

“…The prospects for nuclear power under various assumptions on climate mitigation policies have been studied by several authors (see Duscha, Schumacher, Schleich, & Buisson, 2013 for an overview). Most studies are bottom up and conclude that additional costs of phasing out nuclear power will be less than one per cent of global gross domestic product (GDP).…”