This paper presents a comprehensive analysis of the suitability of nuclear power as an option to combat the escalating climate emergency. Summarizing and evaluating key arguments, we elucidate why nuclear power is unsuitable for addressing climate change. The primary argument centers around the unresolved technical and human risks of accidents and proliferation, which are unlikely to be effectively mitigated in the future. Furthermore, we highlight the significant cost disparities between nuclear power and other non-fossil energy sources, such as solar photovoltaics and wind power, considering levelized costs of electricity. We also address the incompatibility of nuclear power with renewable energy systems, emphasizing the need for flexibility in the face of variable solar and wind resources. Alternative reactor technologies will not be available in time to make a major contribution. Nuclear power also poses challenges in power plant operation amid climate change and war. Ultimately, we argue that other motivations should be explored to explain the continued interest in nuclear power in some countries, as energy supply arguments alone are insufficient to justify new investments.

The German states of Berlin and Brandenburg are committed to the Paris Agreement with the goal of keeping global warming safely below 2 degrees to protect the Earth system from uncontrollable warming. This claim implies targeting 1.5 degrees to keep a reasonable chance of realisation. Renewable energies are the only sources that can be considered to accomplish this task. We use a linear cost minimization model for the Berlin-Brandenburg region to show how a 100% renewable energy target is possible without relying on contributions from other regions. We find that a 100% renewable energy system based predominantly on photovoltaics on buildings and on green hydrogen production, and a transition essentially to electricity for all purposes, is feasible in time and at a reasonable cost below that of fossil-nuclear energy. Hydrogen storage technology appears as one of the key cost determinants, while a sensible integration of German and European transition systems potentially limits costs to the lowest levels ever realized in real terms.

This is a discussion and response to "Global 100% energy transition by 2050: A fiction in developing economies?" authored by Anthony Afful-Dadzie and published in Joule 5 (2021) 1634-1643. The preview has raised concerns around the feasibility of energy transitions towards 100% renewable energy and sustainable technologies in developing economies, after examining the article Bogdanov et al. (2021) in Afful-Dadzie (2021). Although, the author has rightly pointed out the disparity in the recent growth of renewable energy across the developed and developing countries of the world, along with highlighting a pertinent issue of 'availability of finance' for energy transitions across developing countries, the preview fails to contextualise the issue of financing energy transitions, in particular across developing countries, and has trivialised complex and cumbersome cost optimal energy transition modelling with vague and unscientific illustrations. In response, the authors of Bogdanov et al. (2021) have contextualised, clarified and confuted the issues raised in Afful-Dadzie (2021).(c) 2022 Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http:// creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

This chapter presents a technically feasible and economically viable energy pathway for Europe, in which the energy sector (comprised of power, heat, transport, and desalination) reaches 100% renewable energy and zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050. The research highlights the transition of the transport sector, which is currently dependent on fossil fuels to a great extent, towards being driven by 100% renewables. The transport sector achieves zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050, mainly through direct and indirect electrification in the form of synthetic fuels, such as hydrogen and Fischer-Tropsch fuels. The methods are comprised of the derivation of the transportation demand, which is converted into final energy demand for direct electrification along with production of hydrogen, methane and Fischer-Tropsch fuels. The power-to-gas (H2, CH4) and power-to-liquids (Fischer-Tropsch fuels) value chains are applied for the total energy demand, which is fulfilled entirely by renewables in 2050. The primary energy demand for the transport sector decreases from 21,000 TWh in 2015 to around 20,000 TWh by 2050, driven by massive gains in energy efficiency with a high level of direct and indirect electrification of more than 85% in 2050. While, the final energy demand for transport decreases from 7000 TWh/a in 2015 to 5000 TWh/a, despite the assumed growth of passenger and freight transportation, mainly driven by the massive electrification of road transport. Solar PV and wind energy emerge as the most prominent energy supply sources with around 62% and 32%, respectively, of the total electricity supply by 2050. Batteries emerge as the key storage technology with around 83% of total electricity storage output. Fuel conversion technologies such as water electrolysis, methanation, Fischer-Tropsch synthesis, and others, supply renewable-based fuels along with sustainably produced biofuels and electrification to ensure a 100% renewable energy-based transport sector across Europe. The levelised cost of energy for a fully sustainable energy system across Europe remains stable in the range of €50–60/MWh through the transition from 2015 to 2050. The final annualised energy costs for transport remain around 300–450 b€ per year through the transition period, with a massive reduction for road transport, while increases for marine and aviation transport by 2050 are projected. Greenhouse gas emissions can be reduced from about 4200 megatonnes CO2 equivalent (MtCO2eq) in 2015 in the entire energy system to zero by 2050, with cumulative GHG emissions of around 85 gigatonnes CO2 equivalent (GtCO2eq). While, GHG emissions in the transport sector can be reduced from about 1900 MtCO2eq in 2015 to zero by 2050, this could be further accelerated with ambitious policies and targets across Europe. Consequently, a 100% renewable energy system across the transport sector in Europe is far more efficient and cost competitive than a fossil fuel-based option, and most importantly compatible with the Paris Agreement.

To be able to fulfil the Paris Climate Agreement and keep global warming with reasonable confidence at a maximum of 1.5 °C above pre-industrial levels, Germany must set an end to all greenhouse gas emissions by 2030. At the core of this task is the switch to 100% renewables across all sectors on the same time horizon. Conventional technologies fueled by fossil and nuclear energies are, according to the vast majority of current cost calculations, energetically inefficient, too expensive, and too slow in expansion to be able to deliver a substantial contribution to rapid climate protection. We present the first comprehensive energy scenario that shows the way to 100% renewable energy for all energy sectors by 2030. The result of the calculations is a cost-effective energy system that is compatible with the German share of necessary greenhouse gas reduction. This study shows a target system of generation, conversion, and storage technologies that can achieve the transformation to 100% renewable energy in all energy sectors—electricity, heat, and mobility—in time and at competitive costs below the costs of the current system. Moreover, we demonstrate the huge cost effect that arises if southern Germany renounces its onshore wind resources and find that this would substantially increase the need for high-voltage direct-current transmission capacity.

Climate change threats and the necessity to achieve global Sustainable Development Goals demand unprecedented economic and social shifts around the world, including a fundamental transformation of the global energy system. An energy transition is underway in most regions, predominantly in the power sector. This research highlights the technical feasibility and economic viability of 100% renewable energy systems including the power, heat, transport and desalination sectors. It presents a technology-rich, multi-sectoral, multi-regional and cost-optimal global energy transition pathway for 145 regional energy systems sectionalised into nine major regions of the world. This 1.5 degrees C target compatible scenario with rapid direct and indirect electrification via Power-to-X processes and massive defossilisation indicates substantial benefits: 50% energy savings, universal access to fresh water and low-cost energy supply. It also provides an energy transition pathway that could lead from the current fossil-based system to an affordable, efficient, sustainable and secure energy future for the world. (C) 2021 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.

A reduced attractiveness of investments in reliable fossil power plants in liberalized markets on the background of a transition towards renewable energies has brought a discussion on capacity policies to Europe. I develop a partial equilibrium model to compare effects of three polar capacity remuneration mechanisms (CRMs) based on the assumption that a CRM is indicated. A strategic reserve (SR) policy with administratively set capacity targets, a capacity market (CM) based on public procurement, and a decentralized reserve market with the obligation of generators to finance reserves in relation to their peak supply (RM). Substantial differences of policies arise across countries and regarding consumers and producers due to power plant structures. By 2023, we find the decentralized RM to induce least pronounced distributional effects and only modest welfare reductions, while SR and CM induce higher losses. In the longer term until 2033, welfare results differ less pronounced, although the RM is most friendly to consumers. A robust policy conclusion has to pay attention to further aspects concerning the environment and technological developments.

Increasing the integration of renewable energy in Northern and Central Europe markets is greatly influenced by the development of electricity transmission grid infrastructure. On the background of the fast development of offshore wind energy and its connection to the onshore electricity systems, a coordinated grid development in the North Sea may not only save costs for individual wind farms, but also deliver additional benefits through the provision of increased interconnection of electricity markets. The previous studies do not include offshore wind development with high ambition in the long term perspective and do not focus on the assessment of the specific effects on the economic value of offshore wind farms connected to Belgium, Norway the UK, the Netherlands, and Germany (North Sea Link, Cobra Cable, Viking Link, Nord Link, BritNed and Nemo Link). This paper tries to shed some lights on the substantial differences in the expected economic exposure of wind power plants and transmission lines to the development of the electricity grid in the North Sea. Since details of the prospective energy system around the North Sea region shape these revenue expectations, we further develop and apply the energy model Balmorel. The tool is used to quantify effects of the implementation of a meshed offshore grid compared to a radial grid that connects wind farms in a non-coordinated fashion to the countries by 2050. The model runs conducted for the present paper show substantial variation of expectable market values of wind farms on hub level due to impacts of different options for grid structures. The results aim to inform the discussion on possibilities for the allocation of grid expansion costs to the different connected countries including Belgium, Denmark, Germany, the Netherlands, Norway and Britain.

Alle Rechte vorbehalten. Abdruck oder vergleichbare Verwendung von Arbeiten des DIW Berlin ist auch in Auszügen nur mit vorheriger schriftlicher Genehmigung gestattet.

The German support for renewable energies in the electricity sector is based on the feed-in tariff for investors that grants guaranteed revenues for their renewable energy supply. Corresponding to differences of granted tariffs and respective market values, a surcharge on consumption covers differential costs. While granted tariffs are bound to fall with advances in renewable energy technologies, the market design and the flexibility of the system influence the expected market values of renewables and the necessary surcharge. We apply the European electricity market equilibrium model EMELIE-ESY to investigate this relationship. We find a crucial dependence of market values of renewables on a high system flexibility and the current so-called energy-only market design. Under these conditions, the market values of renewables sequentially recover with increasing market prices by 2024 and 2034. This allows to limit the increase of the core surcharge to below a quarter of its 2013 value by 2024 despite a doubling of renewables, and to introduce substantial surcharge reductions through 2034. However, the introduction of a capacity market would erode market values of renewable energies and induce a pronounced growth of the core surcharge. Under inflexible supply structures and a capacity market, we find an increase of the core surcharge of more than 50 percent by 2024, a respective loss of the market value of wind power of the same magnitude, and an increase of the generation induced part of the consumer prices of more than a quarter.

The reduced attractiveness of investments in reliable power plants under conditions of liberalized markets and the transition towards renewable energies has brought a discussion on capacity policies to Europe. We use a partial equilibrium model to compare important effects of three basic policies. A strategic reserve policy and a capacity market policy with administratively set capacity targets, and the obligation of generators to hold certificates of reliable capacities in relation to their supply. We find important differences of policies for consumers and producers that are depending on existing power plant structure and the elasticity of demand particularly in the medium term perspective until the year 2023. In the longer term until 2033 the results differ less pronounced. However, for the German case we demonstrate the potential to effectively reduce the burden on the economy to achieve a prescribed target through the implementation of a capacity certificate system.

Vierteljahrshefte zur Wirtschaftsforschung | DIW Berlin | 82. Jahrgang | 03.2013 | Seiten 5–9 Der Begriff „Energiewende“ ist nicht eindeutig definiert. Er wurde und wird von verschiedenen Akteuren unterschiedlich verwendet und konnotiert. Im Rahmen dieses Beitrags und dieses Hefts im Allgemeinen umfasst die Energiewende die Ziele und Masnahmen des Energiekonzepts der Bundesregierung vom September 2010 (BMWi und BMU 2010) sowie die erganzenden Beschlusse von Regierung, Bundestag und Bundesrat vom Sommer 2011. Letztere wurden durch die Atomkatastrophe in Japan im Marz 2011 gepragt. Bereits kurz darauf wurden acht deutsche Kernkraftwerke endgultig vom Netz genommen. Die ubrigen sollen bis Ende 2022 vom Netz gehen (BMWi 2012).

In the framework of the Energy Modeling Forum 28, we investigate how climate policy regimes affect market developments under different technology availabilities on the European power markets. We use the partial equilibrium model EMELIE-ESY with focus on electricity markets in order to determine how private investors optimize their generation capacity investment and operation over the horizon 2010 to 2050. For the year 2050, the model projects a minor increase of power consumption of 10% under current climate policy, and a balanced pathway for consumption under ambitious climate policy compared to 2010 levels. These results contrast with findings of POLES and PRIMES models that predict strong consumption increases of 44% to 48% by 2050 and claim competitiveness of nuclear power and CCS options. Under ambitious climate policy, our findings correspond with major increases of wholesale electricity market prices and comparatively less pronounced emission price increases, which trigger no investments into Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) and a strongly diminishing share of nuclear energy.

In order to compensate for fluctuations in electricity demand as well as electricity supply from renewables, power plants are required that are reliably available, even in critical situations. Besides an ongoing discussion whether the liberalized electricity market is capable of stimulating sufficient investment, there are frequent calls for supporting instruments. Depending on their type, these instruments, also known as capacity mechanisms, have different effects on electricity producers and consumers. Model calculations prepared by DIW Berlin demonstrate that the total burden for achieving a defined safety margin in 2020 in Germany is between 0.4 and 3.1 billion euros and that overall, it leads to considerable free-rider effects on the part of the established electricity producers. This burden is potentially offset by advantages from the reduction of the risk of blackouts, which are difficult to quantify.