IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/diw/diwwob/80-29-1.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Europäische Stromerzeugung nach 2020: Beitrag erneuerbarer Energien nicht unterschätzen

Author

Listed:
  • Christian von Hirschhausen
  • Claudia Kemfert
  • Friedrich Kunz
  • Roman Mendelevitch

Abstract

In its Green Paper, "A 2030 framework for climate and energy policies," the European Commission calls for a framework for the future development of environment and energy policy beyond 2020. However, much like the "Energy Roadmap 2050" adopted by the Commission in December 2011, the Green Paper is based on assumed scenarios that are, to a great extent, no longer relevant. The European Commission needs to provide updated model calculations immediately to enable energy policy decisions to be taken on the basis of transparent and comprehensible scenarios. A comparison of recent estimates conducted by DIW Berlin indicates that the Commission systematically underestimates the cost of nuclear power and carbon capture, transport, and storage, while the cost of renewable energies tends to be overestimated. This applies in particular to photovoltaics where capital costs are, to a certain extent, already lower than the Commission's estimates for 2050. In contrast to renewable energies, neither nuclear energy nor carbon capture, transport, and storage are cost efficient enough to play a central role in the future European electricity mix. It is therefore vital for Europe to continue to focus on the further development of renewable energies in future. This requires the setting of ambitious renewables targets for 2030 as well as clear emissions reduction and energy efficiency targets. Die Europäische Kommission hat in ihrem Grünbuch "Ein Rahmen für die Klima- und Energiepolitik bis 2030" dazu aufgefordert, Einschätzungen für umwelt- und energiepolitische Entwicklungen jenseits des Jahres 2020 zu entwickeln. Allerdings beruht das Grünbuch ebenso wie die "Energy Roadmap 2050" der Kommission vom Dezember 2011 auf Szenarioannahmen, die in wesentlichen Teilen nicht mehr aktuell sind. Die Europäische Kommission sollte umgehend aktualisierte Modellrechnungen bereitstellen, um der Energiepolitik transparente und nachvollziehbare Szenarien als Entscheidungshilfe an die Hand zu geben. Ein vom DIW Berlin durchgeführter Vergleich aktueller Schätzungen zeigt, dass von Seiten der Kommission die Kosten von Atomenergie und CO2-Abscheidung systematisch unterschätzt werden, während die Kosten von erneuerbaren Energien überschätzt werden. Dies gilt insbesondere für die Fotovoltaik, deren Kapitalkosten heute bereits zum Teil unterhalb der Werte liegen, die die Kommission für 2050 erwartet. Im Gegensatz zu den erneuerbaren Energien können weder die Atomkraft noch die CO2-Entsorgung zu vertretbaren Kosten eine tragende Rolle im künftigen europäischen Strommix spielen. Es ist daher unerlässlich, dass Europa konsequent auf den weiteren Ausbau erneuerbarer Energien setzt. Dazu ist es notwendig, dass anspruchsvolle Ziele für erneuerbare Energien für das Jahr 2030 definiert werden, kombiniert mit klaren Emissionsreduktions- und Effizienzzielen.

Suggested Citation

  • Christian von Hirschhausen & Claudia Kemfert & Friedrich Kunz & Roman Mendelevitch, 2013. "Europäische Stromerzeugung nach 2020: Beitrag erneuerbarer Energien nicht unterschätzen," DIW Wochenbericht, DIW Berlin, German Institute for Economic Research, vol. 80(29), pages 3-13.
  • Handle: RePEc:diw:diwwob:80-29-1
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.diw.de/documents/publikationen/73/diw_01.c.424632.de/13-29-1.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Grubler, Arnulf, 2010. "The costs of the French nuclear scale-up: A case of negative learning by doing," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(9), pages 5174-5188, September.
    2. Lina Escobar Rangel & François Lévêque, 2012. "Revisiting the cost escalation curse of nuclear power: New lessons from the French experience," Working Papers hal-00780566, HAL.
    3. Grau, Thilo & Huo, Molin & Neuhoff, Karsten, 2012. "Survey of photovoltaic industry and policy in Germany and China," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(C), pages 20-37.
    4. Andreas Schröder & Friedrich Kunz & Jan Meiss & Roman Mendelevitch & Christian von Hirschhausen, 2013. "Current and Prospective Costs of Electricity Generation until 2050," Data Documentation 68, DIW Berlin, German Institute for Economic Research.
    5. Wolfgang Buchholz & Jonas Frank & Hans-Dieter Karl & Johannes Pfeiffer & Karen Pittel & Ursula Triebswetter & Jochen Habermann & Wolfgang Mauch & Thomas Staudacher, 2012. "Die Zukunft der Energiemärkte: Ökonomische Analyse und Bewertung von Potenzialen und Handlungsmöglichkeiten," ifo Forschungsberichte, ifo Institute - Leibniz Institute for Economic Research at the University of Munich, number 57, November.
    6. Karsten Neuhoff & Anne Schopp, 2013. "Europäischer Emissionshandel: durch Backloading Zeit für Strukturreform gewinnen," DIW Wochenbericht, DIW Berlin, German Institute for Economic Research, vol. 80(11), pages 3-11.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Saskia Ellenbeck & Andreas Beneking & Andrzej Ceglarz & Peter Schmidt & Antonella Battaglini, 2015. "Security of Supply in European Electricity Markets—Determinants of Investment Decisions and the European Energy Union," Energies, MDPI, vol. 8(6), pages 1-19, June.
    2. Glachant, Jean-Michel & Ruester, Sophia, 2014. "The EU internal electricity market: Done forever?," Utilities Policy, Elsevier, vol. 30(C), pages 1-7.
    3. Jean-Michel Glachant & Sophia Ruester, 2013. "The EU Internal Electricity Market: Done Forever?," RSCAS Working Papers 2013/66, European University Institute.
    4. Saskia Ellenbeck & Peter Schmidt & Antonella Battaglini & Johan Lilliestam, 2013. "Der Strommarkt als soziale Institution: eine erweiterte Perspektive auf die deutsche Diskussion um Kapazitätsmechanismen," Vierteljahrshefte zur Wirtschaftsforschung / Quarterly Journal of Economic Research, DIW Berlin, German Institute for Economic Research, vol. 82(3), pages 171-182.
    5. Glachant, Jean-Michel & Ruester, Sophia, 2014. "The EU internal electricity market: Done forever?," Utilities Policy, Elsevier, vol. 31(C), pages 221-228.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Christian von Hirschhausen, 2017. "Nuclear Power in the Twenty-First Century: An Assessment (Part I)," Discussion Papers of DIW Berlin 1700, DIW Berlin, German Institute for Economic Research.
    2. Elena Verdolini & Laura Díaz Anadón & Erin Baker & Valentina Bosetti & Lara Aleluia Reis, 2018. "Future Prospects for Energy Technologies: Insights from Expert Elicitations," Review of Environmental Economics and Policy, Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 12(1), pages 133-153.
    3. Berthélemy, Michel & Escobar Rangel, Lina, 2015. "Nuclear reactors' construction costs: The role of lead-time, standardization and technological progress," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 82(C), pages 118-130.
    4. Gerbaulet, Clemens & von Hirschhausen, Christian & Kemfert, Claudia & Lorenz, Casimir & Oei, Pao-Yu, 2019. "European electricity sector decarbonization under different levels of foresight," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 141, pages 973-987.
    5. Linares, Pedro & Conchado, Adela, 2013. "The economics of new nuclear power plants in liberalized electricity markets," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 40(S1), pages 119-125.
    6. Sascha Samadi, 2017. "The Social Costs of Electricity Generation—Categorising Different Types of Costs and Evaluating Their Respective Relevance," Energies, MDPI, vol. 10(3), pages 1-37, March.
    7. Karsten Neuhoff & Sophia Rüster & Sebastian Schwenen, 2015. "Power Market Design beyond 2020: Time to Revisit Key Elements?," Discussion Papers of DIW Berlin 1456, DIW Berlin, German Institute for Economic Research.
    8. Christian Gambardella & Michael Pahle & Wolf-Peter Schill, 2016. "Do Benefits from Dynamic Tariffing Rise? Welfare Effects of Real-Time Pricing under Carbon-Tax-Induced Variable Renewable Energy Supply," Discussion Papers of DIW Berlin 1621, DIW Berlin, German Institute for Economic Research.
    9. -, 2023. "Foreign Direct Investment in Latin America and the Caribbean 2023," La Inversión Extranjera Directa en América Latina y el Caribe, Naciones Unidas Comisión Económica para América Latina y el Caribe (CEPAL), number 48979 edited by Eclac, May.
    10. Herve Kabanda & Alex Romard & Fuze Yurtsever & Anjali Wadhera & Joshua Andrews & Craig Merrett, 2021. "Construction Time Estimation Function for Canadian Utility Scale Power Plants," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(17), pages 1-16, August.
    11. Mostafa Shaaban & Jürgen Scheffran & Jürgen Böhner & Mohamed S. Elsobki, 2018. "Sustainability Assessment of Electricity Generation Technologies in Egypt Using Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis," Energies, MDPI, vol. 11(5), pages 1-25, May.
    12. Lovering, Jessica R. & Yip, Arthur & Nordhaus, Ted, 2016. "Historical construction costs of global nuclear power reactors," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 91(C), pages 371-382.
    13. Hörnlein, Lena, 2019. "The value of gas-fired power plants in markets with high shares of renewable energy," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 81(C), pages 1078-1098.
    14. Casimir Lorenz & Clemens Gerbaulet, 2017. "Wind Providing Balancing Reserves: An Application to the German Electricity System of 2025," Discussion Papers of DIW Berlin 1655, DIW Berlin, German Institute for Economic Research.
    15. Maria A. Franco & Stefan N. Groesser, 2021. "A Systematic Literature Review of the Solar Photovoltaic Value Chain for a Circular Economy," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(17), pages 1-35, August.
    16. Liu, Chang & Liu, Linlin & Zhang, Dayong & Fu, Jiasha, 2021. "How does the capital market respond to policy shocks? Evidence from listed solar photovoltaic companies in China," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 151(C).
    17. Frysztacki, Martha Maria & Hagenmeyer, Veit & Brown, Tom, 2023. "Inverse methods: How feasible are spatially low-resolved capacity expansion modelling results when disaggregated at high spatial resolution?," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 281(C).
    18. Chen, Feng & Wu, Bin & Lou, Wenqian, 2021. "An evolutionary analysis on the effect of government policies on green R & D of photovoltaic industry diffusion in complex network," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 152(C).
    19. Denholm, Paul & Brinkman, Greg & Mai, Trieu, 2018. "How low can you go? The importance of quantifying minimum generation levels for renewable integration," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 115(C), pages 249-257.
    20. Jan Abrell and Hannes Weigt, 2016. "Investments in a Combined Energy Network Model: Substitution between Natural Gas and Electricity?," The Energy Journal, International Association for Energy Economics, vol. 0(Number 4).

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Electricity generation; costs; learning; renewables;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • Q40 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Energy - - - General
    • Q42 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Energy - - - Alternative Energy Sources
    • Q47 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Energy - - - Energy Forecasting

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:diw:diwwob:80-29-1. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Bibliothek (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/diwbede.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.