Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

kristopher

(29,798 posts)
1. Exit economics: The relatively low cost of Germany's nuclear phase-out
Thu Jan 31, 2013, 12:10 AM
Jan 2013
Exit economics: The relatively low cost of Germany's nuclear phase-out
Felix Chr. Matthes Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists 2012 68: 42 DOI: 10.1177/0096340212464360

Abstract
The decision of the German government, post-Fukushima, to phase out the country's nuclear power sector by 2022 builds on legislation in place since 2002. This earlier legislation was amended in 2010 to extend the lifetime of the nuclear plants, but the German parliament reversed this extension in the summer of 2011, slightly accelerating the original phase-out schedule; therefore, the market and the nuclear operators were prepared for the shutdown schedule. In this context, it is not surprising that the observed price impacts from the shutdown of 40 percent of the German nuclear power capacity in 2011 are smaller than some modeling exercises had projected. When empirical observation is analyzed in light of a range of economic models, the price effect of the nuclear phase-out can be expected to peak at 5 euros per megawatt-hour or less for a few years around 2020, a reasonably small increase compared with the uncertainties created by other fundamental determinants of Europe's electricity prices. The macroeconomic effects attributable to the complete shut- down of nuclear power also appear likely to be relatively small, peaking at perhaps 0.3 percent of gross domestic product or less a few years before 2030. In the end, the management of the German transition to an energy mix dominated by renewable energies - and not the use of the existing nuclear reactor fleet for a decade more or less - be the key determinant of whether that shift has larger or smaller effects on elec- tricity prices or on the German economy overall.

http://bos.sagepub.com/content/68/6/42.full.pdf+html
Exit economics: The relatively low cost of Germany's nuclear phase-out kristopher Jan 2013 #1
And part of the economics is that German lignite is cheap muriel_volestrangler Jan 2013 #5
Implication vs reality kristopher Jan 2013 #6
German carbon emissions from electricity generation went up in 2011 muriel_volestrangler Jan 2013 #7
"greenhouse gas emissions should be of primary interest" kristopher Jan 2013 #9
Uh, no, the German electricity sector is becoming ever more dependent on coal Yo_Mama Feb 2013 #37
Your characterization of that information is untrue. kristopher Feb 2013 #40
My "characterization" comes directly from the sources Yo_Mama Feb 2013 #41
"the German electricity sector is becoming ever more dependent on coal" kristopher Feb 2013 #42
Sup Kris XemaSab Jan 2013 #2
du rec. nt xchrom Jan 2013 #3
Welcome back, n/t CRH Jan 2013 #4
Thank you. nt kristopher Feb 2013 #36
Coal is economical. joshcryer Jan 2013 #8
Unfortunately it is. kristopher Jan 2013 #10
A tax. joshcryer Feb 2013 #11
"Externalize the cost of coal"?? kristopher Feb 2013 #12
I should have said "address the external costs of coal." joshcryer Feb 2013 #13
Think about your "belief" kristopher Feb 2013 #14
You've been saying that for years. joshcryer Feb 2013 #15
Why would people burn coal when it will cost less to use renewables? kristopher Feb 2013 #17
Well, sure, they wouldn't, if it did. joshcryer Feb 2013 #22
Price trends are unequivocal. kristopher Feb 2013 #25
This message was self-deleted by its author GliderGuider Feb 2013 #16
"all the energy that is economical to use" kristopher Feb 2013 #18
This message was self-deleted by its author GliderGuider Feb 2013 #19
re: Harris kristopher Feb 2013 #20
This message was self-deleted by its author GliderGuider Feb 2013 #21
Your second clause is specifically rejected by Harris kristopher Feb 2013 #23
This message was self-deleted by its author GliderGuider Feb 2013 #27
I didn't think you were being critical kristopher Feb 2013 #28
This message was self-deleted by its author GliderGuider Feb 2013 #30
This message was self-deleted by its author GliderGuider Feb 2013 #24
"Increase efficiency when energy sources are limiting" kristopher Feb 2013 #26
This message was self-deleted by its author GliderGuider Feb 2013 #29
That's odd, GG. kristopher Feb 2013 #31
I realized I wasn't ready to start discussing this yet, for a variety of reasons. GliderGuider Feb 2013 #32
Well, we have to concede that anti-nuke ignorance, fear, and superstition HAVE NNadir Feb 2013 #33
"anti-nuke ignorance, fear, and superstition HAVE"... kristopher Feb 2013 #34
You can't admit that anti-nuke ignorance/fear/superstition EXIST FBaggins Feb 2013 #35
Even after Fukushima, twice as many French support nuclear power as are against wtmusic Feb 2013 #38
How many want to transition away from nuclear? kristopher Feb 2013 #39
I always thought the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists was written by scientists wtmusic Feb 2013 #43
You ARE the person who was promoting the fictional... kristopher Feb 2013 #44
You have distinct memories of that, do you? wtmusic Feb 2013 #45
That's a very convenient memory lapse kristopher Feb 2013 #46
And a scathing critique it is. wtmusic Feb 2013 #47
You have to admit your standards of what constitute "science" are very subjective kristopher Feb 2013 #48
Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Environment & Energy»Nuclear power and the Fre...»Reply #1