Refine
Has Fulltext
- yes (4)
Document Type
- Peer-Reviewed Article (4) (remove)
Language
- English (4) (remove)
Division
- Zukünftige Energie- und Industriesysteme (4) (remove)
Only three days after the beginning of the nuclear catastrophe in Fukushima, Japan, on 11 March 2011, the German government ordered 8 of the country's 17 existing nuclear power plants (NPPs) to stop operating within a few days. In summer 2011 the government put forward a law - passed in parliament by a large majority - that calls for a complete nuclear phase-out by the end of 2022. These government actions were in contrast to its initial plans, laid out in fall 2010, to expand the lifetimes of the country's NPPs.
The immediate closure of 8 NPPs and the plans for a complete nuclear phase-out within little more than a decade, raised concerns about Germany's ability to secure a stable supply of electricity. Some observers feared power supply shortages, increasing CO2-emissions and a need for Germany to become a net importer of electricity.
Now - a little more than a year after the phase-out law entered into force - this paper examines these concerns using (a) recent statistical data on electricity production and demand in the first 15 months after the German government's immediate reaction to the Fukushima accident and (b) reviews the most recent projections and scenarios by different stakeholders on how the German electricity system may develop until 2025, when NPPs will no longer be in operation.
The paper finds that Germany has a realistic chance of fully replacing nuclear power with additional renewable electricity generation on an annual basis by 2025 or earlier, provided that several related challenges, e.g. expansion of the grids and provision of balancing power, can be solved successfully. Already in 2012 additional electricity generation from renewable energy sources in combination with a reduced domestic demand for electricity will likely fully compensate for the reduced power generation from the NPPs shut down in March 2011.
If current political targets will be realised, Germany neither has to become a net electricity importer, nor will be unable to gradually reduce fossil fuel generated electricity. Whether the reduction in fossil fuel use will be sufficient to adequately contribute to national greenhouse gas mitigation targets significantly depends on an active policy to promote electricity savings, continuous efforts to increase the use of renewables and a higher share of natural gas (preferably used in combined heat and power plants) in fossil fuel power generation.
To combat climate change, it is anticipated that in the coming years countries around the world will adopt more stringent policies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and increase the use of clean energy sources. These policies will also affect the industry sector, which means that industrial production is likely to progressively shift from CO2-emitting fossil fuel sources to renewable energy sources. As a result, a region's renewable energy resources could become an increasingly important factor in determining where energy-intensive industries locate their production. We refer to this pull factor as the "renewables pull" effect. Renewables pull could lead to the relocation of some industrial production as a consequence of regional differences in the marginal cost of renewable energy sources. In this paper, we introduce the concept of renewables pull and explain why its importance is likely to increase in the future. Using the examples of direct reduced iron (DRI) and ammonia production, we find that the future costs of climate-neutral production of certain products is likely to vary considerably between regions with different renewable energy resources. However, we also identify the fact that many other factors in addition to energy costs determine the decisions that companies make in term of location, leaving room for further research to better understand the future relevance of renewables pull.
The Paris Agreement calls on all nations to pursue efforts to contribute to limiting the global temperature increase to 1.5 °C above pre-industrial levels. However, due to limited global, regional and country-specific analysis of highly ambitious GHG mitigation pathways, there is currently a lack of knowledge about the transformational changes needed in the coming decades to reach this target. Through a meta-analysis of mitigation scenarios for Germany, this article aims to contribute to an improved understanding of the changes needed in the energy system of an industrialized country. Differentiation among six key long-term energy system decarbonization strategies is suggested, and an analysis is presented of how these strategies will be pursued until 2050 in selected technologically detailed energy scenarios for Germany. The findings show, that certain strategies, including the widespread use of electricity-derived synthetic fuels in end-use sectors as well as behavioral changes, are typically applied to a greater extent in mitigation scenarios aiming at high GHG emission reductions compared to more moderate mitigation scenarios. The analysis also highlights that the pace of historical changes observed in Germany between 2000 and 2015 is clearly insufficient to adequately contribute to not only the 1.5 °C target, but also the 2 °C long-term global target.
The Port of Rotterdam is an important industrial cluster, comprising mainly oil refining, chemical production and power generation. In 2016, the port's industry accounted for 19% of the Netherlands' total CO2 emissions. The Port of Rotterdam Authority is aware that the cluster is heavily exposed to future decarbonisation policies, as most of its activities focus on trading, handling, converting and using fossil fuels. Based on a study for the Port Authority using a mixture of qualitative and quantitative methods, our article explores three pathways whereby the port's industry can maintain its strong position while significantly reducing its CO2 emissions and related risks by 2050. The pathways differ in terms of the EU's assumed climate change mitigation ambitions and the key technological choices made by the cluster's companies. The focus of the paper is on identifying key risks associated with each scenario and ways in which these could be mitigated.