Skip to content
EEEP
Menu
  • 2012
    • Volume 1
      • Number 1
      • Number 2
      • Number 3
  • 2013
    • Volume 2
      • Number 1
      • Number 2
  • 2014
    • Volume 3
      • Number 1
      • Number 2
  • 2015
    • Volume 4
      • Number 1
      • Number 2
  • 2016
    • Volume 5
      • Number 1
      • Number 2
  • 2017
    • Volume 6
      • Number 1
      • Number 2
  • 2018
    • Volume 7
      • Number 1
      • Number 2
  • 2019
    • Volume 8
      • Number 1
      • Number 2
  • 2020
    • Volume 9
      • Number 1
      • Number 2
  • 2021
    • Volume 10
      • Number 1
      • Number 2
    • Volume 9
      • Number 2
  • 2022
    • Volume 10
      • Number 2
    • Volume 11
      • Number 1
      • Number 2
  • 2023
    • Volume 11
      • Number 2
    • Volume 12
      • Number 1
      • Number 2
  • 2024
    • Volume 13
      • Number 1
      • Number 2
  • 2025
    • Volume 14
      • Number 1
  • 2026
    • Volume 15
      • Number 1
      • Number 2
      • Number 3
      • Number 4
Menu

EEEP » 2012 » Volume 1 » Number 3 » German Nuclear Policy Reconsidered: Implications for the Electricity Market

German Nuclear Policy Reconsidered: Implications for the Electricity Market

Posted on February 4, 2026February 9, 2026 by admin

In the aftermath of the nuclear catastrophe in Fukushima-Daiichi, German nuclear policy has been reconsidered. This paper demonstrates the economic effects of an accelerated nuclear phase-out in Germany on the European electricity market. An optimization model is used to analyze two scenarios with different lifetimes for nuclear plants in Germany (phase-out vs. prolongation). Based on political targets, both scenarios assume significant electricity demand reductions and a high share of renewable energy sources in Germany. We find that electricity costs and prices in the European system are higher in the phase-out scenario, especially in Germany, associated with welfare losses. Due to lifetime extensions of existing fossil-fired plants as well as moderate capacity additions, we conclude that the generation sector can generally cope with the phase-out under the given assumptions. Yet, we emphasize that this requires a substantial and costly transformation of the supply and the demand side.

Authors: Michaela Fursch, Dietmar Lindenberger, Raimund Malischek, Stephan Nagl, Timo Panke, and Johannes Truby
DOI: 10.5547/2160-5890.1.3.4
Keywords: Climate protection, Electricity market modeling, Nuclear policy, Renewable energy
🔐 Download PDF

Account

  • Log in
  • Entries feed
  • Comments feed
  • WordPress.org

Tags

carbon emissions Carbon tax China Climate change Climate policy computable general equilibrium Cost of Debt Decentralized energy governance difference-­in-­differences Electricity generation electricity market Electricity market design Electricity markets Electric Utilities Energy Energy communities Energy crisis energy economics Energy efficiency Energy Policy Energy poverty Energy security Energy transition Europe European Union evaluation Flexibility Geopolitics Investment market design Merit Order Middle East Natural gas Policy policy instruments quantile regression Regulation Renewable energy Renewables Resilience Resource adequacy Scenarios Smart meters Spain Sub-Saharan Africa

Archives

  • August 2026
  • July 2026
  • June 2026
  • April 2026
  • March 2026
  • February 2026
© 2026 EEEP | Powered by Minimalist Blog WordPress Theme