In this paper we investigate the long-run economic consequences of phasing out nuclear energy in the presence of stringent climate policies. We integrate endogenous growth theory and technology-based activity analysis into a dynamic numerical general equilibrium model. Both market-based and policy-mandated nuclear phase-out are studied. Using data from the Swiss economy we find that the aggregate welfare loss of carbon policy is as large as 1.21% and that nuclear phase-out raises the loss to 1.58%. Nuclear phase-out has no significant effect on economic growth. Increased investment, induced innovation, and sectoral change are the reasons that the economic impact of nuclear phase-out and the trade-off between energy and climate policy are moderate, once the dynamics of an economy are taken into account. Optimal phase-out time for nuclear depends mainly on future cost escalation in the energy sector.
AcemogluD.AghionP.BursztynL.HemousD. (2012). “The environment and directed technical change,” American Economic Review102(1): 131-166. http://dx.doi.org/10.1257/aer.102.L131.
2.
AnderssonB.HadenE.: “Power production and the price of electricity: an analysis of a phase-out of Swedish nuclear power,” Energy Policy25(13): 1051-1064. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0301-4215(97)00085-2.
3.
BauerN.BrechaR.LudererG. (2012). “The economics of nuclear power and climate change mitigation policies,” PNAS 2012, 1201264109v1-201201264.
4.
BoccardN. (2014). “The cost of nuclear electricity: France after Fukushima,” Energy Policy66: 450-461. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2013.11.037.
5.
BoehringerC. (1998). “The synthesis of bottom-up and top-down in energy policy modeling,” Energy Economics20:233248. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0140-9883(97)00015-7.
6.
BoehringerC.HoffmannT.VoegeleS. (2002). “The cost of phasing out nuclear power: a quantitative assessment of alternative scenarios for Germany,” Energy Economics24: 469-90. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0140-9883(02)00005-1.
7.
BoehringerC.RutherfordT. (2008). “Combining bottom-up and top-down,” Energy Economics30: 574-596. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2007.03.004.
8.
BoehringerC.WickartM.MuellerA. (2001). “Economic impacts of a premature nuclear phase-out in Switzerland,” ZEW Discussion Papers 01-68, Center for European Economic Research, Mannheim.
9.
BosettiV.TavoniM.De CianE.SgobbiA. (2009). “The 2008 WITCH Model: New Model features and Baseline,” FEEM Working Paper, 2009.085.
10.
BretschgerL. (2013). “Climate Policy and Equity Principles: Fair Burden Sharing in a Dynamic World,” Environment and Development Economics18: 517-536. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S1355770X13000284.
11.
BretschgerL.RamerR.SchwarkF. (2011). “Growth effects of carbon policies: applying a fully dynamic CGE model with heterogeneous capital,” Resource and Energy Economics33(4): 963-980. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.reseneeco.2011.06.004.
12.
ComatyF.UlbigA.AnderssonG. (2014). “Swiss Energy Strategy 2050 and the Consequences for Electricity Grid Operation,” Swiss Academy of Technical Sciences, Zurich.
13.
DonnellyW. A.JohnsonK.TsigasM. E.IngersollD. L. (2004). “Revised Armington elasticities of substitution, USITC Model and the concordance for constructing consistent set for the GTAP model,” USITC Office of Economics Research Note No. 20001-A.
14.
ECOPLAN (2007). “Auswirkungen langfristig hoher Oelpreise. Einfluss eines hohen langfristigen Oel- preises auf Wirt-schaftswachstum,” Strukturwandel sowie Energieangebot und -nachfrage. Bern, Switzerland.
15.
ECOPLAN (2012). “Volkswirtschaftliche Auswirkungen der Energiestrategie 2050,” Study commissioned by the Swiss Federal Office of Energy, Bern, Switzerland.
16.
Energy Information Administration (EIA) of the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) (2012): “Levelized Cost of New Generation Resources in the Annual Energy Outlook 2012,” Released January23, 2012.
17.
GerlaghR.vanB. der Zwaan (2003). “Gross world product and consumption in a global warming model with endogenous technological change,” Resource and Energy Economics25: 35-57. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0928-7655(02)00020-9.
18.
GoulderL.SchneiderS. (1999). “Induced technological change and the attractiveness of CO2 abatement policies,” Resource and Energy Economics21: 211-253. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0928-7655(99)00004-4.
19.
GrublerA. (2010). “The costs of the French nuclear scale-up:a case of negative learning by doing,” Energy Policy38: 5175-5188. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2010.05.003.
20.
HarrisG.HeptonstallP.GrossR.HandleyD. (2013). “Cost estimates for nuclear power in the UK,” Energy Policy62: 431-442. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2013.07.116.
21.
HasanovF. (2007). “Housing, household portfolio, and intertemporal elasticity of substitution: evidence from the Consumer Expenditure Survey”, Macroeconomics 0510011, EconWPA.
22.
HosterF. (1998). “Impact of a nuclear phase-out in Germany: results from a simulation model of the European Power Systems,” Energy Policy26(6): 507-518. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0301-4215(98)00013-5.
23.
International Energy Agency (2011). “World Energy Outlook 2011,” OECD/IEA.
24.
International Atomic Energy Agency (2011). “Energy, Electricity and Nuclear Power Estimates for the Period up to 2050,” Reference Data Series No. 1 2011 Edition, IAEA.
25.
LanzB.RauschS. (2011). “General equilibrium, electricity generation technologies and the cost of carbon abatement: A structural sensitivity analysis,” Energy Economics33(5): 1035-1047. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2011.06.003.
26.
LovinsA.B. (1986). “The origins of the nuclear fiasco,” In: Byrne, J., Rich, D. (Eds.), The Politics of Energy Research and Development. Transaction Books, New Brunswick, USA, pp. 7-34.
27.
MarcucciA.TurtonH. (2012). “Swiss Energy Strategies under Global Climate Change and Nuclear Policy Uncertainty,” Swiss Journal of Economics and Statistics148(2): 317-345.
28.
MIT (2009). “Update of the MIT 2003 Future of Nuclear Power Study,” Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Massachusetts.
29.
NakataT. (2002): “Analysis of the impacts of nuclear phase-out on energy systems in Japan,” Energy27: 363-377. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0360-5442(01)00090-1.
30.
PantH.M. (2007). “GTEM: Global Trade and Environment Model,” ABARE Technical report.
31.
Peter M.Van NieuwkoopR.NathaniC.SutterD.KranerS. (2013): “Energy related disaggregation of the Swiss IOT 2008 and revision of energy-IOT 2001 AND 2005,” SFOE, EWG Publication 290843, Bern.
32.
RoseggerG. (1991). “Diffusion through interfirm cooperation, a case study,” In:Nakicenovic, N., Grubler, A. (Eds.), Diffusion of Technologies and Social Behavior. Springer Verlag, Berlin, New York. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-02700-4_11.
33.
NordhausW. (1995). “The Swedish dilemma - nuclear energy v. the environment,” Occasional Paper No 74, SNS (Center for Business and Policy Studies), Stockholm, Sweden.
34.
NystromI.WeneC. O. (1999). “Energy-economy linking in MARKAL-MACRO: interplay of nuclear, conservation and CO2 policies in Sweden,” International Journal of Environment and Pollution12: 323-342. http://dx.doi.org/10.1504/IJEP.1999.002299.
35.
OkagawaA.BanK. (2008). “Estimation of substitution elasticities for CGE models,” Graduate School of Economics and Osaka School of International Public Policy, Discussion Paper 08-16.
36.
PaltsevS.ReillyJ. M.JacobyH. D.EckausR. S.McFarlandJ.SarofimM.AsadoorianM.BabikerM. (2005). “The MIT Emissions Prediction and Policy Analysis (EPPA) Model: Version 4,” MIT Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change, Report No.125.
37.
RamerR. (2011): “Economic effects of energy policies: Applying a CGE model with endogenous growth,” DISS. ETH No. 19690.
38.
RomerP.M. (1990). “Endogenous technical change,” The Journal of Political Economy98(5): 71-102. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/261725.
39.
SchneiderM.FroggattA.ThomasS. (2011). “Nuclear power in a post-Fukushima world - 25 years after the Chernobyl accident,” Worldwatch institute, Washington, DC.
40.
Sue WingI. (2006). “The synthesis of bottom-up and top-down approaches to climate policy modeling: electric power technologies and the cost of limiting US CO2 emissions,” Energy Policy34: 3847-3869. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2005.08.027.
41.
Sue WingI.Daenzer K.Fisher-VandenK.CalvinK. (2011). “Phoenix Model Documentation,” Joint Global Change Research Institute, Maryland.
42.
Swiss Federal Office of Energy (2012). “Wasserkraftpotenzial der Schweiz: Abschaetzung des Ausbaupotenzials der Was-serkraftnutzung im Rahmen der Energiestrategie 2050,” Bern, Switzerland.
43.
Swiss Federal Office of Energy (2009). “Swiss Electricity Statistics,” Bern, Switzerland.
44.
Swiss Federal Office of Energy (2009): “Swiss Statistics of Renewable Energy,” Bern, Switzerland.
45.
van der WerfE.(2007). “Production functions for climate policy modeling: An empirical analysis,” Energy Economics30: 2964-2979. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016Zj.eneco.2008.05.008.
46.
van der ZwaanB.C.C.(2002). “Nuclear energy: tenfold expansion or phase-out?” Technological Forecasting and Social Change69: 287-307. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0040-1625(01)00127-5.
47.
WelschH. (1998). “Coal subsidization and nuclear phase-out in a general equilibrium model for Germany,” Energy Economics20: 203-222. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0140-9883(97)00018-2.
48.
WelschH.OchsenC. (2001). “Dismantling of nuclear power in Germany: sectoral and macroeconomic effects,” Energy Policy29: 279-289. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0301-4215(00)00125-7.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
