The Electricity Mix in the European Low-Carbon Transformation: Coal, Nuclear, and Renewables

  • Roman Mendelevitch
  • Claudia Kemfert
  • Pao-Yu Oei
  • Christian von Hirschhausen


The European Union has embarked on the transformation of its energy and electricity system to low-carbon energy sources, just like Germany and many other countries. This chapter analyzes the European strategy for low-carbon transformation in relation to specific aspects and features of the German energiewende. Due to the different preferences, objectives, and institutional settings of decision-making processes in Germany and Europe, lessons from the German context are not directly applicable to the European context and vice versa. While some lessons apply to both—such as the German experience with ambitious CO2 reduction targets—others do not, such as the potential role of coal and nuclear energy in the longer-term energy mix. The chapter begins with a brief survey of European energy (and later climate) policies going back to 1951, with the decisions to establish the European Community for Steel and Coal (ECSC) and subsequently Euratom in 1957. Section 10.2 covers the creation of the European internal market in the 1990s and its application to the energy sectors (mainly electricity and natural gas); it also covers more recent discussions, such as the energy and climate package to 2020, the 2030 targets, and the parallel discussion about longer-term orientations up to 2050. Sections 10.3, 10.4, and 10.5 analyze the three pillars of European transformation towards a low-carbon energy system: coal with CO2 sequestration, nuclear power, and renewables. In this context, we discuss a major difference between the European transformation to a low-carbon economy and the German energiewende: The two energy sources that Germany has banned from its energy mix, coal and nuclear, are still high on the European agenda. Meanwhile, the potential of renewables has been systematically underestimated in European scenario documents, due mainly to an overestimation of costs and an underestimation of the technical potential. Section 10.6 then compares two alternative scenarios for a low-carbon transformation in Europe: one is the EU Reference Scenario, which is based on the traditional triad of coal (with CCTS), nuclear, and renewables. In the other scenario, based on our own modelling work, neither CCTS nor nuclear are available at a reasonable cost and renewables carry the major burden of decarbonisation. Section 10.7 concludes.


Europe Low-carbon transformation Coal Nuclear energy Renewables European Commission of Steel and Coal (ECSC) EURATOM 


  1. BMWi, and BMU. 2010. Energy concept – for an environmentally sound, reliable and affordable energy supply. Berlin, Germany.Google Scholar
  2. Brunnengräber, Achim, Maria Rosaria Di Nucci, Ana Maria Isidoro Losada, Lutz Mez, and Miranda A. Schreurs. 2015. Nuclear waste governance: an international comparison. Berlin, Germany: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Burandt, Thorsten, Konstantin Löffler, and Karlo Hainsch. 2018. GENeSYS-MOD v2.0 – enhancing the global energy system model. DIW Data Documentation, no. 94 (July).Google Scholar
  4. Cantor, Robin, and James Hewlett. 1988. The economics of nuclear power: further evidence on learning, economies of scale, and regulatory effects. Resources and Energy 10 (4): 315–335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cox, Emily, Phil Johnstone, and Andy Stirling. 2016. Understanding the intensity of UK policy commitments to nuclear power. SPRU Working Paper Series 2016–16. Sussex, UK: University of Sussex.Google Scholar
  6. Creutzig, Felix, Peter Agoston, Jan Christoph Goldschmidt, Gunnar Luderer, Gregory Nemet, and Robert C. Pietzcker. 2017. The underestimated potential of solar energy to mitigate climate change. Nature Energy 2 (9): 17140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. D’haeseleer, William D. 2013. Synthesis on the economics of nuclear energy – study for the European Commission, DG Energy. Final Report. Leuven, Belgium: KU Leuven.Google Scholar
  8. Davis, Lucas W. 2012. Prospects for nuclear power. Journal of Economic Perspectives 26 (1): 49–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. EC. 2011a. Energy roadmap 2050: impact assessment, Part 1/2. SEC(2011) 1565/2. Commission Staff Working Paper. Brussels, Belgium: European Commission.Google Scholar
  10. ———. 2011b. Energy roadmap 2050: impact assessment, Part 2/2. SEC(2011) 1565. Commission Staff Working Paper. Brussels, Belgium: European Commission.Google Scholar
  11. ———. 2011c. A roadmap for moving to a competitive low carbon economy in 2050. COM 2011: 112.Google Scholar
  12. ———. 2011d. Energy roadmap 2050. Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions. Brussels, Belgium: European Commission.Google Scholar
  13. ———. 2013. EU Energy, Transport and GHG Emissions Trends to 2050: Reference Scenario 2013. Brussels, Belgium: European Commission.Google Scholar
  14. ———. 2014. A policy framework for climate and energy in the period from 2020 up to 2030. Commission staff working document impact assessment COM(2014) 015 final. Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions. Brussels, Belgium: European Commission.Google Scholar
  15. ———. 2016. EU Reference Scenario 2016: Energy, Transport and GHG Emissions – Trends to 2050. Brussels, Belgium: European Commission.Google Scholar
  16. ———. 2018. Publication of the total number of allowances in circulation in 2017 for the purposes of the market stability reserve under the EU Emissions Trading System Established by Directive 2003/87/EC. C(2018) 2801 final. Brussels, Belgium: European Commission.Google Scholar
  17. ECSC. 1951. Treaty establishing the European Coal and Steel Community, ECSC Treaty.Google Scholar
  18. EEC Treaty. 1957. Treaty establishing the European Economic Community, EEC Treaty. United Nations Treaty Series (UNTS).Google Scholar
  19. EURATOM Treaty. 1957. Treaty establishing the European Atomic Energy Community (EURATOM). United Nations Treaty Series (UNTS).Google Scholar
  20. GCCSI. 2014. The global status of CCS: 2014. Canberra, Australia: Global CCS Institute.Google Scholar
  21. ———. 2017. The Global Status of CCS: 2017. Canberra, Australia: Global CCS Institute.Google Scholar
  22. Grau, Thilo, Molin Huo, and Karsten Neuhoff. 2011. Survey of photovoltaic industry and policy in Germany and China. DIW Discussion Paper 1132. Berlin, Germany: DIW Berlin.Google Scholar
  23. Grubb, Michael, Jean-Charles Hourcade, and Karsten Neuhoff. 2014. Planetary Economics – Energy, Climate Change and the Three Domains of Sustainable Development. London, UK: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Grubler, Arnulf. 2010. The costs of the French nuclear scale-up: a case of negative learning by doing. Energy Policy 38 (9): 5174–5188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. HOC-ECCC. 2013. Building new nuclear: the challenges ahead – 6th report of session 2012–2013. House of Commons, Energy and Climate Change Committee. London, UK: House of Commons, Energy and Climate Change Committee.Google Scholar
  26. IEA. 2009. Energy balances of OECD countries 2009. IEA statistics. Paris, France: OECD.Google Scholar
  27. ———. 2015. World Energy Outlook Special Report 2015: Energy and Climate Change. Paris, France: OECD.Google Scholar
  28. IPCC. 2005. IPCC Special report on carbon dioxide capture and storage. Prepared by Working Group III of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  29. Joskow, Paul L., and John E. Parsons. 2012. The future of nuclear power after Fukushima. Economics of Energy & Environmental Policy 1 (2): 99–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Kemfert, Claudia, Christian von Hirschhausen, and Casimir Lorenz. 2014. European energy and climate policy requires ambitious targets for 2030. DIW Economic Bulletin 4 (8): 17–26.Google Scholar
  31. Kemfert, Claudia, Christian von Hirschhausen, Felix Reitz, Clemens Gerbaulet, and Casimir Lorenz. 2015. European climate targets achievable without nuclear power. DIW Economic Bulletin 5 (47): 619–625.Google Scholar
  32. Lévêque, François. 2014. The Economics and Uncertainties of Nuclear Power. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Löffler, Konstantin, Karlo Hainsch, Thorsten Burandt, Pao-Yu Oei, Claudia Kemfert, and Christian von Hirschhausen. 2017. Designing a model for the global energy system—GENeSYS-MOD: an application of the Open-Source Energy Modeling System (OSeMOSYS). Energies 10 (10): 1468.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Lovins, Amory B. 1976. Energy strategy: the road not taken? Foreign Affairs 6 (20): 9–19.Google Scholar
  35. Lovins, Amory B., and L. Hunter Lovins. 1980. Energy/War: Breaking the Nuclear Link. 1st ed. San Francisco, CA: Friends of the Earth.Google Scholar
  36. Meeus, Leonardo, Isabel Azevedo, Claudio Marcantonini, Jean-Michel Glachant, and Manfred Hafner. 2012. EU 2050 low-carbon energy future: visions and strategies. The Electricity Journal 25 (5): 57–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Metayer, Matthieu, Christian Breyer, and Hans-Josef Fell. 2015. The projections for the future and quality in the past of the world energy outlook for solar PV and other renewable energy technologies. In 31st European PV Solar Energy Conference and Exhibition, September 14–18, 2015. Hamburg, Germany.Google Scholar
  38. Mohn, Klaus. 2018. The gavity of status quo: a review of IEA’s world energy outlook. Economics of Energy & Environmental Policy 8: 2.Google Scholar
  39. Molly, J.P. 2012. Design of wind turbines and storage: a question of system optimisation. DEWI Magazin 40: 23–29.Google Scholar
  40. Neuhoff, Karsten, and Anne Schopp. 2013. Europäischer Emissionshandel: Durch Backloading Zeit für Strukturreform gewinnen. 11. DIW Wochenbericht. Berlin, Germany.Google Scholar
  41. Oei, Pao-Yu, Claudia Kemfert, Felix Reitz, and Christian von Hirschhausen. 2014. Braunkohleausstieg – Gestaltungsoptionen im Rahmen der Energiewende. 84. Politikberatung kompakt. Berlin, Germany: DIW.Google Scholar
  42. Pahle, Michael, Brigitte Knopf, Oliver Tietjen, and Eva Schmid. 2012. Kosten des Ausbaus erneuerbarer Energien: eine Metaanalyse von Szenarien. 23/2012. Umweltbundesamt. Dessau-Roßlau, Germany: Federal Environment Agency.Google Scholar
  43. Raack, Wolfgang, Paul Schorn, and Emil Schrödter. 1957. Jahrbuch des deutschen Bergbaus. Essen: Glückauf GmbH.Google Scholar
  44. Radkau, Joachim, and Lothar Hahn. 2013. Aufstieg und Fall der deutschen Atomwirtschaft. Munich, Germany: Oekom Verlag.Google Scholar
  45. Rai, Varun, David G. Victor, and Mark C. Thurber. 2010. Carbon capture and storage at scale: Lessons from the growth of analogous energy technologies. Energy Policy 38 (8): 4089–4098.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Rangel, Escobar Lina, and Francois Leveque. 2015. Revisiting the cost escalation curse of nuclear power: new lessons from the French experience. Economics of Energy & Environmental Policy 4 (2): 103–126.Google Scholar
  47. Reiner, David M. 2016. Learning through a portfolio of carbon capture and storage demonstration projects. Nature Energy 1 (1): 15011.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Rubin, Edward S., and Haibo Zhai. 2012. The cost of carbon capture and storage for natural gas combined cycle power plants. Environmental Science & Technology 46 (6): 3076–3084.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Schröder, Andreas, Friedrich Kunz, Jan Meiß, Roman Mendelevitch, and Christian von Hirschhausen. 2013. Current and prospective costs of electricity generation until 2050. DIW Data Documentation 68. Berlin.Google Scholar
  50. Schulze, William D., David S. Brookshire, and Todd Sandler. 1981. The social rate of discount for nuclear waste storage: economics or ethics? Natural Resources Journal 21 (4): 811–832.Google Scholar
  51. Thomas, S. 2010. The EPR in Crisis. London: University of Greenwich.Google Scholar
  52. Toke, David. 2012. Nuclear power: how competitive is it under electricity market reform? Presentation given at the HEEDnet Seminar presented at the HEEDnet Seminar, London, UK, July 17.Google Scholar
  53. von Hirschhausen, Christian. 2017. Nuclear power in the 21st Century – an assessment (Part I). DIW Discussion Paper 1700. Berlin, Germany.Google Scholar
  54. von Hirschhausen, Christian, and Felix Reitz. 2014. Nuclear power: phase-out model yet to address final disposal issue. DIW Economic Bulletin 4: 27–35.Google Scholar
  55. von Hirschhausen, Christian, Johannes Herold, and Pao-Yu Oei. 2012a. How a ‘low carbon’ innovation can fail – tales from a ‘lost decade’ for Carbon Capture, Transport, and Sequestration (CCTS). Economics of Energy & Environmental Policy 1 (2): 115–123.Google Scholar
  56. von Hirschhausen, Christian, Johannes Herold, Pao-Yu Oei, and Clemens Haftendorn. 2012b. CCTS-Technologie ein Fehlschlag: Umdenken in der Energiewende notwendig. 6. Berlin, Germany: DIW Wochenbericht.Google Scholar
  57. von Hirschhausen, Christian, Claudia Kemfert, Friedrich Kunz, and Roman Mendelevitch. 2013. European electricity generation post-2020: renewable energy not to be underestimated. DIW Economic Bulletin 3 (9): 16–28.Google Scholar
  58. Wealer, Ben, Simon Bauer, Nicolas Landry, Hannah Seiß, and Christian von Hirschhausen. 2018. Nuclear power reactors worldwide – technology developments, diffusion patterns, and country-by-country analysis of implementation (1951–2017). DIW Berlin, Data Documentation 93. Berlin, Germany: DIW Berlin, TU Berlin.Google Scholar
  59. Wirth, Harry. 2016. Aktuelle Fakten zur Photovoltaik in Deutschland. Freiburg, Germany: Fraunhofer ISE.Google Scholar
  60. Zerrahn, Alexander, and Wolf-Peter Schill. 2015. A greenfield model to evaluate long-run power storage requirements for high shares of renewables. DIW Discussion Paper 1457. Berlin, Germany: DIW.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Roman Mendelevitch
    • 1
    • 2
  • Claudia Kemfert
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
  • Pao-Yu Oei
    • 5
    • 6
    • 2
  • Christian von Hirschhausen
    • 7
    • 6
  1. 1.Resource Economics GroupHumboldt-Universität zu BerlinBerlinGermany
  2. 2.German Institute for Economics Research (DIW Berlin)BerlinGermany
  3. 3.Hertie School of GovernanceBerlinGermany
  4. 4.German Advisory Council on the Environment (SRU)BerlinGermany
  5. 5.Junior Research Group “CoalExit”BerlinGermany
  6. 6.TU BerlinBerlinGermany
  7. 7.DIW BerlinBerlinGermany

Personalised recommendations