Innovation Benefits from Nuclear Phase-out: Can they Compensate the Costs?
This paper investigates whether an inefficient allocation of abatement, due to constraints on the use of currently available low carbon mitigation options, can promote innovation in new technologies and eventually generate welfare gains. We focus on the case of nuclear power phase out, when accounting for endogenous technical change in energy efficiency and in low carbon technologies. The analysis uses the Integrated Assessment Model WITCH, which features multiple externalities due to both climate and innovation market failures. Our results show that phasing out nuclear power stimulates additional R&D investments and deployment of infant technologies with large learning potential. The innovation benefits which this would generate and that would not otherwise be captured due to intertemporal and international externalities almost completely offset the economic costs of phasing out nuclear power. The technological change benefit depends on the stringency of the climate policy and is distributed unevenly across countries.
|Date of creation:||Dec 2012|
|Date of revision:|
|Contact details of provider:|| Postal: Corso Magenta, 63 - 20123 Milan|
Web page: http://www.feem.it/
More information through EDIRC
References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Goulder, Lawrence H. & Mathai, Koshy, 2000. "Optimal CO2 Abatement in the Presence of Induced Technological Change," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 39(1), pages 1-38, January.
- Steinke, Florian & Wolfrum, Philipp & Hoffmann, Clemens, 2013. "Grid vs. storage in a 100% renewable Europe," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 50(C), pages 826-832.
- Otto, Vincent M. & Löschel, Andreas & Reilly, John, 2008. "Directed technical change and differentiation of climate policy," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 30(6), pages 2855-2878, November.
- Rosendahl, Knut Einar, 2004.
"Cost-effective environmental policy: implications of induced technological change,"
Journal of Environmental Economics and Management,
Elsevier, vol. 48(3), pages 1099-1121, November.
- Knut Einar Rosendahl, 2002. "Cost-effective environmental policy: Implications of induced technological change," Discussion Papers 314, Statistics Norway, Research Department.
- R. G. Lipsey & Kelvin Lancaster, 1956. "The General Theory of Second Best," Review of Economic Studies, Oxford University Press, vol. 24(1), pages 11-32.
- Romer, Paul M, 1986.
"Increasing Returns and Long-run Growth,"
Journal of Political Economy,
University of Chicago Press, vol. 94(5), pages 1002-37, October.
- Badcock, Jeremy & Lenzen, Manfred, 2010. "Subsidies for electricity-generating technologies: A review," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(9), pages 5038-5047, September.
- Reyer Gerlagh & Snorre Kverndokk & Knut Rosendahl, 2009.
"Optimal Timing of Climate Change Policy: Interaction Between Carbon Taxes and Innovation Externalities,"
Environmental & Resource Economics,
European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 43(3), pages 369-390, July.
- Gerlagh, R. & Kverndokk, S. & Rosendahl, K.E., 2009. "Optimal timing of climate change policy : Interaction between carbon taxes and innovation externalities," Other publications TiSEM 4312dde8-f323-4ee2-9764-a, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
- Valentina Bosetti & Carlo Carraro & Marzio Galeotti & Emanuele Massetti & Massimo Tavoni, 2006. "WITCH. A World Induced Technical Change Hybrid Model," Working Papers 2006_46, Department of Economics, University of Venice "Ca' Foscari".
- Massimo Tavoni & Enrica Cian & Gunnar Luderer & Jan Steckel & Henri Waisman, 2012. "The value of technology and of its evolution towards a low carbon economy," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 114(1), pages 39-57, September.
- Kahouli-Brahmi, Sondes, 2008. "Technological learning in energy-environment-economy modelling: A survey," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(1), pages 138-162, January.
- De Cian, Enrica & Tavoni, Massimo, 2012. "Do technology externalities justify restrictions on emission permit trading?," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 34(4), pages 624-646.
- Bramoulle, Yann & Olson, Lars J., 2005. "Allocation of pollution abatement under learning by doing," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 89(9-10), pages 1935-1960, September.
- Goulder, Lawrence H. & Schneider, Stephen H., 1999. "Induced technological change and the attractiveness of CO2 abatement policies," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 21(3-4), pages 211-253, August.
- Enrica Cian & Valentina Bosetti & Massimo Tavoni, 2012. "Technology innovation and diffusion in “less than ideal” climate policies: An assessment with the WITCH model," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 114(1), pages 121-143, September.
- Hoogwijk, Monique & van Vuuren, Detlef & de Vries, Bert & Turkenburg, Wim, 2007. "Exploring the impact on cost and electricity production of high penetration levels of intermittent electricity in OECD Europe and the USA, results for wind energy," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 32(8), pages 1381-1402.
- Delucchi, Mark A. & Jacobson, Mark Z., 2011. "Providing all global energy with wind, water, and solar power, Part II: Reliability, system and transmission costs, and policies," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(3), pages 1170-1190, March.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:fem:femwpa:2012.96. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (barbara racah)
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.