Climatic Change

, Volume 123, Issue 3–4, pp 637–650 | Cite as

Innovation benefits from nuclear phase-out: can they compensate the costs?

  • Enrica De Cian
  • Samuel Carrara
  • Massimo Tavoni


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 have a positive impact on welfare. We focus on the case of a nuclear power phase-out and endogenous technical change in energy efficiency and alternative low carbon technologies. The research is inspired by the re-thinking about nuclear power deployment which took place in some countries, especially in Western Europe, after the Fukushima accident in March 2011. The analysis uses an Integrated Assessment Model, WITCH, which features multiple externalities related to greenhouse gas emissions and innovation market failures. Our results show that phasing out nuclear power stimulates R&D investments and deployment of technologies with large learning potential. The resulting technology benefits that would not otherwise occur due to intertemporal and international externalities almost completely offset the economic costs of foregoing nuclear power. The extent of technology benefits depends on the stringency of the climate policy and is distributed unevenly across countries.


Abatement Cost Carbon Price Marginal Abatement Cost Breakthrough Technology Integrate Assessment Model 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Supplementary material

10584_2013_870_MOESM1_ESM.docx (536 kb)
ESM 1 (DOCX 535 kb)


  1. Arrow KJ (1962) The economic implications of learning by doing. Rev Econ Stud 29(3):155–173CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Badcock J, Lenzen M (2010) Subsidies for electricity-generating technologies: a review. Energy Policy 38(2010):5038–5047CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bosetti V, Carraro C, Galeotti M, Massetti E, Tavoni M (2006) WITCH: a world induced technical change hybrid model. Energy J :13–38. doi: 10.2139/ssrn.948382
  4. Bosetti V, De Cian E, Sgobbi A, Tavoni M (2009) The 2008 WITCH model: new model features and baseline. Working Papers 2009.85, Fondazione Eni Enrico MatteiGoogle Scholar
  5. Bramoullé Y, Olson LJ (2005) Allocation of pollution abatement under learning by doing. J Publ Econ 89(9):1935–1960CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. De Cian E, Tavoni M (2012) Do technology externalities justify restrictions on emission permit trading? Resour Energy Econ 34(2012):624–646CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. De Cian E, Bosetti V, Tavoni M (2012) Technology innovation and diffusion in less than ideal climate policies. An assessment with the WITCH model. Clim Change 114(1):121–143CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Delucchi MA, Jacobson MZ (2011a) Providing all global energy with wind, water, and solar power, part I: technologies, energy resources, quantities and areas of infrastructure, and materials. Energy Policy 39(2011):1154–1169Google Scholar
  9. Delucchi MA, Jacobson MZ (2011b) Providing all global energy with wind, water, and solar power, part II: reliability, system and transmission costs, and policies. Energy Policy 39(2011):1170–1190CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Gerlagh R, Kverndokk S, Rosendahl K (2009) Optimal timing of climate change policy: interaction between carbon taxes and innovation externalities. Environ Resour Econ 43(3):369–390Google Scholar
  11. Golombek R, Hoel M (2006) Second-best climate agreements and technology policy. Adv Econ Anal Policy 6(1). Available at:
  12. Goulder LH, Mathai K (2000) Optimal CO2 abatement in the presence of induced technological change. J Environ Econ Manag 39:1–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Goulder LH, Schneider SH (1999) Induced technological change and the attractiveness of CO2 abatement policies. Resour Energy Econ 21(3–4):211–253CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hoogwijk M, van Vuuren D, de Vries B, Turkenburg W (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 32(2007):1381–1402CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Kahouli-Brahmi S (2008) Technological learning in energy–environment–economy modelling: a survey. Energy Policy 36(2008):138–162CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kriegler E, Weyant J, Blanford G, Clarke L, Tavoni M, Krey V, Riahi K, Fawcett A, Richels R, Edmonds J (2013) Overview of the EMF 27 study on energy system transition pathways under alternative climate policy regimes. Climatic Change, this issueGoogle Scholar
  17. Lipsey RG, Lancaster L (1956) The general theory of second best. Rev Econ Stud 24(1):11–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Otto VM, Löschel A, Reilly J (2008) Directed technical change and differentiation of climate policy. Energy Econ 30(2008):2855–2878CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Rogner HH (2013) World outlook for nuclear power. Energy Strateg Rev 1(2013):291–295CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Romer PM (1986) Increasing returns and long-run growth. J Politic Econ 94:1002–1037CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Rosendahl KE (2004) Cost-effective environmental policy: implications of induced technological change. J Environ Econ Manag 48(3):1099–1121CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Steinke F, Wolfrum P, Hoffmann C (2013) Grid vs. Storage in a 100% renewable Europe. Renew Energy 50(2013):826–832CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Sullivan P, Krey V, Riahi K (2013) Impacts of considering electric sector variability and reliability in the MESSAGE model. Energy Strateg Rev 1(2013):157–163CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Tavoni M, van der Zwaan B (2009) Nuclear versus Coal plus CCS: a comparison of two competitive base-load climate control options, Working Papers 2009.100, Fondazione Eni Enrico MatteiGoogle Scholar
  25. Tavoni M, De Cian E, Luderer G, Steckel J, Waisman H (2012) The value of technology and of its evolution towards a low carbon economy. Clim Change 114(1):39–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Trainer T (2012) A critique of Jacobson and Delucchi’s proposals for a world renewable energy supply. Energy Policy 44:476–481CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Enrica De Cian
    • 1
  • Samuel Carrara
    • 1
  • Massimo Tavoni
    • 1
  1. 1.Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei (FEEM) and Euro-Mediterranean Center on Climate Change (CMCC)MilanItaly

Personalised recommendations