Climate action is a human right – that has been clear since Tuesday at the latest. The European Court of Human Rights ruling is likely to give an “enormous boost” to climate lawsuits around the world, Alexandra Endres reports. And in India, the Supreme Court recently argued similarly.
We are also taking a closer look elsewhere: Economist Veronika Grimm, for example, expects that even with 100 percent renewables, electricity will not become much cheaper. Malte Kreutzfeldt has investigated why these predictions are debatable. And while countries such as France and the International Atomic Energy Agency dream of a “renaissance of nuclear power” – presumably to raise funds for this – we also provide background information in this case that casts doubt on such a revival.
The climate action ruling by the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) is likely to give climate lawsuits an “enormous boost” worldwide – “in Europe and far beyond, from South Korea to Australia, Canada or Brazil.” At least that is what the lawyers of the Climate Litigation Network (CLN) are counting on.
On Tuesday, the ECtHR ruled that there is a human right to climate action and that countries are obliged to safeguard this right. A state obligation to ensure sufficient climate action can be derived from this. Moreover, the ECtHR’s ruling allows associations to assert the human right to climate action in court. This could play a particular role in German case law, where only individuals have been able to file lawsuits to assert their fundamental rights.
In a written reaction from CLN to the ruling, representatives of lawsuits from Sweden, the Czech Republic, Italy, Canada and South Korea announced their intention to incorporate the ECHR’s arguments into their current cases. “We expect Czech courts to rule in compliance with the reasoning of the European Court,” said David Chytil from Czech Climate Litigation, for example. Although the Constitutional Court of Korea is not formally bound by the ECtHR’s case law, the reasoning may also be taken up there. “The decision sets an important milestone,” announced Sejong Youn, who is representing the case there as a lawyer. The first hearing in the case is scheduled for April 23.
CLN also attributes political significance to the ruling: When European governments have to publish their climate plans for the period up to 2030 this June, all eyes will be on them “to step up, act in line with science and protect our human rights in the climate crisis.”
In detail, the Court states that individuals can claim “effective protection by the state authorities from the serious adverse effects of climate change on lives, health, well-being and quality of life,” provided they are affected by the impacts of climate change.
Unlike the German Federal Constitutional Court (BVerfG), the ECtHR directly strengthens the obligation to provide protection argument in its ruling. In its landmark 2021 ruling, the BVerfG had also affirmed a fundamental duty of protection by the state, but then justified the state’s obligation to protect the climate with the civil liberties of future generations. Although the ECtHR gives countries a broad margin of appreciation in shaping protection, they must comply with certain limits, such as setting emission reduction targets, issuing suitable regulations to achieve them and ensuring that their implementation is monitored. This could also provide momentum for ongoing climate lawsuits in Germany – and pave the way for new lawsuits.
For example, Remo Klinger, who is representing a German human rights complaint before the ECtHR, hopes for positive effects on his own case.
Felix Ekardt, Director of the Research Center Sustainability and Climate Policy in Leipzig, has announced via email that he will shortly be taking up the ECtHR ruling “with two additional complaints.” As a lawyer, Ekardt had developed and represented one of the German constitutional complaints that led to the Federal Constitutional Court’s climate ruling in 2021. Eckardt writes that the ECtHR goes further than the highest German court at the time, “in particular by clearly naming 1.5 degrees as the human rights limit for climate change.” He believes this also increases the political pressure in Germany for more climate action, as the German greenhouse gas budget for 1.5 degrees has already been exhausted according to IPCC calculations, meaning that the German government and Bundestag “must now step up their efforts massively.”
Environmental Action Germany (DUH) still examines the ECtHR ruling. Firstly, it has “political implications for the debate on the amendment of the German Climate Change Act,” says Federal Executive Director Sascha Müller-Kraenner. “In view of this highly interesting human rights justification for ambitious climate action, we should carefully consider whether the Climate Change Act should really be watered down or whether this is not a signal in the other direction.”
Alongside the complaint before the ECtHR, which Remo Klinger is representing, DUH supports other climate lawsuits at various levels of the German legal system. If the sector targets are actually removed from the Climate Change Act, as the German government currently intends, “this will, of course, end up before the Federal Constitutional Court again,” says Müller-Kraenner. He sees himself strengthened by the ECtHR ruling. Environmental lawyer Roda Verheyen, who was involved in the proceedings before the ECtHR representing the plaintiffs, also expects new lawsuits in Germany, “especially if the Climate Change Act is amended.”
Christian Calliess, environmental and European law expert at the FU Berlin, comments on the European ruling: “The ECtHR is taking a convincing approach. Climate plaintiffs could now argue that the German state’s duty to protect fundamental rights must be examined more strictly in court with regard to the legislative protection concept.”
However, Calliess does not expect the Federal Constitutional Court to deviate from its previous case law and also place greater emphasis on the obligation to protect. “The Federal Constitutional Court will not correct its approach in its climate decision, which comes to the same conclusion via the so-called intertemporal safeguarding of freedom. But the administrative courts could examine the duties to protect against the convincing standard of the ECtHR and thus provide new impetus.”
For Calliess, the call for the ECtHR to allow class actions is “revolutionary.” It could force the European Court of Justice to allow class actions in the future. “Effective legal protection at the ECJ could be opened up in this respect. The debate on this will come.”
In Germany, only individuals have so far been entitled to file an action for their fundamental rights before the Federal Constitutional Court – unlike in administrative jurisdiction, where environmental class actions are established. The ECtHR ruling could also trigger a debate on this, says Calliess. In any case, DUH is already considering having a court examine whether it is now also entitled to sue as an association in matters of fundamental rights.
It is an important question for the energy transition and Germany as a business location: How will electricity generation costs develop during the transition to a climate-neutral system? So far, most scenarios assume that they will be lower than today because wind and solar power plants will cover an increasing proportion of demand and their production costs will continue to fall.
A new study by Veronika Grimm, a professor from Nuremberg, economist, and newly appointed member of the Supervisory Board of Siemens Energy, has concluded that the average cost of electricity production in 2040 will be roughly the same as in 2021. However, one core assumption of the study seems questionable: Grimm assumes that demand will not become more flexible in the future. This contradicts the assumptions of many other forecasts.
The study, authored by Grimm and her colleagues Leon Oechsle and Gregor Zöttl, initially confirms that the generation costs of electricity from wind and solar power plants will continue to fall over the next 15 years: In 2021, a kilowatt-hour from onshore wind power will cost 5.5 cents and 4.1 cents from ground-mounted PV. In 2040, wind energy will only cost 4.7 cents (in real prices), and PV will only cost 2.6 cents per kilowatt-hour.
However, they argue that these electricity generation costs for wind and solar are “not a good indicator” of the actual electricity costs. This is because batteries and hydrogen power plants are required to cover demand at all times despite the fluctuating production of wind and solar power plants. If their costs are taken into account, the electricity price in 2040 will be around 7.8 cents per kilowatt-hour – roughly the same level as in 2021. “The costs of covering the supply gaps remain very high,” says Grimm. “That’s why there are no signs that electricity costs will fall significantly.”
However, it is doubtful whether this statement is actually true. As Grimm states, the calculations assume that the electricity demand in 2040 will not adjust at all to the fluctuating supply – and the associated significant differences in the electricity price at different times. Calculations for both 2021 and 2040 are based, on the one hand, on constant electricity consumption and, on the other, on a typical load profile from 2021, which shows fluctuations depending on the time of day and day of the week, but is unrelated to the electricity available.
However, average electricity costs would actually fall significantly if more electricity were consumed at times of oversupply of renewable electricity when prices are low – and correspondingly less at times when expensive hydrogen power plants are needed. The study’s authors also acknowledge this. They justify their assumption that demand will nevertheless remain constant by stating that making demand more flexible is also “associated with costs,” for example, due to longer downtimes in the industrial sector. That is why flexibilization will “only happen to a limited extent.”
This assumption contradicts that of other scenarios, which attribute flexibilization a decisive role in tomorrow’s electricity system. “Industrial process heat, for example, has low flexibilization costs and high cost-saving potential,” wrote the think tank Agora Energiewende in its 2023 annual review. The long-term scenarios of the Ariadne project, which forms the basis for the German government’s forecasts, also see immense potential for load shifting.
Energy economist Lion Hirth also wrote last year in a brief report on variable electricity tariffs: “Activating load-side decentralized flexibility is essential for the success of the energy transition.” The potential will grow particularly strongly in the future due to the expansion of heat pumps, home storage systems and electric cars. For 2045, Hirth predicts: “The cumulative output of decentralized flexibility not only exceeds the available power plant output many times over, but also exceeds the installed output of large-scale flexibility options such as electrolyzers, large batteries and power-to-heat systems in district heating networks.”
When contacted by Table.Briefings, Grimm explained that even if load shifts were taken into account, large backup capacities would still be required for longer dark doldrums, meaning that their fixed costs would remain unchanged. While this is true, the Fraunhofer Institute, for example, has shown that the vast majority of the costs for electricity from gas-fired power plants stem from fuel costs, i.e., gas or, in the future, hydrogen. If hydrogen power plants had to produce significantly less electricity than Grimm assumed due to more flexible demand, the average electricity costs would also be considerably lower.
Unfortunately, the study does not reveal how significant this effect of a specific shift would be, as it does not specify the costs or full load hours of backup power plants. So the only insight that remains is this: Even under the unlikely assumption that electricity demand will remain completely inflexible in the future despite significant price fluctuations, the costs for completely climate-neutral electricity production (excluding the grid fees not taken into account in the study) would hardly be higher in 2040 than they are today.
The global contribution of nuclear energy to tackling the climate crisis once again sparked a fierce debate in international bodies. On the one side, countries like France and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) currently advocate nuclear technology as supposedly indispensable in the fight against climate change. On the other side, other countries and experts point out that the importance of nuclear fission technology remains low compared to renewable energies. With their current demands, the proponents are primarily aiming for one thing: Finding new ways of financing their nuclear programs through public banks.
In recent months, the international nuclear community has attracted considerable political attention:
The extent to which countries’ nuclear programs can contribute to reducing their carbon emissions and achieving a net-zero target by 2050 has long been disputed. Critics of nuclear strategies mainly criticize the high costs, the slow implementation of expansion programs, safety risks, and competition with the expansion of renewables.
The 6th report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) lists nuclear power among the “multiple energy supply options (…) to reduce emissions over the next decade.” Among these, hydropower and nuclear fission are “already established technologies.” However, the report primarily emphasizes the rapid growth, expansion opportunities and cost degression of renewables. “In contrast, the adoption of nuclear energy and CO2 capture and storage (CCS) in the electricity sector has been slower than the growth rates anticipated in [climate] stabilization scenarios,” the report states.
The report also shows that it is considerably cheaper to expand renewables than to promote nuclear power to reduce CO2 emissions. Overall, at least four billion tons of CO2 can be avoided at such low cost by generating electricity from wind and solar energy that these investments bring in money instead of incurring costs. According to the IPCC scenarios, nuclear power only saves around 100 million tons.
Andreas Löschel, Professor of Resource Economics at the University of Bochum and one of the lead authors of the energy chapter in the IPCC report, told Table.Briefings: “You can’t see a renaissance of nuclear power from the IPCC report.” Nuclear power’s current share of global electricity generation of around nine percent will remain roughly the same due to the massive increase in electricity demand, even if capacities are doubled, as predicted by the IAEA. “Nuclear power will continue to play its role. But it is not a game changer on the way to net zero by 2050.”
The authors of the latest “World Nuclear Industry Status Report” (WNISR) believe that the “promise” made at COP28 to triple nuclear capacity by 2050 is unrealistic. “An empty promise – that is simply not technically possible,” WNISR Coordinator Mycle Schneider told Table.Briefings. “Just to maintain today’s level, ten new nuclear power plants would have to be connected to the grid annually until 2050.” In the last 20 years, there have been five per year. Even doubling this rate would be a major challenge because of the lack of financial resources, companies, and construction capacities for such a short period. Even for the increase envisaged in the IAEA’s scenario, a total of 500 gigawatts would have to be added, i.e., 22 gigawatts every year from now on. “The reality,” says Schneider: “In 2023, five nuclear power plants were connected to the grid and five were shut down; capacity balance minus 1 GW.”
The latest issue of the renowned WNISR shows an industry fighting against decline. Its analysis for 2023, based on over 2,500 public sources, sees the biggest decline in electricity production in a decade to just 9.2 percent of the electricity supply in 2022. As of April 1, 2024, 415 reactors with a total of 365 gigawatts are connected to the grid, 23 fewer than at the technology’s peak in 2002. From 2004 to 2023, the WNISR experts counted 102 new nuclear power plants and 104 decommissioned reactors. China alone connected 49 nuclear power plants to the grid and decommissioned none, meaning that in the rest of the world, 51 more plants were decommissioned than new ones were added. “The overall picture is that China is building at home and Russia is building for export,” says Schneider. “Not much else is happening, and nothing at all since 2020.”
The data also shows that small SMR reactors are still not the solution. According to WNISR, neither a design nor a pilot project has been approved in the West. The leading company for SMRs, NuScale in the United States, shut down in November 2023 due to high costs. In February 2024, a research report by the German Federal Office for the Safety of Nuclear Waste Management examined the so-called “new reactor concepts,” which are supposed to be smaller and more efficient and produce less waste. The conclusion: “Despite years of development in some cases, the concepts are either not yet technologically mature or have not become established for commercial or safety reasons.”
Neither at the nuclear declaration at COP28 nor at the Brussels Nuclear Summit were the two most important nuclear countries represented: China and Russia. Both have a state-owned nuclear industry, which gives them a financial and political advantage over other countries. Other countries also subsidize nuclear power with price guarantees, and the state carries considerable liabilities, such as insurance and potential damage. The Fukushima disaster alone is estimated to have caused damages of 210 billion US dollars. In France, for example, the energy company EDF was nationalized again due to a debt burden of 54 billion euros.
The result: Nuclear representatives demand money from public budgets for a nuclear renaissance. The Brussels Nuclear Summit calls for access to “private and public financing” and EU financial instruments such as the EIB and the Innovation Fund. Furthermore, “we encourage all financial institutions to classify nuclear power with all other zero- or low-emission energy sources,” the summit’s declaration stated.
France took the first step in the EU last year: Nuclear power is now recognized as a “green technology” in the EU taxonomy. This is intended to ensure access to investment funds, for example. Austria has filed a complaint with the European Court of Justice against the classification of nuclear and gas as sustainable forms of energy in the taxonomy.
In a landmark decision, India’s Supreme Court has ruled that the climate crisis impairs the constitutional right to life. It said India must promote renewables to protect citizens from the adverse effects of climate change. “Without a clean environment which is stable and unimpacted by the vagaries of climate change, the right to life is not fully realized,” the decision of the court said. In particular, people’s right to health is being curtailed. The ruling was handed down on March 21, but was only made public on April 6.
While India has several environmental laws that impact climate change mitigation, there is no overarching climate change law. Recognizing the right to be free from the adverse effects of climate change could pave the way for more lawsuits and significantly impact future legislation in India.
The decision was made in a case that is not directly related to the right to life: Environmental activist M. K. Ranjitsinh and others had filed a lawsuit to protect the highly endangered Hindu bustard and flag bustard. Both bird species are endangered due to pollution, climate change, predators, and invasive species. Power lines for wind farms have also led to a decline in the populations. The court’s ruling then focused on climate action.
The court also stated that it was “not a binary choice between conservation and development but rather a dynamic interplay between protecting a critically endangered species and addressing the pressing global challenge of climate change.” The power lines must, therefore, be laid underground. In addition, a panel of experts will weigh up the trade-offs between wildlife conservation and India’s sustainable development goals. An initial report is expected by the end of July. India’s energy comes largely from fossil fuels, especially coal. The country reported record coal production as recently as the end of March. kul
Lena Schilling’s path is special in many ways: From activism to party politics, at the age of 23, she became a top candidate for the European elections – skipping the regional and national political levels in the process. In June, she heads the list of the Austrian Green Party for the European elections. It is her first party political position, having previously gained national prominence through her work for Fridays for Future.
Lena Schilling says that her mother had a particular political influence on her. The trained social worker took over the management of a refugee shelter when Schilling was 15 years old. Schilling says she was there almost every day. In her interactions with the refugees, her mother “showed her early on what justice means and gave her an idea of what is important for good coexistence.”
In the following years, Schilling focused her political efforts on climate activism. “As if by chance,” she became involved in Austria’s Fridays for Future movement as a student at the end of 2018, when she sat at a table with the initiators, who were still looking for supporters. She made her first public appearance during the global climate strike in March 2019. She has not left the media spotlight since and became the figurehead of Austrian climate activism.
She founded a youth council to give young people a voice outside the climate protests. “A movement like this is extremely cool, but not everyone can take to the streets every Friday,” says Schilling, explaining her decision. Lena Schilling then drew attention by occupying the controversial Lobau Tunnel in Vienna. “Without a concrete plan,” she sat on an excavator with a poster and announced the occupation, which she “then went through with.” What followed was a months-long struggle. In the end, the decision was made: The plans to build the tunnel were scrapped. Leonore Gewessler, the Green Party Minister for Climate Action, announced the decision.
This time can also be seen as Schilling’s first rapprochement with the Green Party. The question remains as to why Schilling is now running for the party, of which she said in 2023 that “the people who are active in Fridays for Future would never join the Greens.” The 23-year-old has a pragmatic view on this: “Even during my time with Fridays for Future, I realized that I’m prepared to pull out all the stops to achieve the goals,” she says.
She asked herself several times whether she was ready for such a position of responsibility. In the end, the decision was positive, partly because the EU level gave her the opportunity to tackle climate policy issues across national borders. At the same time, she rejected advances from the Social Democratic Party (SPÖ) and the Communist Party of Austria (KPÖ). “The only party that credibly stands for climate action is the Greens,” said Schilling.
In conversation, it quickly becomes clear that she also wants to place a clear focus on climate policy in Parliament. She attaches particular importance to mobility. As a first step, she wants to fight for the expansion and standardization of European rail transport. The climate ticket in Austria as an annual pass for public transport could serve as a model. At the same time, the EU institutions should soon start restricting private jets through bans or higher taxes. Schilling says that this is “the only criticism of consumption that you will ever hear from me,” but the question of who is largely responsible for climate emissions urgently needs to be asked.
But how does Lena Schilling plan to prove her expertise in other areas such as security or the economy – also to avoid losing to her male and, in some cases, much more experienced rivals in the election campaign? She relies on joint efforts. She does not claim to have the right gut feeling and to know everything about every issue. “The good thing is that there are experts for all issues who have been dealing with these topics for decades,” says Schilling. She also wants to incorporate social discourse into her policy to a particular extent. Specifically, this means: “What is communicated on the street should also be heard in parliament.”
In general, she hopes to be able to set different priorities than her competitors – especially because of her gender and age. “I want to reach different people than most top candidates,” she says. She believes it is entirely possible that her lack of experience could be used against her. “We’re in an election campaign, of course there are people there who are waiting for every mistake you make.” She recently made one of these when she could not clearly identify Norway as a non-EU member in an interview. Outwardly, she reacts confidently to the negative reactions. For a 23-year-old, that is not a matter of course. Jasper Bennink
Climate action is a human right – that has been clear since Tuesday at the latest. The European Court of Human Rights ruling is likely to give an “enormous boost” to climate lawsuits around the world, Alexandra Endres reports. And in India, the Supreme Court recently argued similarly.
We are also taking a closer look elsewhere: Economist Veronika Grimm, for example, expects that even with 100 percent renewables, electricity will not become much cheaper. Malte Kreutzfeldt has investigated why these predictions are debatable. And while countries such as France and the International Atomic Energy Agency dream of a “renaissance of nuclear power” – presumably to raise funds for this – we also provide background information in this case that casts doubt on such a revival.
The climate action ruling by the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) is likely to give climate lawsuits an “enormous boost” worldwide – “in Europe and far beyond, from South Korea to Australia, Canada or Brazil.” At least that is what the lawyers of the Climate Litigation Network (CLN) are counting on.
On Tuesday, the ECtHR ruled that there is a human right to climate action and that countries are obliged to safeguard this right. A state obligation to ensure sufficient climate action can be derived from this. Moreover, the ECtHR’s ruling allows associations to assert the human right to climate action in court. This could play a particular role in German case law, where only individuals have been able to file lawsuits to assert their fundamental rights.
In a written reaction from CLN to the ruling, representatives of lawsuits from Sweden, the Czech Republic, Italy, Canada and South Korea announced their intention to incorporate the ECHR’s arguments into their current cases. “We expect Czech courts to rule in compliance with the reasoning of the European Court,” said David Chytil from Czech Climate Litigation, for example. Although the Constitutional Court of Korea is not formally bound by the ECtHR’s case law, the reasoning may also be taken up there. “The decision sets an important milestone,” announced Sejong Youn, who is representing the case there as a lawyer. The first hearing in the case is scheduled for April 23.
CLN also attributes political significance to the ruling: When European governments have to publish their climate plans for the period up to 2030 this June, all eyes will be on them “to step up, act in line with science and protect our human rights in the climate crisis.”
In detail, the Court states that individuals can claim “effective protection by the state authorities from the serious adverse effects of climate change on lives, health, well-being and quality of life,” provided they are affected by the impacts of climate change.
Unlike the German Federal Constitutional Court (BVerfG), the ECtHR directly strengthens the obligation to provide protection argument in its ruling. In its landmark 2021 ruling, the BVerfG had also affirmed a fundamental duty of protection by the state, but then justified the state’s obligation to protect the climate with the civil liberties of future generations. Although the ECtHR gives countries a broad margin of appreciation in shaping protection, they must comply with certain limits, such as setting emission reduction targets, issuing suitable regulations to achieve them and ensuring that their implementation is monitored. This could also provide momentum for ongoing climate lawsuits in Germany – and pave the way for new lawsuits.
For example, Remo Klinger, who is representing a German human rights complaint before the ECtHR, hopes for positive effects on his own case.
Felix Ekardt, Director of the Research Center Sustainability and Climate Policy in Leipzig, has announced via email that he will shortly be taking up the ECtHR ruling “with two additional complaints.” As a lawyer, Ekardt had developed and represented one of the German constitutional complaints that led to the Federal Constitutional Court’s climate ruling in 2021. Eckardt writes that the ECtHR goes further than the highest German court at the time, “in particular by clearly naming 1.5 degrees as the human rights limit for climate change.” He believes this also increases the political pressure in Germany for more climate action, as the German greenhouse gas budget for 1.5 degrees has already been exhausted according to IPCC calculations, meaning that the German government and Bundestag “must now step up their efforts massively.”
Environmental Action Germany (DUH) still examines the ECtHR ruling. Firstly, it has “political implications for the debate on the amendment of the German Climate Change Act,” says Federal Executive Director Sascha Müller-Kraenner. “In view of this highly interesting human rights justification for ambitious climate action, we should carefully consider whether the Climate Change Act should really be watered down or whether this is not a signal in the other direction.”
Alongside the complaint before the ECtHR, which Remo Klinger is representing, DUH supports other climate lawsuits at various levels of the German legal system. If the sector targets are actually removed from the Climate Change Act, as the German government currently intends, “this will, of course, end up before the Federal Constitutional Court again,” says Müller-Kraenner. He sees himself strengthened by the ECtHR ruling. Environmental lawyer Roda Verheyen, who was involved in the proceedings before the ECtHR representing the plaintiffs, also expects new lawsuits in Germany, “especially if the Climate Change Act is amended.”
Christian Calliess, environmental and European law expert at the FU Berlin, comments on the European ruling: “The ECtHR is taking a convincing approach. Climate plaintiffs could now argue that the German state’s duty to protect fundamental rights must be examined more strictly in court with regard to the legislative protection concept.”
However, Calliess does not expect the Federal Constitutional Court to deviate from its previous case law and also place greater emphasis on the obligation to protect. “The Federal Constitutional Court will not correct its approach in its climate decision, which comes to the same conclusion via the so-called intertemporal safeguarding of freedom. But the administrative courts could examine the duties to protect against the convincing standard of the ECtHR and thus provide new impetus.”
For Calliess, the call for the ECtHR to allow class actions is “revolutionary.” It could force the European Court of Justice to allow class actions in the future. “Effective legal protection at the ECJ could be opened up in this respect. The debate on this will come.”
In Germany, only individuals have so far been entitled to file an action for their fundamental rights before the Federal Constitutional Court – unlike in administrative jurisdiction, where environmental class actions are established. The ECtHR ruling could also trigger a debate on this, says Calliess. In any case, DUH is already considering having a court examine whether it is now also entitled to sue as an association in matters of fundamental rights.
It is an important question for the energy transition and Germany as a business location: How will electricity generation costs develop during the transition to a climate-neutral system? So far, most scenarios assume that they will be lower than today because wind and solar power plants will cover an increasing proportion of demand and their production costs will continue to fall.
A new study by Veronika Grimm, a professor from Nuremberg, economist, and newly appointed member of the Supervisory Board of Siemens Energy, has concluded that the average cost of electricity production in 2040 will be roughly the same as in 2021. However, one core assumption of the study seems questionable: Grimm assumes that demand will not become more flexible in the future. This contradicts the assumptions of many other forecasts.
The study, authored by Grimm and her colleagues Leon Oechsle and Gregor Zöttl, initially confirms that the generation costs of electricity from wind and solar power plants will continue to fall over the next 15 years: In 2021, a kilowatt-hour from onshore wind power will cost 5.5 cents and 4.1 cents from ground-mounted PV. In 2040, wind energy will only cost 4.7 cents (in real prices), and PV will only cost 2.6 cents per kilowatt-hour.
However, they argue that these electricity generation costs for wind and solar are “not a good indicator” of the actual electricity costs. This is because batteries and hydrogen power plants are required to cover demand at all times despite the fluctuating production of wind and solar power plants. If their costs are taken into account, the electricity price in 2040 will be around 7.8 cents per kilowatt-hour – roughly the same level as in 2021. “The costs of covering the supply gaps remain very high,” says Grimm. “That’s why there are no signs that electricity costs will fall significantly.”
However, it is doubtful whether this statement is actually true. As Grimm states, the calculations assume that the electricity demand in 2040 will not adjust at all to the fluctuating supply – and the associated significant differences in the electricity price at different times. Calculations for both 2021 and 2040 are based, on the one hand, on constant electricity consumption and, on the other, on a typical load profile from 2021, which shows fluctuations depending on the time of day and day of the week, but is unrelated to the electricity available.
However, average electricity costs would actually fall significantly if more electricity were consumed at times of oversupply of renewable electricity when prices are low – and correspondingly less at times when expensive hydrogen power plants are needed. The study’s authors also acknowledge this. They justify their assumption that demand will nevertheless remain constant by stating that making demand more flexible is also “associated with costs,” for example, due to longer downtimes in the industrial sector. That is why flexibilization will “only happen to a limited extent.”
This assumption contradicts that of other scenarios, which attribute flexibilization a decisive role in tomorrow’s electricity system. “Industrial process heat, for example, has low flexibilization costs and high cost-saving potential,” wrote the think tank Agora Energiewende in its 2023 annual review. The long-term scenarios of the Ariadne project, which forms the basis for the German government’s forecasts, also see immense potential for load shifting.
Energy economist Lion Hirth also wrote last year in a brief report on variable electricity tariffs: “Activating load-side decentralized flexibility is essential for the success of the energy transition.” The potential will grow particularly strongly in the future due to the expansion of heat pumps, home storage systems and electric cars. For 2045, Hirth predicts: “The cumulative output of decentralized flexibility not only exceeds the available power plant output many times over, but also exceeds the installed output of large-scale flexibility options such as electrolyzers, large batteries and power-to-heat systems in district heating networks.”
When contacted by Table.Briefings, Grimm explained that even if load shifts were taken into account, large backup capacities would still be required for longer dark doldrums, meaning that their fixed costs would remain unchanged. While this is true, the Fraunhofer Institute, for example, has shown that the vast majority of the costs for electricity from gas-fired power plants stem from fuel costs, i.e., gas or, in the future, hydrogen. If hydrogen power plants had to produce significantly less electricity than Grimm assumed due to more flexible demand, the average electricity costs would also be considerably lower.
Unfortunately, the study does not reveal how significant this effect of a specific shift would be, as it does not specify the costs or full load hours of backup power plants. So the only insight that remains is this: Even under the unlikely assumption that electricity demand will remain completely inflexible in the future despite significant price fluctuations, the costs for completely climate-neutral electricity production (excluding the grid fees not taken into account in the study) would hardly be higher in 2040 than they are today.
The global contribution of nuclear energy to tackling the climate crisis once again sparked a fierce debate in international bodies. On the one side, countries like France and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) currently advocate nuclear technology as supposedly indispensable in the fight against climate change. On the other side, other countries and experts point out that the importance of nuclear fission technology remains low compared to renewable energies. With their current demands, the proponents are primarily aiming for one thing: Finding new ways of financing their nuclear programs through public banks.
In recent months, the international nuclear community has attracted considerable political attention:
The extent to which countries’ nuclear programs can contribute to reducing their carbon emissions and achieving a net-zero target by 2050 has long been disputed. Critics of nuclear strategies mainly criticize the high costs, the slow implementation of expansion programs, safety risks, and competition with the expansion of renewables.
The 6th report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) lists nuclear power among the “multiple energy supply options (…) to reduce emissions over the next decade.” Among these, hydropower and nuclear fission are “already established technologies.” However, the report primarily emphasizes the rapid growth, expansion opportunities and cost degression of renewables. “In contrast, the adoption of nuclear energy and CO2 capture and storage (CCS) in the electricity sector has been slower than the growth rates anticipated in [climate] stabilization scenarios,” the report states.
The report also shows that it is considerably cheaper to expand renewables than to promote nuclear power to reduce CO2 emissions. Overall, at least four billion tons of CO2 can be avoided at such low cost by generating electricity from wind and solar energy that these investments bring in money instead of incurring costs. According to the IPCC scenarios, nuclear power only saves around 100 million tons.
Andreas Löschel, Professor of Resource Economics at the University of Bochum and one of the lead authors of the energy chapter in the IPCC report, told Table.Briefings: “You can’t see a renaissance of nuclear power from the IPCC report.” Nuclear power’s current share of global electricity generation of around nine percent will remain roughly the same due to the massive increase in electricity demand, even if capacities are doubled, as predicted by the IAEA. “Nuclear power will continue to play its role. But it is not a game changer on the way to net zero by 2050.”
The authors of the latest “World Nuclear Industry Status Report” (WNISR) believe that the “promise” made at COP28 to triple nuclear capacity by 2050 is unrealistic. “An empty promise – that is simply not technically possible,” WNISR Coordinator Mycle Schneider told Table.Briefings. “Just to maintain today’s level, ten new nuclear power plants would have to be connected to the grid annually until 2050.” In the last 20 years, there have been five per year. Even doubling this rate would be a major challenge because of the lack of financial resources, companies, and construction capacities for such a short period. Even for the increase envisaged in the IAEA’s scenario, a total of 500 gigawatts would have to be added, i.e., 22 gigawatts every year from now on. “The reality,” says Schneider: “In 2023, five nuclear power plants were connected to the grid and five were shut down; capacity balance minus 1 GW.”
The latest issue of the renowned WNISR shows an industry fighting against decline. Its analysis for 2023, based on over 2,500 public sources, sees the biggest decline in electricity production in a decade to just 9.2 percent of the electricity supply in 2022. As of April 1, 2024, 415 reactors with a total of 365 gigawatts are connected to the grid, 23 fewer than at the technology’s peak in 2002. From 2004 to 2023, the WNISR experts counted 102 new nuclear power plants and 104 decommissioned reactors. China alone connected 49 nuclear power plants to the grid and decommissioned none, meaning that in the rest of the world, 51 more plants were decommissioned than new ones were added. “The overall picture is that China is building at home and Russia is building for export,” says Schneider. “Not much else is happening, and nothing at all since 2020.”
The data also shows that small SMR reactors are still not the solution. According to WNISR, neither a design nor a pilot project has been approved in the West. The leading company for SMRs, NuScale in the United States, shut down in November 2023 due to high costs. In February 2024, a research report by the German Federal Office for the Safety of Nuclear Waste Management examined the so-called “new reactor concepts,” which are supposed to be smaller and more efficient and produce less waste. The conclusion: “Despite years of development in some cases, the concepts are either not yet technologically mature or have not become established for commercial or safety reasons.”
Neither at the nuclear declaration at COP28 nor at the Brussels Nuclear Summit were the two most important nuclear countries represented: China and Russia. Both have a state-owned nuclear industry, which gives them a financial and political advantage over other countries. Other countries also subsidize nuclear power with price guarantees, and the state carries considerable liabilities, such as insurance and potential damage. The Fukushima disaster alone is estimated to have caused damages of 210 billion US dollars. In France, for example, the energy company EDF was nationalized again due to a debt burden of 54 billion euros.
The result: Nuclear representatives demand money from public budgets for a nuclear renaissance. The Brussels Nuclear Summit calls for access to “private and public financing” and EU financial instruments such as the EIB and the Innovation Fund. Furthermore, “we encourage all financial institutions to classify nuclear power with all other zero- or low-emission energy sources,” the summit’s declaration stated.
France took the first step in the EU last year: Nuclear power is now recognized as a “green technology” in the EU taxonomy. This is intended to ensure access to investment funds, for example. Austria has filed a complaint with the European Court of Justice against the classification of nuclear and gas as sustainable forms of energy in the taxonomy.
In a landmark decision, India’s Supreme Court has ruled that the climate crisis impairs the constitutional right to life. It said India must promote renewables to protect citizens from the adverse effects of climate change. “Without a clean environment which is stable and unimpacted by the vagaries of climate change, the right to life is not fully realized,” the decision of the court said. In particular, people’s right to health is being curtailed. The ruling was handed down on March 21, but was only made public on April 6.
While India has several environmental laws that impact climate change mitigation, there is no overarching climate change law. Recognizing the right to be free from the adverse effects of climate change could pave the way for more lawsuits and significantly impact future legislation in India.
The decision was made in a case that is not directly related to the right to life: Environmental activist M. K. Ranjitsinh and others had filed a lawsuit to protect the highly endangered Hindu bustard and flag bustard. Both bird species are endangered due to pollution, climate change, predators, and invasive species. Power lines for wind farms have also led to a decline in the populations. The court’s ruling then focused on climate action.
The court also stated that it was “not a binary choice between conservation and development but rather a dynamic interplay between protecting a critically endangered species and addressing the pressing global challenge of climate change.” The power lines must, therefore, be laid underground. In addition, a panel of experts will weigh up the trade-offs between wildlife conservation and India’s sustainable development goals. An initial report is expected by the end of July. India’s energy comes largely from fossil fuels, especially coal. The country reported record coal production as recently as the end of March. kul
Lena Schilling’s path is special in many ways: From activism to party politics, at the age of 23, she became a top candidate for the European elections – skipping the regional and national political levels in the process. In June, she heads the list of the Austrian Green Party for the European elections. It is her first party political position, having previously gained national prominence through her work for Fridays for Future.
Lena Schilling says that her mother had a particular political influence on her. The trained social worker took over the management of a refugee shelter when Schilling was 15 years old. Schilling says she was there almost every day. In her interactions with the refugees, her mother “showed her early on what justice means and gave her an idea of what is important for good coexistence.”
In the following years, Schilling focused her political efforts on climate activism. “As if by chance,” she became involved in Austria’s Fridays for Future movement as a student at the end of 2018, when she sat at a table with the initiators, who were still looking for supporters. She made her first public appearance during the global climate strike in March 2019. She has not left the media spotlight since and became the figurehead of Austrian climate activism.
She founded a youth council to give young people a voice outside the climate protests. “A movement like this is extremely cool, but not everyone can take to the streets every Friday,” says Schilling, explaining her decision. Lena Schilling then drew attention by occupying the controversial Lobau Tunnel in Vienna. “Without a concrete plan,” she sat on an excavator with a poster and announced the occupation, which she “then went through with.” What followed was a months-long struggle. In the end, the decision was made: The plans to build the tunnel were scrapped. Leonore Gewessler, the Green Party Minister for Climate Action, announced the decision.
This time can also be seen as Schilling’s first rapprochement with the Green Party. The question remains as to why Schilling is now running for the party, of which she said in 2023 that “the people who are active in Fridays for Future would never join the Greens.” The 23-year-old has a pragmatic view on this: “Even during my time with Fridays for Future, I realized that I’m prepared to pull out all the stops to achieve the goals,” she says.
She asked herself several times whether she was ready for such a position of responsibility. In the end, the decision was positive, partly because the EU level gave her the opportunity to tackle climate policy issues across national borders. At the same time, she rejected advances from the Social Democratic Party (SPÖ) and the Communist Party of Austria (KPÖ). “The only party that credibly stands for climate action is the Greens,” said Schilling.
In conversation, it quickly becomes clear that she also wants to place a clear focus on climate policy in Parliament. She attaches particular importance to mobility. As a first step, she wants to fight for the expansion and standardization of European rail transport. The climate ticket in Austria as an annual pass for public transport could serve as a model. At the same time, the EU institutions should soon start restricting private jets through bans or higher taxes. Schilling says that this is “the only criticism of consumption that you will ever hear from me,” but the question of who is largely responsible for climate emissions urgently needs to be asked.
But how does Lena Schilling plan to prove her expertise in other areas such as security or the economy – also to avoid losing to her male and, in some cases, much more experienced rivals in the election campaign? She relies on joint efforts. She does not claim to have the right gut feeling and to know everything about every issue. “The good thing is that there are experts for all issues who have been dealing with these topics for decades,” says Schilling. She also wants to incorporate social discourse into her policy to a particular extent. Specifically, this means: “What is communicated on the street should also be heard in parliament.”
In general, she hopes to be able to set different priorities than her competitors – especially because of her gender and age. “I want to reach different people than most top candidates,” she says. She believes it is entirely possible that her lack of experience could be used against her. “We’re in an election campaign, of course there are people there who are waiting for every mistake you make.” She recently made one of these when she could not clearly identify Norway as a non-EU member in an interview. Outwardly, she reacts confidently to the negative reactions. For a 23-year-old, that is not a matter of course. Jasper Bennink
