Austria

Belgium

Bulgaria

Croatia

Cyprus

Czech Republic

Czechia

Denmark

Estonia

Finland

France

Germany

Greece

Hungary

Ireland

Italy

Latvia

Lithuania

Luxembourg

Malta

Netherlands

Poland

Portugal

Romania

Slovakia

Slovenia

Spain

Sweden

United Kingdom

Country Summary Poland

Country Summary Finland

UK HG

Isabelle-Chan

Lindsey Walter

Country Summary: Germany Feature

Country Summary Romania

How Much Will It Take?

alan-ahn

Deployment of Nuclear Energy in the EU and UK Under Different Reactor Cost Assumptions

Country Summary: Germany

Key Principles to Consider When Redesigning the EU’s Electricity Market

maggie-sepulveda

How Much Will It Take? Feature

Country Summary Sweden

Country Summary: Finland

Tone Langengen

Deployment of Nuclear Energy in the EU and UK Under Different Reactor Cost Assumptions v2

Country Summary: Netherlands

Country Summary Netherlands v2

Infographic

Alan Ahn

Senior Resident Fellow for Third Way’s Climate and Energy Program

White Paper

Maggie Sepulveda

Former Multimedia Designer, Climate and Energy Program

Memo

Isabelle Chan

Non-Resident Fellow

Co-founder of Carbon-Free Europe

Senior Policy Advisor, Climate & Energy Policy at the Tony Blair Institute for Global Change

Report

Net-Zero Unveiled: UK's Ambitions Analysed

<div class="Highlight">
<div class="content">
<h2>Overview of CFE’s Modelling Analysis</h2>
In 2022, Carbon-Free Europe (CFE) released its first energy systems modelling analysis, identifying five pathways for the EU and UK to reach their 2050 net-zero emissions commitments. Starting in 2023, CFE will update our analysis annually to capture the changing energy and policy landscapes.
The Core pathway is the least constrained, allowing countries to use all available clean energy technologies and assuming high energy efficiency and electrification levels. This is the most feasible, cost-effective pathway to net-zero. The other scenarios explore how different policy and implementation constraints impact the route to carbon neutrality. To learn more, visit <a class="c-link" href="http://www.carbonfreeeurope.org/modelling" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" data-stringify-link="http://www.carbonfreeeurope.org/modelling" data-sk="tooltip_parent">www.carbonfreeeurope.org/modelling</a>.
</div>
</div>
Due to recent energy supply constraints and electricity price volatility, there is renewed appetite to reform <a href="https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A52023PC0148&amp;qid=1679410882233" target="_blank" rel="noopener">the current EU electricity market</a> under the Green Deal Industrial Plan. Carbon-Free Europe supports an electricity market restructuring that is equitable to all clean power technologies (both firm and intermittent), allows for reliable, secure, and affordable clean energy, and embeds emerging technologies, such as long duration energy storage, in a cohesive and resilient way.
<h2>Current Renewable Integration Flaws</h2>
In Carbon-Free Europe’s modelling, market prices, both in terms of the average annual price as well as price patterns, change dramatically with the introduction of hundreds of GWs of renewable generation. The chart below shows the significant pattern of solar generation in the middle of the day progressing through 2050.
<img src="//images.ctfassets.net/228txxvb8tt7/67bDI0j640mgt8T3qZXdZw/9c7dc069f861f7a71a698ffa2d7244cc/CFE_EMD_white_paper_charts.jpg" alt="" width="2750" height="2250">
This is not a stable investment environment for long-term assets without contractual support. While energy market prices maintain their value as a signal for balancing services, they are insufficient to support renewable energy deployment. Power Purchase Agreements (PPAs) and Contracts for Differences (CFDs) encourage long-term contracting vehicles to provide cost stability to consumers and reduce excess generator profits. While these contractual vehicles may have distorting effects on price and other market signals when applied under various scenarios, PPAs and CFDs will become increasingly important in providing revenue stability for renewables.
<h2>The Significance of Load Flexibility &amp; Energy Storage</h2>
<img src="//images.ctfassets.net/228txxvb8tt7/6eddhPyepPVack5AEGFOry/d69a1a83fcfee518fee63763e18de9eb/CFE_EMD_white_paper_charts2.jpg" alt="" width="2750" height="1896">
Market mechanisms that encourage load flexibility are critical: By 2050, in CFE’s Core pathway, we see 445 GWs of electricity load from hydrogen; 175 GWs of energy from flexible electric heat production; and 75 GWs of coincident end-use load flexibility from space conditioning, water heating, and vehicles. Carbon-Free Europe, therefore, supports the Commission’s efforts to enhance the use of end-use metering data, allow for further sub-metering of customer premise electricity loads, lower the minimum energy bid size to encourage the participation of smaller customers, and expand the use of demand response methods, like peak shaving. In the absence of the participation of these loads, which we term ‘latent storage’ (i.e., storage that already exists in the provision of an energy service), by 2050, we would see a need for an additional 130 GWs of energy storage to balance renewables and avoid peak impacts on the transmission and distribution system. Many of these loads can be optimized both temporally as well as spatially (EV charging, electrolysis, etc.), and information provided by Transmission System Operators (TSOs) in terms of current anticipated grid conditions will be important for their efficient deployment. Even with electricity load flexibility, we see the necessity to deploy hundreds of GWs of storage over the next three decades. However, in order to encourage installed durations (i.e., the amount of time storage can discharge continuously) adequate to meet long-term capacity needs, it’s an open question whether market revenues will be enough, as much of the installed capacity will only be discharged for a few hours every year.
<img src="//images.ctfassets.net/228txxvb8tt7/4gdWgMr1PxgQF6INnw8bDb/ecc6f394ff6c048561a42a5134d1c102/CFE_EMD_white_paper_charts3.jpg" alt="" width="2750" height="1604">
Carbon-Free Europe welcomes the European Commission’s proposal to reform the EU’s electricity market design to align with the EU’s climate commitments, and to protect consumers, CFE therefore, provisionally supports the idea of a low-carbon capacity mechanism, with some caveats. First, much of the existing capacity payment support in Europe is provided to fossil and nuclear resources, with unlimited ability to sustain their energy production for any duration of time. Instead, co-legislators should consider that capacity remuneration will need to be differentiated by resource capabilities to procure an efficient set of flexibility resources. Second, we see an important role for thermal generators as they transition to backing up renewables and are called on only in the event of sustained low renewable outputs. This limited role naturally limits their emissions impacts. Market mechanisms must adequately compensate thermal generators for this continued role as backup generators, even as they run less and less over time and earn limited (and unpredictable) revenue in the electricity markets. If they are not adequately compensated in the electricity markets in the long-term and are not compensated for their capacity provision, this could significantly increase the costs of providing reliable electricity service in a high renewables environment. We see the need for over 500 GW of non-nuclear dispatchable thermal generation running only ~5% of the year in order to provide reliability in an electrified, highly renewable world.
<img src="//images.ctfassets.net/228txxvb8tt7/1boIEOTVTTxucbvi1kBIKk/fa7455a0279f4bd0ba7eb2d2e6f83824/CFE_EMD_white_paper_charts4.jpg" alt="" width="2750" height="1792">
<h2>Prioritizing Energy Consumer Protection</h2>
Carbon-Free Europe also supports some of the targeted energy consumer protection proposals in the EU including requiring the transparent appointment of last resort suppliers and improving the process for consumers who must be switched to these suppliers, clarifying the conditions and procedures under which an emergency can declare price support intervention, and protecting the EU’s most vulnerable citizens from disconnection—an imperative that becomes even more important as the EU transitions to a highly electrified future with over 50% of end-use energy satisfied by electricity.
<h2>Conclusion</h2>
As the EU institutions work to negotiate and finalize the Electricity Market Design reform as part of the Green Deal Industrial Plan, CFE stresses that the final agreement must accelerate the deployment of clean energy technologies in an equitable way. This should include a detailed plan on allowing flexibility via direct access to electricity markets, and reliability via the structural acknowledgement of capacity needs at certain durations.

<div class="Highlight">
<div class="content">
<h2>Overview of Modelling Analysis</h2>
As part of Carbon-Free Europe's (CFE) first analysis in 2022, CFE modelled five potential pathways for the EU and UK to achieve net-zero emissions by 2050. The Core pathway is the least constrained, allowing countries to use all available clean energy technologies and assuming high levels of energy efficiency and electrification. This is the most feasible, cost-effective pathway to net-zero. The other four pathways are designed to explore how different policy and implementation constraints impact the route to carbon-neutrality. To learn more about the other pathways and our full 2022 analysis, visit <a href="http://www.carbonfreeeurope.org">www.carbonfreeeurope.org/modelling/archive/2022</a>.
</div>
</div>
<h2>Today’s Energy System</h2>
In 2019, 38% of Finland’s energy supply came from fossil fuels (7% from coal, 7% from gas, and 24% from oil). Nuclear energy supplied 18%, and renewable energy sources, including biomass, provided 37%. When looking at Finland’s emissions that same year, 31% came from the energy sector (primarily electricity generation), 35% from industry, 21% from transport, and 9% from residential and commercial buildings. 2019 is a good baseline year to understand Europe’s long-term energy demand and supply since impacts from the pandemic have heavily skewed data from 2020-2021. 2019 is also the most recent year for which Eurostat data is available.
<h2>Key Takeaways: The Core Pathway in 2050</h2>
<ol class="boldList">
<li>
Finland’s most feasible and cost-effective pathway to net-zero is the Core pathway, which uses every available clean energy technology, including nuclear power and carbon capture. In this pathway, by 2050, Finland’s estimated electricity mix is 62% wind, 22% nuclear, 10% existing hydro, and less than 1% gas. The Core pathway requires €116 billion of investment through 2050 in key technologies, including electricity generation and storage, clean fuels, direct air capture, and heat pumps.</li>
<li>
By 2050 in the Core pathway, Finland adds 29 GW of new onshore wind capacity. This capacity addition is the 7th largest made by any EU + UK country.</li>
<li>
Finland adds 2 GW of new nuclear electric capacity by 2050, the 10th most added by any EU + UK country. Finland’s 3 GW of existing nuclear also remain in service through 2050.</li>
<li>
Finland’s new nuclear capacity is used not only to generate electricity but also to produce hydrogen via high-temperature electrolysis. Finland produces over 500 kilotonnes of high-temperature electrolytic hydrogen in 2050, the 6th most of any EU + UK country.</li>
<li>
Finland builds 10 GW of new electric transmission capacity and 2 GW of new hydrogen pipelines by 2050. New electric transmission capacity ranges as low as 0 GW (when transborder transmission is constrained in the Domestic Preference pathway) and as high as 14 GW (in the 100% Renewables pathway).</li>
<li>
The Netherlands builds 31 GW of new electric transmission capacity, the 5th most of any EU + UK country. However, if transborder transmission is constrained, as seen in the Domestic Preference pathway, new transmission capacity is limited to 5 GW.</li>
<li>
Finland has a significant biomass supply: 20 million dry tons in 2050, the 9th most of any EU + UK country. That biomass, primarily from wood and forest residues, is mostly consumed domestically in existing industrial and heat applications through 2050. Finland does not become a large biofuel producer, ranking 26th among EU + UK countries in total biofuel production.</li>
<li>
Finland will need to increase the rate of renewables deployment over the coming decades to reach net-zero by 2050. From 2011 to 2020, Finland built an average of 400 MW of renewable energy per year. To meet demand, the country will need to build between 600 to 1500 MW annually through 2050, increasing the historic build rate by a factor of 1.5 to 4x.</li>
</ol>
<h2>Key Energy Metrics</h2>
The table below shows key energy system metrics from the Core pathway, which is the most cost-effective, feasible trajectory to net-zero. The table also shows a range for each metric. That range is generated by comparing the Core pathway to four other modelled pathways designed to evaluate specific constraints.
The Slow Demand Transformation pathway imposes delays in electrification of surface transportation, heating, and industry. The 100% Renewables pathway relies strictly on renewables, phases out nuclear power, and prevents carbon capture and sequestration. The Limited Renewable Siting pathway restricts the deployment of wind and solar to reflect land-use and siting constraints. The Domestic Preference pathway prioritises domestic energy supplies and reduces transborder transmission lines and pipelines.
We provide a range for each metric in the table to indicate which model results are highly sensitive to constraints, and which are consistent across all scenarios such that they represent low-regret strategies. We also show Finland’s rank in each metric relative to all EU + UK countries, to identify segments of the decarbonised energy economy where Finland has an opportunity to lead.
<img src="//images.ctfassets.net/228txxvb8tt7/4ZHBqKOcwepRCs3T3DU4gg/44c4d61187a7aa5e0371513151d656a9/Finland_Summary_Table.jpg" alt="" width="1275" height="1062">

2022 Country Summary: Finland

<div class="Highlight">
<div class="content">
<h2>Overview of Modelling Analysis</h2>
As part of Carbon-Free Europe's (CFE) first analysis in 2022, CFE modelled five potential pathways for the EU and UK to achieve net-zero emissions by 2050. The Core pathway is the least constrained, allowing countries to use all available clean energy technologies and assuming high levels of energy efficiency and electrification. This is the most feasible, cost-effective pathway to net-zero. The other four pathways are designed to explore how different policy and implementation constraints impact the route to carbon-neutrality. To learn more about the other pathways and our full 2022 analysis, visit <a href="http://www.carbonfreeeurope.org">www.carbonfreeeurope.org/modelling/archive/2022</a>.
</div>
</div>
<h2>Today’s Energy System</h2>
In 2019, 90% of the Netherlands’ energy supply came from fossil fuels (9% from coal, 45% from gas, and 36% from oil). Nuclear energy supplied 1%, and renewable energy sources, including biomass, provided 8%. When looking at the Netherlands’ emissions that same year, 32% came from the energy sector (primarily electricity generation), 30% from industry, 17% from transport, and 19% from residential and commercial buildings. 2019 is a good baseline year to understand Europe’s long-term energy demand and supply since impacts from the pandemic have heavily skewed data from 2020-2021. 2019 is also the most recent year for which Eurostat data is available.
<h2>Key Takeaways: The Core Pathway in 2050</h2>
<ol class="boldList">
<li>
The Netherlands’ most feasible and cost-effective pathway to net-zero is the Core pathway, which uses every available clean energy technology, including nuclear power and carbon capture. In this pathway, by 2050, the Netherlands’ estimated electricity mix is 80% wind, 10% nuclear, 7% solar, and 3% gas. The Core pathway requires €300 billion of investment through 2050 in key technologies, including electricity generation and storage, clean fuels, direct air capture, and heat pumps.</li>
<li>
By 2050 in the Core pathway, the Netherlands adds the 2nd largest offshore wind capacity of any EU + UK country. Our model estimates that the Netherlands adds 66 GW of new offshore wind capacity. When non-renewable energy sources are not allowed (in the 100% Renewables pathway), new offshore wind capacity is over 100 GW in 2050.</li>
<li>
The Netherlands has the 6th largest battery storage addition made by any EU + UK country. The Netherlands complements its increased intermittent wind generation with 11 GW of new battery storage in the Core pathway.</li>
<li>
The Netherlands builds the 7th most new nuclear of any EU + UK country. The Netherlands adds 8 GW of new nuclear electric capacity by 2050 and maintains its existing 500 MW of nuclear generation, which remains in service through 2050.</li>
<li>
The Netherlands builds 31 GW of new electric transmission capacity, the 5th most of any EU + UK country. However, if transborder transmission is constrained, as seen in the Domestic Preference pathway, new transmission capacity is limited to 5 GW.</li>
<li>
The Netherlands becomes the largest producer of e-fuels among the EU + UK countries, producing 9,700 kilotonnes of oil equivalent (ktoe) in 2050 in the Core scenario. The Netherlands produces approximately 20% of total e-fuels in 2050 in the EU + UK. This e-fuel production is almost entirely ammonia to meet shipping fuel demand.</li>
<li>
In the Core pathway, the Netherlands adds 35 GW of hydrogen pipelines by 2050, the 2nd most of any EU + UK country. The Netherlands is not a leading producer of hydrogen, ranking 16th of all EU + UK countries in total hydrogen production. However, its location positions the Netherlands to import hydrogen from the UK and Norway, both large hydrogen producers, and transport it to demand centers in continental Europe.</li>
<li>
The Netherlands will need to increase the rate of renewables deployment over the coming decades to reach net-zero by 2050. From 2011 to 2020, the Netherlands built an average of 1.7 GW of renewable energy per year. To meet demand, the country will need to build between 2 to 4 GW annually through 2050, increasing the historic build rate by a factor of 1 to 2.5x.</li>
</ol>
<h2>Key Energy Metrics</h2>
The table below shows key energy system metrics from the Core pathway, which is the most cost-effective, feasible trajectory to net-zero. The table also shows a range for each metric. That range is generated by comparing the Core pathway to four other modelled pathways designed to evaluate specific constraints.
The Slow Demand Transformation pathway imposes delays in electrification of surface transportation, heating, and industry. The 100% Renewables pathway relies strictly on renewables, phases out nuclear power, and prevents carbon capture and sequestration. The Limited Renewable Siting pathway restricts the deployment of wind and solar to reflect land-use and siting constraints. The Domestic Preference pathway prioritises domestic energy supplies and reduces transborder transmission lines and pipelines.
We provide a range for each metric in the table to indicate which model results are highly sensitive to constraints, and which are consistent across all scenarios such that they represent low-regret strategies. We also show the Netherlands’ rank in each metric relative to all EU + UK countries, to identify segments of the decarbonised energy economy where the country has an opportunity to lead.
<img src="//images.ctfassets.net/228txxvb8tt7/5eWKJ0HLJFwVqQz6HVgnZv/7d08f86a31091c96945a8ae642500264/Netherlands_Summary_Table.jpg" alt="" width="1275" height="1144">

2022 Country Summary: Netherlands

<div class="Highlight">
<div class="content">
<h2>Overview of Modelling Analysis</h2>
As part of Carbon-Free Europe's (CFE) first analysis in 2022, CFE modelled five potential pathways for the EU and UK to achieve net-zero emissions by 2050. The Core pathway is the least constrained, allowing countries to use all available clean energy technologies and assuming high levels of energy efficiency and electrification. This is the most feasible, cost-effective pathway to net-zero.  The other four pathways are designed to explore how different policy and implementation constraints impact the route to carbon-neutrality. To learn more about the other pathways and our full 2022 analysis, visit <a href="http://www.carbonfreeeurope.org" target="_blank" rel="noopener">www.carbonfreeeurope.org/modelling/archive/2022</a>.
</div>
</div>
<h2>Today’s Energy System</h2>
In 2019, 89% of Poland’s energy supply came from fossil fuels (43% from coal, 17% from gas, and 30% from oil). Renewable energy sources, including biomass, provided 9%. When looking at Poland’s emissions that same year, 44% came from the energy sector (primarily electricity generation), 23% from industry, 17% from transport, and 13% from residential and commercial buildings. 2019 is a good baseline year to understand Europe’s long-term energy demand and supply since impacts from the pandemic have heavily skewed data from 2020-2021. 2019 is also the most recent year for which Eurostat data is available.
<h2>Key Takeaways: The Core Pathway in 2050</h2>
<ol class="boldList">
<li>
Poland’s most feasible and cost-effective pathway to net-zero is the Core pathway, which uses every available clean energy technology, including nuclear power and carbon capture. In this pathway, Poland’s estimated electricity mix by 2050 is 42% wind, 42% nuclear, 15% solar, and less than 1% gas. The Core pathway requires €490 billion of investment through 2050 in key technologies, including electricity generation and storage, clean fuels, direct air capture, and heat pumps.</li>
<li>
By 2050 in the Core pathway, Poland adds the 4th most wind and the 5th most solar of any EU + UK country. Our model estimates that Poland will need to add 29 GW of new offshore wind capacity, 30 GW of new onshore wind, and 53 GW of new solar to reach net-zero.</li>
<li>
Poland adds 31 GW of new nuclear electric capacity, the 2nd most of any EU + UK country. Poland does not have any nuclear power plants operating today, but it becomes an important exporter of nuclear power to neighboring countries by 2050.</li>
<li>
Poland is the 5th largest hydrogen producer via high-temperature electrolysis among the EU + UK countries. By leveraging its nuclear energy and renewable potential, Poland annually produces 644 kilotonnes of hydrogen via high temperature electrolysis by 2050. Poland also produces an additional 245 kilotonnes of hydrogen with low temperature electrolysis, the 11th most of any EU + UK country.</li>
<li>
In the Core pathway, Poland ranks 6th for new transmission capacity and 7th for new hydrogen pipelines among the EU + UK region. Poland builds 25 GW of new electric transmission and 21 GW of new hydrogen pipelines to neighboring countries. Much of Poland’s additional electric transmission and pipeline capacity exports to Germany. Its largest hydrogen pipeline imports hydrogen from Lithuania, another large producer.</li>
<li>
Poland produces over 10,000 ktoe of biofuel, the 4th most among EU + UK countries. Poland’s biofuels industry leverages its supply of biomass, the 3rd largest of any EU + UK country. The country’s biofuel production is primarily dedicated to liquid hydrocarbon fuels in the Core pathway.</li>
<li>
Poland provides 12 million tons of geologic CO2 sequestration annually in 2050, the 7th most among EU + UK countries. CO2 is captured in Poland almost entirely from cement production in the Core pathway with a limited amount also captured from biofuels production.</li>
</ol>
<h2>Key Energy Metrics</h2>
The table below shows key energy system metrics from the Core pathway, which is the most cost-effective, feasible trajectory to net-zero. The table also shows a range for each metric. That range is generated by comparing the Core pathway to four other modelled pathways designed to evaluate specific constraints.
The Slow Demand Transformation pathway imposes delays in electrification of surface transportation, heating, and industry. The 100% Renewables pathway relies strictly on renewables, phases out nuclear power, and prevents carbon capture and sequestration. The Limited Renewable Siting pathway restricts the deployment of wind and solar to reflect land-use and siting constraints. The Domestic Preference pathway prioritises domestic energy supplies and reduces transborder transmission lines and pipelines.
We provide a range for each metric in the table to indicate which model results are highly sensitive to constraints, and which are consistent across all scenarios such that they represent low-regret strategies. We also show Poland’s rank in each metric relative to all EU + UK countries, to identify segments of the decarbonised energy economy where Poland has an opportunity to lead.
<img src="//images.ctfassets.net/228txxvb8tt7/4ARrsp6S7A1kSzS66CMTY3/6e6c12ee0096176100293d9b3329dd10/Poland_Summary_Table.jpg" alt="" width="1275" height="1125">

2022 Country Summary: Poland

<div class="Highlight">
<div class="content">
<h2>Overview of Modelling Analysis</h2>
As part of Carbon-Free Europe's (CFE) first analysis in 2022, CFE modelled five potential pathways for the EU and UK to achieve net-zero emissions by 2050.  The Core pathway is the least constrained, allowing countries to use all available clean energy technologies and assuming high levels of energy efficiency and electrification. This is the most feasible, cost-effective pathway to net-zero.  The other four pathways are designed to explore how different policy and implementation constraints impact the route to carbon-neutrality. To learn more about the other pathways and our full 2022 analysis, visit <a href="http://www.carbonfreeeurope.org" target="_blank" rel="noopener">www.carbonfreeeurope.org/modelling/archive/2022</a>.
</div>
</div>
<h2>Today’s Energy System</h2>
In 2019, 25% of Sweden’s energy supply came from fossil fuels (4% from coal, 2% from gas, and 19% from oil). Nuclear energy supplied 32% and renewable energy sources, including biomass, provided 38%. When looking at Sweden’s emissions that same year, 17% came from the energy sector (primarily electricity generation), 43% from industry, 32% from transport, and 5% from residential and commercial buildings. 2019 is a good baseline year to understand Europe’s long-term energy demand and supply since impacts from the pandemic have heavily skewed data from 2020-2021. 2019 is also the most recent year for which Eurostat data is available.
<h2>Key Takeaways: The Core Pathway in 2050</h2>
<ol class="boldList">
<li>
Sweden’s most feasible and cost-effective pathway to net-zero is the Core pathway, which uses every available clean energy technology, including nuclear power and carbon capture. In this pathway, Sweden’s estimated electricity mix by 2050 is 49% wind, 22% nuclear, 6% existing biomass, 21% existing hydropower, and less than 1% gas. The Core pathway requires €170 billion of investment through 2050 in key technologies, including electricity generation and storage, clean fuels, direct air capture, and heat pumps.</li>
<li>
By 2050 in the Core pathway, Sweden adds the 5th most onshore wind and 8th most offshore wind of any EU + UK country. Sweden adds 30 GW of new onshore wind capacity and 12 GW of new offshore wind.</li>
<li>
Sweden builds 23 GW of new electric transmission capacity, the 9th most of any EU + UK country. However, if transborder transmission is constrained (as see in the Domestic Preference pathway) Sweden only builds 6 GW of new transmission capacity.</li>
<li>
Through 2050, Sweden maintains its existing 8 GW of nuclear power and adds 1 GW of new advanced nuclear electric capacity. Most of Sweden’s existing nuclear is used for electricity generation, while the country’s additional advanced nuclear buildout provides both electricity and direct heat for hydrogen production.</li>
<li>
Sweden is the 3rd largest hydrogen producer via high-temperature electrolysis among EU + UK countries, and the 6th largest producer of hydrogen overall. The Core scenario anticipates Sweden producing 1,200 kilotonnes of high-temperature electrolysis hydrogen and also adds 4 GW of new pipelines to transport hydrogen by 2050.</li>
<li>
Sweden becomes the 5th largest e-fuels producer in the EU + UK, supplying both liquid hydrocarbons and ammonia. As a large producer of e-fuels, Sweden is expected to produce 2,800 kilotonnes of oil equivalent (ktoe) in 2050 in the Core scenario.</li>
<li>
Among EU + UK countries, Sweden has the 8th largest dry biomass supply in 2050. In the Core scenario, Sweden’s woody biomass is used primarily for electricity generation, steam, and pulp and paper industries (consistent with its use today). However, when demand-side electrification is constrained (in the Slow Demand Transformation pathway), Sweden uses biomass to produce 2,000 ktoe of liquid fuels.</li>
<li>
Sweden does not develop any geologic CO2 sequestration capacity. Instead of sequestering carbon, Sweden utilizes captured CO2 (from cement production) in e-fuels production.</li>
<li>
Sweden will likely need to increase the rate of renewables deployment over the coming decades to reach net-zero by 2050. From 2011 to 2020, Sweden built an average of 1 GW of renewable energy per year. To meet demand, Sweden will need to build between 0.6 to 2 GW annually through 2050, with most of our scenarios (including the Core scenario) requiring more than 1 GW per year.</li>
</ol>
<h2>Key Energy Metrics</h2>
The table below shows key energy system metrics from the Core pathway, which is the most cost-effective, feasible trajectory to net-zero. The table also shows a range for each metric. That range is generated by comparing the Core pathway to four other modelled pathways designed to evaluate specific constraints.
The Slow Demand Transformation pathway imposes delays in electrification of surface transportation, heating, and industry. The 100% Renewables pathway relies strictly on renewables, phases out nuclear power, and prevents carbon capture and sequestration. The Limited Renewable Siting pathway restricts the deployment of wind and solar to reflect land-use and siting constraints. The Domestic Preference pathway prioritises domestic energy supplies and reduces transborder transmission lines and pipelines.
We provide a range for each metric in the table to indicate which model results are highly sensitive to constraints, and which are consistent across all scenarios such that they represent low-regret strategies. We also show Sweden’s rank in each metric relative to all EU + UK countries, to identify segments of the decarbonised energy economy where Sweden has an opportunity to lead.
<img src="//images.ctfassets.net/228txxvb8tt7/42kjhY8jPbr9MAwAE3Ls8u/2c981a45a18f88b81ceb142a3206ca95/Sweden_Summary_Table_v3.jpg" width="1275" height="1095">

2022 Country Summary: Sweden

<div class="Highlight">
<div class="content">
<h2>Overview of Modelling Analysis</h2>
As part of Carbon-Free Europe's (CFE) first analysis in 2022, CFE modelled five potential pathways for the EU and UK to achieve net-zero emissions by 2050.  The Core pathway is the least constrained, allowing countries to use all available clean energy technologies and assuming high levels of energy efficiency and electrification. This is the most feasible, cost-effective pathway to net-zero.  The other four pathways are designed to explore how different policy and implementation constraints impact the route to carbon-neutrality. To learn more about the other pathways and our full 2022 analysis, visit <a href="http://www.carbonfreeeurope.org">www.carbonfreeeurope.org/modelling/archive/2022</a>.
</div>
</div>
<h2>Today's Energy System</h2>
In 2019, 73% of Romania’s energy supply came from fossil fuels (15% from coal, 28% from gas, and 29% from oil). Nuclear energy supplied 9% and renewable energy sources, including biomass, provided 18%. When looking at Romania’s emissions that same year, 26% came from the energy sector (primarily electricity generation), 41% from industry, 17% from transport, and 11% from residential and commercial buildings. 2019 is a good baseline year to understand Europe’s long-term energy demand and supply since impacts from the pandemic have heavily skewed data from 2020-2021. 2019 is also the most recent year for which Eurostat data is available.
<h2>Key Takeaways: The Core Pathway in 2050</h2>
<ol class="boldList">
<li>
Romania’s most feasible and cost-effective pathway to net-zero is the Core pathway, which uses every available clean energy technology, including nuclear power and carbon capture. In this pathway, Romania’s estimated electricity mix by 2050 is 12% wind, 21% solar, 59% nuclear, 9% existing hydropower, and less than 1% gas. The Core pathway requires €238 billion of investment through 2050 in key technologies, including electricity generation and storage, clean fuels, direct air capture, and heat pumps.</li>
<li>
In a carbon-free economy, Romania becomes a key nuclear energy producer, building the sixth most nuclear power of any EU + UK country and exporting electricity to its neighbors. Romania adds 12 gigawatts (GW) of new nuclear capacity by 2050 in the Core pathway.</li>
<li>
By 2050 in the Core pathway, Romania adds the 11th most solar and the 12th most offshore wind of any EU + UK country. Romania adds 18 GW of new solar photovoltaic capacity, 3 GW of offshore wind capacity, and 4 GW of onshore wind.</li>
<li>
Romania adds 9 GW of electric transmission by 2050 in the Core pathway. Even when transborder electric transmission is constrained (in the Domestic Preference pathway), Romania builds 5 GW of new transmission, more than double its 2 GW of existing transmission capacity in 2019.</li>
<li>
Romania becomes the 7th largest producer of biofuels in the EU and UK, leveraging the country’s large biomass resource (the 5th largest among EU + UK countries). In the Core pathway, Romania produces 6,600 kilotonnes of oil equivalent.</li>
<li>
Romania leads the EU + UK in hydrogen production via bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS), producing 600 kilotonnes annually in 2050 in the Core pathway. In some constrained scenarios, high demand for drop-in fuels leads Romania to divert biomass to synthetic hydrocarbons rather than hydrogen.</li>
<li>
By 2050, Romania sequesters 38 million tons of CO2 annually, the 4th most of any EU + UK country. The sequestered CO2 is captured from biofuel and cement production and from direct air capture.</li>
<li>
Romania will need to increase the rate of renewables deployment over the coming decades to reach net-zero by 2050. From 2011 to 2020, Romania built on average 400 MW of renewable energy per year. To meet demand, Romania will need to build between 600 MW to 3 GW annually through 2050, a 1.5 to 8x increase.</li>
</ol>
<h2>Key Energy Metrics</h2>
The table below shows key energy system metrics from the Core pathway, which is the most cost-effective, feasible trajectory to net-zero. The table also shows a range for each metric. That range is generated by comparing the Core pathway to four other modelled pathways designed to evaluate specific constraints.
The Slow Demand Transformation pathway imposes delays in the electrification of surface transportation, heating, and industry. The 100% Renewables pathway relies strictly on renewables, phases out nuclear power, and prevents carbon capture and sequestration. The Limited Renewable Siting pathway restricts the deployment of wind and solar to reflect land-use and siting constraints. The Domestic Preference pathway prioritises domestic energy supplies and reduces transborder transmission lines and pipelines.
We provide a range for each metric in the table to indicate which model results are highly sensitive to constraints and which are consistent across all scenarios such that they represent low-regret strategies. We also show Romania’s rank in each metric relative to all EU + UK countries to identify segments of the decarbonised energy economy where Romania has an opportunity to lead.
<img src="//images.ctfassets.net/228txxvb8tt7/78vHwB4DdBcIB77tdsvFdm/ba21dae9159280992b56acb8d9e0fb6c/Romania_Summary_TableOnly.jpg" alt="" width="1275" height="1206">

2022 Country Summary: Romania

<h2>Overview</h2>
In March 2022, Carbon-Free Europe released our <a href="https://www.carbonfreeeurope.org/modeling" target="_blank" rel="noopener">original analysis</a> of five different pathways for the EU and UK to reach net-zero emissions by 2050. Our results showed crucial steps Europe must take over the next three decades to implement credible trajectories to carbon neutrality. The analysis reinforced that the feasibility of reaching emissions goals, both for individual countries and the EU as a whole, is greater when net-zero pathways incorporate a wider range of clean technology options. Increased optionality reduces risk and makes it more likely that clean energy will be cost-effective and net-zero goals can actually be achieved.
Nuclear energy emerged in our analysis as an important zero-carbon technology that, when allowed in a net-zero pathway, played a significant role in decarbonizing the power sector and providing heat for hydrogen production. Though we used a single cost assumption for advanced nuclear reactors in the Carbon-Free Europe scenarios, derived from the MIT Energy Initiative study “The Future of Nuclear Energy in a Carbon-Constrained World”, the future cost of new nuclear energy in Europe is highly uncertain. Because advanced nuclear reactor technologies have not yet been demonstrated at scale, it’s difficult to anticipate their eventual cost—and their cost can likely be influenced by continued investment in R&amp;D and early technology deployment. How much nuclear energy might be economically deployed in Europe if significant reactor cost reductions can be achieved through 2050? And what’s the potential for lower-cost nuclear reactors to reduce the total cost of meeting Europe’s climate targets?
This sensitivity analysis looks to answer those questions by evaluating how the cost of advanced nuclear reactors influences their economic deployment in Europe. We evaluated the various roles nuclear energy can play in a net-zero European energy system at different reactor cost levels. Our results indicate that under the assumptions used in Carbon-Free Europe’s Core scenario, there is an inflection point for nuclear reactor deployment when nuclear electricity costs reach €50/megawatt hour-electric (MWhe)1: at costs below this threshold, nuclear can economically provide a meaningful share of Europe’s total electricity generation and hydrogen production, reducing total annual energy system costs by billions of Euros in 2050. This potential upside warrants continued effort from the public and private sectors to drive down costs of advanced nuclear via technology improvements, economies of scale, and improved financing mechanisms.
<h2>Topline Takeaways</h2>
<ol class="boldList">
<li>
Deployment of nuclear energy increases significantly when reactor costs drop below €50 per megawatt hour-electric. Economic deployment of nuclear reactors increases dramatically in our model results when reactor costs drop below €2,000 per kilowatt-thermal (kWth), corresponding to €50/MWhe nuclear electricity production and €20/MWhth nuclear heat. The total capacity of advanced nuclear reactors deployed in the EU and UK in 2050 jumps from 50 gigawatts-thermal (GWth) to 225 GWth when reactor costs decline from €2,000/kWth to €1,665/kWth. Our modeling indicates very little economic deployment of nuclear if the levelized price of nuclear electricity exceeds €60/MWh.</li>
<li>
Even with higher reactor costs, nuclear remains competitive in direct heat applications. At reactor costs above €2,000/kWth, most nuclear energy is used in direct heat applications (primarily high-temperature hydrogen electrolysis), with a smaller portion used to produce electricity. The large step up in deployed reactor capacity when costs reach €1,665/kWth is largely driven by increased cost-competitiveness of nuclear electricity.</li>
<li>
At baseline reactor costs, all countries where nuclear is allowed deploy some nuclear capacity. At a reactor cost of €1,665/kWth, every country where our analysis allows new nuclear construction adds some advanced reactor capacity by 2050. The degree of nuclear deployment at the country level depends on competition with other sources of zero-carbon electricity: countries with higher-quality renewable resources deploy less nuclear energy than those with limited renewable energy endowment. </li>
<li>
Lower reactor costs result in significant energy system costs savings for both the EU and UK. Reducing the cost of nuclear reactors from €3,000/kWth to our baseline cost of €1,665/kWth reduces total EU and UK energy system costs by over €5B annually in 2050. Further reducing the cost to €1,000/kWth reduces 2050 system costs by over €18B. These annual cost savings can be weighed against the R&amp;D and early-stage deployment investments needed to achieve said reductions.</li>
<li>
Renewables build-out in Europe remains robust even in low nuclear cost scenarios. Some of the cost savings in the low nuclear cost scenario result from avoided renewable power investment. In our modelling, when nuclear reactors cost €1,000/kWth, total new renewable capacity needed in the EU and UK is reduced by 400 GW relative to the €3,000/kWth scenario. This reduction in renewable buildout doesn’t take effect until 2040, suggesting that even if advanced nuclear costs decline significantly, rapid buildout of renewable power in the 2020s and 2030s is still a no-regrets action in Europe.     </li>
<li>
In all reactor cost scenarios, nuclear energy plays a major role in Europe’s decarbonised energy system. In our analysis, nuclear reactors, including existing facilities, generate 17 to 28% of EU and UK electricity in 2050, relative to 25% today. High-temperature electrolysis with nuclear heat produces 20% to 60% of all hydrogen.</li>
<li>
Additional real-world constraints could increase the need for nuclear energy to meet climate goals. All the results presented here correspond to Carbon-Free Europe’s Core scenario, which is the least-constrained scenario we evaluated. Real-world policy and implementation constraints on the path to net-zero could further increase the value of nuclear energy.  </li>
</ol>
<h2>Introduction</h2>
Because advanced nuclear technologies have not yet been deployed at scale, but are expected to dominate new nuclear reactor deployment in the coming decades, long-term forecasts of nuclear reactor costs are highly uncertain. In contrast, renewable energy costs have dropped precipitously over the last decade after being deployed at scale. Comparing nuclear against renewable energy costs today can lead to the conclusion that nuclear energy is likely to be too expensive to compete with renewables in the long term, and that continued investment in nuclear technology advances is therefore a dead end. That conclusion may be premature for two reasons:
1) Non-intermittent electricity generating technologies become relatively more competitive as decarbonisation progresses. At the very high levels of renewable penetration necessary to meet deep decarbonisation targets, constraints—such as declining renewable resource quality, transmission availability, and curtailment— increase the cost and decrease the value of incremental renewable deployment.
2) Advanced nuclear technology and renewables do not necessarily serve the same function in a net-zero energy system. As a thermal energy source, nuclear provides electric reliability, storage and flexibility, as well as direct heat for industrial uses—services that can be difficult to provide entirely with renewable energy. 
In this analysis, we seek to inform the debate not with our own view of future costs, but with a better understanding of an energy system’s willingness-to-pay for the services offered by nuclear technology. We do so by evaluating economic deployment of advanced nuclear reactors at a wide range of costs. From these results, we can develop willingness-to-pay curves for individual countries and for Europe as a whole, which can inform economic targets for nuclear deployment. Our results showcase the broad role that nuclear energy could play in electricity generation, hydrogen production, and reducing overall costs in a net-zero energy system.
<h2>Nuclear Products: Heat and Electricity</h2>
To effectively capture the value that nuclear reactors can provide in a net-zero energy system, we model nuclear heat production separately from nuclear electricity generation. As shown in Figure 1 below, a nuclear reactor produces heat, which can then be converted to electricity in a steam turbine, stored via thermal storage for later use, or used in a direct heat application. Nuclear heat has many direct applications; we focus on hydrogen production and direct air capture (DAC) in our modelling, two important heat needs in net-zero energy systems.
<img src="//images.ctfassets.net/228txxvb8tt7/1dmSdP8QCBBPZFacGt5pNM/66db0f36c14efab5ab4de66f349230f7/NuclearCharts1_v2.jpg" width="1375" height="917">
Our analysis optimizes across three nuclear heat applications (electricity generation, electrolytic hydrogen production, and DAC) to determine the highest value use of nuclear heat in every hour. As a result of this approach, the optimal quantity of nuclear reactor capacity and nuclear electricity capacity constructed in our results are not necessarily equal. 
<h2>Nuclear Costs</h2>
Our analysis seeks to understand how nuclear reactor cost reductions could prompt broader economic deployment of nuclear energy through 2050. The all-in cost of nuclear energy depends on many input costs: upfront reactor costs, financing, fuel, operations and maintenance, waste disposal, and plant decommissioning.2 Forecasting any one of those costs in 2050 is subject to uncertainty. To simplify our analysis, we vary only reactor costs, but we evaluate such a wide range of reactor costs that we effectively capture uncertainty in other cost categories. We use a baseline reactor cost of €1,665/kWth,3 which we vary from €1,000/kWth to 3,000/kWth. We derive the levelized cost of a nuclear reactor’s delivered products—heat and electricity—from the reactor’s upfront cost, its operational profile,4 and O&amp;M and fuel costs.5Figure 2 shows the linear relationship between nuclear reactor cost and delivered nuclear heat and electricity costs under these assumptions.
<img src="//images.ctfassets.net/228txxvb8tt7/2334CuiOymB5mlv56oJZXv/0b9c91dfbed6429d243f28d11d23a795/NuclearCharts2.jpg" alt="" width="1375" height="948">
<h2>Results: Deployment</h2>
Figure 3 shows deployment of advanced nuclear reactors and nuclear electric generation across the spectrum of modelled reactor costs. Reactor deployment increases significantly when costs drop below €2,000/kWth, accelerating from 50 GWth to 225 GWth. At the low end of our modelled cost range, our optimization constructs almost 500 GWth of reactor capacity and 225 GWe of new electricity capacity.
<img src="//images.ctfassets.net/228txxvb8tt7/6Ghv0LsTtoELidA3Nf0eRQ/3a2d875475c4e6f5a2c4536cc16fbda2/NuclearCharts3_v6.jpg" width="1375" height="1173">
While both nuclear reactors and nuclear electric generators are deployed more widely as reactor costs decline, electricity generation capacity is more sensitive to reactor cost than direct heat applications. Figure 4 below further illustrates this trend: as reactor deployment accelerates at costs below €2,000/kWth, most of the incremental heat production is directed to electricity. In contrast, nuclear is a competitive source for direct heat used in hydrogen production and DAC even at relatively high reactor costs. Some nuclear electricity generation is also economical at high reactor costs, but the number of hours when nuclear electricity is cost-competitive grows substantially as reactor costs decline.
<img src="//images.ctfassets.net/228txxvb8tt7/7zT6pqAHbjnTjUWNacJ8DH/6bb6bb9cd7357090dbcf5ef60f9e5f18/NuclearCharts4.jpg" alt="" width="1375" height="1363">
<h2>Results: Country-Level Deployment</h2>
In our Carbon-Free Europe analysis, 14 of the 28 European countries we model are allowed to add new nuclear capacity, based on existing national nuclear policy. All 14 of those countries build some new nuclear reactor capacity under baseline cost assumptions (€1,665/kWth reactor cost), but country-level sensitivity to reactor cost depends on the domestic availability of other zero-carbon resources. Figure 5 shows the total and incremental capacity of nuclear reactors deployed in each country by 2050 under each reactor cost assumption.
<img src="//images.ctfassets.net/228txxvb8tt7/2IowUUu48PZDCsbcx2LjOL/568b7b7b92c5b643c38317b490ed5da8/NuclearCharts5.jpg" alt="" width="1375" height="1221">
In Northern Europe where high-quality offshore wind is abundant, nuclear heat is used primarily to produce hydrogen even at the lowest reactor costs modelled, so reactor deployment does not expand to start providing electricity in any of our scenarios. In Spain and France, where nuclear electricity competes with solar, onshore wind, and offshore wind, nuclear deployment does not accelerate greatly until reactor costs reach €1,000/kWth. In Eastern Europe, where renewables are less abundant, reactor deployment ramps up at €1,665/kWth. 
<h2>Results: System Costs</h2>
The impact of nuclear technology costs on total energy system costs depends on the extent of nuclear deployment as well as the magnitude of nuclear technology’s cost advantage over alternative solutions. In this case, nuclear technology primarily displaces renewable electricity (for electricity and hydrogen production), gas power plants (for reliability), battery storage, and low-temperature electrolysis. The cost advantage of nuclear technology at the examined reactor costs over these alternative solutions is shown in Figure 6 below.
<img src="//images.ctfassets.net/228txxvb8tt7/11DZfECmnrxAGmf07yxJZV/fc659c9817ae808c7227bf1fc4e2cd5a/NuclearCharts6_v3.jpg" width="1375" height="1165">
By 2050, reducing the cost of nuclear reactors from €3,000/kWth to our baseline cost of €1,665/kWth reduces total EU and UK energy system costs annually by over €5B. Further reducing the cost to €1,000/kWth reduces overall energy system costs annually by over €18B. These system cost reductions imply that investment in advanced nuclear R&amp;D and early-stage deployment is a high-value undertaking in Europe if it drives down the cost of nuclear reactors.
<h2>Results: Other System Impacts</h2>
One of the principal benefits of nuclear development is to provide a zero-carbon energy resource in areas that may face constraints to siting renewables. Our analysis shows that low-cost nuclear displaces a significant amount of otherwise-needed renewable power, reducing total new renewable capacity in 2050 by one-sixth (400 GW) compared to the highest cost scenario. This impact, however, isn’t realized until the 2040s, showing the continued need to develop renewables at unprecedented scales (while also maintaining Europe’s existing nuclear fleet).      
<img src="//images.ctfassets.net/228txxvb8tt7/6yWybjbJfqu0N8GDO1yvK7/b28d47d47d49535df595f7c2fe7f136a/NuclearCharts7.jpg" alt="" width="1375" height="1185">
The ultimate contribution that nuclear energy makes to electricity generation and hydrogen production in 2050 is shown below by cost scenario. Under the most optimistic cost projections, nuclear (including existing facilities) exceeds the overall share of electricity generation it makes up today (25% in 2020).6 Nuclear heat becomes critical to hydrogen production in many scenarios, with high-temperature electrolysis representing 60% of hydrogen production under the lowest reactor cost scenario.
<img src="//images.ctfassets.net/228txxvb8tt7/1nyeli7lbQSD0bX2Pd5JTb/562322a2056d9e130ede0e8d5ccb762f/NuclearCharts8.jpg" alt="" width="1375" height="1185">
<h2>Conclusions</h2>
With a breakthrough in costs (€1,000/kWth reactor costs, corresponding with €15/MWhth for heat and €42/MWhe for electricity), nuclear energy in 2050 exceeds the generation share seen in Europe today, reduces the necessary renewable build by 400 GWs, and is used to produce greater than 60% of Europe’s hydrogen. Costs below €1,665/kWth (€20/MWhth for heat or €50/MWhe for electricity) are necessary to see significant economic deployment. These costs can potentially be achieved through technology improvements, economies of scale, and improved financing mechanisms.
Carbon-Free Europe’s analysis evaluated five net-zero pathways: a relatively unconstrained Core pathway,7 and four additional pathways designed to explore how different policy and implementation constraints impact the route to carbon neutrality. This sensitivity analysis of nuclear reactor costs simulates economic deployment of nuclear only under the Core pathway assumptions. Even at higher costs, nuclear technology may be valuable to mitigate risks to decarbonisation represented in our other modelled pathways: the pace of demand transformation (Slow Demand Transformation), limited ability to construct new transmission lines and pipelines (Domestic Preference), or difficulty siting new renewable power (Limited Renewable Siting).

<div class="Highlight">
<div class="content">
<h3>Overview of Modelling Analysis</h3>
As part of Carbon-Free Europe's (CFE) first analysis in 2022, CFE modelled five potential pathways for the EU and UK to achieve net-zero emissions by 2050. The Core pathway is the least constrained, allowing countries to use all available clean energy technologies and assuming high levels of energy efficiency and electrification. This is the most feasible, cost-effective pathway to net-zero. The other four pathways are designed to explore how different policy and implementation constraints impact the route to carbon-neutrality. To learn more about the other pathways and our full 2022 analysis, visit <a href="http://www.carbonfreeeurope.org" target="_blank" rel="noopener">www.carbonfreeeurope.org/modelling/archive/2022</a>.
</div>
</div>
<h2>Today’s Energy System</h2>
In 2019, 77% of Germany’s energy supply came from fossil fuels (18% from coal, 25% from gas, and 34% from oil). Nuclear energy supplied 7% and renewable energy sources, including biomass, provided 15%. 32% of Germany’s emissions in 2019 came from the energy sector (primarily electricity generation), 31% from industry, 20% from transport, and 16% from residential and commercial buildings. 2019 is a good baseline year to understand Europe’s long-term energy demand and supply since impacts from the pandemic have heavily skewed data from 2020-2021. 2019 is also the most recent year for which Eurostat data is available.
<h2>Key Takeaways: The Core Pathway in 2050</h2>
<ol class="boldList">
<li>
Germany’s most feasible and cost-effective pathway to net-zero is the Core pathway, which includes the use of carbon capture and every available clean energy technology except for nuclear power. In this pathway, by 2050, Germany’s estimated electricity mix is 34% wind, 32% solar, 20% geothermal, and 10% gas. The Core pathway requires 845 billion Euros of investment through 2050 in key technologies including electricity generation and storage, clean fuels, direct air capture, and heat pumps. Our modelling excludes nuclear power from Germany’s future domestic energy supply based on the country’s current nuclear energy policy.
</li>
<li>
By 2050 in the Core pathway, Germany adds 214 GW of renewable electricity capacity. This includes 148 GW of solar photovoltaic energy, the 3rd most of any EU + UK country; 17 GW of offshore wind and 25 GW of onshore wind through 2050, the 7th and 8th most (respectively); and 24 GW of geothermal energy. Germany is the only EU + UK country to add more than 1 GW of geothermal capacity in the Core scenario.
</li>
<li>
Germany adds up to 53 GW of battery storage, the most of any EU + UK country. Germany adds at least 40 GW of battery storage in all scenarios except when nuclear power is entirely phased out across Europe (in the 100% Renewables pathway). Under the constraints of the 100% Renewables pathway, Germany has less access to electricity imports and builds more geothermal, reducing demand for energy storage to 24 GW. This happens despite the rest of Europe adding 50% more battery storage capacity compared to the Core scenario. 
</li>
<li>
Germany is a significant importer of electricity in 2050, building 63 GW of new electricity transmission by 2050. This transmission addition is the largest of any EU + UK country and more than triples existing import/export lines. 
</li>
<li>
Germany’s decarbonised economy consumes large quantities of hydrogen, most of which is imported via new pipelines. Germany builds 23 GW of new hydrogen pipelines by 2050, the 6th most among EU + UK countries. Germany produces 5 kilotonnes of hydrogen annually by 2050, the 27th most among EU + UK countries. All hydrogen produced domestically uses low-temperature electrolysis, as zero-carbon high-temperature electrolysis requires nuclear heat. 
</li>
<li>
By 2050, Germany sees the largest reduction in end-use gas and oil demand of any EU + UK country.1 This large reduction in demand is driven primarily by Germany’s high oil and gas demand in 2019.
</li>
<li>
In the Core pathway, Germany is a large producer of biofuels and e-fuels, producing nearly 14,000 and over 2,000 kilotons of oil equivalent (ktoe), respectively. Germany is the 2nd largest producer of biofuels and the 8th largest producer of e-fuels.
</li>
<li>
By 2050, Germany sequesters 59 million tons of CO2 annually in geologic formations. This is the most geologic sequestration of any EU + UK country. The sequestered CO2 is captured from production of biofuels and cement.
</li>
<li>
Germany’s high historical pace of renewables deployment will need to be sustained through 2050 to reach net-zero. From 2011 to 2020, Germany built on average 7 gigawatts of renewable energy per year. To meet demand, Germany will need to continue to build between 5 and 7 gigawatts annually through 2050.
</li>
</ol>
<h2>Key Energy Metrics</h2>
The table below shows key energy system metrics from the Core pathway, which is the most cost-effective, feasible trajectory to net-zero. The table also shows a range for each metric. That range is generated by comparing the Core pathway to four other modelled pathways designed to evaluate specific constraints. 
The Slow Demand Transformation pathway imposes delays in electrification of surface transportation, heating, and industry. The 100% Renewables pathway relies strictly on renewables, phases out nuclear power, and prevents carbon capture and sequestration. The Limited Renewable Siting pathway restricts the deployment of wind and solar to reflect land-use and siting constraints. The Domestic Preference pathway prioritises domestic energy supplies and reduces transborder transmission lines and pipelines. 
We provide a range for each metric in the table to indicate which model results are highly sensitive to constraints, and which are consistent across all scenarios such that they represent low-regret strategies. We also show Germany’s rank in each metric relative to all EU + UK countries, to identify segments of the decarbonised energy economy where Germany has an opportunity to lead.
<img src="//images.ctfassets.net/228txxvb8tt7/2Ta5IwUvQJhPAgeDGJQxei/fe284b83f276a51c6793e9dcd26c2815/Germany_Summary_TableOnly_v2.jpg" width="1149" height="1013">

2022 Country Summary: Germany

Carbon-Free Europe seeks to address many questions in regards to decarbonizing. One of them is scale. People often wonder what modeling data truly means from an implementation side.
This infographic depicts our estimate of how many solar panels and wind turbines the EU and UK really need to meet their ambitious climate goals, as well as the build rate and investment needs associated with this scale.
<img src="//images.ctfassets.net/228txxvb8tt7/66seaIxwV8cBu1yWxa6175/c7061d455396280d0d2edbcb5af8a74c/How_Much_Will_It_Take_V9.png" alt="" width="2550" height="3300">

How Much Will It Take? Exploring the Scale of Wind & Solar Required for the EU and UK to Reach Net-Zero Emissions

Publications

Topics

Team