extreme conditions on single days, a deficit of up to 36% of the
installed capacity of 20,474 MW is simulated, which means a
deficit of 7370 MW.
Using the results of the different climate scenarios for each
power plant, the effects of an increase in air temperature can be
estimated. These results are displayed in Fig. 8 for four selected
nuclear power plants. Although the installed capacity of the four
selected nuclear power plants is comparable the results differ
significantly. For the Biblis A nuclear power plant located in the
Rhine basin the effects are approximately sevenfold that of the
Grohnde nuclear power plant located in the Weser basin, although
both have a closed-circuit cooling system. The Unterweser and
Krümmel nuclear power plants, both with once-through cooling
systems, show much stronger effects. However, the effects for the
Unterweser nuclear power plant are approximately eightfold that
of the Krümmel nuclear power plant. These differences are the
result of the characteristics of the river systems, i.e. runoff and
water temperature, and their different reactions to the assumed increase of air temperature. These results underline the necessity
for a separate analysis of climate change effects for each of the
respective nuclear power plants.
Fig. 9 depicts the development of the mean additional costs
accrued for all nuclear power plants. It is assumed that the power
plant operator must purchase the amount of electricity not
generated by the power plant on the electricity market. Additional
costs of V60 per MWh are assumed for the entire period.
The economic results depend strongly on future prices for raw
materials and the price of electricity and should be seen as a
rough estimate. The effects of low electricity generation and
availability on prices, which may occur under extreme conditions,
are not considered here. Furthermore, the costs shown are
not discounted. As can be seen in Fig. 9, in the þ3 K scenario the
accumulated costs from 2010-2050 double compared to the 0 K
scenario.