Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41212927›Full record

ArticlePloS one2025

Nuclear phase-out: Can we catch up on CO2 emissions?

Luisa Loiacono, Leonzio Rizzo, Riccardo Secomandi

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Luisa LoiaconoDepartment of Economics and Management, Università degli Studi di Ferrara, Ferrara, Italy.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1301-1409
Leonzio RizzoDepartment of Economics and Management, Università degli Studi di Ferrara, Ferrara, Italy.
Riccardo SecomandiDepartment of Economics and Management, Università degli Studi di Ferrara, Ferrara, Italy.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Nuclear energy is classified as a low-carbon energy source by institutions such as the European Union, due to its negligible direct carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions. Nevertheless, following major nuclear incidents such as Fukushima, several countries have implemented nuclear phase-out programs driven by safety concerns. This has raised critical questions about whether the reduction in nuclear capacity would be compensated for by an increase in renewable energy or by a return to fossil fuel-based generation. In this paper, we analyze the trajectory of CO2 emissions from fossil fuel energy sources (specifically coal, oil, and gas) in Germany after the launch of its nuclear phase-out in 2010. Using a synthetic control method, we find that although emissions from fossil sources declined overall in the country, the reduction was weaker in Germany after the phase-out, due to an increased reliance on fossil fuels, particularly coal. However, over a thirteen-year period, the gap in fossil-related CO2 emissions between Germany and its synthetic control group progressively narrows until 2023, when it disappeared. These findings suggest that the nuclear phase-out contributed to higher pollution from fossil fuel energy in the short term, but we find that this effect was gradually mitigated by a stronger growth of renewables in Germany during the 2011-2023 period.

Indexed as

Air PollutantsCarbon DioxideNuclear EnergyCoalFossil FuelsGermanyRenewable EnergyAir PollutantsCarbon DioxideCoalFossil Fuels

Identifiers

PMID41212927
PMCPMC12599922

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.