Power sector carbon reduction review for South Korea in 2030

被引:10
作者
Choo, Hyunwoong [1 ]
Kim, Yong-Gun [2 ]
Kim, Dongwoo [1 ]
机构
[1] Hanyang Univ, ERICA, 55 Hanyangdaehak Ro, Ansan 15588, South Korea
[2] Yonsei Univ, Grad Sch Int Studies, 50 Yonsei Ro, Seoul 03722, South Korea
基金
新加坡国家研究基金会;
关键词
New 2030 NDC target; Carbon reduction in power sector; Renewables expansion; Nuclear restoration; Carbon tax; Coal-ammonia co-firing; Carbon abatement cost; Levelized cost of electricity; SYSTEM; FLEXIBILITY; TECHNOLOGY; EMISSIONS; MARKET; COSTS; GAS;
D O I
10.1016/j.rser.2024.114348
中图分类号
X [环境科学、安全科学];
学科分类号
08 ; 0830 ;
摘要
This study investigates the cost-effectiveness and decarbonization of four essential carbon reduction strategies to achieve Korea's recent 2030 NDC (Nationally Determined Contribution) goal in the power sector. Examining overseas experiences and identifying potentials and challenges in implementing these strategies in Korea, this study explores the performance of future Korean power systems under fifty-four configurations combining these strategies. The evaluation results indicate that: 1) Thirty-one of the fifty-four tested configurations can achieve the emission target (149.9 MtCO2e) with carbon abatement costs (COA) ranging from -$89 to $105/tCO2e. The optimal configuration with the lowest COA is a combination of nuclear restoration and renewable expansion strategies. 2) Renewable expansion significantly reduces the COA and levelized cost of electricity (LCOE). A pure renewable expansion strategy with photovoltaics of 68 GW and wind turbines of 35 GW attains the emission goal at a COA of -$54/tCO2e, in which the generation share of renewables reaches 42%. 3) A carbon tax of $104/tCO2e achieves the target if complemented by nuclear restoration. Otherwise, $120/tCO2e is needed. The COA and LCOE are increases by switching from cheap coal to expensive natural gas in both cases. 4) Twenty percent coal-ammonia co -firing combined with a carbon tax of $32/tCO2e and nuclear restoration can achieve the goal with relatively high costs compared with the optimal strategies. However, a co -firing strategy is limited because the generation shrinks at a minimum level when 40%similar to mixing ratios are applied, or when the fuel price gap between ammonia and natural gas becomes large.
引用
收藏
页数:21
相关论文
共 98 条
[1]  
Abrell Jan., 2019, A Machine Learning Approach to Policy Evaluation (April 15, V19, P317
[2]   Power sector reform and CO2 abatement costs in Korea [J].
Ahn, Young-Hwan ;
Jeon, Wooyoung .
ENERGY POLICY, 2019, 131 :202-214
[3]   Opportunities and Challenges of Solar and Wind Energy in South Korea: A Review [J].
Alsharif, Mohammed H. ;
Kim, Jeong ;
Kim, Jin Hong .
SUSTAINABILITY, 2018, 10 (06)
[4]  
Alvarez R, 2018, The global crisis of nuclear waste
[5]   A review of Safety, Health and Environmental (SHE) issues of solar energy system [J].
Aman, M. M. ;
Solangi, K. H. ;
Hossain, M. S. ;
Badarudin, A. ;
Jasmon, G. B. ;
Mokhlis, H. ;
Bakar, A. H. A. ;
Kazi, S. N. .
RENEWABLE & SUSTAINABLE ENERGY REVIEWS, 2015, 41 :1190-1204
[6]  
An JG, 2016, Study on the achievement of long-term greenhouse gas reduction targets in power generation sector
[7]  
Anderson J, 2019, Working Paper CEIC-19-05
[8]   Reducing carbon dioxide emissions beyond 2030: Time to shift US power-sector focus [J].
Anderson, Jeffrey ;
Rode, David ;
Zhai, Haibo ;
Fischbeck, Paul .
ENERGY POLICY, 2021, 148
[9]  
[Anonymous], 2021, World energy outlook 2021
[10]  
[Anonymous], 2020, Renewable Power Generation Costs in 2019