The differential impact of low-carbon technologies on climate change mitigation cost under a range of socioeconomic and climate policy scenarios

被引:22
作者
Barron, Robert [1 ]
McJeon, Haewon [2 ]
机构
[1] Univ Massachusetts, Amherst, MA 01003 USA
[2] JGCRI, Pacific NW Natl Lab, College Pk, MD USA
基金
美国国家科学基金会;
关键词
Integrated assessment models; Expert elicitation; Technology cost; EXPERT ELICITATION; FRAMEWORK;
D O I
10.1016/j.enpol.2015.01.038
中图分类号
F [经济];
学科分类号
02 ;
摘要
This paper considers the effect of several key parameters of low carbon energy technologies on the cost of abatement. A methodology for determining the minimum level of performance required for a parameter to have a statistically significant impact on CO2 abatement cost is developed and used to evaluate the impact of eight key parameters of low carbon energy supply technologies on the cost of CO2 abatement. The capital cost of nuclear technology is found to have the greatest impact of the parameters studied. The cost of biomass and CCS technologies also have impacts, while their efficiencies have little, if any. Sensitivity analysis of the results with respect to population, GDP, and CO2 emission constraint show that the minimum performance level and impact of nuclear technologies is consistent across the socioeconomic scenarios studied, while the other technology parameters show different performance under higher population, lower GDP scenarios. Solar technology was found to have a small impact, and then only at very low costs. These results indicate that the cost of nuclear is the single most important driver of abatement cost, and that trading efficiency for cost may make biomass and CCS technologies more competitive. (C) 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
引用
收藏
页码:264 / 274
页数:11
相关论文
共 33 条
[1]   Expert Judgments about RD&D and the Future of Nuclear Energy (vol 41, pg 11497, 2012) [J].
Anadon, Laura D. ;
Bosetti, Valentina ;
Bunn, Matthew ;
Catenacci, Michela ;
Lee, Audrey .
ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY, 2013, 47 (15) :8989-8989
[2]  
[Anonymous], 2011, GCAM 3.0 Agriculture and Land Use: Technical Description of Modeling Approach
[3]  
[Anonymous], 2007, PROSP EV APPL EN RES
[4]   Future costs of key low-carbon energy technologies: Harmonization and aggregation of energy technology expert elicitation data [J].
Baker, Erin ;
Bosetti, Valentina ;
Anadon, Laura Diaz ;
Henrion, Max ;
Reis, Lara Aleluia .
ENERGY POLICY, 2015, 80 :219-232
[5]   Cellulosic biofuels: Expert views on prospects for advancement [J].
Baker, Erin ;
Keisler, Jeffrey M. .
ENERGY, 2011, 36 (01) :595-605
[6]   Battery technology for electric and hybrid vehicles: Expert views about prospects for advancement [J].
Baker, Erin ;
Chon, Haewon ;
Keisler, Jeffrey .
TECHNOLOGICAL FORECASTING AND SOCIAL CHANGE, 2010, 77 (07) :1139-1146
[7]   Carbon capture and storage: combining economic analysis with expert elicitations to inform climate policy [J].
Baker, Erin ;
Chon, Haewon ;
Keisler, Jeffrey .
CLIMATIC CHANGE, 2009, 96 (03) :379-408
[8]   Advanced solar R&D: Combining economic analysis with expert elicitations to inform climate policy [J].
Baker, Erin ;
Chon, Haewon ;
Keisler, Jeffrey .
ENERGY ECONOMICS, 2009, 31 :S37-S49
[9]  
Bosetti V., 2011, ICARUS SURVEY CURREN
[10]   The future prospect of PV and CSP solar technologies: An expert elicitation survey [J].
Bosetti, Valentina ;
Catenacci, Michela ;
Fiorese, Giulia ;
Verdolini, Elena .
ENERGY POLICY, 2012, 49 :308-317