Motivations Objectives Methodology for the quantitative analysis Scenarios Long term results Relative cost of instruments Conclusion Policy needs for BECCS: A cost e/ective analysis Olivia RICCI University of OrlØans, Laboratoire dEconomie dOrlØans-CNRS GCEP Workshop Stanford University, June 15th
25
Embed
Policy needs for BECCS: A cost e⁄ective · Policy needs for BECCS: A cost e⁄ective analysis Olivia RICCI University of OrlØans, Laboratoire d™Economie d™OrlØans-CNRS GCEP
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
Motivations
Objectives
Methodologyfor thequantitativeanalysis
Scenarios
Long termresults
Relative costof instruments
Conclusion
Policy needs for BECCS: A cost e¤ectiveanalysis
Olivia RICCIUniversity of Orléans, Laboratoire d�Economie d�Orléans-CNRS
GCEP Workshop Stanford University, June 15th
Motivations
Objectives
Methodologyfor thequantitativeanalysis
Scenarios
Long termresults
Relative costof instruments
Conclusion
Motivations
A major issue regarding the deployment of BECCS is itseconomic viability
To become signi�cant, economic incentives will be needed
Since CO2 from biomass transformation is considered neutral,traditional environmental policy instruments, such asenvironmental taxes, are not appropriate for this technology
In the Kyoto framework, CO2 emissions are accounted for indi¤erent ways depending on their origin
Thus, there are currently no incentives for a �rm to capture andstore CO2 from biomass
Motivations
Objectives
Methodologyfor thequantitativeanalysis
Scenarios
Long termresults
Relative costof instruments
Conclusion
Motivations
A major issue regarding the deployment of BECCS is itseconomic viability
To become signi�cant, economic incentives will be needed
Since CO2 from biomass transformation is considered neutral,traditional environmental policy instruments, such asenvironmental taxes, are not appropriate for this technology
In the Kyoto framework, CO2 emissions are accounted for indi¤erent ways depending on their origin
Thus, there are currently no incentives for a �rm to capture andstore CO2 from biomass
Motivations
Objectives
Methodologyfor thequantitativeanalysis
Scenarios
Long termresults
Relative costof instruments
Conclusion
Motivations
A major issue regarding the deployment of BECCS is itseconomic viability
To become signi�cant, economic incentives will be needed
Since CO2 from biomass transformation is considered neutral,traditional environmental policy instruments, such asenvironmental taxes, are not appropriate for this technology
In the Kyoto framework, CO2 emissions are accounted for indi¤erent ways depending on their origin
Thus, there are currently no incentives for a �rm to capture andstore CO2 from biomass
Motivations
Objectives
Methodologyfor thequantitativeanalysis
Scenarios
Long termresults
Relative costof instruments
Conclusion
Motivations
A major issue regarding the deployment of BECCS is itseconomic viability
To become signi�cant, economic incentives will be needed
Since CO2 from biomass transformation is considered neutral,traditional environmental policy instruments, such asenvironmental taxes, are not appropriate for this technology
In the Kyoto framework, CO2 emissions are accounted for indi¤erent ways depending on their origin
Thus, there are currently no incentives for a �rm to capture andstore CO2 from biomass
Motivations
Objectives
Methodologyfor thequantitativeanalysis
Scenarios
Long termresults
Relative costof instruments
Conclusion
Motivations
A major issue regarding the deployment of BECCS is itseconomic viability
To become signi�cant, economic incentives will be needed
Since CO2 from biomass transformation is considered neutral,traditional environmental policy instruments, such asenvironmental taxes, are not appropriate for this technology
In the Kyoto framework, CO2 emissions are accounted for indi¤erent ways depending on their origin
Thus, there are currently no incentives for a �rm to capture andstore CO2 from biomass
Motivations
Objectives
Methodologyfor thequantitativeanalysis
Scenarios
Long termresults
Relative costof instruments
Conclusion
Objectives
Compare qualitatively the e¢ ciency of several policyinstruments regarding the adoption of CCS and BECCS
Compare quantitatively the cost-e¢ ciency of those instruments.Does the instrument attain the environmental target at leastcost?
The only market based instrument that creates adequateincentives for BECCS deployment is a subsidy per unit ofcaptured emissions.
To develop both CCS and BECCS three options are available:
A speci�c subsidy per unit of captured emissions. It is designed such
that it makes no distinction between fossil and biomass emissions.
A combination of a carbon tax and a subsidy per unit of captured
emissions from biomass (two part instrument).
A carbon tax where tax�revenues are recycled to subsidize biomass
emissions captured with CCS.
Motivations
Objectives
Methodologyfor thequantitativeanalysis
Scenarios
Long termresults
Relative costof instruments
Conclusion
Qualitative analysis results
The only market based instrument that creates adequateincentives for BECCS deployment is a subsidy per unit ofcaptured emissions.
To develop both CCS and BECCS three options are available:
A speci�c subsidy per unit of captured emissions. It is designed such
that it makes no distinction between fossil and biomass emissions.
A combination of a carbon tax and a subsidy per unit of captured
emissions from biomass (two part instrument).
A carbon tax where tax�revenues are recycled to subsidize biomass
emissions captured with CCS.
Motivations
Objectives
Methodologyfor thequantitativeanalysis
Scenarios
Long termresults
Relative costof instruments
Conclusion
Qualitative analysis results
The only market based instrument that creates adequateincentives for BECCS deployment is a subsidy per unit ofcaptured emissions.
To develop both CCS and BECCS three options are available:
A speci�c subsidy per unit of captured emissions. It is designed such
that it makes no distinction between fossil and biomass emissions.
A combination of a carbon tax and a subsidy per unit of captured
emissions from biomass (two part instrument).
A carbon tax where tax�revenues are recycled to subsidize biomass
emissions captured with CCS.
Motivations
Objectives
Methodologyfor thequantitativeanalysis
Scenarios
Long termresults
Relative costof instruments
Conclusion
Qualitative analysis results
The only market based instrument that creates adequateincentives for BECCS deployment is a subsidy per unit ofcaptured emissions.
To develop both CCS and BECCS three options are available:
A speci�c subsidy per unit of captured emissions. It is designed such
that it makes no distinction between fossil and biomass emissions.
A combination of a carbon tax and a subsidy per unit of captured
emissions from biomass (two part instrument).
A carbon tax where tax�revenues are recycled to subsidize biomass
emissions captured with CCS.
Motivations
Objectives
Methodologyfor thequantitativeanalysis
Scenarios
Long termresults
Relative costof instruments
Conclusion
Qualitative analysis results
The only market based instrument that creates adequateincentives for BECCS deployment is a subsidy per unit ofcaptured emissions.
To develop both CCS and BECCS three options are available:
A speci�c subsidy per unit of captured emissions. It is designed such
that it makes no distinction between fossil and biomass emissions.
A combination of a carbon tax and a subsidy per unit of captured
emissions from biomass (two part instrument).
A carbon tax where tax�revenues are recycled to subsidize biomass
emissions captured with CCS.
Motivations
Objectives
Methodologyfor thequantitativeanalysis
Scenarios
Long termresults
Relative costof instruments
Conclusion
MEGC
The methodology employed in our quantitative analysis is adynamic general equilibrium model which include CCS andBECCS.
Standard tool for assessing economy-wide impacts ofenvironmental and technological policies.
A general equilibium approach o¤ers a comprehensiverepresentation of price dependant market interactions based onWalrasian equilibrium theory
We study the equilibrium in a decentralized economy; it allowsus to examine how the economy reacts to environmental policychanges.
Motivations
Objectives
Methodologyfor thequantitativeanalysis
Scenarios
Long termresults
Relative costof instruments
Conclusion
MEGC
The methodology employed in our quantitative analysis is adynamic general equilibrium model which include CCS andBECCS.
Standard tool for assessing economy-wide impacts ofenvironmental and technological policies.
A general equilibium approach o¤ers a comprehensiverepresentation of price dependant market interactions based onWalrasian equilibrium theory
We study the equilibrium in a decentralized economy; it allowsus to examine how the economy reacts to environmental policychanges.
Motivations
Objectives
Methodologyfor thequantitativeanalysis
Scenarios
Long termresults
Relative costof instruments
Conclusion
MEGC
The methodology employed in our quantitative analysis is adynamic general equilibrium model which include CCS andBECCS.
Standard tool for assessing economy-wide impacts ofenvironmental and technological policies.
A general equilibium approach o¤ers a comprehensiverepresentation of price dependant market interactions based onWalrasian equilibrium theory
We study the equilibrium in a decentralized economy; it allowsus to examine how the economy reacts to environmental policychanges.
Motivations
Objectives
Methodologyfor thequantitativeanalysis
Scenarios
Long termresults
Relative costof instruments
Conclusion
MEGC
The methodology employed in our quantitative analysis is adynamic general equilibrium model which include CCS andBECCS.
Standard tool for assessing economy-wide impacts ofenvironmental and technological policies.
A general equilibium approach o¤ers a comprehensiverepresentation of price dependant market interactions based onWalrasian equilibrium theory
We study the equilibrium in a decentralized economy; it allowsus to examine how the economy reacts to environmental policychanges.
Motivations
Objectives
Methodologyfor thequantitativeanalysis
Scenarios
Long termresults
Relative costof instruments
Conclusion
Model structure
Biomassresource
Fossilresource
Secondaryenergy
Capital Labor
Final good(output)
Representativeconsumer
Land Outputshare IB
Outputshare IF
Carbonresource
CCS
CO2 emissions
Carbon stockincrease
Environmentalauthority
Damage
Motivations
Objectives
Methodologyfor thequantitativeanalysis
Scenarios
Long termresults
Relative costof instruments
Conclusion
Scenarios
Emissions target: a decrease of 20% in total emissions from thesecondary energy sector such as:
S1: A subsidy on captured emissions is implemented. It develops CCS and
BECCS. It is �nanced by a lump sum transfer from consumer.
S2: A two-part instrument or a tradable allowance system is used to
develop CCS and BECCS. The carbon tax rate is equivalent to the subsidy
rate . Net revenues are returned to consumers as a lump sum transfer.
S3: A carbon tax is implemented. Revenues are recycled to subsidize
biomass emissions captured with CCS.
S4: A carbon tax is implemented. Revenues are returned to consumers as a
lump sum transfer.
Motivations
Objectives
Methodologyfor thequantitativeanalysis
Scenarios
Long termresults
Relative costof instruments
Conclusion
Long term results
Calibration of the model with world data for 2005.
We can compare the cost of achieving the given emissionsreduction using our instrument in terms of economic welfarevariation (intertemporal utility variation). The economic welfarefunction is:
W =∞∑t=0
1(1+ρ)t
(U(C t ))
The initial steady state (W i ) and the �nal steady state (W f )values of the utility can therefore be computed. Theintertemporal welfare variation is given by: