4.7 Article

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

期刊

ENERGY POLICY
卷 80, 期 -, 页码 264-274

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.enpol.2015.01.038

关键词

Integrated assessment models; Expert elicitation; Technology cost

资金

  1. National Science Foundation [0960993]
  2. Global Technology Strategy Project (GTSP)
  3. GEMINA project - Italian Ministry for the Environment, Land and Sea (MATTM)
  4. Energy Modeling Forum at Stanford University
  5. Direct For Social, Behav & Economic Scie
  6. SBE Off Of Multidisciplinary Activities [0960993] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

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.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据