Analysis of Technological Portfolios for C02 Stabilizations and Effects of Technological Changes

Abstract

In this study, cost-effective technological options to stabilize CO2 concentrations at 550, 500, and 450 ppmv are evaluated using a world energy systems model of linear programming with a high regional resolution. This model treats technological change endogenously for wind power, photovoltaics, and fuel-cell vehicles, which are technologies of mass production and are considered to follow the “learning by doing” process. Technological changes induced by climate policies are evaluated by maintaining the technological changes at the levels of the base case wherein there is no climate policy. The results achieved through model analyses ixnclude 1) cost-effective technological portfolios, including carbon capture and storage, marginal CO2 reduction costs, and increases in energy system cost for three levels of stabilization and 2) the effect of the induced technological change on the above mentioned factors. A sensitivity analysis is conducted with respect to the learning rate.

Keywords

Energy systems model Global warming Technological portfolios Technological changes

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Akimoto

, (2004). “Role of CO2 Sequestration by Country for Global Warming Mitigation after 2013.” Proceedings of 7th International Conference on Greenhouse Gas Control Technologies, Vol. 1: Peer-Reviewed Papers and Plenary Presentations, IEA Greenhouse Gas Programme, Cheltenham, UK.

Akimoto

Tomoda

(2005). “Role for Different Levels of CO2 Concentration Stabilization.” Proceedings of International Scientific Symposium: Avoiding Dangerous Climate Change.

David

Herzog

(2000). “The Cost of Carbon Capture.” Proceeding of 5th Conference of Greenhouse Gas Control Technologies. VIC: CISRO PUBLISHING. 985-990.

EPRI/DOE (1997). Renewable Energy Technology Characterizations. EPRI Topical Report. (TR-109496)

Fujii

Yamaji

. (1998). “Assessment of technological options in the global energy system for limiting the atmospheric CO2 concentration.” Environmental Economics and Policy Studies 1: 113-139.

Grübler

Nakicenovic

Nordhaus

W.D.

(2002). Technological Change and the Environment, Resources for the Future, Washington, DC.

IAE/NEDO (2003). Report of systems analysis in WE-NET Phase2. (in Japanese).

IEA (1999). Energy Prices &Taxes - Quarterly Statistics. Paris: OECD.

IEA (2002). Energy Balances of OECD/Non-OECD Countries: 1999-2000. Paris: OECD.

10.

IPCC (2001). Climate Change 2001 Mitigation: Cambridge University press.

11.

Kypreos

(2000). “ERIS: a model prototype with endogenous technological change.” International Journal of Global Energy 14: 374-397.

12.

Nakicenovic

(eds.) (2000). Special Report on Emissions Scenarios. Cambride: Cambridge University Press.

13.

Manne

Barreto

(2004). “Learn-by-doing and Carbon Dioxide Abatement.” Energy Economics 26(4): 621-633.

14.

Messner

(1997). “Endogenized technological learning in an energy systems model.” Evolutionary Economics 7: 291-313.

15.

OECD/IEA (2000). World Energy Outlook. Paris: OECD.

16.

Rogner

H-H.

(1997). “An assessment of world hydrocarbon resources.” Annual Review of Energy and Environment 22: 217-262.

17.

Saito

(2000). Cost Handbook of Chemical Equipment. Kogyo Chosakai Publishing (in Japanese). Task Group on Scenarios for Climate Impact Assessment (TGCIA). (2002). Socioeconomic Data for TGCIA.

18.

USGS (2000). U.S. Geological Survey World Petroleum Assessment 2000 - Description and Results. WEC (2001). Survey of Energy Resources 2001 (CD-ROM). London: World Energy Council.

19.

World Bank (2002). World Development Indicators 2002. Washington DC: The World Bank.

20.

Yamada

Komiyama

(2002). Photovoltaic Engineering. (in Japanese)

21.

Yamaji

Fujino

Osada

(2000). “Global energy system to maintain atmospheric CO2 concentration at 550 ppm.” Environmental Economics and Policy Studies 3: 159-171.