Economic assessment of combined cycle gas turbines in Australia: Some effects of microeconomic reform and technological change

Australian electricity markets and natural gas markets are undergoing rapid reform. Choosing among electricity generation modes is a key issue. Such choices are affected by expectations about the future structure of these markets and future technologies, and how they affect costs and emissions. In the research reported in this paper, the MARKAL model of the Australian energy system is used to evaluate the competitive position of natural gas fired combined cycle gas turbines (CCGTs) in the energy sector as a whole. Competing in the sector are large-scale electricity generation technologies such as refurbished existing coal fired stations and advanced forms of coal fired generation. The modelling incorporates new data on electricity supply technologies and options.

[1]  Blake Johnson,et al.  Modeling energy technology choices: Which investment analysis tools are appropriate? , 1994 .

[2]  M. Thring.  World Energy Outlook , 1977 .

[3]  K. Stocks,et al.  MENSA ― A regionalized version of MARKAL, the IEA linear programming model for energy systems analysis , 1984 .

[4]  Leslie G. Fishbone,et al.  Markal, a linear‐programming model for energy systems analysis: Technical description of the bnl version , 1981 .

[5]  Avinash Dixit,et al.  Investment and Hysteresis , 1992 .

[6]  Christopher Flavin,et al.  Power Surge: Guide to the Coming Energy Revolution , 1995 .

[7]  J. Quiggin.  Estimating the Benefits of Hilmer and Related Reforms , 1997 .

[8]  W. Arthur.  Positive feedbacks in the economy , 1990 .

[9]  Thomas E. Hoff,et al.  Distributed generation: An alternative to electric utility investments in system capacity , 1996 .

[10]  T. Flaim,et al.  Economies of scale and reliability: the economics of large versus small generating units , 1980 .

[11]  R. Green,et al.  Liberalisation and Divestiture in the UK Energy Sector , 1995 .

[12]  Kenneth Button,et al.  Ownership Structure, Institutional Organization and Measured X-Efficiency , 1992 .

[13]  Roger C. Dugan,et al.  Distributed generation , 2002 .

[14]  Note on The Seemingly Indefinite Extension of Power Plant Lives, A Panel Contribution , 1998 .

[15]  Ulrika Claeson Colpier.  Using the experience curve to analyze the cost development of the combined cycle gas turbine , 1999 .

[16]  M. Mccarthy.  US tightens oversight of gene-therapy trials , 2000, The Lancet.

[17]  Paul L. Joskow,et al.  Productivity Growth and Technical Change in the Generation of Electricity , 1987 .

[18]  A Dickson,et al.  Australian energy: market developments and projections to 2014-15 , 1999 .

[19]  A. Denny Ellerman,et al.  The competition between coal and natural gas the importance of sunk costs , 1996 .

[20]  D. North.  Competing Technologies , Increasing Returns , and Lock-In by Historical Events , 1994 .

[21]  Robert Boyd,et al.  Effect of demand uncertainty on the relative economics of electrical-generation technologies with differing lead times , 1980 .

[22]  J. Whiteman.  The Potential Benefits of Hilmer and Related Reforms: Electricity Supply , 1999 .

[23]  R. Pindyck.  Irreversibility, Uncertainty, and Investment , 1990 .

[24]  Gilbert E. Metcalf,et al.  Energy conservation investment: Do consumers discount the future correctly? , 1993 .

[25]  Niclas Mattsson,et al.  Internalizing technological development in energy systems models , 1997 .

[26]  F. Hilmer,et al.  National competition policy: report , 1993 .

[27]  A. Manne,et al.  Buying greenhouse insurance: The economics costs of carbon dioxide emission limits , 1992 .

[28]  Stephen P. King.  National Competition Policy , 1997 .

[29]  G. Metcalf.  Can Irreversibility Explain the Slow Diffusion of Energy Saving Technologies? (with Kevin Hassett) , 1996 .