Emission path planning based on dynamic abatement cost curve

Global climate change is one of the most serious environmental problems that has attracted an unprecedented global attention. The scientific community has recognized that human activity is mostly responsible for global climate warming. Therefore, states participating in the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) have initiated a series of negotiations on how to develop their own emission reduction targets. However, the realization of these targets is at the expense of economic development to a great extent. Therefore, an abatement plan is necessary to decide how and when to implement emission reduction targets. A marginal abatement cost curve (MACC), often used as an important quantitative tool to estimate abatement burden or evaluate abatement performance, should be considered carefully. In this paper, we enrich the traditional MACC by introducing the concept of an “immediate unit marginal abatement cost” to describe its intrinsic incremental abatement difficulty. This cost is proved to be agreed with the actual situation in many ways, and is therefore very suitable for practical use. Two-factor learning curve are considered in the model, which can go some way in improving the performance of the revised MACC. Using a parameterization method, the original problem can be converted into a tractable nonlinear programming problem. We use an algorithm to search for the approximate global optimal solution. The effectiveness and the efficiency of the algorithm are discussed respectively. In the results, we find that the abatement path distinguishes largely under different abatement targets. Some plausible reasons and policy advices are given.

[1]  W. Nordhaus The Cost of Slowing Climate Change: a Survey , 1991 .

[2]  Knut Einar Rosendahl,et al.  Cost-effective environmental policy: Implications of induced technological change , 2004 .

[3]  Aleda V. Roth,et al.  Outsourcing to a Powerful Contract Manufacturer: The Effect of Learning‐by‐Doing , 2009 .

[4]  Antonio Soria,et al.  Modelling energy technology dynamics: methodology for adaptive expectations models with learning by doing and learning by searching , 2000 .

[5]  Patrik Söderholm,et al.  Wind Power in Europe: A Simultaneous Innovation–Diffusion Model , 2007 .

[6]  Ekundayo Shittu,et al.  Profit-maximizing R&D in response to a random carbon tax , 2006 .

[7]  Wim Turkenburg,et al.  Technological learning in bioenergy systems , 2006 .

[8]  Sergey Paltsev,et al.  Marginal Abatement Costs and Marginal Welfare Costs for Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reductions: Results from the EPPA Model , 2011, Environmental Modeling & Assessment.

[9]  Rafael Martí,et al.  Experimental Testing of Advanced Scatter Search Designs for Global Optimization of Multimodal Functions , 2005, J. Glob. Optim..

[10]  Yann Bramoullé,et al.  Allocation of pollution abatement under learning by doing , 2005 .

[11]  Asami Miketa,et al.  The impact of R&D on innovation for wind energy in Denmark, Germany and the United Kingdom , 2005 .

[12]  I. Gren,et al.  Cost effective nutrient abatement under learning- by-doing induced technical change , 2013 .

[13]  Peter Holmes Kobos,et al.  Technological learning and renewable energy costs: implications for US renewable energy policy , 2004 .

[14]  P. Ekins,et al.  Marginal abatement cost curves: a call for caution , 2011 .

[15]  L. Goulder,et al.  Optimal Co2 Abatement in the Presence of Induced Technological Change , 1998 .

[16]  Patrick Criqui,et al.  Marginal abatement costs of CO2 emission reductions, geographical flexibility and concrete ceilings: an assessment using the POLES model , 1999 .

[17]  Senay Solak,et al.  Climate change and optimal energy technology R&D policy , 2011, Eur. J. Oper. Res..

[18]  David Popp,et al.  Entice: Endogenous Technological Change in the Dice Model of Global Warming , 2003 .

[19]  Sonja Peterson,et al.  Marginal Abatement Cost Curves in General Equilibrium: The Influence of World Energy Prices , 2004 .

[20]  Can Uncertainty Justify Overlapping Policy Instruments to Mitigate Emissions , 2013 .

[21]  Erin Baker,et al.  Investment in risky R&D programs in the face of climate uncertainty , 2008 .

[22]  Benjamin Leard The Welfare Effects of Allowance Banking in Emissions Trading Programs , 2013 .

[23]  A. Denny Ellerman,et al.  Analysis of post-Kyoto CO₂ emissions trading using marginal abatement curves , 1998 .

[24]  Tieju Ma,et al.  Adoption of an emerging infrastructure with uncertain technological learning and spatial reconfiguration , 2015, Eur. J. Oper. Res..

[25]  Tieju Ma,et al.  Technology adoption with limited foresight and uncertain technological learning , 2014, Eur. J. Oper. Res..

[26]  Harrison Fell,et al.  Alternative Approaches to Cost Containment in a Cap-and-Trade System , 2009 .

[27]  Adrien Vogt-Schilb,et al.  Marginal Abatement Cost Curves and the Optimal Timing of Mitigation Measures , 2013 .

[28]  Li Feng,et al.  Fictitious Play and Price-Deviation-Adjust Learning in Electricity Market , 2005, ICNC.

[29]  Fouad El Ouardighi,et al.  Pollution accumulation and abatement policy in a supply chain , 2016, Eur. J. Oper. Res..

[30]  K. Arrow The Economic Implications of Learning by Doing , 1962 .

[31]  Socrates Kypreos,et al.  Emissions trading and technology deployment in an energy-systems "bottom-up" model with technology learning , 2004, Eur. J. Oper. Res..

[32]  Tooraj Jamasb,et al.  Technical Change Theory and Learning Curves: Patterns of Progress in Electricity Generation Technologies , 2007 .

[33]  David A. Wismer,et al.  Introduction to nonlinear optimization , 1978 .

[34]  Lei Zhu,et al.  A non-linear model for estimating the cost of achieving emission reduction targets: The case of the U.S., China and India , 2012 .

[35]  Panos Parpas,et al.  An approximate dynamic programming framework for modeling global climate policy under decision-dependent uncertainty , 2012, Comput. Manag. Sci..

[36]  Thomas Mayer,et al.  Feasibility study of 2020 target costs for PEM fuel cells and lithium-ion batteries: A two-factor experience curve approach , 2012 .

[37]  Ekundayo Shittu,et al.  A control model of policy uncertainty and energy R&D investments , 2009 .

[38]  Richard S. J. Tol,et al.  Optimal CO2-abatement with Socio-economic Inertia and Induced Technological Change , 2006 .

[39]  Socrates Kypreos,et al.  A Merge Model with Endogenous Technological Change and the Cost of Carbon Stabilization , 2005 .

[40]  Fred W. Glover,et al.  Scatter Search and Local Nlp Solvers: A Multistart Framework for Global Optimization , 2006, INFORMS J. Comput..

[41]  Leo Schrattenholzer,et al.  Learning rates for energy technologies , 2001 .

[42]  Carmen Camacho,et al.  Carbon capture and storage and transboundary pollution: A differential game approach , 2014, Eur. J. Oper. Res..