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

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.

[1]  James J. Dooley,et al.  Stabilization of CO2 in a B2 world: insights on the roles of carbon capture and disposal, hydrogen, and transportation technologies , 2004 .

[2]  Marshall A. Wise,et al.  Technology interactions among low-carbon energy technologies: What can we learn from a large number of scenarios? , 2011 .

[3]  Jeffrey M. Keisler,et al.  Battery technology for electric and hybrid vehicles: Expert views about prospects for advancement , 2010 .

[4]  C.-Y. Cynthia Lin,et al.  Measuring the social rate of return to R&D in coal, petroleum and nuclear manufacturing: A study of the OECD countries , 2011 .

[5]  Gregory F. Nemet,et al.  Beyond the learning curve: factors influencing cost reductions in photovoltaics , 2006 .

[6]  Lukas H. Meyer,et al.  Summary for Policymakers , 2022, The Ocean and Cryosphere in a Changing Climate.

[7]  Valentina Bosetti,et al.  The Future Prospect of PV and CSP Solar Technologies: An Expert Elicitation Survey , 2012 .

[8]  J. Edmonds,et al.  Global Energy: Assessing the Future , 1985 .

[9]  A. Thomson,et al.  The representative concentration pathways: an overview , 2011 .

[10]  Erin Baker,et al.  Carbon capture and storage: combining economic analysis with expert elicitations to inform climate policy , 2009 .

[11]  Alexei G. Sankovski,et al.  Special report on emissions scenarios : a special report of Working group III of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change , 2000 .

[12]  Keywan Riahi,et al.  Chapter 17 - Energy Pathways for Sustainable Development , 2012 .

[13]  J. Edmonds,et al.  Modelling energy technologies in a competitive market , 1993 .

[14]  Jeffrey M. Keisler,et al.  Cellulosic biofuels: Expert views on prospects for advancement , 2011 .

[15]  Jeffrey M. Keisler,et al.  Advanced Nuclear Power: Combining Economic Analysis with Expert Elicitations to Inform Climate Policy , 2008 .

[16]  Keywan Riahi,et al.  A new scenario framework for climate change research: the concept of shared socioeconomic pathways , 2013, Climatic Change.

[17]  Laura Diaz Anadon,et al.  Expert elicitation of cost, performance, and RD&D budgets for coal power with CCS , 2011 .

[18]  Haewon C. McJeon,et al.  Trapped between two tails: trading off scientific uncertainties via climate targets , 2013 .

[19]  J. Edmonds,et al.  A new scenario framework for climate change research: background, process, and future directions , 2013, Climatic Change.

[20]  K. Calvin,et al.  GCAM 3.0 Agriculture and Land Use: Technical Description of Modeling Approach , 2011 .

[21]  Keywan Riahi,et al.  A new scenario framework for climate change research: the concept of shared climate policy assumptions , 2014, Climatic Change.

[22]  D. McFadden.  Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behavior , 1972 .

[23]  Valentina Bosetti,et al.  Future Costs of Key Low-Carbon Energy Technologies: Harmonization and Aggregation of Energy Technology Expert Elicitation Data , 2015 .

[24]  K. Calvin,et al.  LIMITS Special Issue on Durban Platform scenarios Energy investments under climate policy: a comparison of global models , 2013 .

[25]  Robert L. Winkler,et al.  Combining Probability Distributions From Experts in Risk Analysis , 1999 .