Suchergebnisse

Cost of capital is an important driver of investment decisions, including the large investments needed to execute the low-carbon energy transition. Most models, however, abstract from country or technology differences in cost of capital and use uniform assumptions. These might lead to biased results regarding the transition of certain countries towards renewables in the power mix and potentially to a sub-optimal use of public resources. In this paper, we differentiate the cost of capital per country and technology for European Union (EU) countries to more accurately reflect real-world market conditions. Using empirical data from the EU, we find significant differences in the cost of capital across countries and energy technologies. Implementing these differentiated costs of capital in an energy model, we show large implications for the technology mix, deployment, carbon emissions and electricity system costs. Cost-reducing effects stemming from financing experience are observed in all EU countries and their impact is larger in the presence of high carbon prices. In sum, we contribute to the development of energy system models with a method to differentiate the cost of capital for incumbent fossil fuel technologies as well as novel renewable technologies. The increasingly accurate projections of such models can help policymakers engineer a more effective and efficient energy transition.

Cost of capital is an important driver of investment decisions, including the large investments needed to execute the low-carbon energy transition. Most models, however, abstract from country or technology differences in cost of capital and use uniform assumptions. These might lead to biased results regarding the transition of certain countries towards renewables in the power mix and potentially to a sub-optimal use of public resources. In this paper, we differentiate the cost of capital per country and technology for European Union (EU) countries to more accurately reflect real-world market conditions. Using empirical data from the EU, we find significant differences in the cost of capital across countries and energy technologies. Implementing these differentiated costs of capital in an energy model, we show large implications for the technology mix, deployment, carbon emissions and electricity system costs. Cost-reducing effects stemming from financing experience are observed in all EU countries and their impact is larger in the presence of high carbon prices. In sum, we contribute to the development of energy system models with a method to differentiate the cost of capital for incumbent fossil fuel technologies as well as novel renewable technologies. The increasingly accurate projections of such models can help policymakers engineer a more effective and efficient energy transition.

Cost of capital is an important driver of investment decisions, including the large investments needed to execute the low-carbon energy transition. Most models, however, abstract from country or technology differences in cost of capital and use uniform assumptions. These might lead to biased results regarding the transition of certain countries towards renewables in the power mix and potentially to a sub-optimal use of public resources. In this paper, we differentiate the cost of capital per country and technology for European Union (EU) countries to more accurately reflect real-world market conditions. Using empirical data from the EU, we find significant differences in the cost of capital across countries and energy technologies. Implementing these differentiated costs of capital in an energy model, we show large implications for the technology mix, deployment, carbon emissions and electricity system costs. Cost-reducing effects stemming from financing experience are observed in all EU countries and their impact is larger in the presence of high carbon prices. In sum, we contribute to the development of energy system models with a method to differentiate the cost of capital for incumbent fossil fuel technologies as well as novel renewable technologies. The increasingly accurate projections of such models can help policymakers engineer a more effective and efficient energy transition. ; ISSN:0165-0009 ; ISSN:1573-1480

Hopes are high that removing fossil fuel subsidies could help to mitigate climate change by discouraging inefficient energy consumption and levelling the playing field for renewable energy. In September 2016, the G20 countries re-affirmed their 2009 commitment (at the G20 Leaders' Summit) to phase out fossil fuel subsidies and many national governments are using today's low oil prices as an opportunity to do so. In practical terms, this means abandoning policies that decrease the price of fossil fuels and electricity generated from fossil fuels to below normal market prices. However, whether the removal of subsidies, even if implemented worldwide, would have a large impact on climate change mitigation has not been systematically explored. Here we show that removing fossil fuel subsidies would have an unexpectedly small impact on global energy demand and carbon dioxide emissions and would not increase renewable energy use by 2030. Subsidy removal would reduce the carbon price necessary to stabilize greenhouse gas concentration at 550 parts per million by only 2-12 per cent under low oil prices. Removing subsidies in most regions would deliver smaller emission reductions than the Paris Agreement (2015) climate pledges and in some regions global subsidy removal may actually lead to an increase in emissions, owing to either coal replacing subsidized oil and natural gas or natural-gas use shifting from subsidizing, energy-exporting regions to non-subsidizing, importing regions. Our results show that subsidy removal would result in the largest CO 2 emission reductions in high-income oil- and gas-exporting regions, where the reductions would exceed the climate pledges of these regions and where subsidy removal would affect fewer people living below the poverty line than in lower-income regions.

Burgeoning demands for mobility and private vehicle ownership undermine global efforts to reduce energy-related greenhouse gas emissions. Advanced vehicles powered by low-carbon sources of electricity or hydrogen offer an alternative to conventional fossil-fuelled technologies. Yet, despite ambitious pledges and investments by governments and automakers, it is by no means clear that these vehicles will ultimately reach mass-market consumers. Here, we develop state-of-the-art representations of consumer preferences in multiple global energy-economy models, specifically focusing on the non-financial preferences of individuals. We employ these enhanced model formulations to analyse the potential for a low-carbon vehicle revolution up to 2050. Our analysis shows that a diverse set of measures targeting vehicle buyers is necessary to drive widespread adoption of clean technologies. Carbon pricing alone is insufficient to bring low-carbon vehicles to the mass market, though it may have a supporting role in ensuring a decarbonized energy supply.

This study explores a situation of staged accession to a global climate policy regime from the current situation of regionally fragmented and moderate climate action. The analysis is based on scenarios in which a front runner coalition - the EU or the EU and China - embarks on immediate ambitious climate action while the rest of the world makes a transition to a global climate regime between 2030 and 2050. We assume that the ensuing regime involves strong mitigation efforts but does not require late joiners to compensate for their initially higher emissions. Thus, climate targets are relaxed, and although staged accession can achieve significant reductions of global warming, the resulting climate outcome is unlikely to be consistent with the goal of limiting global warming to 2 degrees. The addition of China to the front runner coalition can reduce pre-2050 excess emissions by 20-30%, increasing the likelihood of staying below 2 degrees. Not accounting for potential co-benefits, the cost of front runner action is found to be lower for the EU than for China. Regions that delay their accession to the climate regime face a trade-off between reduced short term costs and higher transitional requirements due to larger carbon lock-ins and more rapidly increasing carbon prices during the accession period.

This study explores a situation of staged accession to a global climate policy regime from the current situation of regionally fragmented and moderate climate action. The analysis is based on scenarios in which a front runner coalition – the EU or the EU and China – embarks on immediate ambitious climate action while the rest of the world makes a transition to a global climate regime between 2030 and 2050. We assume that the ensuing regime involves strong mitigation efforts but does not require late joiners to compensate for their initially higher emissions. Thus, climate targets are relaxed, and although staged accession can achieve significant reductions of global warming, the resulting climate outcome is unlikely to be consistent with the goal of limiting global warming to 2 degrees. The addition of China to the front runner coalition can reduce pre-2050 excess emissions by 20–30%, increasing the likelihood of staying below 2 degrees. Not accounting for potential co-benefits, the cost of front runner action is found to be lower for the EU than for China. Regions that delay their accession to the climate regime face a trade-off between reduced short term costs and higher transitional requirements due to larger carbon lock-ins and more rapidly increasing carbon prices during the accession period.

Governments worldwide have agreed that international climate policy should aim to limit the increase of global mean temperature to less than 2oC with respect to pre-industrial levels. The purpose of this paper is to analyse the emission reductions and related energy system changes in various countries in pathways consistent with the 2oC target. We synthesize and provide an overview of the national and regional information contained in different scenarios from various global models published over the last few years, as well as yet unpublished scenarios submitted by modelling teams participating in the MILES project (Modelling and Informing Low-Emission Strategies). We find that emissions in the mitigation scenarios are significantly reduced in all regions compared to the baseline without climate policies. The regional cumulative CO2 emissions show on average a 76% reduction between the baseline and 450 scenario. The 450 scenarios show a reduction of primary energy demand in all countries of roughly 30-40% compared to the baseline. In the baseline scenario, the contribution of low-carbon energy technology remains around 15%, i.e. similar as today. In the mitigation scenario, these numbers are scaled up rapidly towards 2050. Looking at air quality, sulphur dioxide and black carbon emissions are strongly reduced as a co-benefit of greenhouse gas emission reductions, in both developing and developed countries. However, black carbon emissions increase in countries that strongly rely on bioenergy to reach mitigation targets. Concerning energy security, energy importing countries generally experience a decrease in net-energy imports in mitigation scenarios compared to the baseline development, while energy exporters experience a loss of energy export revenues.