IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/endesu/v18y2016i5d10.1007_s10668-016-9809-4.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The effects of different CCS technological scenarios on EU low-carbon generation mix

Author

Listed:
  • Fernando deLlano-Paz

    (University of A Coruña)

  • Paulino Martinez Fernandez

    (University of A Coruña)

  • Isabel Soares

    (University of Porto)

Abstract

Carbon capture and storage technology (CCS), a technology to reduce the emissions in coal and gas power generation plants, will play an important role in the achievement of the European Union emissions reduction objective. In the European Union, energy policies are articulated around three different elements: measures to promote renewable energy technologies, the emissions certificates system and both energy-saving and energy-efficiency policies. The succession of directives and communications from the EU Commission on renewable technology generation share targets and the implementation of the European Emissions Market exemplify the serious EU commitment to a more environmentally friendly future. CCS technologies—together with RES technologies—are thus key to achieve the European emissions reduction target. Although the CCS commercial availability is not guaranteed—due to a slow technological development—some institutions, such as the Institute for Prospective Technological Studies, assume, for 2030 horizon, a quick development of this technology, growing until a maximum participation of an 18 % over the fossil fuels total generation. An eventual non-availability of these technologies in 2030 could increase the cost of this objective in a 70 %. Therefore, the achievement of pollutant emissions reduction targets depends on a correct design of the European generation technologies mix, which should include CCS technologies. Nevertheless, the uncertainty about the final costs and economic risk of these technologies makes a question about their future role to arise. This paper analyses the effects of different variations in the cost and risk of the CCS technologies (scenarios) over the European power technologies mix. The results confirm the need of the availability of these technologies in 2030, beyond the potential costs and risks of both options. The reason lies in the methodological approach of portfolio theory, which allows an analysis from an efficient portfolio point of view.

Suggested Citation

  • Fernando deLlano-Paz & Paulino Martinez Fernandez & Isabel Soares, 2016. "The effects of different CCS technological scenarios on EU low-carbon generation mix," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 18(5), pages 1477-1500, October.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:endesu:v:18:y:2016:i:5:d:10.1007_s10668-016-9809-4
    DOI: 10.1007/s10668-016-9809-4
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10668-016-9809-4
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10668-016-9809-4?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Harry Markowitz, 1952. "Portfolio Selection," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 7(1), pages 77-91, March.
    2. Hernández-Escobedo, Q. & Manzano-Agugliaro, F. & Zapata-Sierra, A., 2010. "The wind power of Mexico," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 14(9), pages 2830-2840, December.
    3. Awerbuch, Shimon & Yang, Spencer, 2007. "Efficient electricity generating portfolios for Europe: maximising energy security and climate change mitigation," EIB Papers 7/2007, European Investment Bank, Economics Department.
    4. Neoklis Rodoulis, 2010. "Evaluation of Cyprus’ Electricity Generation Planning Using Mean-Variance Portfolio Theory," Cyprus Economic Policy Review, University of Cyprus, Economics Research Centre, vol. 4(2), pages 25-42, December.
    5. Allan, Grant & Eromenko, Igor & McGregor, Peter & Swales, Kim, 2011. "The regional electricity generation mix in Scotland: A portfolio selection approach incorporating marine technologies," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(1), pages 6-22, January.
    6. Hickey, Emily A. & Lon Carlson, J. & Loomis, David, 2010. "Issues in the determination of the optimal portfolio of electricity supply options," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(5), pages 2198-2207, May.
    7. deLlano-Paz, Fernando & Calvo-Silvosa, Anxo & Iglesias Antelo, Susana & Soares, Isabel, 2015. "The European low-carbon mix for 2030: The role of renewable energy sources in an environmentally and socially efficient approach," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 48(C), pages 49-61.
    8. Peter Russ & Juan Carlos Ciscar & Bert Saveyn & Antonio Soria & Laszlo Szabo & Tom Van Ierland & Denise Van Regemorter & Rosella Virdis, 2009. "Economic Assessment of Post-2012 Global Climate Policies - Analysis of Gas Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction Scenarios with the POLES and GEM-E3 models," JRC Research Reports JRC50307, Joint Research Centre.
    9. Kruyt, Bert & van Vuuren, D.P. & de Vries, H.J.M. & Groenenberg, H., 2009. "Indicators for energy security," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(6), pages 2166-2181, June.
    10. Panwar, N.L. & Kaushik, S.C. & Kothari, Surendra, 2011. "Role of renewable energy sources in environmental protection: A review," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 15(3), pages 1513-1524, April.
    11. Omer, Abdeen Mustafa, 2008. "Energy, environment and sustainable development," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 12(9), pages 2265-2300, December.
    12. Bhattacharya, Anindya & Kojima, Satoshi, 2012. "Power sector investment risk and renewable energy: A Japanese case study using portfolio risk optimization method," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 40(C), pages 69-80.
    13. Zhu, Lei & Fan, Ying, 2010. "Optimization of China's generating portfolio and policy implications based on portfolio theory," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 35(3), pages 1391-1402.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Chun-Kai Wang & Chien-Ming Lee & Yue-Rong Hong & Kan Cheng, 2021. "Assessment of Energy Transition Policy in Taiwan—A View of Sustainable Development Perspectives," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(15), pages 1-14, July.
    2. Paula Ferreira & Madalena Araújo & Luc Hens, 2016. "Energy and environment: bringing together engineering and economics," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 18(5), pages 1275-1277, October.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. deLlano-Paz, Fernando & Calvo-Silvosa, Anxo & Antelo, Susana Iglesias & Soares, Isabel, 2017. "Energy planning and modern portfolio theory: A review," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 77(C), pages 636-651.
    2. deLlano-Paz, Fernando & Martínez Fernandez, Paulino & Soares, Isabel, 2016. "Addressing 2030 EU policy framework for energy and climate: Cost, risk and energy security issues," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 115(P2), pages 1347-1360.
    3. deLlano-Paz, Fernando & Calvo-Silvosa, Anxo & Iglesias Antelo, Susana & Soares, Isabel, 2015. "The European low-carbon mix for 2030: The role of renewable energy sources in an environmentally and socially efficient approach," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 48(C), pages 49-61.
    4. Paulino Martinez-Fernandez & Fernando deLlano-Paz & Anxo Calvo-Silvosa & Isabel Soares, 2019. "Assessing Renewable Energy Sources for Electricity (RES-E) Potential Using a CAPM-Analogous Multi-Stage Model," Energies, MDPI, vol. 12(19), pages 1-20, September.
    5. Paulino Martinez-Fernandez & Fernando deLlano-Paz & Anxo Calvo-Silvosa & Isabel Soares, 2018. "Pollutant versus non-pollutant generation technologies: a CML-analogous analysis," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 20(1), pages 199-212, December.
    6. de-Llano Paz, Fernando & Antelo, Susana Iglesias & Calvo Silvosa, Anxo & Soares, Isabel, 2014. "The technological and environmental efficiency of the EU-27 power mix: An evaluation based on MPT," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 69(C), pages 67-81.
    7. Zhang, Shuang & Zhao, Tao & Xie, Bai-Chen, 2018. "What is the optimal power generation mix of China? An empirical analysis using portfolio theory," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 229(C), pages 522-536.
    8. Chuang, Ming Chih & Ma, Hwong Wen, 2013. "Energy security and improvements in the function of diversity indices—Taiwan energy supply structure case study," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 24(C), pages 9-20.
    9. Ioannou, Anastasia & Angus, Andrew & Brennan, Feargal, 2017. "Risk-based methods for sustainable energy system planning: A review," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 74(C), pages 602-615.
    10. Forouli, Aikaterini & Gkonis, Nikolaos & Nikas, Alexandros & Siskos, Eleftherios & Doukas, Haris & Tourkolias, Christos, 2019. "Energy efficiency promotion in Greece in light of risk: Evaluating policies as portfolio assets," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 170(C), pages 818-831.
    11. Pérez Odeh, Rodrigo & Watts, David & Flores, Yarela, 2018. "Planning in a changing environment: Applications of portfolio optimisation to deal with risk in the electricity sector," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 82(P3), pages 3808-3823.
    12. Wu, Jung-Hua & Huang, Yun-Hsun, 2014. "Electricity portfolio planning model incorporating renewable energy characteristics," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 119(C), pages 278-287.
    13. Ilka Deluque & Ekundayo Shittu & Jonathan Deason, 2018. "Evaluating the reliability of efficient energy technology portfolios," EURO Journal on Decision Processes, Springer;EURO - The Association of European Operational Research Societies, vol. 6(1), pages 115-138, June.
    14. Min, Daiki & Chung, Jaewoo, 2013. "Evaluation of the long-term power generation mix: The case study of South Korea's energy policy," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 62(C), pages 1544-1552.
    15. Pérez Odeh, Rodrigo & Watts, David & Negrete-Pincetic, Matías, 2018. "Portfolio applications in electricity markets review: Private investor and manager perspective trends," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 81(P1), pages 192-204.
    16. Pinheiro Neto, Daywes & Domingues, Elder Geraldo & Coimbra, António Paulo & de Almeida, Aníbal Traça & Alves, Aylton José & Calixto, Wesley Pacheco, 2017. "Portfolio optimization of renewable energy assets: Hydro, wind, and photovoltaic energy in the regulated market in Brazil," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 64(C), pages 238-250.
    17. Unni, Arjun C. & Ongsakul, Weerakorn & Madhu M., Nimal, 2020. "Fuzzy-based novel risk and reward definition applied for optimal generation-mix estimation," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 148(C), pages 665-673.
    18. Shahsavari, Amir & Akbari, Morteza, 2018. "Potential of solar energy in developing countries for reducing energy-related emissions," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 90(C), pages 275-291.
    19. Lado-Sestayo, Rubén & De Llano-Paz, Fernando & Vivel-Búa, Milagros & Martínez-Salgueiro, Andrea, 2023. "Commodity exposure in the eurozone: How EU energy security is conditioned by the Euro," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 277(C).
    20. Tietjen, Oliver & Pahle, Michael & Fuss, Sabine, 2016. "Investment risks in power generation: A comparison of fossil fuel and renewable energy dominated markets," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 58(C), pages 174-185.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:endesu:v:18:y:2016:i:5:d:10.1007_s10668-016-9809-4. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.