IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/enepol/v34y2006i18p3929-3941.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Innovative energy technologies and climate policy in Germany

Author

Listed:
  • Schumacher, Katja
  • Sands, Ronald D.

Abstract

Due to the size and structure of its economy, Germany is one of the largest carbon emitters in the European Union. However, Germany is facing a major renewal and restructuring process in electricity generation. Within the next two decades, up to 50% of current electricity generation capacity may retire because of end-of-plant lifetime and the nuclear phase-out pact of 1998. Substantial opportunities therefore exist for deployment of advanced electricity generating technologies in both a projected baseline and in alternative carbon policy scenarios. We simulate the potential role of coal integrated gasification combined cycle (IGCC), natural gas combined cycle (NGCC), carbon dioxide capture and storage (CCS), and wind power within a computable general equilibrium of Germany from the present through 2050. These advanced technologies and their role within a future German electricity system are the focus of this paper. We model the response of greenhouse gas emissions in Germany to various technology and carbon policy assumptions over the next few decades. In our baseline scenario, all of the advanced technologies except CCS provide substantial contributions to electricity generation. We also calculate the carbon price where each fossil technology, combined with CCS, becomes competitive. Constant carbon price experiments are used to characterize the model response to a carbon policy. This provides an estimate of the cost of meeting an emissions target, and the share of emissions reductions available from the electricity generation sector.
(This abstract was borrowed from another version of this item.)

Suggested Citation

  • Schumacher, Katja & Sands, Ronald D., 2006. "Innovative energy technologies and climate policy in Germany," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 34(18), pages 3929-3941, December.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:enepol:v:34:y:2006:i:18:p:3929-3941
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301-4215(05)00252-1
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

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

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Sands, Ronald D., 2004. "Dynamics of carbon abatement in the Second Generation Model," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 26(4), pages 721-738, July.
    2. Christopher N. MacCracken & James A. Edmonds & Son H. Kim & Ronald D. Sands, 1999. "The Economics of the Kyoto Protocol," The Energy Journal, International Association for Energy Economics, vol. 0(Special I), pages 25-71.
    3. McFarland, J. R. & Reilly, J. M. & Herzog, H. J., 2004. "Representing energy technologies in top-down economic models using bottom-up information," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 26(4), pages 685-707, July.
    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. Praetorius, Barbara & Schumacher, Katja, 2009. "Greenhouse gas mitigation in a carbon constrained world: The role of carbon capture and storage," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(12), pages 5081-5093, December.
    2. Cai, Yiyong & Newth, David & Finnigan, John & Gunasekera, Don, 2015. "A hybrid energy-economy model for global integrated assessment of climate change, carbon mitigation and energy transformation," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 148(C), pages 381-395.
    3. Gnanapragasam, Nirmal V. & Reddy, Bale V. & Rosen, Marc A., 2009. "Optimum conditions for a natural gas combined cycle power generation system based on available oxygen when using biomass as supplementary fuel," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 34(6), pages 816-826.
    4. Kraeusel, Jonas & Möst, Dominik, 2012. "Carbon Capture and Storage on its way to large-scale deployment: Social acceptance and willingness to pay in Germany," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 49(C), pages 642-651.
    5. Vallentin, Daniel, 2007. "Inducing the international diffusion of carbon capture and storage technologies in the power sector," Wuppertal Papers 162, Wuppertal Institute for Climate, Environment and Energy.
    6. Liu, Chung-Ming & Liou, Ming-Lone & Yeh, Shin-Cheng & Shang, Neng-Chou, 2009. "Target-aimed versus wishful-thinking in designing efficient GHG reduction strategies for a metropolitan city: Taipei," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(2), pages 400-406, February.
    7. Ron SANDS & Katja SCHUMACHER, 2008. "Decomposition Analysis and Climate Policy in a General Equilibrium Model of Germany," EcoMod2008 23800124, EcoMod.
    8. Fujimori, Shinichiro & Dai, Hancheng & Masui, Toshihiko & Matsuoka, Yuzuru, 2016. "Global energy model hindcasting," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 114(C), pages 293-301.
    9. Isabel Teichmann, 2015. "An Economic Assessment of Soil Carbon Sequestration with Biochar in Germany," Discussion Papers of DIW Berlin 1476, DIW Berlin, German Institute for Economic Research.
    10. Fujimori, Shinichiro & Masui, Toshihiko & Matsuoka, Yuzuru, 2015. "Gains from emission trading under multiple stabilization targets and technological constraints," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 48(C), pages 306-315.
    11. Evans, Annette & Strezov, Vladimir & Evans, Tim J., 2009. "Assessment of sustainability indicators for renewable energy technologies," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 13(5), pages 1082-1088, June.
    12. Cai, Yiyong & Arora, Vipin, 2015. "Disaggregating electricity generation technologies in CGE models: A revised technology bundle approach with an application to the U.S. Clean Power Plan," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 154(C), pages 543-555.
    13. Dai, Hancheng & Silva Herran, Diego & Fujimori, Shinichiro & Masui, Toshihiko, 2016. "Key factors affecting long-term penetration of global onshore wind energy integrating top-down and bottom-up approaches," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 85(C), pages 19-30.
    14. Melchior, Tobias & Madlener, Reinhard, 2012. "Economic evaluation of IGCC plants with hot gas cleaning," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 97(C), pages 170-184.
    15. Schumacher, Katja & Sands, Ronald D., 2007. "Where are the industrial technologies in energy-economy models? An innovative CGE approach for steel production in Germany," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 29(4), pages 799-825, July.
    16. Bruninx, Kenneth & Madzharov, Darin & Delarue, Erik & D'haeseleer, William, 2013. "Impact of the German nuclear phase-out on Europe's electricity generation—A comprehensive study," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 60(C), pages 251-261.
    17. Tabatabaei, Sharareh Majdzadeh & Hadian, Ebrahim & Marzban, Hossein & Zibaei, Mansour, 2017. "Economic, welfare and environmental impact of feed-in tariff policy: A case study in Iran," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 102(C), pages 164-169.
    18. Zhang, Guoqiang & Yang, Yongping & Jin, Hongguang & Xu, Gang & Zhang, Kai, 2013. "Proposed combined-cycle power system based on oxygen-blown coal partial gasification," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 102(C), pages 735-745.
    19. Thure Traber & Thure Traber & Claudia Kemfert, 2007. "Future European Electricity Technologies under Emission Trading: The Potential Role of Fossil Fuels and Carbon Capture and Sequestration (CCS)," Energy and Environmental Modeling 2007 24000060, EcoMod.
    20. Janne Kettunen, Derek W. Bunn and William Blyth & Derek W. Bunn & William Blyth, 2011. "Investment Propensities under Carbon Policy Uncertainty," The Energy Journal, International Association for Energy Economics, vol. 0(Number 1), pages 77-118.

    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. McFarland, James R. & Paltsev, Sergey & Jacoby, Henry D., 2009. "Analysis of the Coal Sector under Carbon Constraints," Journal of Policy Modeling, Elsevier, vol. 31(3), pages 404-424, May.
    2. Ron SANDS & Katja SCHUMACHER, 2008. "Decomposition Analysis and Climate Policy in a General Equilibrium Model of Germany," EcoMod2008 23800124, EcoMod.
    3. Schumacher, Katja & Sands, Ronald D., 2007. "Where are the industrial technologies in energy-economy models? An innovative CGE approach for steel production in Germany," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 29(4), pages 799-825, July.
    4. Jacoby, Henry D. & Reilly, John M. & McFarland, James R. & Paltsev, Sergey, 2006. "Technology and technical change in the MIT EPPA model," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 28(5-6), pages 610-631, November.
    5. Chris Bataille, Mark Jaccard, John Nyboer and Nic Rivers, 2006. "Towards General Equilibrium in a Technology-Rich Model with Empirically Estimated Behavioral Parameters," The Energy Journal, International Association for Energy Economics, vol. 0(Special I), pages 93-112.
    6. McFarland, James R. & Herzog, Howard J., 2006. "Incorporating carbon capture and storage technologies in integrated assessment models," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 28(5-6), pages 632-652, November.
    7. Cai, Yiyong & Newth, David & Finnigan, John & Gunasekera, Don, 2015. "A hybrid energy-economy model for global integrated assessment of climate change, carbon mitigation and energy transformation," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 148(C), pages 381-395.
    8. Carolyn Fischer & Richard D. Morgenstern, 2006. "Carbon Abatement Costs: Why the Wide Range of Estimates?," The Energy Journal, International Association for Energy Economics, vol. 0(Number 2), pages 73-86.
    9. Dai, Hancheng & Mischke, Peggy & Xie, Xuxuan & Xie, Yang & Masui, Toshihiko, 2016. "Closing the gap? Top-down versus bottom-up projections of China’s regional energy use and CO2 emissions," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 162(C), pages 1355-1373.
    10. Daron Acemoglu & Philippe Aghion & Leonardo Bursztyn & David Hemous, 2012. "The Environment and Directed Technical Change," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 102(1), pages 131-166, February.
    11. Standardi, Gabriele & Cai, Yiyong & Yeh, Sonia, 2017. "Sensitivity of modeling results to technological and regional details: The case of Italy's carbon mitigation policy," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 63(C), pages 116-128.
    12. Boeters, Stefan & Koornneef, Joris, 2011. "Supply of renewable energy sources and the cost of EU climate policy," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 33(5), pages 1024-1034, September.
    13. Li, Wei & Jia, Zhijie, 2016. "The impact of emission trading scheme and the ratio of free quota: A dynamic recursive CGE model in China," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 174(C), pages 1-14.
    14. Zhang, ZhongXiang, 2002. "The economic effects of an alternative EU emissions policy," Journal of Policy Modeling, Elsevier, vol. 24(7-8), pages 667-677, November.
    15. Hwang Won-Sik & Oh Inha & Lee Jeong-Dong, 2014. "The Impact of Korea’s Green Growth Policies on the National Economy and Environment," The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 14(4), pages 1-30, October.
    16. Sue Wing, Ian & Eckaus, Richard S., 2007. "The implications of the historical decline in US energy intensity for long-run CO2 emission projections," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(11), pages 5267-5286, November.
    17. Wissema, Wiepke & Dellink, Rob, 2007. "AGE analysis of the impact of a carbon energy tax on the Irish economy," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 61(4), pages 671-683, March.
    18. Karplus, Valerie J. & Paltsev, Sergey & Babiker, Mustafa & Reilly, John M., 2013. "Should a vehicle fuel economy standard be combined with an economy-wide greenhouse gas emissions constraint? Implications for energy and climate policy in the United States," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 36(C), pages 322-333.
    19. Auffhammer, Maximilian, 2007. "The rationality of EIA forecasts under symmetric and asymmetric loss," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 29(2), pages 102-121, May.
    20. Zhang, ZhongXiang, 2001. "An economic assessment of the Kyoto Protocol using a global model based on the marginal abatement costs of 12 regions," MPRA Paper 13148, University Library of Munich, Germany.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • Q43 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Energy - - - Energy and the Macroeconomy
    • Q48 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Energy - - - Government Policy
    • O31 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - Innovation and Invention: Processes and Incentives
    • C68 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Mathematical Methods; Programming Models; Mathematical and Simulation Modeling - - - Computable General Equilibrium Models

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:eee:enepol:v:34:y:2006:i:18:p:3929-3941. 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/enpol .

    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.