IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v10y2018i12p4618-d188224.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A Comparative Study on the RFS Program of Korea with the US and UK

Author

Listed:
  • Jung-Yull Shin

    (Department of Renewable Energy Engineering, Graduate School, Dongguk University-Seoul, 30 Pildong-ro 1-gil, Jung-gu, Seoul 04620, Korea
    Korea Energy Agency, 388 Poeundae-ro, Suji-gu, Yongin 16842, Korea)

  • Gun-Woo Kim

    (Department of Renewable Energy Engineering, Graduate School, Dongguk University-Seoul, 30 Pildong-ro 1-gil, Jung-gu, Seoul 04620, Korea
    Korea Energy Agency, 388 Poeundae-ro, Suji-gu, Yongin 16842, Korea)

  • Janet S. Zepernick

    (Department of English & Modern Languages, College of Arts and Sciences, Pittsburg State University, 1701 South Broadway Street, Pittsburg, KS 66762, USA)

  • Kyu-Young Kang

    (Department of Renewable Energy Engineering, Graduate School, Dongguk University-Seoul, 30 Pildong-ro 1-gil, Jung-gu, Seoul 04620, Korea
    Department of Biological and Environmental Science, College of Life Science and Biotechnology, Dongguk University-Seoul, 32 Dongguk-ro, Ilsandong-gu, Goyang 10326, Korea)

Abstract

In 2016, the global environmental impact of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions was 49.3 gigatons CO 2 equivalent. Worldwide, the transportation sector is responsible for 14% of GHG. Electric vehicles (EV) powered by less-polluting energy sources are one way to reduce the environmental impact of the transportation sector, but immediate transportation demands cannot be met by existing EV technology. Use of less polluting biofuel in place of petroleum-based gasoline or diesel fuel to power the existing transportation fleet is a widely accepted transitional solution, including in the Republic of Korea. The purpose of this research is to investigate approaches to biofuels in the US and the UK in order to evaluate Korea’s current energy policies related to use of biofuels and to make recommendations for strengthening Korea’s energy policy. This article addresses only policies for use of biodiesel rather than ethanol (widely used in the US) because ethanol is not used in Korea. This research shows that Korea calculates GHG using the principle that biofuel is carbon neutral, but energy policies in the US and the UK treat biofuel as not entirely carbon neutral. Korea should examine how to calculate GHG from biodiesel according to the standard set by the UK in order to work toward a more environmentally sustainable energy policy.

Suggested Citation

  • Jung-Yull Shin & Gun-Woo Kim & Janet S. Zepernick & Kyu-Young Kang, 2018. "A Comparative Study on the RFS Program of Korea with the US and UK," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(12), pages 1-20, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:10:y:2018:i:12:p:4618-:d:188224
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/10/12/4618/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/10/12/4618/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Searchinger, Timothy & Heimlich, Ralph & Houghton, R. A. & Dong, Fengxia & Elobeid, Amani & Fabiosa, Jacinto F. & Tokgoz, Simla & Hayes, Dermot J. & Yu, Hun-Hsiang, 2008. "Use of U.S. Croplands for Biofuels Increases Greenhouse Gases Through Emissions from Land-Use Change," Staff General Research Papers Archive 12881, Iowa State University, Department of Economics.
    2. Thomas Guillaume & Martyna M. Kotowska & Dietrich Hertel & Alexander Knohl & Valentyna Krashevska & Kukuh Murtilaksono & Stefan Scheu & Yakov Kuzyakov, 2018. "Carbon costs and benefits of Indonesian rainforest conversion to plantations," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 9(1), pages 1-11, December.
    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. Gal Hochman & Chrysostomos Tabakis, 2020. "Biofuels and Their Potential in South Korea," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(17), pages 1-17, September.
    2. Vaclovas Miskinis & Arvydas Galinis & Inga Konstantinaviciute & Vidas Lekavicius & Eimantas Neniskis, 2019. "Comparative Analysis of the Energy Sector Development Trends and Forecast of Final Energy Demand in the Baltic States," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(2), pages 1-27, January.
    3. Xu, H. & Lee, U. & Wang, M., 2020. "Life-cycle energy use and greenhouse gas emissions of palm fatty acid distillate derived renewable diesel," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 134(C).
    4. Olga V. Panina & Stanislav E. Prokofiev & Natalia A. Barmenkova & Natalia L. Krasyukova & Nikolay P. Kushchev, 2020. "Prospects of Nuclear Energy Development in Asia: Comparison with Green Energy," International Journal of Energy Economics and Policy, Econjournals, vol. 10(6), pages 123-131.

    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. Canabarro, N.I. & Silva-Ortiz, P. & Nogueira, L.A.H. & Cantarella, H. & Maciel-Filho, R. & Souza, G.M., 2023. "Sustainability assessment of ethanol and biodiesel production in Argentina, Brazil, Colombia, and Guatemala," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 171(C).
    2. Baka, Jennifer & Roland-Holst, David, 2009. "Food or fuel? What European farmers can contribute to Europe's transport energy requirements and the Doha Round," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(7), pages 2505-2513, July.
    3. Nguyen, Thu Lan T. & Hermansen, John E. & Mogensen, Lisbeth, 2010. "Fossil energy and GHG saving potentials of pig farming in the EU," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(5), pages 2561-2571, May.
    4. Sarah Jansen & William Foster & Gustavo Anríquez & Jorge Ortega, 2021. "Understanding Farm-Level Incentives within the Bioeconomy Framework: Prices, Product Quality, Losses, and Bio-Based Alternatives," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(2), pages 1-21, January.
    5. Argueyrolles, Robin & Delzeit, Ruth, 2022. "The interconnections between Fossil Fuel Subsidy Reforms and biofuels," Conference papers 333492, Purdue University, Center for Global Trade Analysis, Global Trade Analysis Project.
    6. Aruga, Kentaka, 2011. "非遺伝子組換え大豆とエネルギーの価格関係について [Relationships among the Non-Genetically Modified Soybean and Energy Prices]," MPRA Paper 38186, University Library of Munich, Germany, revised 20 Aug 2011.
    7. Chao Xu & Teng-Chiu Lin & Jr-Chuan Huang & Zhijie Yang & Xiaofei Liu & Decheng Xiong & Shidong Chen & Minhuang Wang & Liuming Yang & Yusheng Yang, 2022. "Microbial Biomass Is More Important than Runoff Export in Predicting Soil Inorganic Nitrogen Concentrations Following Forest Conversion in Subtropical China," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(2), pages 1-15, February.
    8. Ribeiro, Lauro André & Silva, Patrícia Pereira da, 2013. "Surveying techno-economic indicators of microalgae biofuel technologies," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 25(C), pages 89-96.
    9. Gal Hochman & Chrysostomos Tabakis, 2020. "Biofuels and Their Potential in South Korea," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(17), pages 1-17, September.
    10. Mohlin, Kristina & Camuzeaux, Jonathan R. & Muller, Adrian & Schneider, Marius & Wagner, Gernot, 2018. "Factoring in the forgotten role of renewables in CO2 emission trends using decomposition analysis," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 116(C), pages 290-296.
    11. Khoo, Hsien H., 2015. "Review of bio-conversion pathways of lignocellulose-to-ethanol: Sustainability assessment based on land footprint projections," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 46(C), pages 100-119.
    12. Shirizadeh, Behrang & Quirion, Philippe, 2022. "The importance of renewable gas in achieving carbon-neutrality: Insights from an energy system optimization model," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 255(C).
    13. Fung, Timothy K.F. & Choi, Doo Hun & Scheufele, Dietram A. & Shaw, Bret R., 2014. "Public opinion about biofuels: The interplay between party identification and risk/benefit perception," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 344-355.
    14. Stefan Mann, 2016. "Governing complementary responsibility goods through hybrid systems in a globalizing world," Journal of Socio-Economics in Agriculture (Until 2015: Yearbook of Socioeconomics in Agriculture), Swiss Society for Agricultural Economics and Rural Sociology, vol. 9(1), pages 14-21.
    15. Winden, Matthew & Cruze, Nathan & Haab, Tim & Bakshi, Bhavik, 2015. "Monetized value of the environmental, health and resource externalities of soy biodiesel," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 47(C), pages 18-24.
    16. Stephen P. Holland & Jonathan E. Hughes & Christopher R. Knittel & Nathan C. Parker, 2013. "Unintended Consequences of Transportation Carbon Policies: Land-Use, Emissions, and Innovation," NBER Working Papers 19636, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    17. Reijnders, L., 2009. "Are forestation, bio-char and landfilled biomass adequate offsets for the climate effects of burning fossil fuels?," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(8), pages 2839-2841, August.
    18. Yuqing An & Jin Yeu Tsou & Kapo Wong & Yuanzhi Zhang & Dawei Liu & Yu Li, 2018. "Detecting Land Use Changes in a Rapidly Developing City during 1990–2017 Using Satellite Imagery: A Case Study in Hangzhou Urban Area, China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(9), pages 1-14, September.
    19. Abdul-Manan, Amir F.N., 2017. "Lifecycle GHG emissions of palm biodiesel: Unintended market effects negate direct benefits of the Malaysian Economic Transformation Plan (ETP)," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 104(C), pages 56-65.
    20. Kanlaya J. Barr & Bruce A. Babcock & Miguel A. Carriquiry & Andre M. Nassar & Leila Harfuch, 2011. "Agricultural Land Elasticities in the United States and Brazil," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 33(3), pages 449-462.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    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:gam:jsusta:v:10:y:2018:i:12:p:4618-:d:188224. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.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.