Carbon prices and CCS investment: comparative study between the European Union and China
As policy makers assess strategies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions (GHG), they need to know the available technical options and the conditions under which these options become economically attractive. Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) techniques are widely considered as a key option for climate change mitigation. But integrating CCS techniques in a commercial scale power plant adds significant costs to the capital expenditure at the start of the project and to the operating expenditure throughout its lifetime. Its additional costs can be offset by a sufficient CO2 price but most markets have failed to put a high enough price on CO2 emissions: currently, the weak Emission Unit Allowances price threatens CCS demonstration and deployment in the European Union (EU). A different dynamic is rising in China: a carbon regulation seems to appear and CCS techniques seem to encounter a rising interest as suggest their inclusion in the 12th Five-Year Plan and the rising number of CCS projects identifies/planned. However, there are very few in-depth techno-economic studies on CCS costs. This study investigates two related questions: how much is the extra-cost of a CCS plant in the EU in comparison with China? And then, what is the CO2 price beyond which CCS power plants become more profitable/economically attractive than classic power plants, in the EU and in China? To answer these questions, I first review, analyze and compare public studies on CCS techniques in order to draw an objective techno-economic panorama in the EU and China. Then, I develop a net present value (NPV) model for coal and gas plants, with and without CCS, in order to assess the CO2 price beyond which CCS plants become the most profitable power plant type. This CO2 value is called CO2 switching price. I also run some sensitivity analyses to assess the impact of different parameter variations on this CO2 switching price. I show that CCS power plants become the most profitable baseload power plant type with a CO2 price higher than 70 €/t in the EU against 30 €/t in China, without transport and storage costs. When the CO2 price is high enough, CCS gas plants are the most profitable power plant type in the EU whereas these are CCS coal plants in China. Through this study, I advise investors on the optimal power plant type choice depending on the CO2 market price, and suggest an optimal timing for CCS investment in the EU and China.
References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Jouvet, Pierre-André & Solier, Boris, 2013.
"An overview of CO2 cost pass-through to electricity prices in Europe,"
Elsevier, vol. 61(C), pages 1370-1376.
- Boris Solier & Pierre-André Jouvet, 2011. "An overview of CO2 cost pass-through to electricity prices in Europe," Working Papers 1108, Chaire Economie du climat.
- Pierre-André Jouvet & Boris Solier, 2013. "An overview of CO2 cost pass-through to electricity prices in Europe," Post-Print hal-01385884, HAL.
- Matthias Finkenrath, 2011. "Cost and Performance of Carbon Dioxide Capture from Power Generation," IEA Energy Papers 2011/5, OECD Publishing.
- Giovanni, Emily & Richards, Kenneth R., 2010. "Determinants of the costs of carbon capture and sequestration for expanding electricity generation capacity," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(10), pages 6026-6035, October.
- repec:dau:papers:123456789/7761 is not listed on IDEAS
- M. C. Grimston & V. Karakoussis & R. Fouquet & R. van der Vorst & P. Pearson & M. Leach, 2001. "The European and global potential of carbon dioxide sequestration in tackling climate change," Climate Policy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 1(2), pages 155-171, June.
- Rubin, Edward S. & Yeh, Sonia & Antes, Matt & Berkenpas, Michael & Davison, John, 2007. "Use of experience curves to estimate the future cost of power plants with CO2 capture," Institute of Transportation Studies, Working Paper Series qt46x6h0n0, Institute of Transportation Studies, UC Davis.
- Jos Sijm & Karsten Neuhoff & Yihsu Chen, 2006. "CO 2 cost pass-through and windfall profits in the power sector," Climate Policy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 6(1), pages 49-72, January.
- Sijm, J. & Neuhoff, K. & Chen, Y., 2006. "CO2 cost pass through and windfall profits in the power sector," Cambridge Working Papers in Economics 0639, Faculty of Economics, University of Cambridge.
- Rubin, Edward S. & Chen, Chao & Rao, Anand B., 2007. "Cost and performance of fossil fuel power plants with CO2 capture and storage," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(9), pages 4444-4454, September.
- Wu, Ning & Parsons, John E. & Polenske, Karen R., 2013. "The impact of future carbon prices on CCS investment for power generation in China," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 54(C), pages 160-172. Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cec:wpaper:1402. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Chaire Economie du Climat)
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 references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.
If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link 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 profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.