Abatement Cost - Explore the Science & Experts | ideXlab

Scan Science and Technology

Contact Leading Edge Experts & Companies

Abatement Cost

The Experts below are selected from a list of 14976 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform

Abatement Cost – Free Register to Access Experts & Abstracts

Jan Tomaschek – One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • marginal Abatement Cost curves for policy recommendation a method for energy system analysis
    Energy Policy, 2015
    Co-Authors: Jan Tomaschek

    Abstract:

    The transport sector is seen as one of the key factors for driving future energy consumption and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. In order to rank possible measures marginal Abatement Cost curves have become a tool to graphically represent the relationship between Abatement Costs and emission reduction. This paper demonstrates how to derive marginal Abatement Cost curves for well-to-wheel GHG emissions of the transport sector considering the full energy provision chain and the interlinkages and interdependencies within the energy system. Presented marginal Abatement Cost curves visualize substitution effects between measures for different marginal mitigation Costs. The analysis makes use of an application of the energy system model generator TIMES for South Africa (TIMES-GEECO). For the example of Gauteng province, this study exemplary shows that the transport sector is not the first sector to address for Cost-efficient reduction of GHG emissions. However, the analysis also demonstrates that several options are available to mitigate transport related GHG emissions at comparable low marginal Abatement Costs. This methodology can be transferred to other economic sectors as well as to other regions in the world to derive Cost-efficient GHG reduction strategies

  • Marginal Abatement Cost curves for policy recommendation – A method for energy system analysis
    Energy Policy, 2015
    Co-Authors: Jan Tomaschek

    Abstract:

    The transport sector is seen as one of the key factors for driving future energy consumption and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. In order to rank possible measures marginal Abatement Cost curves have become a tool to graphically represent the relationship between Abatement Costs and emission reduction. This paper demonstrates how to derive marginal Abatement Cost curves for well-to-wheel GHG emissions of the transport sector considering the full energy provision chain and the interlinkages and interdependencies within the energy system. Presented marginal Abatement Cost curves visualize substitution effects between measures for different marginal mitigation Costs. The analysis makes use of an application of the energy system model generator TIMES for South Africa (TIMES-GEECO). For the example of Gauteng province, this study exemplary shows that the transport sector is not the first sector to address for Cost-efficient reduction of GHG emissions. However, the analysis also demonstrates that several options are available to mitigate transport related GHG emissions at comparable low marginal Abatement Costs. This methodology can be transferred to other economic sectors as well as to other regions in the world to derive Cost-efficient GHG reduction strategies

S Fonseca – One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • using the soil and water assessment tool to estimate dissolved inorganic nitrogen water pollution Abatement Cost functions in central portugal
    Journal of Environmental Quality, 2014
    Co-Authors: Peter Roebeling, Joao Rocha, Joao Pedro Nunes, Teresa Fidelis, Henrique Alves, S Fonseca

    Abstract:

    Coastal aquatic ecosystems are increasingly affected by diffuse source nutrient water pollution from agricultural activities in coastal catchments, even though these ecosystems are important from a social, environmental and economic perspective. To warrant sustainable economic development of coastal regions, we need to balance marginal Costs from coastal catchment water pollution Abatement and associated marginal benefits from coastal resource appreciation. Diffuse-source water pollution Abatement Costs across agricultural sectors are not easily determined given the spatial heterogeneity in biophysical and agro-ecological conditions as well as the available range of best agricultural practices (BAPs) for water quality improvement. We demonstrate how the Soil and Water Assessment Tool (SWAT) can be used to estimate diffuse-source water pollution Abatement Cost functions across agricultural land use categories based on a stepwise adoption of identified BAPs for water quality improvement and corresponding SWAT-based estimates for agricultural production, agricultural incomes, and water pollution deliveries. Results for the case of dissolved inorganic nitrogen (DIN) surface water pollution by the key agricultural land use categories (“annual crops,” “vineyards,” and “mixed annual crops & vineyards”) in the Vouga catchment in central Portugal show that no win-win agricultural practices are available within the assessed BAPs for DIN water quality improvement. Estimated Abatement Costs increase quadratically in the rate of water pollution Abatement, with largest Abatement Costs for the “mixed annual crops & vineyards” land use category (between 41,900 and 51,900 € tDIN⁻¹ yr⁻¹) and fairly similar Abatement Costs across the “vineyards” and “annual crops” land use categories (between 7300 and 15,200 € tDIN⁻¹ yr⁻¹).

Fabian Kesicki – One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • Marginal Abatement Cost Curves: Combining Energy System Modelling and Decomposition Analysis
    Environmental Modeling & Assessment, 2013
    Co-Authors: Fabian Kesicki

    Abstract:

    Marginal Abatement Cost (MAC) curves are a useful policy tool to communicate findings on the technological structure and the economics of CO_2 emissions reduction. However, existing ways of generating MAC curves do not display consistent technological detail and do not consider system-wide interactions and uncertainty in a structured manner. This paper details a new approach to overcome the present shortcomings by using an energy system model, UK MARKAL, in combination with index decomposition analysis. In addition, this approach allows different forms of uncertainty analysis to be used in order to test the robustness of the MAC curve. For illustration purposes, a sensitivity analysis concerning fossil fuel prices is applied to the transport sector of the UK. The resulting MAC curves are found to be relatively robust to different fuel Costs at higher CO_2 tax levels. The new systems-based approach improves MAC curves through the avoidance of an inconsistent emissions baseline, the incorporation of system-wide interactions and the price responsiveness of demand.

  • intertemporal issues and marginal Abatement Costs in the uk transport sector
    Transportation Research Part D-transport and Environment, 2012
    Co-Authors: Fabian Kesicki

    Abstract:

    Abstract An energy system model, UK MARKAL, is combined with decomposition analysis and sensitivity analysis to derive mitigation Costs and emissions reduction potentials in the UK transport sector. The paper tests the robustness of a marginal Abatement Cost curve for the year 2030 for two parameters: path dependency and discount rate. Path dependency is found to be a significant, yet not substantial, influencing factor on the shape and the structure of the marginal Abatement Cost curve. Doubling the technology-specific hurdle rates shows that Abatement Costs increase significantly. The results suggest that policy makers should be aware of the underlying carbon tax pathway and whether results are based on society’s view or a private perspective.

  • marginal Abatement Cost curves a call for caution
    Climate Policy, 2012
    Co-Authors: Fabian Kesicki, Paul Ekins

    Abstract:

    Legal commitments to reduce CO 2 emissions require policy makers to find Cost-efficient means to meet these obligations. Marginal Abatement Cost (MAC) curves, which illustrate the economics associated with climate change mitigation, have recently attracted a great amount of attention. A number of limitations with MAC curves are explained by the implication they should be just one tool in a broader set of decision-making aids used in assessing climate policy. MAC curves, for example, omit ancillary benefits of greenhouse gas emission Abatement, treat uncertainty in a limited manner, exclude intertemporal dynamics and lack the necessary transparency concerning their assumptions. MAC curves based on the individual assessment of Abatement measures suffer from additional shortcomings such as the non-consideration of interactions and non-financial Costs, a possibly inconsistent baseline, double counting and limited treatment of behavioural aspects. Reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation exhibit many of the above-mentioned problems, making it particularly difficult to capture in a Cost curve. Policy makers should therefore be cautious when interpreting MAC curves, pay attention to the underlying assumptions, consider non-financial Costs and be aware of the important uncertainties and underlying path dependencies.