4.7 Article

How policy choice affects investment in low-carbon technology: The case of CO2 capture in indirect coal liquefaction in China

Journal

ENERGY
Volume 73, Issue -, Pages 670-679

Publisher

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.energy.2014.06.068

Keywords

Carbon capture; Indirect coal liquefaction; Carbon market; Clean development mechanism; Real options analysis

Funding

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC) [20876087]
  2. China's National Hi-Tech RD Program [2008AA062301]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

An improved understanding of investment decisions on low-carbon technology will greatly facilitate assessing the effectiveness of carbon emissions mitigation policies. We use the example of implementing CCS (carbon capture and storage) within ICL (indirect coal liquefaction), a controversial technology in China, by constructing a RO (real options) model for the investment decision-making process to assess how different climate policies affect low-carbon technology investors under highly uncertain circumstances. We find that a carbon tax provides the strongest signal for investment and that a market-based measure provides firms with flexibility. Moreover, different types of carbon markets generate substantially different effects on firm behavior, and the CO2 price level exerts a more powerful influence on investors than market volatility or the policy's implementation date. Considering the regional disparities among the coal-abundant but less-developed provinces and the affluent coastal regions in China, we suggest that a sub-national CDM (clean development mechanism) would complete the current domestic policy framework to balance the development requirement and CO2 abatement, whereas extraordinary administrative efforts are necessary to raise the current price of CO2 credits to an effective level, to broaden the carbon market coverage and consolidate the carbon market foundation. (C) 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available