4.7 Article

Exploring the investment strategy of power enterprises under the nationwide carbon emissions trading mechanism: A scenario-based system dynamics approach

期刊

ENERGY POLICY
卷 140, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.enpol.2020.111409

关键词

investment strategy; Nationwide carbon emissions trading; System dynamics; Power enterprise

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [71774080, 71501098, 71922013, 71834003]
  2. China Postdoctoral Science Foundation [2016M590453, 2018T110501]
  3. Humanities and Social Science Fund of Ministry of Education of China [17YJC630205]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This paper aims to explore the appropriate investment strategy for Chinese power enterprises with the effect of the nationwide carbon emissions trading (NCET) market. Based on the system dynamics (SD) theory and the analysis of investment strategies, the SD model for the investment analysis of power enterprises is proposed. The simulation experiments based on three different investment policy scenarios (i.e., conservative, neutral and active) are conducted. According to the simulation results, the reasonable short-term investment for enterprises should be increased. If enterprises choose to invest more resources in the installation of green powers (hydro-power, wind power and photovoltaic), their carbon emissions and profits may be more difficult to achieve qualitative changes in the short term. It is suggested that before the establishment of NCET market, enterprises should give priority to investing in clean technology instead of large-scale green energy installation. In the long run, increasing the investment of green power generation will help enterprises resist the rising cost of carbon trading. In addition, even in the conservative policy environment, the enterprise can still achieve its carbon discharges peak value before 2030, so the government may consider adopting a loose policy standard to support the economic interests of power enterprises.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据