scholarly journals Short run effects of carbon policy on U.S. electricity markets

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Steven Dahlke

This paper presents estimates of short run impacts of a carbon price on the electricity industry using a cost-minimizing mathematical model of the U.S. market. Prices of 25 and 50 dollars per ton of carbon dioxide equivalent emissions cause electricity emissions reductions of 17% and 22% from present levels, respectively. This suggests significant electricity sector emissions reductions can be achieved quickly from a modest carbon tax. Short run effects refer to operational changes at existing U.S. power plants, mostly by switching production from coal plants to natural gas plants. The results do not include long run emissions reductions related to 1) new investments and retirements of electricity production assets, and 2) demand response as regulated electricity suppliers pass cost changes to retail customers. A state-level analysis of the results leads to the following conclusions: 1) most emissions reductions come from high coal-consuming states in the Mid-Atlantic and Midwest regions, 2) fifteen states increase emissions because their natural gas consumption offsets coal consumption in neighboring states, and 3) a flat per-capita rebate of tax revenue leads to wealth transfers across states.

Energies ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 12 (11) ◽  
pp. 2150 ◽  
Author(s):  
Steve Dahlke

This paper presents estimates of short run impacts of a carbon price on the electricity industry using a cost-minimizing mathematical model of the U.S. market. Prices of $25 and $50 per ton of carbon dioxide equivalent emissions cause electricity emissions reductions of 17% and 22% from present levels, respectively. This suggests significant electricity sector emissions reductions can be achieved quickly from a modest carbon tax, and diminishing reductions occur when increasing from $25 to $50. The model captures short run effects via operational changes at existing U.S. power plants, mostly by switching production from coal to natural gas. A state-level analysis yields the following conclusions: (1) states which reduce the most emissions are high coal-consumers in the Mid-Atlantic and Midwest regions, (2) 15 states increase emissions after carbon policy because they increase natural gas consumption to offset coal consumption decreases in neighboring states, and (3) a flat per-capita rebate of tax revenue leads to wealth transfers across states.


Energies ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 13 (8) ◽  
pp. 2041 ◽  
Author(s):  
Martin Kittel ◽  
Leonard Goeke ◽  
Claudia Kemfert ◽  
Pao-Yu Oei ◽  
Christian von Hirschhausen

The political discussion to reduce the carbon footprint of Germany’s electricity sector, focusing on coal, is intensifying. In this paper, we develop scenarios for phasing out lignite and hard coal power plants in Germany prior to the end of their technical lifespan (“coal-exit”). Our analysis bases upon two coal-exit instruments, the retirement of coal generation capacities and the limiting of how much aged coal power plants with high carbon intensity can be used within a year. Results show that phasing out coal in Germany would have a considerable impact on Central European electricity markets, in terms of decarbonization efforts and electricity trade. An ambitious coal-exit could avert foreseeable shortcomings in Germany’s climate performance in the short-run and release additional carbon savings, thus compensating for potential shortfalls in other energy-intensive sectors by 2030. Limited emissions in the range of 27% would be shifted to neighboring countries. However, tremendous positive climate effects on European scale would result, because Germany’s annual emission savings in 2030 would be substantial. Totaling 85 million tons of CO2, the overall net reduction is equivalent to 17.5% of total European emissions in 2030 without retirements of coal-firing power plants prior to the end of their technical lifespan.


Author(s):  
Gurbakhash Bhander ◽  
Chun Wai Lee ◽  
Matthew Hakos

Abstract The growing worldwide interest in low carbon electric generation technologies has renewed interest in natural gas because it is considered a cleaner burning and more flexible alternative to other fossil fuels. Recent shale gas developments have increased natural gas production and availability while lowering cost, allowing a shift to natural gas for electricity production to be a cost-effective option. Natural gas generation in the U.S. electricity sector has grown substantially in recent years (over 31 percent in 2012, up from 17 percent in 1990), while carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions of the sector have generally declined. Natural gas-fired electrical generation offers several advantages over other fossil (e. g. coal, oil) fuel-fired generation. The combination of the lower carbon-to-hydrogen ratio in natural gas (compared to other fossil fuels) and the higher efficiency of natural gas combined cycle (NGCC) power plants (using two thermodynamic cycles) than traditional fossil-fueled electric power generation (using a single cycle) results in less CO2 emissions per unit of electricity produced. Furthermore, natural gas combustion results in considerably fewer emissions of air pollutants such as nitrogen oxides (NOx), sulfur dioxide (SO2), and particulate matter (PM). Natural gas is not the main option for deep de-carbonization. If deep reduction is prioritized, whether of the electricity sector or of the entire economy, there are four primary technologies that would be assumed to play a prominent role: energy efficiency equipment, nuclear power, renewable energy, and carbon capture and storage (CCS). However, natural gas with low carbon generation technologies can be considered a “bridge” to transition to these deep decarbonization options. This paper discusses the economics and environmental impacts, focusing on greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, associated with alternative electricity production options using natural gas as the fuel source. We also explore pairing NGCC with carbon capture, explicitly examining the costs and emissions of amine absorption, cryogenic carbon capture, carbonate fuel cells, and oxy-combustion.


Author(s):  
John R. Fyffe ◽  
Stuart M. Cohen ◽  
Michael E. Webber

Coal-fired power plants are a source of inexpensive, reliable electricity for many countries. Unfortunately, their high carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions rates contribute significantly to global climate change. With the likelihood of future policies limiting CO2 emissions, CO2 capture and sequestration (CCS) could allow for the continued use of coal while low- and zero-emission generation sources are developed and implemented. This work compares the potential impact of flexibly operating CO2 capture systems on the economic viability of using CCS in gas- and coal-dominated electricity markets. The comparison is made using a previously developed modeling framework to analyze two different markets: 1) a natural-gas dominated market (the Electric Reliability Council of Texas, or ERCOT) and 2) a coal-dominated market (the National Electricity Market, or NEM in Australia). The model uses performance and economic parameters for each power plant to determine the annual generation, CO2 emissions, and operating profits for each plant for specified input fuel prices and CO2 emissions costs. Previous studies of ERCOT found that flexible CO2 capture operation could improve the economic viability of coal-fired power plants with CO2 capture when there are opportunities to reduce CO2 capture load and increase electrical output when electricity prices are high. The model was used to compare the implications of using CO2 capture systems in the two electricity systems under CO2 emissions penalties from 0–100 US dollars per metric ton of CO2. Half the coal-fired power plants in each grid were selected to be considered for a CO2 capture retrofit based on plant efficiency, whether or not SO2 scrubbers are already installed on the plant, and the plant’s proximity to viable sequestration sites. Plants considered for CO2 capture systems are compared with and without inflexible CO2 capture as well as with two different flexible operation strategies. With more coal-fired power plants being dispatched as the marginal generator and setting the electricity price in the NEM, electricity prices increase faster due to CO2 prices than in ERCOT where natural gas-plants typically set the electricity price. The model showed moderate CO2 emissions reductions in ERCOT with CO2 capture and no CO2 price because increased costs at coal-fired power plants led to reduced generation. Without CO2 prices, installing CO2 capture on coal-fired power plants resulted in moderately reduced CO2 emissions in ERCOT as the coal-fired power plants became more expensive and were replaced with less expensive natural gas-fired generators. Without changing the makeup of the plant fleet in NEM, a CO2 price would not currently promote significant replacement of coal-fired power plants because there is minimal excess capacity with low CO2 emissions rates that can displace existing coal-fired power plants. Additionally, retrofitting CO2 capture onto half of the coal-based fleet in NEM did not reduce CO2 emissions significantly without CO2 costs being implemented because the plants with capture become more expensive and were replaced by the coal-fired power plants without CO2 capture. Operating profits at NEM capture plants increased as CO2 price increased much faster than capture plants in ERCOT. The higher rate of increasing profits for plants in NEM is due to the marginal generators in NEM being coal-based facilities with higher CO2 emissions penalties than the natural gas-fired facilities that set electricity prices in ERCOT. Overall, coal-fired power plants were more profitable with CO2 capture systems than without in both ERCOT and NEM when CO2 prices were higher than USD25/ton.


Author(s):  
Rene Nsanzineza ◽  
Jana Milford

Across the U.S., electricity production from coal-fired generation is declining while use of renewables and natural gas is increasing. This trend is expected to continue in the future. In the Rocky Mountain region, this shift is expected to reduce emissions from electricity production while increasing emissions from the production and processing of oil and gas, with significant implications for the level, location, and timing of the air pollution emissions that are associated with these activities. In turn, these emissions changes will affect air quality in the region, with impacts on ground-level ozone of particular concern. This study aims to evaluate the tradeoffs in emissions from both power plants and oil and gas basins resulting from contrasting scenarios for shifts in electricity and oil and gas production through the year 2030. The study also incorporates federal and state-level regulations for CH4, NOx, and VOC emissions sources. These regulations are expected to produce significant emissions reductions relative to baseline projections, especially in the oil and gas production sector. Annual emissions from electricity production are estimated to decrease in all scenarios, due to a combination of using more natural gas power plants, renewables, emissions regulations, and retiring old inefficient coal power plants. However, reductions are larger in fall, winter, and spring than in summer, when ozone pollution is of greatest concern. Emissions from oil and gas production are estimated to either increase or decrease depending on the location, scenario, and the number of sources affected by regulations. The net change in emissions thus depends on pollutant, location, and time of year.


2018 ◽  
Vol 09 (01) ◽  
pp. 1840003 ◽  
Author(s):  
ALEXANDER R. BARRON ◽  
ALLEN A. FAWCETT ◽  
MARC A. C. HAFSTEAD ◽  
JAMES R. MCFARLAND ◽  
ADELE C. MORRIS

The Stanford Energy Modeling Forum exercise 32 (EMF 32) used 11 different models to assess emissions, energy, and economic outcomes from a plausible range of economy-wide carbon price policies to reduce carbon dioxide (CO[Formula: see text] emissions in the United States. Here we discuss the most policy-relevant results of the study, mindful of the strengths and weaknesses of current models. Across all models, carbon prices lead to significant reductions in CO2 emissions and conventional pollutants, with the vast majority of the reductions occurring in the electricity sector. Importantly, emissions reductions do not significantly depend on the rebate or tax cut used to return revenues to the economy. Expected economic costs, as modeled by either GDP or welfare, are modest, but vary across models. These costs are offset by benefits from avoided climate damages and health benefits from reductions in conventional air pollution. Using revenues to reduce preexisting capital or labor taxes reduces costs in most models relative to lump-sum rebates, but the size of the cost reductions varies significantly. Devoting at least some revenue to household rebates can significantly reduce adverse impacts on low income households. Carbon prices at $25/ton or even lower levels cause significant shifts away from coal as an energy source with responses of other energy sources highly dependent upon technology cost assumptions. Beyond 2030, we conclude that model uncertainties are too large to make quantitative results useful for near-term policy design. We close by describing recommendations for policymakers on interacting with model results in the future.


2015 ◽  
Vol 10 (2) ◽  
pp. 414-421
Author(s):  
Bahareh Hashemlou ◽  
Hossein Sadeghi ◽  
Arashk Masaeli ◽  
Mohammadhadi Hajian ◽  
Shima Javaheri

Organizations, institutions, and different sectors of manufacturing, services and agriculture are constantly making decisions. Each of the aforementioned sectors, have strategies, tactics, and various functions that play a basic role in reaching the objectives. On the other hand, energy demand in developing countries is increasing day by day. The exact calculation of the cost per unit of electricity generated by power plants is not easy. Therefore, this study according to four sources of natural gas, nuclear energy, renewable energy and other fossil fuels other than natural gas that are used in a variety of electricity production plants is trying to clarify the ranking of generation electricity approach using "fuzzy preference relations" analysis. Accordingly, three models were used and the results showed that natural gas, with regard to the four criteria of low investment cost, low power, lack of pollution and the safety and reliability of electrical energy has priority over other alternatives. Full preferred model results also suggested that the energy of natural gas, renewable energies, nuclear and other fossil fuels should be considered in a priority for power generation. Sensitivity analysis results moreover demonstrated that the above models are not affected by the threshold values ​​and the full stability of the models is observed.


Author(s):  
Günnur Şen ◽  
Mustafa Nil ◽  
Hayati Mamur ◽  
Halit Doğan ◽  
Mustafa Karamolla ◽  
...  

Natural gas combined cycle power plants (CCPPs) are widely used to meet peak loads in electric energy production. Continuous monitoring of the output electrical power of CCPPs is a requirement for power performance. In this study, the role of ambient temperature change having the greatest effect on electric production is investigated for a natural gas CCPP. The plant has generated electricity for fourteen years and setup at 240 MW in Aliağa, İzmir, Turkey. Depending on the seasonal temperature changes, the study data were obtained from each gas turbine (GT), steam turbine (ST) and combined cycle blocks (CCBs) in the ambient temperature range of 8-23°C. It has been found that decreases of the electric energy in the GTs because of the temperature increase and indirectly diminishes of the electricity production in the STs. As a result, the efficiency of each GT, ST and CCB reduced, although the quantity of fuel consumed by the controllers in the plant was decreased. As a result of this data, it has been recommended and applied that additional precautions have been taken for the power plant to bring the air entering the combustion chamber to ideal conditions and necessary air cooling systems have been installed.


Author(s):  
Marco Gambini ◽  
Michela Vellini

In this paper two options for H2 production, by means of fossil fuels, are presented and their performances are evaluated when they are integrated with advanced H2/air cycles. In this investigation two different schemes have been analyzed: an advanced combined cycle power plant (CC) and a new advanced mixed cycle power plant (AMC). The two methods for producing H2 are as follows: • partial oxidation of methane; • gasification of coal. These hydrogen production plants require material and energetic integrations with the power section and the best interconnections must be investigated in order to obtain good overall performance. With reference to thermodynamic and economic performance, significant comparisons have been made between the above mentioned reference plants. An efficiency decrease and an increase in the cost of electricity have been obtained when power plants are equipped with a fossil fuel decarbonization section. The main results of the performed investigation are quite variable among the different H2 production technologies here considered: the efficiency decreases in a range of 5.5 percentage points to nearly 10 for the partial oxidation of the natural gas and in a range of 6.2–6.4 percentage points for the coal gasification. The electricity production cost increases in a range of about 33–37% for the first option and in a range of about 24–32% for the second one. The clean use of coal seems to have very good potentiality because, in comparison with natural gas decarbonisation, it allows lower energy penalizations (about 6 percentage points) and lower economic increases (about 24% for the CC).


2012 ◽  
Vol 52 (1) ◽  
pp. 195
Author(s):  
Doug Young

The Clean Energy Act (CEA) and its related legislation received royal assent on 18 November 2011, ushering in a new era for the Australian industry, and for those who deal with it. Building on the 2007 National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Scheme (NGERS), which mandates the measurement and reporting of greenhouse gas emissions and electricity production and consumption, the CEA imposes direct obligations on: individual industrial operations (facilities) that emit more than 25,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide, or its other equivalent greenhouse gases, from particular sources, in a year; suppliers of natural gas (at the point of last supply before the gas is burnt or otherwise used), for the emissions that will be generated when the gas is burnt; and, operators of land-fill facilities, such as local councils. While the primary emissions targeted by the scheme are produced by burning fossil fuels, they also include emissions such as the methane released when coal is mined. The obligations include the option of surrendering carbon units for each tonne of emissions, however, if this optional step is not performed, the mandatory payment of a tax, which far exceeds the cost of a unit, is enforced. The Australian Government will sell carbon units at a fixed price for the first three years, starting at $23, after which units will be auctioned for between $15 and the expected international unit price, plus $20. The supply of domestic units will be unlimited for the three fixed price years, but will be subject to a reducing cap in following years, consistent with the Government policy of reducing Australia’s emissions. The Government has created a monopoly for the supply of units for the first three years by prohibiting the use of overseas-sourced carbon units, and by only allowing 5% of the unit surrender requirements to be comprised of Australian generated carbon credits. Thereafter, for the first five of the flexible-charge years, only half the units can be sourced from overseas, with any apparent saving likely to be offset by the various taxes and charges applicable to the use of those units. Certain fuels will also be separately taxed. Entities, however, which acquire, manufacture or import fuels and would otherwise be entitled to a fuel tax credit, may be able to assume direct liability thus enabling them to acquire or manufacture fuel, free of the carbon tax component. Where the imposts will cause competitive disadvantage to industries that compete with entities from other countries that do not have similar imposts, some assistance is provided in the form of allocated units provided at no charge. Assistance is also available to coal-fired electricity generators, producers of liquefied natural gas, operators of gassy coal mines, and the steel industry (not discussed in this paper). This paper also explains, in detail, how liability is created, how to determine which entities are liable, the means of assigning liability to other entities, and the assistance available to various industries to help deal with the financial impact of the scheme on their operations. It also outlines the key concepts that underpin the scheme.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document