مشوق های مبتنی بر وود فیشر تروپش ژنراتور از طریق ابزار سیاست مالی: ارزیابی اقتصادی برای نروژ
|کد مقاله||سال انتشار||مقاله انگلیسی||ترجمه فارسی||تعداد کلمات|
|26815||2010||11 صفحه PDF||سفارش دهید||محاسبه نشده|
Publisher : Elsevier - Science Direct (الزویر - ساینس دایرکت)
Journal : Energy Policy, Volume 38, Issue 11, November 2010, Pages 6849–6859
The objective of this study is to evaluate a select set of financial incentive instruments that can be employed by the Norwegian government for encouraging early investment and production experience in wood-based Fischer–Tropsch diesel (FTD) technologies as a means to accelerate reductions in greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) stemming from road-based transport. We start by performing an economic analysis of FTD produced from Norwegian forest biomass at a pioneer commercial plant in Norway, followed with a cost growth analysis to estimate production costs after uncertainty in early plant performance and capital cost estimates are considered. Results after the cost growth analysis imply that the initial production cost estimates for a pioneer producer may be underestimated by up to 30%. Using the revised estimate we then assess, through scenarios, how various financial support mechanisms designed to encourage near-term investment would affect production costs over a range of uncertain future oil prices. For all policy scenarios considered, we evaluate trade-offs between the levels of public expenditure, or subsidy, and private investor profitability. When considering the net present value of the subsidy required to incentivize commercial investment during a future of low oil prices, we find that GHG mitigation via wood-FTD is likely to be considered cost-ineffective. However, should the government expect that mean oil prices in the coming two decades will hover between $97 and 127/bbl, all the incentive policies considered would likely spur investment at net present values ≤$-100/tonne-fossil-CO2-equivalent avoided.
Second generation biofuel produced from woody biomass is expected to be an effective avenue for reducing fossil fuel consumption and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in road transport (Bright and Strømman, 2009, Bright and Strømman, 2010, Bright et al., 2010, Edwards et al., 2007, van Vliet et al., 2009 and Zah et al., 2007). The Norwegian boreal forest offers a large, underutilized source of woody biomass (Bolkesjø et al., 2006, Gjølsjø and Hobbelstad, 2009 and Trømborg et al., 2008), and the Norwegian government is actively promoting the increased utilization of domestic forest resources for use as bioenergy (Trømborg and Leistad, 2009). While there are many application strategies which can efficaciously exploit the energy value of this resource – both within and outside the transport sector – the optimal strategy will vary depending on the primary policy objective(s) and/or sector(s) under target. This is demonstrated in (Joelsson and Gustavsson, 2010) and (Gustavsson et al., 2007) who show that oil use is more efficiently reduced in Sweden when biomass replaces oil in stationary boilers rather than transport fuel produced in stand-alone plants, and similarly, that biomass usage outside the transportation sector may reduce GHG emissions more than biofuel in the transportation sector. It may also be the case that within the transport sector itself there are more effective uses of biomass resources for meeting GHG and energy reduction strategies. See for example (Ohlrogge et al., 2009, Campbell et al., 2009 and Bright and Strømman, 2010). However, Grahn et al. (2009) show that industrialized nations cannot solely rely on reducing emissions from stationary sources and that biofuels become important for addressing options in transportation under scenarios involving stringent regionalized GHG emission caps, especially in the short- and medium-terms. This may be attributed to the difficulties in meeting near- and medium-term demands for rural road and heavy-duty freight transport in the absence of viable low-carbon alternatives. In Norway, the government is aggressively targeting the road transport sector for the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, and wood-based Fischer–Tropsch diesel (FTD) is viewed as an attractive part of the technological solution, particularly its use as a drop-in ready diesel substitute in rural and heavy-duty applications. Wood-FTD production technologies are soon scalable, with small-scale commercial production currently in the start-up phases (Kiener, 2008) and large-scale commercial production expected to commence as early as 2012 (IEA/OECD, 2008 and Rudloff, 2008). Plans for a commercial operation producing 270 million liters/year of FTD by 2016 are on the drawing board (Green Car Congress, 2008 and Xynergo, 2008). Yet further progress in technological development and improvement in certain processing steps are still required in order to make FTD production more cost-effective (IEA/OECD, 2008, van Vliet et al., 2009 and Zhang, in press) and attractive to today’s investors. In addition to high capital costs (IEA/OECD, 2008, Londo et al., 2010 and van Vliet et al., 2009), barriers to short-term deployment include higher project risk because such technologies have yet to be proven at the commercial scale (IEA/OECD, 2008 and Londo et al., 2010). However, a need to deploy advanced biofuel technology that can significantly contribute to reductions in fossil fuel use and GHG emissions, particularly those stemming from road-based transport, necessitates the execution of sound support policies designed to accelerate their early commercialization. To the extent that reductions in fossil fuel use and GHG emissions are intended to be achieved by means of alternative transport fuel, a clear focus needs to be placed on those alternative fuels, like wood-based FTD, that reduce global warming emissions (OECD, 2008). Only when new technologies like FTD are deployed can their volumes be scaled up, since one gains operational experience which leads to steadily decreasing production costs (de Wit et al., 2010). In the US, for example, corn ethanol production costs have decreased 62% since the earliest commercial-scale producers first entered the market around 1975 (Hettinga et al., 2009). Thus in order to steepen the learning curve in the short-term, early commercialization of FTD technologies will likely require, in addition to current environmental sustainability standards and quota mandates for biofuels in EU biofuel regulation (European Commission, 2009), economic support policies designed to remove market barriers and incentivize investment into specific technologies (OECD, 2008 and Sandén and Azar, 2005). Incentive-oriented policy approaches whose purpose is generating technological change are likely to be important parts of the policy portfolio for addressing certain environmental problems like global warming (Jaffe et al., 2005).
نتیجه گیری انگلیسی
We made use of a discounted cash flow framework in order estimate the product cost of wood-FTD associated with a pioneer commercial plant in Norway. We then assessed the potential for cost growth by applying two multi-factor linear regression models developed by the RAND Corporation (Merrow et al., 1981) for estimating capital cost growth and reduced plant performance occurring in the initial years after start-up, which led to a cost escalation of 30% and a final product cost of $1.24/LDE. We then evaluated the performance of a range of financial instruments that could be employed for incentivizing short-term private investment in order to accelerate reductions of fossil-based GHG emissions stemming from Norwegian road transportation. After introducing the policy package and by plotting the change in investor profitability (IRR) against public expenditure (NPV) relative to the cost growth pioneer reference case, we were able to identify those which served to enhance investor profitability while minimizing public mitigation costs at the lowest possible oil price. Price floors were shown to boost investor confidence but presented high costs to government when oil prices were low. On the other hand, income sharing agreements compensated for the additional government risks when average oil prices were high. Blender tax credits linked to real carbon benefits had the effect of increasing investor profitability with no adverse effects on government NPV, as did government loan guarantees, but ensuring the 10% IRR resulted in the setting of a high oil price floor, below which the government began to incur additional costs. Investment subsidies such as capital investment grants were shown to increase investor IRR which allowed the setting of lower oil price floors, yet high oil prices were still required in order for the policy to be cost-effective. A government issued loan was found to be highly cost-effective at the lowest threshold oil price if one were to assume that the cost of administering the loan as well the risk of investor default were low. On the other hand, however, NPV was found to decrease the most with each dollar decrease below the threshold oil price for this scenario relative to the other scenarios. Nevertheless, based on the results of our analysis, direct issued government loans were shown to be the most cost-effective financial incentive instrument considered in our analysis because both the minimum IRR and maximum allowable cost criteria were achieved at the lowest threshold oil price of $97/bbl. It should be kept in mind that our analysis was not inclusive of the full spectrum of financial incentive instruments – like production subsidies, purchase guarantees, and accelerated tax depreciation schedules, for example – that should also be considered before a sound policy decision can be made. Additionally, other considerations regarding the public visibility of the subsidy, the costs of policy implementation, and the various risks elements concerning sunk costs or loan defaults need to be factored into future decision making. Further, while we have performed our assessment under the consideration of uncertain future oil prices and project costs, price uncertainties related to evolving energy markets and future carbon policies could also influence the cost-effectiveness of the deployment policy scenarios we have evaluated. Nevertheless, we demonstrated that in addition to the technical uncertainties, perceived investor risk related to uncertain future oil prices poses a significant deployment barrier, and mitigating these risks when oil prices are low were shown to come at significant costs for the government. However, should the government expect higher average oil prices over the project life, a variety of financial incentive policies like those evaluated in this study can be implemented cost-effectively.