Search

Carbon capture and storage (CCS) has the potential to dramatically reduce GHG emissions in energy supply and industry. However, its high costs mean that uncertainty about the stringency of future climate policy may dissuade firms from investing in this technology. This article explores the relationship between firms expectations of government policy and investment in CCS. First, it synthesizes recent cost estimates for CCS applications in electricity generation and oil sands extraction in Canada. Second, it uses these estimates to investigate the potential impact of policy stringency and uncertainty on CCS adoption in Alberta, a Canadian province with near-ideal CCS potential. The results suggest investment in CCS, and by extension other costly abatement actions, will not occur unless governments create a more stringent and durable climate policy environment than currently exists. Policy relevance This paper has two novel and linked objectives, the first of significant utility to researchers and energy modellers in particular, the second to climate policy analysts and decision makers. First, it synthesizes publicly available carbon capture and storage literature and develops cost estimates for key applications related to thermal electricity generation and oil sands extraction in Canada. Second, it uses these cost estimates to investigate the potential impact of policy stringency and uncertainty on carbon capture and storage adoption in Alberta, Canada. Alberta is a test case for CCS due to its fossil resources and high CO2storage potential, and the technology's success or failure in this jurisdiction should be of interest to policy makers elsewhere. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

Energy security, local air pollution and GHG emissions are three key challenges facing China''s decision-makers. In this study, we first applied CIMS, a hybrid (bottom-up/top-down) energy-economy model, to test how different policy packages could be designed to alleviate China''s energy and environment challenges. Secondly, we compared the marginal abatement cost curve of this study with those of other analysts, and found that modeling methodology differences had significant impacts on cost estimates of GHG emission abatement. Finally, we derived the long-run autonomous energy efficiency indices (AEEIs) and elasticity of substitution (ESUB) values for China, and found that the aggregate Chinese AEEIs are somewhere between top-down and bottom-up estimates in the literature. Moreover, because the simulated ESUBs and AEEIs differ from one sector to another, this suggests that aggregated models with economy-wide values for these parameters may be unhelpful to policy-makers seeking to explore the effects of structural evolution on energy demand and emissions. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]