364 0

4개 국가 CDM 사업의 온실가스 감축비용 비교 분석-칠레, 페루, 베트남, 말레이지아

Title
4개 국가 CDM 사업의 온실가스 감축비용 비교 분석-칠레, 페루, 베트남, 말레이지아
Other Titles
Comparison of Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emission Abatement Cost of Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) Activities in Four Countries Chile, Peru, Vietnam, and Malaysia
Author
노동운
Keywords
GHG Emission Abatement Cost; Economies Of Scale; Economies Of Time; Certified Emission Reduction; Clean Development Mechanism; Investment Analysis
Issue Date
2020-12
Publisher
한국기후변화학회
Citation
한국기후변화학회지, v. 12, NO 5, 특별호, Page. 613-643
Abstract
Estimation of the Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emission abatement cost of clean development mechanism (CDM) projects is essential for forecasting the abatement cost of the cooperative approach (Article 6.2) and the sustainable mechanism (Article 6.4) of the Paris Agreement. The purpose of this paper is to compare the GHG emission abatement cost of CDM projects among four countries using the abatement cost information each country. The average abatement cost was $9.65/tCO2 (2020 price) for all types of CDM projects across the four countries. The abatement cost of methane avoidance projects was the lowest ($4.75/tCO2), followed by LFG ($6.49/tCO2), small hydro ($7.67/tCO2), biomass ($9.36/tCO2), energy efficiency ($10.02/tCO2), PV ($10.82/tCO2), fuel switch ($10.92/tCO2), and wind ($18.27/tCO2). There were economies of scale for wind and energy efficiency CDM activities, and the higher investment needs for small hydro, PV, wind, LFG, and methane avoidance since their abatement costs are high. Economies of time existed for small hydro, LFG, methane avoidance, and energy efficiency, and there was an effect of technology development on wind, methane avoidance, and biomass. There was a correlation between abatement cost and the share of CDM activities for methane avoidance, small hydro, and PV CDM projects. A cost-effective mitigation strategy would be to proceed with projects that have higher mitigation potential at the same marginal abatement cost. Thus, at a marginal cost of $10-20/tCO2, the effective strategy would be to proceed with LFG, energy efficiency, methane avoidance, small hydro, wind, biomass, fuel switch, and PV. At a cost of over $30/tCO2, proceeding with LFG, wind, biomass, small hydro, fuel switching, and PV would be cost-effective.
URI
https://www.dbpia.co.kr/journal/articleDetail?nodeId=NODE10661574&language=ko_KR&hasTopBanner=truehttps://repository.hanyang.ac.kr/handle/20.500.11754/173100
ISSN
2093-5919; 2586-2782
DOI
10.15531/KSCCR.2021.12.5.613
Appears in Collections:
GRADUATE SCHOOL OF INTERNATIONAL STUDIES[S](국제학대학원) > ETC
Files in This Item:
There are no files associated with this item.
Export
RIS (EndNote)
XLS (Excel)
XML


qrcode

Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.

BROWSE