Academia.eduAcademia.edu

Measuring the Potential of Renewable Energy

Measuring the Potential of Renewable Energy Molly Macauley, Jhih-Shyang Shih, Emily Aronow, David Austin, Tom Bath and Joel Darmstadter 5th Annual Conference on Global Economic Analysis June 7, 2002 Taipei, Taiwan, ROC We thank the U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, for their support. Overview of the Presentation • • • • • • Introduction Approach Modeling Framework Results Conclusions Limits and Next Steps June 7, 2002 Introduction • Over the last decade, energy policy has been steadily growing focus on “sustainability”. • Federal agencies are constantly being asked to design and demonstrate performance results for their R&D programs and policy. • There is a need for the measure of the performance of R&D investment in renewable technologies for electricity generation. • Such information may be useful for program managers and other decision makers in guiding the allocation of limited resources. June 7, 2002 Our Approach is to • Develop an index-based measure to estimate consumer welfare gain as renewable energy technologies continue to be improved and gradually adopted compared with a counterfactual scenario that allows for continual improvement of conventional technology (defender technology). • Adoption rate: we assume that the generation shares of renewable technologies, which replace the incremental generation of conventional technology, increase monotonically with time according to the Weibull process. • Externality: internalize the externality associate with electricity • Uncertainty: costs of electricity generation over 20 years June 7, 2002 Illustration of Net Surplus Change Due to Innovation June 7, 2002 Illustration of Net Surplus Change with External Costs June 7, 2002 Derivation of Estimating Consumer Surplus • We construct a Tornqvist cost index to measure the surplus changes due to innovations. • The index is the geometric mean of a Laspeyres index – measring consumer willingness to accept compensation to give up the gains from investment-in-renewables; and a Passche index, measuring their willingness to pay to receive gains from investment-in-renewables. June 7, 2002 Laspeyres index: The minimum cost of achieving utility udt, relative to the cost of udt given the investment-in-renewables. C*dt = E* (udt, Pdt, Wdt) E* (udt, PI , WRE) (1) Passche index: The cost of achieving optimal utility uI under the investment-in-renewables scenario with baseline price Wdt relative to the cost with post-innovation prices WRE. C*I = E* (uI, Pdt, Wdt) E* (uI, PI , WRE) (2) June 7, 2002 The quality-adjusted cost of renewables faced by postadoption consumer is a combination of use of renewables and conventional technology: WRE = ρ WI + (1- ρ) Wdt (3) We assume that the consumer expenditure function can be represented by a translog functional form. Thus, the log of Tornqvist index reduces to ½ ln (C*dt x C*I )=½ (sdt+sI) ln (Wdt/ WRE) (4) (Bresnahan, AER 1986) The terms sdt and sI give, respectively, electricity expenditures as a share of personal consumption expenditure (PCE) under the baseline and investment-in-renewables scenarios. June 7, 2002 Using the Index to Estimate the Present Value of Consumer Surplus • The monetary value to consumers of the innovation is just the product of the predicted PCE times the exponent of the Tornqvist cost index minus one. June 7, 2002 Model Framework Private Generation Costs {PV, ST, GEO, BIO, Wind, CCGT, A-CCGT} (DOE/EIA (2000), DOE/EPRI (1997), authors’ adjustments) Externality Costs •Carbon (CCGT) (Krupnick et al. (1996)) Private and Social Generation Costs •Thermal H2O (CCGT, Biomass, ST) (Authors’ estimates) “Market Conditions” Cost Indices •Adoption rates •Electricity prices (DOE/EIA (2000)) •Generation quantity (DOE/EIA 2000)) Aggregate Consumer Surplus •Discount rate Private Consumption Expenditures (DOC (2001), authors’ forecasts) June 7, 2002 Diversity of Renewable Energy Resources in the United States June 7, 2002 Electricity Market Module Supply Regions Defined by the North American Electric Reliability Council June 7, 2002 Approach • Some Application Features – Electricity generation technologies: • Renewable (PV, solar thermal, biomass, wind, geothermal) • Fossil (Conventional and advanced combined cycle gas turbine, CCGT) – Two geographic regions (CNV, MAPP): We chose these regions to highlight regional differences in resource endowments for power generation. June 7, 2002 Weibull Adoption Rate Curves F (t ) = 1 − exp(−λ t γ ) Percent Adoption Fast Adoption Slow Adoption 1.0 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.0 0 5 10 15 20 25 Year June 7, 2002 External Effects • • • • Carbon Water Land use Avian and other ecological resources June 7, 2002 Uncertainty • • • • Sources of uncertainty Parameterization of input variables Random draws – Monte Carlo Sensitivity tests for what matters most June 7, 2002 Results I: Discounted incremental net benefits from 2000 to 2020 for Wind 6 from scenario 1 for CNV June 7, 2002 Results II: The present value of benefits from 2000 to 2020 for Wind Class 6 from scenario 1 for CNV June 7, 2002 Results III S CENARIO 1: Defending Technology Innovating Technology Weibull: .1, 3.5 Externalities: Carbon Water Base: EIA CCGT Growth Discounted Present Value, 2000-2020, $ 1999 billions Conventional CCGT Advanced CCGT (5% , M edian, 95% ) (5% , M edian, 95% ) CNV Photovoltaics Solar Thermal Geothermal W ind Class 4 W ind Class 6 Biomass (-13.6, -10.8, -8.04) (-7.02, -5.38, -3.86) (2.62, 3.47, 4.45) (2.10, 2.90, 3.77) (3.50, 4.60 ,5.80) (-5.37, -3.99, -2.74) (-13.7, -10.9, -8.08) (-7.17, -5.57, -3.96) (2.51, 3.31, 4.26) (2.00, 2.73, 3.61) (3.35, 4.44, 5.59) (-5.46, -4.17, -2.88) M APP Photovoltaics Solar Thermal Geothermal W ind Class 4 W ind Class 6 Biomass (-6.40, -4.62, -2.92) N/A N/A (0.79, 1.18, 1.65) (1.14, 1.75, 2.41) (-1.61, -1.10, -0.64) (-6.51, -4.70, -2.97) N/A N/A (0.74, 1.09, 1.56) (1.13, 1.67, 2.31) (-1.75, -1.17, -0.69) June 7, 2002 Results IV Largest Surplus Gains Under An Exogenously Specified “Portfolio” Discounted Present Value 2000-2020, $ 1999 Billions Base: EIA CCGT Growth CNV (5%, Median,.95%) MAPP (5%, Median, 95%) Assumptions: Weibull: .05, 3.5 External Effects: Carbon, Water EQWTRP C-CCGT (-1.54, -1.11, -0.72) (-1.07, -0.72, -0.42) A-CCGT (-1.63, -1.20, -0.77) (-1.13, -0.79, -0.78) VARWTRP C-CCGT (0.41, 0.84, 1.28) (0.59, 0.92, 1.25) A-CCGT (0.22, 0.68, 1.11) (0.56, 0.83, 1.17) Weibull: .1, 3.5 External Effects: Carbon, Water June 7, 2002 Conclusions • Using a cost index that is well grounded in demand theory, we develop a stochastic simulation model – to estimate value of cost index – to estimate net present values of consumer surplus – to identify and study effects of uncertainty – to provide DoE with a policy management/resource allocation tool • The model also allows – – – regional differences adoption push externality internalization June 7, 2002 Limits and Next Steps • One by one comparison – OK for R&D investment planning? • Limited info on externalities – Rigorous attention to a wider array of externalities constitutes a major area for further research in understanding the comparative economics of renewable and conventional energy • Additional scenarios, such as RPS? June 7, 2002 Thanks you June 7, 2002