IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/energy/v246y2022ics0360544222002316.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Adopting renewable energies to meet the carbon reduction target: Is forest carbon sequestration cheaper?

Author

Listed:
  • Liu, Wan-Yu
  • Chiang, Yi-Hua
  • Lin, Chun-Cheng

Abstract

In most countries, the current goal for greenhouse gas emission reduction is to achieve a 50% reduction by 2050 with a carbon neutrality target. Most energy policies have been to adopt at least 20% renewable energies in the country energy portfolio. This study conducted a comparative cost analysis on various carbon emission reduction options: reducing fossil energies (including coal, natural gas, and petroleum), increasing renewable energies (including hydroelectric power, wind power, photovoltaics, and wood fuel), and increasing afforestation (including coniferous forests, broadleaved forests, and mixed coniferous-broadleaved forests). In analyzing the discounted costs per unit of carbon reduction, this study explored the costs of these options at a fixed amount of carbon reduction, which means the lower the costs, the more effective the carbon emission reduction. Taking Taiwan as an example, the results indicated that coal-fired power has the lowest cost (US$24.80 per ton of CO2). The costs of other energy sources (i.e., natural gas, petroleum, hydroelectric power, wind power, solar power, and wood fuel) are US$79.72–182.17 per ton of CO2. The cost of afforestation for reducing carbon emissions is US$34.68–64.82 per ton of CO2, lower than the cost of adopting renewable energies assuming no technological advancement in current renewable energies.

Suggested Citation

  • Liu, Wan-Yu & Chiang, Yi-Hua & Lin, Chun-Cheng, 2022. "Adopting renewable energies to meet the carbon reduction target: Is forest carbon sequestration cheaper?," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 246(C).
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:energy:v:246:y:2022:i:c:s0360544222002316
    DOI: 10.1016/j.energy.2022.123328
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0360544222002316
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.energy.2022.123328?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Vass, Miriam Münnich & Elofsson, Katarina, 2016. "Is forest carbon sequestration at the expense of bioenergy and forest products cost-efficient in EU climate policy to 2050?," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 24(C), pages 82-105.
    2. Gren, Ing-Marie & Carlsson, Mattias & Elofsson, Katarina & Munnich, Miriam, 2012. "Stochastic carbon sinks for combating carbon dioxide emissions in the EU," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 34(5), pages 1523-1531.
    3. Brian C. Murray & Bruce A. McCarl & Heng-Chi Lee, 2004. "Estimating Leakage from Forest Carbon Sequestration Programs," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 80(1), pages 109-124.
    4. Teng, Xiangyu & Liu, Fan-peng & Chiu, Yung-ho, 2021. "The change in energy and carbon emissions efficiency after afforestation in China by applying a modified dynamic SBM model," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 216(C).
    5. Brini, Riadh, 2021. "Renewable and non-renewable electricity consumption, economic growth and climate change: Evidence from a panel of selected African countries," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 223(C).
    6. Liu, Wan-Yu & Lin, Chun-Cheng & Yeh, Tzu-Lei, 2017. "Supply chain optimization of forest biomass electricity and bioethanol coproduction," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 139(C), pages 630-645.
    7. Hung, Chung-Pin & Wei, Chiang & Wang, Song Yung & Lin, Far-Ching, 2009. "The study on the carbon dioxide sequestration by applying wooden structure on eco-technological and leisure facilities," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 34(8), pages 1896-1901.
    8. Alban Kitous, Patrick Criqui, Elie Bellevrat and Bertrand Chateau, 2010. "Transformation Patterns of the Worldwide Energy System - Scenarios for the Century with the POLES Model," The Energy Journal, International Association for Energy Economics, vol. 0(Special I).
    9. Kovacs, Kent F. & Haight, Robert G. & Moore, Karli & Popp, Michael, 2021. "Afforestation for carbon sequestration in the Lower Mississippi River Basin of Arkansas, USA: Does modeling of land use at fine spatial resolution reveal lower carbon cost?," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 130(C).
    10. Zhang, M.M. & Wang, Qunwei & Zhou, Dequn & Ding, H., 2019. "Evaluating uncertain investment decisions in low-carbon transition toward renewable energy," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 240(C), pages 1049-1060.
    11. Brent Sohngen & Robert Mendelsohn, 2003. "An Optimal Control Model of Forest Carbon Sequestration," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 85(2), pages 448-457.
    12. Adetoye, Ayoade Matthew & Okojie, Luke O. & Akerele, Dare, 2018. "Forest carbon sequestration supply function for African countries: An econometric modelling approach," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 90(C), pages 59-66.
    13. Guo, Jinggang & Gong, Peichen, 2017. "The potential and cost of increasing forest carbon sequestration in Sweden," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 29(PB), pages 78-86.
    14. Jia, Zhijie & Lin, Boqiang, 2021. "How to achieve the first step of the carbon-neutrality 2060 target in China: The coal substitution perspective," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 233(C).
    15. Salvilla, John Nikko V. & Ofrasio, Bjorn Ivan G. & Rollon, Analiza P. & Manegdeg, Ferdinand G. & Abarca, Ralf Ruffel M. & de Luna, Mark Daniel G., 2020. "Synergistic co-pyrolysıs of polyolefin plastics with wood and agricultural wastes for biofuel production," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 279(C).
    16. Pantelis Capros & Leonidas Mantzos, 2000. "Endogenous learning in European post-Kyoto scenarios: results from applying the market equilibrium model PRIMES," International Journal of Global Energy Issues, Inderscience Enterprises Ltd, vol. 14(1/2/3/4), pages 249-261.
    17. Münnich Vass, Miriam, 2017. "Renewable energies cannot compete with forest carbon sequestration to cost-efficiently meet the EU carbon target for 2050," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 107(C), pages 164-180.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Rezk, Hegazy & Olabi, A.G. & Ferahtia, Seydali & Sayed, Enas Taha, 2022. "Accurate parameter estimation methodology applied to model proton exchange membrane fuel cell," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 255(C).
    2. Galusnyak, Stefan Cristian & Petrescu, Letitia & Chisalita, Dora Andreea & Cormos, Calin-Cristian, 2022. "Life cycle assessment of methanol production and conversion into various chemical intermediates and products," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 259(C).
    3. Szajkó, Gabriella & Rácz, Viktor József & Kis, András, 2024. "The role of price incentives in enhancing carbon sequestration in the forestry sector of Hungary," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 158(C).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Münnich Vass, Miriam, 2017. "Renewable energies cannot compete with forest carbon sequestration to cost-efficiently meet the EU carbon target for 2050," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 107(C), pages 164-180.
    2. Chu, Long & Grafton, R. Quentin & Nguyen, Hai, 2022. "A global analysis of the break-even prices to reduce atmospheric carbon dioxide via forest plantation and avoided deforestation," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 135(C).
    3. Baker, J.S. & Wade, C.M. & Sohngen, B.L. & Ohrel, S. & Fawcett, A.A., 2019. "Potential complementarity between forest carbon sequestration incentives and biomass energy expansion," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 126(C), pages 391-401.
    4. Monge, Juan J. & Bryant, Henry L. & Gan, Jianbang & Richardson, James W., 2016. "Land use and general equilibrium implications of a forest-based carbon sequestration policy in the United States," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 127(C), pages 102-120.
    5. Szajkó, Gabriella & Rácz, Viktor József & Kis, András, 2024. "The role of price incentives in enhancing carbon sequestration in the forestry sector of Hungary," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 158(C).
    6. Jing Zhao & Hui Hu & Jinglei Wang, 2022. "Forest Carbon Reserve Calculation and Comprehensive Economic Value Evaluation: A Forest Management Model Based on Both Biomass Expansion Factor Method and Total Forest Value," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(23), pages 1-15, November.
    7. Acosta, Montserrat & Sohngen, Brent, 2009. "How big is leakage from forestry carbon credits? Estimates from a Global Model," 2009 Annual Meeting, July 26-28, 2009, Milwaukee, Wisconsin 49468, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    8. Pohjola, Johanna & Laturi, Jani & Lintunen, Jussi & Uusivuori, Jussi, 2018. "Immediate and long-run impacts of a forest carbon policy—A market-level assessment with heterogeneous forest owners," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 32(C), pages 94-105.
    9. Gren, Ing-Marie, 2024. "A trading market for uncertain carbon removal by land use in the EU," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 159(C).
    10. Miguel RIVIERE & Sylvain CAURLA, 2018. "Integrating non-timber objectives into bio-economic models of the forest sector: a review of recent innovations and current shortcomings," Working Papers of BETA 2018-26, Bureau d'Economie Théorique et Appliquée, UDS, Strasbourg.
    11. Vass, Miriam Münnich & Elofsson, Katarina, 2016. "Is forest carbon sequestration at the expense of bioenergy and forest products cost-efficient in EU climate policy to 2050?," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 24(C), pages 82-105.
    12. Munnich Vass, Miriam & Elofsson, Katarina, 2013. "Is forest sequestration at the expense of bioenergy and forest products cost-effective in EU climate policy to 2050?," Working Paper Series 2013:9, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Department Economics.
    13. Ming-Yun Chu & Wan-Yu Liu, 2021. "Assessing the Opportunity Cost of Carbon Stock Caused by Land-Use Changes in Taiwan," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(11), pages 1-15, November.
    14. Ang Yang & Xiangyu Meng & He He & Liang Wang & Jing Gao, 2022. "Towards Optimized ARMGs’ Low-Carbon Transition Investment Decision Based on Real Options," Energies, MDPI, vol. 15(14), pages 1-16, July.
    15. van Kooten, G. Cornelis & Sohngen, Brent, 2007. "Economics of Forest Ecosystem Carbon Sinks: A Review," International Review of Environmental and Resource Economics, now publishers, vol. 1(3), pages 237-269, September.
    16. Uwe A. Schneider, 2004. "Land use decision modeling with dynamically updated soil carbon emission rates," Working Papers FNU-51, Research unit Sustainability and Global Change, Hamburg University, revised Apr 2004.
    17. Im, Eun Ho & Adams, Darius M. & Latta, Gregory S., 2007. "Potential impacts of carbon taxes on carbon flux in western Oregon private forests," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 9(8), pages 1006-1017, May.
    18. García, Jorge H. & Orlov, Anton & Aaheim, Asbjørn, 2018. "Negative leakage: The key role of forest management regimes," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 33(C), pages 8-13.
    19. McCarl, Bruce A. & Attavanich, Witsanu & Musumba, Mark & Mu, Jianhong E. & Aisabokhae, Ruth, 2011. "Land Use and Climate Change," MPRA Paper 83993, University Library of Munich, Germany, revised 2014.
    20. Alix-Garcia, Jennifer & Wolff, Hendrik, 2014. "Payment for Ecosystem Services from Forests," IZA Discussion Papers 8179, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:energy:v:246:y:2022:i:c:s0360544222002316. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.journals.elsevier.com/energy .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.