IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ces/ceswps/_10973.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Cost-Benefit Analysis for Green Demonstrators: Application to the Container Glass Industry in France

Author

Listed:
  • Maryam Sadighi
  • Jean-Pierre Ponssard
  • Maria Eugenia Sanin
  • Elodie Le Cadre Loret

Abstract

Adopting disruptive technologies for decarbonizing hard-to-abate industrial sectors requires experimentation through demonstration (pilot) projects. However, from an economic perspective, the potential long-term benefits and the difficulties in designing relevant public policies are not addressed in the standard valuations of those projects. This paper shows that cost-benefit analysis (CBA) at the sector level provides clues to solve these issues, integrating knowledge spillovers from the pilot throughout the industry and the technical change from value-added cost components in adjacent activities. Such analysis gives the optimal trajectory for decarbonizing the sector. Our suggested CBA also delivers the relevant abatement cost for the pilot, a key indicator of public policy. Applied to France’s large-scale, high-quality container glass sector, CBA obtains an abatement cost of around 200€/tCO2 for the pilot deploying a decarbonized hybrid technology, which is 50% lower than previous standard approaches. Additionally, we show that subsidizing the pilot associated with a commitment to transfer knowledge to follower plants is sufficient to decentralize the social optimum if governments implement an emissions tax internalizing the environmental cost. This approach could be applied in other hard-to-abate sectors to trigger the early deployment of disruptive innovations and facilitate the designing of relevant public policies.

Suggested Citation

  • Maryam Sadighi & Jean-Pierre Ponssard & Maria Eugenia Sanin & Elodie Le Cadre Loret, 2024. "Cost-Benefit Analysis for Green Demonstrators: Application to the Container Glass Industry in France," CESifo Working Paper Series 10973, CESifo.
  • Handle: RePEc:ces:ceswps:_10973
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cesifo.org/DocDL/cesifo1_wp10973.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Vogt-Schilb, Adrien & Meunier, Guy & Hallegatte, Stéphane, 2018. "When starting with the most expensive option makes sense: Optimal timing, cost and sectoral allocation of abatement investment," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 88(C), pages 210-233.
    2. Nemet, Gregory F. & Zipperer, Vera & Kraus, Martina, 2018. "The valley of death, the technology pork barrel, and public support for large demonstration projects," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 119(C), pages 154-167.
    3. Sagar, Ambuj D. & van der Zwaan, Bob, 2006. "Technological innovation in the energy sector: R&D, deployment, and learning-by-doing," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 34(17), pages 2601-2608, November.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Bossink, Bart, 2020. "Learning strategies in sustainable energy demonstration projects: What organizations learn from sustainable energy demonstrations," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 131(C).
    2. Elia, A. & Kamidelivand, M. & Rogan, F. & Ó Gallachóir, B., 2021. "Impacts of innovation on renewable energy technology cost reductions," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 138(C).
    3. Singh, Anuraag & Triulzi, Giorgio & Magee, Christopher L., 2021. "Technological improvement rate predictions for all technologies: Use of patent data and an extended domain description," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(9).
    4. Grafström, Jonas & Poudineh, Rahmat, 2023. "No evidence of counteracting policy effects on European solar power invention and diffusion," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 172(C).
    5. Harborne, Paul & Hendry, Chris, 2009. "Pathways to commercial wind power in the US, Europe and Japan: The role of demonstration projects and field trials in the innovation process," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(9), pages 3580-3595, September.
    6. Christopher J. Blackburn & Mallory E. Flowers & Daniel C. Matisoff & Juan Moreno‐Cruz, 2020. "Do Pilot and Demonstration Projects Work? Evidence from a Green Building Program," Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 39(4), pages 1100-1132, September.
    7. Chang, Yu Sang, 2014. "Comparative analysis of long-term road fatality targets for individual states in the US—An application of experience curve models," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(C), pages 53-69.
    8. Zheng, Shuhong & Yang, Juan & Yu, Shiwei, 2021. "How renewable energy technological innovation promotes renewable power generation: Evidence from China's provincial panel data," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 177(C), pages 1394-1407.
    9. Fabre, Adrien & Fodha, Mouez & Ricci, Francesco, 2020. "Mineral resources for renewable energy: Optimal timing of energy production," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 59(C).
    10. Deleidi, Matteo & Mazzucato, Mariana & Semieniuk, Gregor, 2020. "Neither crowding in nor out: Public direct investment mobilising private investment into renewable electricity projects," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 140(C).
    11. Li, Wei & Lu, Can & Zhang, Yan-Wu, 2019. "Prospective exploration of future renewable portfolio standard schemes in China via a multi-sector CGE model," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 128(C), pages 45-56.
    12. Sherrington, Chris & Bartley, Justin & Moran, Dominic, 2008. "Farm-level constraints on the domestic supply of perennial energy crops in the UK," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(7), pages 2504-2512, July.
    13. Renaud Coulomb & Oskar Lecuyer & Adrien Vogt-Schilb, 2019. "Optimal Transition from Coal to Gas and Renewable Power Under Capacity Constraints and Adjustment Costs," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 73(2), pages 557-590, June.
    14. Chris Belmert Milindi & Roula Inglesi-Lotz, 2023. "Impact of technological progress on carbon emissions in different country income groups," Energy & Environment, , vol. 34(5), pages 1348-1382, August.
    15. Caloghirou, Yannis & Giotopoulos, Ioannis & Kontolaimou, Alexandra & Korra, Efthymia & Tsakanikas, Aggelos, 2021. "Industry-university knowledge flows and product innovation: How do knowledge stocks and crisis matter?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(3).
    16. Garrone, Paola & Grilli, Luca, 2010. "Is there a relationship between public expenditures in energy R&D and carbon emissions per GDP? An empirical investigation," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(10), pages 5600-5613, October.
    17. Wang, Nan & Akimoto, Keigo & Nemet, Gregory F., 2021. "What went wrong? Learning from three decades of carbon capture, utilization and sequestration (CCUS) pilot and demonstration projects," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 158(C).
    18. Zoya Pourmirza & Seyed Hamid Reza Hosseini & Sara Walker & Damian Giaouris & Philip Taylor, 2022. "The Landscape and Roadmap of the Research and Innovation Infrastructures in Energy: A Review of the Case Study of the UK," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(12), pages 1-24, June.
    19. Chiappinelli, Olga & Gerres, Timo & Neuhoff, Karsten & Lettow, Frederik & de Coninck, Heleen & Felsmann, Balázs & Joltreau, Eugénie & Khandekar, Gauri & Linares, Pedro & Richstein, Jörn & Śniegocki, A, 2021. "A green COVID-19 recovery of the EU basic materials sector: identifying potentials, barriers and policy solutions," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 21(10), pages 1328-1346.
    20. Baldwin, Elizabeth & Cai, Yongyang & Kuralbayeva, Karlygash, 2020. "To build or not to build? Capital stocks and climate policy∗," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 100(C).

    More about this item

    Keywords

    disruptive technologies; pilot projects; cost-benefit analysis; carbon neutrality; knowledge spillover;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • Q55 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics - - - Environmental Economics: Technological Innovation
    • Q52 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics - - - Pollution Control Adoption and Costs; Distributional Effects; Employment Effects
    • Q42 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Energy - - - Alternative Energy Sources
    • O33 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - Technological Change: Choices and Consequences; Diffusion Processes
    • O38 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - Government Policy

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:ces:ceswps:_10973. 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: Klaus Wohlrabe (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/cesifde.html .

    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.