Efficiency of policy instruments for CCS deployment

Bibliographic Data

ID19040696
AuthorsDominique Finon (corresponding author)
Year2011
Volume12
Issue2
Pages237-254
Publication date2011-10-14
Open AccessNo
TypeARTICLE
VenueClimate Policy (JOURNAL)
Journal identifiersISSN: 1469-3062 • E-ISSN: 1752-7457
PublisherTaylor & Francis (PUBLISHER • GB)
DOI10.1080/14693062.2011.605702
OpenAlexW2039921872
LanguageEN
Citations received4
References cited18

Policy instruments for carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology investment during the learning phase are analysed and compared. The focus is on specific barriers to investment in learning during early commercial deployment. Imperfections in the carbon price signal and market failures from barriers indicate a need for support during the learning investment phase and the initial roll out of CCS in electricity generation. Different ways for CCS technology to cross the so-called investment ‘death valley’ are analysed and compared: a command and control instrument (CCS mandate), investment support (grant, tax credit, loan guarantee, subsidy by trust fund) and production subsidies (guaranteed carbon price, feed-in price, etc.). Three criteria are used in this comparison: effectiveness, static efficiency and dynamic efficiency. Policy instruments need to be adapted to the technological and commercial maturity of the CCS system. Mandate policies require handling with much care, and subsidization mechanisms must be designed to be market-oriented

Business · Economics · Environmental economics · Environmental resource management · Natural resource economics · Software deployment · Capital Investment and Risk Analysis · Climate Change Policy and Economics · Computer Science · Environmental Science

Tools

Open DOISci-Hub