Query Result Set
Skip Navigation Links
   ActiveUsers:680Hits:20127382Skip Navigation Links
Show My Basket
Contact Us
IDSA Web Site
Ask Us
Today's News
HelpExpand Help
Advanced search

  Hide Options
Sort Order Items / Page
WEITZEL, MATTHIAS (2) answer(s).
 
SrlItem
1
ID:   112332


Comment on “comparing the feed-in tariff incentives for renewable electricity in Ontario and Germany” by Mabee, Mannion, and C / Weitzel, Matthias   Journal Article
Weitzel, Matthias Journal Article
0 Rating(s) & 0 Review(s)
Publication 2012.
Summary/Abstract In a recent article Mabee et al. [2012, Energy Policy 40 (1), 480-489] describe the German legislation to promote renewable electricity generation (Erneuerbare-Energien-Gesetz). The erroneous assumption that an annual degression of feed-in tariffs for any given power generating facility are stipulated in the law leads to a wrong calculation of net present values of the revenue stream. Reduction of feed-in tariff rates only holds for new additions. There is however one exception in offshore wind energy where the operator can opt for a degression. The implications of the newly introduced option are discussed in this comment.
        Export Export
2
ID:   112894


Emission allowances and mitigation costs of China and India res / Ruijven, Bas J van; Weitzel, Matthias; Elzen, Michel G J den; Hof, Andries F   Journal Article
Elzen, Michel G J den Journal Article
0 Rating(s) & 0 Review(s)
Publication 2012.
Summary/Abstract To meet ambitious global climate targets, mitigation effort in China and India is necessary. This paper presents an analysis of the scientific literature on how effort-sharing approaches affect emission allowances and abatement costs of China and India. We find that reductions for both China and India differ greatly in time, across- and within approaches and between concentration stabilisation targets. For China, allocated emission allowances in 2020 are substantially below baseline projections. Moreover, they may be below 2005 emission levels, particularly for low concentration targets (below 490 ppm CO2-eq). Effort-sharing approaches based on allocating reduction targets lead to relatively lower reductions for China than approaches that are based on allocating emission allowances. For 2050, emission allowances for China are 50-80% below 2005 levels for low concentration targets with minor differences between approaches. Still, mitigation costs of China (including emissions trading) remain mostly below global average. According to literature, Chinese emission allowances peak before 2025-2030 for low concentration targets. India's emission allowances show high increases compared to 2005 levels. If emission trading is allowed, financial revenues from selling credits might compensate mitigation costs in most approaches, even for low concentration targets. India's emission allowances peak around 2030-2040 for all concentration targets.
Key Words China  India  Climate Policy 
        Export Export