This paper approximates the emissions rebound effects 1 1 As per Binswanger (2001), we take the “rebound effect” to be defined in broad terms. In this paper we refer generally to the “ emissions rebound”. It is taken to mean the increase in emissions due to the introduction of some measure which is lower in cost and emissions than business as usual practice. associated with substituting expensive and GHG emitting natural gas (LNG) power plants, with apparently cheaper and lower emitting nuclear plant. It then evaluates the effect this has on economy wide electricity use as well as net GHG emissions changes. The analysis is undertaken by combining aspects of an input–output model with an optimizing energy systems model. The scope of the case study is limited to the effects of the electricity sector (and its emissions) on the Korean economy from 2005 to 2030. Its primary basis (in terms of data and assumptions) is the recent national Basic Plan for Long-Term Electricity Supply and Demand ( KPX, 2006). 2 2 That work extends only to 2020, but for this effort is extrapolated using consistent assumptions to 2030. KPX (2006) describes a national power expansion plan developed by the Korea Power exchange and does not include any specific technology focus. The cases considered a limited increase of the share of Advanced Pressurised Reactor (APR) nuclear plant at the expense of combined cycle gas turbine (CCGT) plant running on imported liquefied natural gas (LNG). Three scenarios are studied, based on KPX (2006). These include (1) a Reference scenario, 3 3 The reference case is not the least cost case in a pure sense: as determined by the KPX (2006) planning process, it is the least cost case subject to a political (neither economic nor technical) constraint on upper limit of nuclear power. In related work, a soft technical limit—which is significantly higher—is estimated ( IAEA, 2006a, b ). It is also entirely possible that site considerations may force another technical limit which is not considered here. Current work indicates that sites have been identified for the next ten nuclear power plants, see: OPR 1000 (2008) and APR 1400 (2008), with investigation for further sites or site expansion currently taking place. (2) a Mitigation scenario (where an extra 5000 MW of nuclear is allowed to enter the system at the expense of LNG plant, but no emissions rebound is calculated) and (3) a Mitigation+rebound scenario (where some emissions savings of the extra nuclear plant are offset by an emissions rebound). 4 4 Using the IO-Optimization model developed, a feedback mechanism is introduced. This would invoke the use of offsetting GHG emitting technologies, if for some reason (directly and indirectly), the effect of the increased introduction of nuclear power was to increase the demand for electricity. To achieve this, there is a limit placed on the introduction of new nuclear. If that nuclear power is introduced (to its limit) and demand for electricity increases it must be met by other power plants. In the Korean system, the other power plants that are economic in our scenarios are CO 2 emitting fossil plant. Interestingly while our limit is arbitrary and conservative, there are technical limits associated with the characteristics of the power system which would limit nuclear, albeit at a higher level of about 60% of total generation ( IAEA, 2006b). The modelling approach developed is useful as it provides a method of including and indicating some economic interactions with the energy system in a relatively transparent manner. Stand alone economic models can lack energy system dynamics, while energy systems model are often decoupled from detailed economic interactions.
Read full abstract