The impacts of uncertainties on the carbon mitigation design: Perspective from abatement cost and emission rate
The impacts of uncertainties on the carbon mitigation design: Perspective from abatement cost and emission rate
复制标题
不确定性对碳减排设计的影响：从减排成本和排放率角度看
DOI：
10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.05.328
复制
发表时间：
2019-09-20
影响因子：
11.1
通讯作者：
Qu, Xinglong
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Guo, Jian-Xin;Tan, Xianchun;Qu, Xinglong
在本文中，我们使用一个随机动态规划模型来评估减排规划过程中的不确定性的影响。通过引入内生排放路径，区分了规划过程中的两类不确定性，即减排成本的波动性和排放率的模糊性。研究结果表明，考虑的不确定性通过影响减排路径和排放路径，在多个方面影响决策过程：（1）影响随不确定性效应的期望值和方差水平而变化。由0.02到0.06的减排成本和0.01到0.03的排放因子引起的不确定性分别使总减排成本增加约7%和5%。(2)这两种不确定性都可以在短期内产生预防性减排。特别是在初期阶段，由于不确定性的存在，减排任务将在每个时期增加1%左右。然而，随着持续时间的推移，这种作用将会减弱。(3)然而，这两种不确定性以不同的形式和机制影响长期减排绩效。由于波动性小，排放率在短期内比排放率更大幅度地改变减排行动的优先顺序。(4)组合不确定性可以以复合方式表现，以改善模型中的不确定性性能。保守情况和极端情况的排放峰值之间的差异是显著的，其中差距为约500万公吨。这些结果具有潜在的重要政策影响，可以为减排行动提供依据。(C)2019爱思唯尔有限公司版权所有。
In this paper, we use a stochastic dynamic programming model to evaluate the impacts of uncertainties on the abatement planning process. By involving the endogenous emission path, we differentiate two types of uncertainties during the planning process, which come from the volatility of the abatement cost and the ambiguity of emission rate. Results suggest that the considered uncertainties influence the decision-making process in several aspects by shaping the abatement path as well as emission path. (1) The impacts vary with the expected value and the level of variance of the uncertainty effects. Uncertainties caused by abatement costs from 0.02 to 0.06 and emission factors from 0.01 to 0.03 increase the total abatement costs around 7% and 5% respectively. (2) Both of these uncertainties can generate precautionary abatement in short-term. Especially during the early stages, the abatement task will be increased by 1% around in each period due to the uncertainties. However such an action will be diminishing as the duration elapses. (3) Both of these uncertainties influence the long-term abatement performances, however, with different forms and mechanisms. With small volatility, the emission rate changes the priority sequence of abatement actions more substantially in the short-term than the emission rate does. (4) The combined uncertainties can behave in a compound way to improve the uncertainty performance in the model. The difference between the emission peaks of conservative and extreme cases is significant with the gap being about 5 million metric ton. These results have potentially important policy implications and can provide a rationale for abatement actions. (C) 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.