Low-Carbon Energy Development in Indonesia in Alignment with Intended Nationally Determined Contribution (INDC) by 2030
Low-Carbon Energy Development in Indonesia in Alignment with Intended Nationally Determined Contribution (INDC) by 2030
复制标题
DOI：
10.3390/en10010052
复制
发表时间：
2017-01
期刊：
影响因子：
3.2
通讯作者：
Ucok W. R. Siagian;Bintang B. Yuwono;S. Fujimori;T. Masui
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Ucok W. R. Siagian;Bintang B. Yuwono;S. Fujimori;T. Masui
本研究分析了低碳能源技术在到2030年减少印尼能源部门温室气体排放方面的作用。本研究的目的是深入了解印度尼西亚政府制定减排战略和计划的方法，并根据该国在国家自主贡献计划中承诺的到2030年实现印度尼西亚的减排目标。采用亚太综合模型/可计算一般均衡（AIM/CGE）模型对具有相同社会经济假设的三种情景进行了量化：基线、对策（CM）1和减排目标高于CM2的CM2。研究结果表明，印尼的低碳能源系统可以通过两个支柱来实现，即能源效率措施和低碳密集型能源系统的部署（即，在电力和运输部门使用可再生能源，以及在电力部门和运输部门使用天然气）。通过最终用户消费的电气化，通过部署可再生能源发电来实现电力供应的脱碳，也可以实现减排。在CM1下，印度尼西亚可以实现15.5%的减排目标（与基线情景相比）。这种减少可以通过将最终能源需求减少4%的效率措施来实现；这将需要以比基线情景高6倍的速度部署地热发电厂，并以比基线情景高4倍的速度使用水电。采用与CM2类似的措施，但采用更密集的渗透，可以实现更大的碳减排（CM2，即减少27%）。最终的能源需求需要减少13%，地热发电厂的部署需要是基线情况下的7倍，水电的使用需要是基线情况下的5倍。CM2和CM2下的碳价格分别为16美元和63美元（2005年）/tCO2。与基线情景相比，2030年的减缓情景对国内生产总值（GDP）都有很小的积极影响（CM2和CM2分别为0.6%和0.3%）。这主要是由于两个假设的结合。首先，在基线情景下，燃煤发电将大幅增加。另一种假设是，煤炭相关行业的生产率较低。最终，当资本和劳动力等因素从煤炭相关行业转移到CM案例中的其他低碳排放行业时，经济的总生产率将抵消低碳投资。
This study analyzed the role of low-carbon energy technologies in reducing the greenhouse gas emissions of Indonesia’s energy sector by 2030. The aim of this study was to provide insights into the Indonesian government’s approach to developing a strategy and plan for mitigating emissions and achieving Indonesia’s emission reduction targets by 2030, as pledged in the country’s Intended Nationally Determined Contribution. The Asia-Pacific Integrated Model/Computable General Equilibrium (AIM/CGE) model was used to quantify three scenarios that had the same socioeconomic assumptions: baseline, countermeasure (CM)1, and CM2, which had a higher emission reduction target than that of CM1. Results of the study showed that an Indonesian low-carbon energy system could be achieved with two pillars, namely, energy efficiency measures and deployment of less carbon-intensive energy systems (i.e., the use of renewable energy in the power and transport sectors, and the use of natural gas in the power sector and in transport). Emission reductions would also be satisfied through the electrification of end-user consumption where the electricity supply becomes decarbonized by deploying renewables for power generation. Under CM1, Indonesia could achieve a 15.5% emission reduction target (compared to the baseline scenario). This reduction could be achieved using efficiency measures that reduce final energy demand by 4%; This would require the deployment of geothermal power plants at a rate six times greater than the baseline scenario and four times the use of hydropower than that used in the baseline scenario. Greater carbon reductions (CM2; i.e., a 27% reduction) could be achieved with similar measures to CM1 but with more intensive penetration. Final energy demand would need to be cut by 13%, deployment of geothermal power plants would need to be seven times greater than at baseline, and hydropower use would need to be five times greater than the baseline case. Carbon prices under CM1 and CM2 were US$16 and US$63 (2005)/tCO2, respectively. The mitigation scenarios for 2030 both had a small positive effect on gross domestic product (GDP) compared to the baseline scenario (0.6% and 0.3% for CM1 and CM2, respectively). This is mainly due to the combination of two assumptions. The first is that there would be a great increase in coal-fired power in the baseline scenario. The other assumption is that there is low productivity in coal-related industries. Eventually, when factors such as capital and labor shift from coal-related industries to other low-carbon-emitting sectors in the CM cases are put in place, the total productivity of the economy would offset low-carbon investment.