2019
DOI: 10.1016/j.rser.2019.109350
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Benefit evaluation of investment in CCS retrofitting of coal-fired power plants and PV power plants in China based on real options

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
2

Citation Types

0
12
0

Year Published

2020
2020
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
6
2

Relationship

1
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 53 publications
(15 citation statements)
references
References 47 publications
0
12
0
Order By: Relevance
“…28 Wang et al proposed optimal CCUS planning for China's power sector under the 2 °C constraint, with an average transportation distance of less than 115 km. 29 However, the following important factors may have been overlooked: (i) the uncertainty of deployment led by technology competition 30 (like CCUS vs renewables), public acceptance, 31,32 and employment impacts; 33,34 (ii) the differences in investment cost caused by spatial heterogeneity of emission sources and storage sites; (iii) the influences of terrain areas on transportation route selection.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…28 Wang et al proposed optimal CCUS planning for China's power sector under the 2 °C constraint, with an average transportation distance of less than 115 km. 29 However, the following important factors may have been overlooked: (i) the uncertainty of deployment led by technology competition 30 (like CCUS vs renewables), public acceptance, 31,32 and employment impacts; 33,34 (ii) the differences in investment cost caused by spatial heterogeneity of emission sources and storage sites; (iii) the influences of terrain areas on transportation route selection.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…However, NPV with risk provides the simulations with Monte Carlo, and ROA provides a higher degree of flexibility in terms of taking up the new project, abandonment and delay of the energy project (Sisodia et al, 2016). Real options with NPV is a widely used method for determining systematic risk under policy regime (Fan, Xu, Yang, & Zhang, 2019; Fleten, Linnerud, Molnár, & Nygaard, 2016; Kim, Park, & Kim, 2017; Loncar, Milovanovic, Rakic, & Radjenovic, 2017; Penizzotto, Pringles, & Olsina, 2019; Shimbar & Ebrahimi, 2020). For the current study, we used the NPV risk method to evaluate various scenarios.…”
Section: Literature Reviewmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…An interesting concept on switching option concerning CCGT (shutting down and restarting of gas-fired blocks) was developed by Kryzia et al [31]. Other papers on fuel switch options were written lastly by Kujanpää and Pursiheimo [32] (switching from coal to biomass, natural gas to biomass, fuel oil to pyrolysis oil), Han et al [33] (replacing coal with alternative fuels-natural gas, biomass, oil, electric boilers), Ghoddusi [34] (option to change gasoline at times to crude oil), Elias et al [35], Fan et al [36], and other authors.…”
Section: Literature Reviewmentioning
confidence: 99%