We compute the optimal subsidy level for fuelwood consumption that makes it possible to achieve the French biomass energy consumption target. For this purpose, we model the competition and trade-offs between the consumption of fuelwood for heat (FW-H) and the consumption of fuelwood for electricity (FW-E). To do so, we couple a forest sector model with an electricity simulation model, and we test different scenarios combining FW-H and FW-E that account for contrasting potential increases in the carbon price and the potential reduction in the number of nuclear plants. We assess the implications of these scenarios on (1) the budgetary costs for the government, (2) industrial wood producers' profits, (3) cost savings in the power sector for the different scenarios tested, and (4) the carbon balance.
We show that the scenario with the highest carbon price and the lowest number of nuclear plants is the least expensive from a budgetary perspective. Indeed, when associated with a high carbon price, co-firing may increase FW-E demand with a lower subsidy level, which makes it possible to reduce the cost of reaching the target. However, in this case, FW-E crowds out part of FW-H, which may cause political and economic issues. From a carbon balance perspective, an FW-H-only scenario performs better than any other scenario that combines FW-H and FW-E due to the relatively low emissions factors of alternative technologies for electricity generation and, in particular, nuclear energy.
Heat or power : How to increase the use of energy wood at the lowest cost ?
Résumé
en
We compute the optimal subsidy level for fuelwood consumption that makes it possible to achieve the French biomass energy consumption target. For this purpose, we model the competition and trade-offs between the consumption of fuelwood for heat (FW-H) and the consumption of fuelwood for electricity (FW-E). To do so, we couple a forest sector model with an electricity simulation model, and we test different scenarios combining FW-H and FW-E that account for contrasting potential increases in the carbon price and the potential reduction in the number of nuclear plants. We assess the implications of these scenarios on (1) the budgetary costs for the government, (2) industrial wood producers' profits, (3) cost savings in the power sector for the different scenarios tested, and (4) the carbon balance.
We show that the scenario with the highest carbon price and the lowest number of nuclear plants is the least expensive from a budgetary perspective. Indeed, when associated with a high carbon price, co-firing may increase FW-E demand with a lower subsidy level, which makes it possible to reduce the cost of reaching the target. However, in this case, FW-E crowds out part of FW-H, which may cause political and economic issues. From a carbon balance perspective, an FW-H-only scenario performs better than any other scenario that combines FW-H and FW-E due to the relatively low emissions factors of alternative technologies for electricity generation and, in particular, nuclear energy.
Auteur(s)
Sylvain Caurla1
, Vincent Bertrand2, 3
, Philippe Delacote1, 3
, Elodie Le Cadre3
1
BETA -
Bureau d'Économie Théorique et Appliquée
( 93745 )
- Université de Lorraine, UFR Droit Sciences Economiques et Gestion, 13 place Carnot CO 70026, 54035 Nancy Cedex
Université de Strasbourg, Faculté des Sciences Economiques et de Gestion, 61 avenue de la Forêt Noire 67085 Strasbourg Cedex
- France
Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique UMR1443 ( 92114 )
;
Université de Strasbourg ( 199013 )
;
Université de Lorraine ( 413289 )
;
Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique UMR7522 ( 441569 )
2
UBFC -
Université Bourgogne Franche-Comté [COMUE]
( 426438 )
- 32, avenue de l’observatoire
25000 BESANCON
- France
3
CEC -
Chaire Economie du Climat
( 410752 )
- Palais Brongniart
28 Place de la Bourse
4ème étage
75002 Paris
- France
Université Paris Dauphine-PSL ( 300302 )
;
Université Paris Sciences et Lettres ( 564132 )
Public visé
Scientifique
Sous-type de document pour les Articles
Research article
Langue du document
Anglais
Nom de la revue
Energy Economics
(ISSN : 0140-9883)
Publié par Elsevier
Revue non référencée dans Sherpa-Romeo
Q - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics • Environmental and Ecological Economics/Q.Q4 - Energy/Q.Q4.Q42 - Alternative Energy Sources
D - Microeconomics/D.D2 - Production and Organizations/D.D2.D24 - Production • Cost • Capital • Capital, Total Factor, and Multifactor Productivity • Capacity
Q - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics • Environmental and Ecological Economics/Q.Q4 - Energy/Q.Q4.Q41 - Demand and Supply • Prices
Q - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics • Environmental and Ecological Economics/Q.Q4 - Energy/Q.Q4.Q48 - Government Policy
Q - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics • Environmental and Ecological Economics/Q.Q2 - Renewable Resources and Conservation/Q.Q2.Q23 - Forestry
This research is part of the Agriculture and Forestry research program by the Climate Economics Chair. The authors want to thank the Climate Economics Chair for financial support.
Domaine(s)
Sciences de l'Homme et Société/Economies et finances
Consommation d'électricité, Prix du carbone, Bois de chauffage, Coût, Subvention, Économie, Budget de l'état, Centrale nucléaire, Chauffage, Bilan carbone, France, Biomasse végétale, Bénéfice
Sylvain Caurla, Vincent Bertrand, Philippe Delacote, Elodie Le Cadre. Heat or power : How to increase the use of energy wood at the lowest cost ?. Energy Economics, 2018, 75, pp.85-103. ⟨10.1016/j.eneco.2018.08.011⟩. ⟨hal-02018424⟩