ACADEMIC PAPERS & REPORTS
AP Photo
February 2011
"Integrated Energy Strategy for the Sustainable Development of China"
Energy, issue 2, volume 36
By Linwei Ma, Pei Liu, Feng Fu, Former Associate, Energy Technology Innovation Policy research group (ETIP), 2011–2012; Former Research Fellow, ETIP, 2010–2011, Zheng Li and Weidou Ni
The authors of this article propose, summarize, and present strategic ideas as policy implications for China's decision-makers. In conclusion, they determine that China should enhance strategic planning and regulation from a life cycle viewpoint of the whole society, prioritize energy saving, continuously improve incumbent energy, and rationally develop alternative energy.
AP Photo
2010/2011
"Advancing Carbon Capture and Sequestration in China: A Global Learning Laboratory"
China Environment Series, issue 11
By Craig A. Hart and Hengwei Liu, Former Associate, and Research Fellow, Energy Technology Innovation Policy research group, 2008-2010
China's dependency on coal fuels the country's phenomenal economic growth but at a major cost to the country's air and water quality, ultimately threatening human health and the country's continued economic growth. The Chinese government's efforts to put China onto a cleaner, low carbon development path have been substantial; however China's pollution and greenhouse gas emissions continue to grow. In an attempt to develop its own advanced coal generation technologies to improve the country's air quality and energy efficiency, the Chinese government is investing heavily in gasification and other technologies that can be employed in carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) applications. This investment has turned China into a global laboratory for CCS pilot projects, attracting foreign governments, multilateral institutions, nongovernmental organizations, and business partners.
December 2010
Do Public Subsidies Sell Green Cars?
By C. Edward Huang, Former Research Fellow, Environment and Natural Resources Program/Energy Technology Innovation Policy research group, 2009–2010
One question about the 2009 U.S. "Cash for Clunkers" program is whether it induced consumers to purchase greener vehicles than they would otherwise have purchased. This paper views the program as a natural experiment, which offered higher rebates to consumers buying more fuel-efficient vehicles, and shows that awarding an extra $1,000 on a vehicle made 7.2% of consumers switch. Hence the program - giving away nearly $3 billion - should have drawn many consumers to the subsidized greener vehicles, producing substantial environmental gains. This finding should interest policymakers evaluating similar programs to stimulate the economy while benefiting the environment.
AP Photo
November 2010
"Governmental Energy Innovation Investments, Policies and Institutions in the Major Emerging Economies: Brazil, Russia, India, Mexico, China, and South Africa"
By Ruud Kempener, Former Research Fellow, Energy Technology Innovation Policy research group, 2009–2011, Laura Diaz Anadon, Associate Director, Science, Technology, and Public Policy Program; Director, Energy Technology Innovation Policy research group; Adjunct Lecturer in Public Policy and Jose Condor Tarco, Former Research Fellow, Energy Technology Innovation Policy research group, 2008–2009
Over the past decade, countries with emerging economies like Brazil, Russia, India, Mexico, China, and South Africa have become important global players in political and economic domains. In 2007, these six countries consumed and produced more than a third of the world's energy and emitted about 35 percent of total greenhouse-gas (GHG) emissions. The changing global energy landscape has important implications for energy technology innovation (ETI) nationally and internationally. However, there is limited information available about the investments and initiatives that are taking place by the national governments within these countries. This paper presents the information available on energy RD&D investments in the emerging economies.
AP Photo
October 2010
"Water Consumption of Energy Resource Extraction, Processing, and Conversion"
By Erik Mielke, Former Research Fellow, Energy Technology Innovation Policy research group, 2010–2011, Laura Diaz Anadon, Associate Director, Science, Technology, and Public Policy Program; Director, Energy Technology Innovation Policy research group; Adjunct Lecturer in Public Policy and Venkatesh "Venky" Narayanamurti, Benjamin Peirce Professor of Technology and Public Policy; Professor of Physics, Harvard; Director, Science, Technology, and Public Policy Program; Co-Principal Investigator, Energy Technology Innovation Policy research group
This paper provides an overview of water consumption for different sources of energy, including extraction, processing, and conversion of resources, fuels, and technologies. The primary focus of this paper is to summarize the consumptive use of water for different sources of energy. Where appropriate, levels of water withdrawals are also discussed, especially in the context of cooling of thermoelectric power plants.
October 2010
"Analysis of Financial Incentives for Early CCS Deployment"
By Mohammed Al-Juaied, Former Visiting Scholar, Energy Technology Innovation Policy research group, 2008–2009
This paper looks at ten different forms of public support for carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) technologies including investment tax credits, accelerated depreciation, production tax credits, loan guarantees, capital grants, allowance allocations, and storage tax credits. The paper compares the cost reduction potential of each option against a conventional coal-to-electricity facility without CCS.
September 2010
"Transportation Revenue Options: Infrastructure, Emissions, and Congestion"
By Henry Lee, Director, Environment and Natural Resources Program, Jose Gomez-Ibanez, Professor of Public Policy and Urban Planning; Faculty Affiliate, Environment and Natural Resources Program, C. Edward Huang, Former Research Fellow, Environment and Natural Resources Program/Energy Technology Innovation Policy research group, 2009–2010 and Grant Lovellette
The report is a summary of the discussions from a workshop on "Transportation Revenue Options" convened by the Belfer Center in May 2010. The workshop brought together 27 transportation experts for a two-day workshop to discuss three broad revenue-generating options: higher fuel taxes — perhaps supplemented by a carbon tax; fees collected based on vehicle miles traveled (VMT); and congestion fees on major roadways.
AP Photo
September 28, 2010
"Expert Elicitation of Cost, Performance, and RD&D Budgets for Coal Power with CCS"
By Gabe Chan, Research Fellow, Energy Technology Innovation Policy research group, Laura Diaz Anadon, Associate Director, Science, Technology, and Public Policy Program; Director, Energy Technology Innovation Policy research group; Adjunct Lecturer in Public Policy, Melissa Chan, Former Research Fellow, Energy Research, Development, Demonstration & Deployment Policy Project, Energy Technology Innovation Policy research group, January 2009–December 2010 and Audrey Lee, Former Research Fellow, Energy Technology Innovation Policy research group, 2009–2011
There is uncertainty about the ex-ante returns to research, development, and demonstration programs in the United States on carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) technology. To quantify this uncertainty, we conducted a written expert elicitation of thirteen experts in fossil power and CCS technologies from the government, academia, and the private sector. We asked experts to provide their recommended budget and allocation of RD&D funds by specific fossil power and CCS technology and type of RD&D activity (i.e. basic research, applied research, pilot plants, and demonstration plants) for the United States....On average, experts estimated that if their recommended RD&D portfolio was implemented, the capital cost of new coal plants with CCS in 2030 would decrease by 10% in addition to the cost reductions/increases that would occur by 2030 through non-public RD&D related factors.
AP Photo
August 2010
"The Status of Rural Energy Access in India: A Synthesis"
By Balachandra Patil, Former Research Fellow, Science, Technology, and Public Policy Program/Energy Technology Innovation Policy research group, 2009–2010
India's energy crisis is defined by the fact that the major share of its rural population is energy poor. Energy poverty, indicated by the lack of access to modern energy services, is a direct outcome of income poverty. The poor cannot afford to pay for the services of the modern energy carriers and they live in sub-standard buildings/houses, which are unfit to be connected to the modern energy systems. Similarly, any poor nation will be constrained by inadequate access to both energy and financial resources, and therefore will be unable to build an adequate infrastructure that would facilitate connectivity to modern energy carriers.
AP Photo
August 2010
"Modern Energy Access to All in Rural India: An Integrated Implementation Strategy"
By Balachandra Patil, Former Research Fellow, Science, Technology, and Public Policy Program/Energy Technology Innovation Policy research group, 2009–2010
Expanding energy access to the rural population of India presents a critical challenge for its government. The presence of about 364 million people without access to electricity and about 726 million who rely on biomass for cooking indicate both the failure of past policies and programs, and the dire need is for a radical redesign of the current system that will address the need to expand energy access for these people.
