A comparison of cost-benefit analysis of biomass and natural gas CHP projects in Denmark and the Netherlands

We investigate what drives differences in the project appraisal of biomass and natural gas combined heat and power (CHP) projects in two countries with very similar energy profiles. This is of importance as the European Commission is assessing the potential scope of harmonizing renewable electricity support schemes post 2020. Concurrently, it is also promoting the use of cost benefit analysis (CBA) for transnational energy infrastructure projects. We use CBA to assess the same project proposal in Denmark and the Netherlands, following the respective country’s guidelines. We find that especiall... Mehr ...

Verfasser: Groth, Tanja
Scholtens, Bert
Dokumenttyp: Artikel
Erscheinungsdatum: 2016
Reihe/Periodikum: Groth , T & Scholtens , B 2016 , ' A comparison of cost-benefit analysis of biomass and natural gas CHP projects in Denmark and the Netherlands ' , Renewable Energy , vol. 86 , pp. 1095-1102 . https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2015.09.032
Schlagwörter: Cost-Benefit Analysis / Combined heat and power / net present value / biomass / natural gas / Denmark / Netherlands / WILLINGNESS-TO-PAY / RENEWABLE ENERGY / ELECTRICITY / ATTRIBUTES
Sprache: Englisch
Permalink: https://search.fid-benelux.de/Record/base-29608967
Datenquelle: BASE; Originalkatalog
Powered By: BASE
Link(s) : https://hdl.handle.net/11370/b6861014-8b58-43b8-addd-7d3da344c531

We investigate what drives differences in the project appraisal of biomass and natural gas combined heat and power (CHP) projects in two countries with very similar energy profiles. This is of importance as the European Commission is assessing the potential scope of harmonizing renewable electricity support schemes post 2020. Concurrently, it is also promoting the use of cost benefit analysis (CBA) for transnational energy infrastructure projects. We use CBA to assess the same project proposal in Denmark and the Netherlands, following the respective country’s guidelines. We find that especially the fuel costs and the valuation of emissions drive the differences. Furthermore, we establish that the sensitivity of the CBA results not only from policy differences in the countries, but also from differences in the methodology used.