SIIT Commemorative Publication (10 Years of International ...

10 Years of International Cooperation: FTI, Nippon Keidanren and TUSIIT Commemorative Publication, 20024.3 Economic ImplicationsResults from the IRP show that the fuel and O&Mcosts take the largest share of total cost, byapproximately 80% as shown in Table 5. The totalcosts in the TIPP, TIGC and TPFB are higher than thatin the TEP case because of the high capital costs ofIPP, IGCC and PFBC plants. The total cost in the CSScase decreases by US$ 6 million compared to the TEPcase because more clean supply-side options whichhave lower capital costs are available while in the IRPcase the total cost including DSM costs are less thanTEP case by US$ 260 million due to efficient use ofelectricity in the DSM programs. The total costs affectthe long run average costs (LRAC). The LRACs in allcases are higher than that in the TEP case except in theCSS case.The average marginal cost of abatement (MAC) ofCO 2 emission can be calculated by using the followingequation:MAC =⎪⎧⎨⎪⎩ tT∑= 1( E( TC −TC)0 ,t− E) /( 1 + r )where TC c = present value of total cost correspondingto the least cost generation expansion plan with cleansupply-side options, TC 0 = present value of total costcorresponding to the least cost generation expansionplan without clean supply-side options, E 0,t = CO 2emission in year t corresponding to the least costgeneration expansion plan without clean supply-sideoptions, E c,t = CO 2 emission in year t corresponding tothe least cost generation expansion plan with cleansupply-side options, r = discount rate, and T = numberof years in the planning horizon. The MAC of CO 2emission in each case is also determined, as shown inTable 6.Table 5. Cumulative costs during 2003-2017.Cost components (10 6 US$)CaseTotalstudy Capital O&M DSMcostLRACcents/kWhTEP 5,031 25,152 0 30,183 3.10CSS 4,873 25,061 0 30,177 3.10IRP 5,637 24,816 234 29,923 3.11TIPP 5,177 25,797 0 30,973 3.18TIGC 5,637 25,167 0 30,804 3.16TPFB 5,697 25,220 0 30,916 3.18cThe MACs of IGCC in the TIGC case and PFBC in theTPFB case were found to be 76.4 and 116.8 US$/ton ofcarbon, respectively, compared to 35 US$/ton ofcarbon in the case of full global trade [8]. However, inthe case of DSM options in the IRP case and biomassbasedplants in the CSS case, MACs were found to be-30.2 and -10.3 US$/ton of carbon, respectively, whichreflect the no-regret options in terms of CO 2mitigation. Further analysis of MACs reveals that thec ,t0t⎪⎫⎬⎪⎭substitution of IGCC and PFBC plants for coal-basedplants in the IRP baseline results in MACs of 8.9 and18.4 US$/ton of carbon, respectively, which are lowerthan the price of carbon under full trading scenario.The implication of MACs of IGCC and PFBC plants inthe IRP baseline reveals as candidate in the cleandevelopment mechanism (CDM) project under theKyoto Protocol.Table 6. Marginal abatement costs in 1998 price.Countries MAC (US$/ton of carbon)Thailand 1Under TEP baseline cases- Biomass in the CSS case- IGCC in the TIGC case- PFBC in the TPFB caseUnder IRP baseline cases- DSM options- IGCC as IPP plant- PFBC asIPP plant-10.376.4116.8-30.29.018.4Japan 2 876.0European Union 2 409.5Other OECD Countries 2 349.5USA 2 279.0Full Global Trade 3 35.0Source: 1 carried out by authors [9, 10, 11]2 no trade [7]3 full global trade [8]5. ConclusionsResults of the least-cost power generation expansionplans reveal less CO 2 emissions due to clean supplysideoptions in the CSS, TIGCC and TPFB cases, andDSM options in the IRP case. In the CSS case,substitutions for coal-based plants are combined-cyclegas-based plants and biomass-based plants, which emitless CO 2 . The IGCC and PFBC plants are not selectedin the CSS case due to their high capital costs. Theintegration of DSM options and clean supply-sideoptions could reduce both total system costs and CO 2emissions. Therefore the IRP case is more suitable forCO 2 mitigation [9, 10].In the IPP case, environmental emissions are directlyrelated to the technologies of power plants used byIPPs. The committed IPPs in the TIPP case are basedon coal-based plants resulting in higher CO 2 emissions.The substitution of IGCC and PFBC plants for coalbasedplants could be the CO 2 mitigation in the IPPcase [11].6. Recommendations for Future Researchand DevelopmentAccording to the presented results in this article, theintroduction of Energy Efficient Technology (EET) isnot effective because the main barrier in adoption ofthe EETs is their high investment cost. Furthermore,there are some other barriers, which need to be15