Nuclear Engineering and Technology

  • 제48권2호
  • /
  • Pages.559-571
  • /
  • 2016
  • /
  • 1738-5733(pISSN)
  • /
  • 2234-358X(eISSN)
한국원자력학회 (Korean Nuclear Society)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Can Renewable Energy Replace Nuclear Power in Korea? An Economic Valuation Analysis

  • 투고 : 2015.10.09
  • 심사 : 2015.12.26
  • 발행 : 2016.04.25
PDF 다운로드
⟨ 이전 논문 다음 논문 ⟩

초록

This paper studies the feasibility of renewable energy as a substitute for nuclear and energy by considering Korean customers' willingness to pay (WTP). For this analysis, we use the contingent valuation method to estimate the WTP of renewable energy, and then estimate its value using ordered logistic regression. To replace nuclear power and fossil energy with renewable energy in Korea, an average household is willing to pay an additional 102,388 Korean Won (KRW) per month (approx. US $85). Therefore, the yearly economic value of renewable energy in Korea is about 19.3 trillion KRW (approx. US $16.1 billion). Considering that power generation with only renewable energy would cost an additional 35 trillion KRW per year, it is economically infeasible for renewable energy to be the sole method of low-carbon energy generation in Korea.

키워드

참고문헌

  1. N.S. Rathore, N.L. Panwar, Renewable Energy Sources for Sustainable Development, New India Publishing, New Delhi, India, 2007.
  2. British Petroleum [Internet]. Annual review 2006 [cited 2007 Oct 8]. Available from: http://www.bp.com/content/dam/bp/pdf/investors/bp-annual-review-2006.pdf.
  3. World UNDP, Energy Assessment 2000: Energy and the Challenge of Sustainability, UNDP, New York, 2000.
  4. I.B. Fridleifsson, Geothermal energy for the benefit of the people, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 5 (2001) 299-312. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1364-0321(01)00002-8
  5. Energy Information Administration, Department of Energy, US Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Congressional Research Service, World Nuclear Association, Nuclear Power [Internet], in: Encyclopedia of Earth. Environmental Information Coalition, National Council for Science and the Environment, Washington (DC), 2015 Aug 28. Available from: http://www.eoearth.org/view/article/154967.
  6. A.F. Ismail, M.S. Yim, Investigation of activated carbon adsorbent electrode for electrosorption-based uranium extractionfromseawater,Nucl. Eng.Technol 47 (2015)579-587. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.net.2015.02.002
  7. I. Dincer, Renewable energy and sustainable development: a crucial review, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 4 (2000) 157-175. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1364-0321(99)00011-8
  8. T. Smedley, Goodbye nuclear power: Germany's renewable energy revolution [Internet]. Published 2013 May 10. Available from: http://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/nuclear-power-germany-renewable-energy.
  9. C. Goodall, Ten Technologies to Save the Planet: Energy Options for a Low-Carbon Future, Greystone Books, London, UK, 2010.
  10. S.H. Lee, H.G. Kang, Integrated societal risk assessment framework for nuclear power and renewable energy sources, Nucl. Eng. Technol 47 (2015) 461-471. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.net.2015.01.009
  11. J.H. Bae, Estimating the Effect and the Social Value on the Regional Economic Affected by the Regional Renewable [Korea Energy Economics Institute Report], Korea Energy Economics Institute, Ulsan, Korea, 2007.
  12. Ministry of Knowledge Economy, Nuclear Power Generation White Paper [Report], Ministry of Knowledge Economy, Seoul, Korea, 2011.
  13. G.Y. Huh, The Issues and Challenges About the Cost of Nuclear Power, National Assembly Budget Office Report, Seoul, Korea, 2014.
  14. A. Jalil, S.F. Mahmud, Environment Kuznets curve for $CO_2$ emissions: a cointegration analysis for China, Energy Policy 37 (2009) 5167-5172. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2009.07.044
  15. G. Grossman, A. Krueger, Economic environment and the economic growth, Q. J. Econ. 110 (1995) 353-377. https://doi.org/10.2307/2118443
  16. T. Selden, D. Song, Neoclassical growth, the J curve for abatement, and the inverted U curve for pollution, J. Environ. Econ. Manage 29 (1995) 162-168. https://doi.org/10.1006/jeem.1995.1038
  17. B. Fischhoff, P. Slovic, S. Litenstein, S. Read, B. Comb,Howsafe is safe enough? A psychometric study of attitudes toward technological risks and benefits, Policy Sci. 9 (1978) 127-152. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00143739
  18. P. Slovic, Perception of risk, Science 236 (1987) 280-285. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.3563507
  19. P. Slovic, The Perception of Risk, Earthscan Publication, London, UK, 2000.
  20. Y.P.Kim, B.S.Choi, Y.G.So, I.J. Jung, Risk perception in Koreaand policy implications, Korean Public Adm. Rev. 29 (1995) 935-956.
  21. A. Bergmann, S. Colombo, N. Hanley, Rural versus urban preferences for renewable energy developments, Ecol. Econ. 65 (2008) 616-625. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2007.08.011
  22. OECD, Linking Renewable Energy to Rural Development, OECD Green Growth Studies, OECD Publishing, Paris, France, 2012.
  23. International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), Net Energy Analysis of Different Electricity Generation Systems, IAEA, Vienna, Austria, 1994.
  24. R.L. San Martin, Environmental Emissions from Energy Technology Systems: The Total Fuel Cycle, US Department of Energy, Washington, DC, 1989.
  25. J. McVeigh, D. Burtraw, J. Darmstadter, K. Palmer, Winner, loser, or innocent victim? Has renewable energy performed as expected? Solar Energy 68 (2000) 237-255. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0038-092X(99)00073-0
  26. Economist [Internet]. Nuclear Power's New Age, 2007 [cited 2016 Jan 27]. Available from: http://www.economist.com/node/9767699.
  27. J.T. Murphy, Making the energy transition in rural East Africa: is leapfrogging an alternative? Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 68 (2001) 173-193. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0040-1625(99)00091-8
  28. I.E.A. OECD, World Energy Outlook 2014, IEA Publications, Paris, France, 2014.
  29. A.M. Jaffe, The Changing Role of National Oil Companies in International Energy Markets [Baker Institute Policy Report], The Baker Institute Energy Forum, Rice University, Houston,TX, 2007.
  30. P. Stevens, National oil companies and international oil companies in the Middle East: under the shadow of government and the resource nationalism cycle, J. World Energy Law Bus. 1 (2008) 5-30. https://doi.org/10.1093/jwelb/jwn004
  31. V. Vlado, Resource nationalism, bargaining and international oil companies: challenges and change in the new millennium, N. Polit. Econ. 14 (2009) 517-534. https://doi.org/10.1080/13563460903287322
  32. T.W. Walde, Renegotiating acquired rights in the oil and gas industries: industry and political cycles meet the rule of law, J. World Energy Law Bus 1 (2008) 55-97. https://doi.org/10.1093/jwelb/jwn005
  33. N. De Graaff, A global energy network? he expansion and integration of non-triad national oil companies, in: Glob. Netw. 11, Wiley, 2011, pp. 262-283.
  34. A. Correlje, L. Coby Van der, Energy supply security and geopolitics: a European perspective, Energy Policy 34 (2006) 532-543. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2005.11.008
  35. D. Helm, The assessment: the new energy paradigm, Oxf. Rev. Econ. Policy 21 (2005) 1-18. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxrep/gri001
  36. F. Hoogeveen, P. Wilbur, Tomorrow's Mores. The International System, Geopolitical Changes and Energy, Clingendael International Energy Programme, The Hague, The Netherlands, 2005.
  37. C. van der Linde, Energy in a Changing World [Clingendael Energy Papers No. 11], Netherlands Institute of International Relations, Den Haag, The Netherlands.
  38. J. Nolt, How harmful are the average American's greenhouse gas emissions? Ethics Policy Environ. 14 (2011) 3-10. https://doi.org/10.1080/21550085.2011.561584
  39. D. Jamieson, Energy, Ethics and the Transformation of Nature, The Ethics of Global Climate Change, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, New York, 2011.
  40. D. Jamieson, The moral and political challenges of climate change, in: Creating a Climate for Change: Communicating Climate Change and Facilitating Social Change, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, New York, 2007, pp. 475-482.
  41. J.C. Reboredo, A wavelet decomposition approach to crude oil price and exchange rate dependence, Econ. Model. 32 (2013) 42-57. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econmod.2012.12.028
  42. J.B. Lee, A theoretical approach to energy security: from the international political economy perspective of energy supply and demand, The Seoul Peace Prize Cult. Found. 2 (2005) 3-31.
  43. H.J. Do, The Energy Security Risk Assessment and Countermeasure in Relation to Variating the Condition of the World Energy Market [Korea Energy Economics Institute Report], Korea Energy Economics Institute, Ulsan, Korea, 2014.
  44. J.W. Choi, K.B. Yoon, Current status and development strategy for energy safety technology, J. Energy Eng 17 (2008) 175-184.
  45. W.M. Hannemann, Welfare evaluation in contingent valuation experiments with discrete responses, Am. J. Agric. Econ. 66 (1984) 332-341. https://doi.org/10.2307/1240800
  46. K.Wertenbroch, S. Bernd, Measuring consumers' willingness to payat the point of purchase, J. Marketing Res. 39(2002)228-241. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkr.39.2.228.19086
  47. B. Mundy, D. McLean, Using the contingent value approach for natural resource and environmental damage applications, Appraisal J. 66 (1998) 88-99.
  48. N. Nomura, M. Akai, Willingness to pay for green electricity in Japan as estimated through contingent valuation method, Appl. Energy 78 (2004) 453-463. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2003.10.001
  49. K. Ek, Public and private attitudes towards "green" electricity: the case of Swedish wind power, Energy Policy 33 (2005) 1677-1689. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2004.02.005
  50. L.L. Wood, A.E. Kenyon, W.H. Desvousges, L.K. Morander, How much are customers willing to pay for improvements in health and environmental quality? Electric. J. 8 (1995) 70-77.
  51. J. Close, H. Pang, K.H. Lam, T. Li, 10% from renewables? the potential contribution from an HK schools PV installation programme, Renew. Energy 31 (2006) 1665-1672. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2005.08.033
  52. J. Zarnikau, Consumer demand for 'green power' and energy efficiency, Energy Policy 31 (2003) 1661-1672. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0301-4215(02)00232-X
  53. N. Hanley, C. Nevin, Appraising renewable energy developments in remote communities: the case of the North Assynt Estate Scotland, Energy Policy 27 (1999) 527-547. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0301-4215(99)00023-3
  54. S.L. Batley, D. Colbourne, P.D. Fleming, P. Urwin, Citizen versus consumer: challenges in the UK green power market, Energy Policy 29 (2001) 479-487. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0301-4215(00)00142-7
  55. R. Wiser, Using contingent valuation to explore willingness to pay for renewable energy: a comparison of collective and voluntary payment vehicles, Ecol. Econ. 62 (2007) 419-432. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2006.07.003
  56. A. Bergmann, N. Hanley, R. Wright, Valuing the attributes of renewable energy investments, Energy Policy 34 (2006) 1004-1014. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2004.08.035
  57. Korea Energy Economics Institute, The estimation on the WTP about the renewable energy and study on the public acceptance about improvement plan [Report], Korea Energy Economics Institute, Ulsan, Korea, 2014.
  58. M. Hanemann, J. Loomis, B. Kanninen, Statistical efficiency of double-bounded dichotomous choice contingent valuation, Am. J. Agric. Econ. 73 (1991) 1255-1263. https://doi.org/10.2307/1242453
  59. A. Alberini, Optimal designs for discrete choice contingent valuation surveys: single-bound, double-bound, and bivariate models, J. Environ. Econ. Manage. 28 (1995) 287-306. https://doi.org/10.1006/jeem.1995.1019
  60. B.J. Kanninen, Bias in discrete response contingent valuation, J. Environ. Econ. Manage. 28 (1995) 114-125. https://doi.org/10.1006/jeem.1995.1008
  61. T.S. Raghu, R.S. Sinha, A. Vinz, O. Burton, Willingness to pay in an open source software environment, Inf. Syst. Res. 20 (2009) 218-236. https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.1080.0176
  62. S.H. Yoo, J.K. Lee, The study on the willingness to pay about the similar video on demand for education by using the robust semi-parametric estimation, The Korean Econ. Assoc. 48 (2000) 5-25.
  63. K.J. Boyle, M.P. Welsh, R.C. Bishop, Validation of empirical measures of welfare change: Comment, Land Econ 64 (1988), 98-98.
  64. P.O. Johansson, B. Kristrom, K.G. Maler, Welfare evaluations in contingent valuation experiments with discrete response data: comment, Am. J. Agric. Econ. 71 (1989) 1054-1056. https://doi.org/10.2307/1242684
  65. J.W. Duffield, D.A. Patterson, Inference and optimal design for a welfare measure in dichotomous choice contingent valuation, Land Econ. 67 (1991) 225-239. https://doi.org/10.2307/3146413
  66. R. Bishop, T. Heberlein, Measuring values of extra-market goods: are indirect measures biased? Am. J. Agric. Econ. 61 (1979) 926-930. https://doi.org/10.2307/3180348
  67. K. Willis, G. Garrod, C. Saunders, Benefits of environmentally sensitive area policy in England: a contingent valuation assessment, J. Environ. Manage. 44 (1995) 105-125. https://doi.org/10.1006/jema.1995.0034
  68. H.C. Lee, H.S. Chun, Valuing environment quality change on recreational hunting in Korea: a contingent valuation analysis, J. Environ. Manage. 57 (1999) 11-20. https://doi.org/10.1006/jema.1999.0284
  69. Korea Power Exchange, Electric Market Statistics in 2014, Korea Power Exchange, 2015.

피인용 문헌

  1. Differentiated influences of benefit and risk perceptions on nuclear power acceptance according to acceptance levels: evidence from Korea vol.54, pp.8, 2017, https://doi.org/10.1080/00223131.2017.1331767
  2. The factors of nuclear energy public acceptance and relative importance (public acceptance factors and relative importance) vol.12, pp.6, 2016, https://doi.org/10.1080/15567249.2016.1227887
  3. Effect of Fukushima accident on public acceptance of nuclear energy (Fukushima accident and nuclear public acceptance) vol.12, pp.6, 2016, https://doi.org/10.1080/15567249.2016.1230797
  4. The Cognitive and Economic Value of a Nuclear Power Plant in Korea vol.49, pp.3, 2017, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.net.2016.10.007
  5. Big Data Analysis of Public Acceptance of Nuclear Power in Korea vol.49, pp.4, 2016, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.net.2016.12.015
  6. Differentiated influences of risk perceptions on nuclear power acceptance according to acceptance targets: Evidence from Korea vol.49, pp.5, 2016, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.net.2017.04.005
  7. Estimation of Ecological Compensation Standards for Fallow Heavy Metal-Polluted Farmland in China Based on Farmer Willingness to Accept vol.9, pp.10, 2016, https://doi.org/10.3390/su9101859
  8. Economic Feasibility Analysis for Renewable Energy Project Using an Integrated TFN-AHP-DEA Approach on the Basis of Consumer Utility vol.10, pp.12, 2016, https://doi.org/10.3390/en10122089
  9. Opportunities and Challenges of Solar and Wind Energy in South Korea: A Review vol.10, pp.6, 2016, https://doi.org/10.3390/su10061822
  10. Financial Feasibility and Social Acceptance for Reducing Nuclear Power Plants: A Contingent Valuation Study vol.10, pp.11, 2016, https://doi.org/10.3390/su10113833
  11. Factors affecting the transition of the Polish power system vol.108, pp.None, 2016, https://doi.org/10.1051/e3sconf/201910801001
  12. Model of nuclear energy valuation in the context of e-mobility vol.13, pp.1, 2019, https://doi.org/10.2478/picbe-2019-0108
  13. Evaluation and forecasting of solar radiation using time series adaptive neuro‐fuzzy inference system: Seoul city as a case study vol.13, pp.10, 2016, https://doi.org/10.1049/iet-rpg.2018.5709
  14. Strategic Market Growth and Policy Recommendations for Sustainable Solar Energy Deployment in South Korea vol.15, pp.2, 2016, https://doi.org/10.1007/s42835-019-00331-6
  15. Economic valuation of natural promenades in Iran using zonal travel costs method (Case study area: Gahar Lake in Lorestan Province in western Iran) vol.15, pp.11, 2020, https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0241396