한국건설관리학회논문집 (Korean Journal of Construction Engineering and Management)

  • 제24권6호
  • /
  • Pages.45-52
  • /
  • 2023
  • /
  • 2005-6095(pISSN)
  • /
  • 2465-9703(eISSN)
한국건설관리학회 (Korea Institute of Construction Engineering and Management)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

해외 탄소저감 사업의 위험요소를 고려한 사업 경제성 변동 분석

A Study on Variation of Economic Value of Overseas Carbon Reduction Projects with Risk Factors

  • 박종열 (서울과학기술대학교 대학원 나노IT융합공학전공) ;
  • 좌성훈 (서울과학기술대학교 창의융합대학 지능형반도체공학과 )
  • Park, Jongyul (Department of Nano IT Fusion Engineering, Seoul National University of Science & Technology ) ;
  • Choa, Sunghoon (Department of Semiconductor Engineering, Seoul National University of Science & Technology)
  • 투고 : 2023.08.10
  • 심사 : 2023.11.14
  • 발행 : 2023.11.30
PDF 다운로드
⟨ 이전 논문 다음 논문 ⟩

초록

최근 온실가스에 의한 기후변화가 심화하고 있어, 국제사회는 UN 기후변화협약을 통해 온실가스 감축 노력을 경주하고 있다. 본 연구는 해외 탄소저감 사업에 투자함에 있어 고려해야할 위험요소 및 투자 판단의 방법론을 제시함을 목적으로 한다. 이를 위해 2건의 실제 해외 프로젝트 사례를 연구 대상으로 선정하였다. 분석 방법으로는 주요 위험요소의 데이터를 확률분포로 정의하고 이를 경제성 분석 모델에 적용하여 몬테카를로(Monte Carlo) 시뮬레이션 방법으로 사업의 순현재가치를 확률적으로 추정하였다. 또한, 정책적 변화에 따른 순현재가치의 변동 범위를 분석하였다. 그 결과 A 프로젝트의 순현재가치는 기본 가정하의 확정적 값보다 평균값이 19% 하향하였고, 음(-)의 순현재가치를 나태낼 확률이 12.2%로 나타났다. B 프로젝트의 경우 평균값이 12.5% 하향, 음(-)의 순현 재가치 확률은 1% 미만으로 나타났다. 정책적 변화를 고려하면 A 프로젝트는 총 탄소배출권 발생량 대비 72.9% 이상을 획득하여야 경제적 이득을 취할 수 있으며, B 프로젝트의 경우 49.5% 이상을 획득하면 경제성이 있는 것으로 나타났다. 이러한 분석 결과로써 A 프로젝트 사례는 기본가정 하의 확정적 순현재가치보다 평균값이 현저히 하향하여, 주요 위험요인의 변동에 따라 투자결정에 유의가 필요하며, 정책적 변화를 고려하면 탄소배출권 분배 비율을 프로젝트 규모에 따라 차등 적용해야한다는 정책적 시사점을 구체적으로 제시하였다.

Recently, as climate change caused by greenhouse gases is intensifying, the international community has committed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The purpose of this study is to present the methodology and major considerations for investment judgment. Two actual cases of overseas projects were selected as study subjects. As an analysis method, the major risk factors were defined as a probability distribution, and the NPV was stochastically estimated using the Monte Carlo simulation method. In addition, assuming a policy change, the range of NPV change was analyzed. As a result, the average NPV of project A was lowered by 19%, and the probability of showing a negative NPV was 12.2%. The average value of project B was lowered by 12.5%. Considering the policy change, project A can obtain economic benefits only when it obtains 72.9% or more of the total amount of carbon credits generated, and project B is economically feasible when it acquires 49.5% or more. As a result, the average value of project A is lower than the net present value under basic assumptions, so caution is needed in investment decisions depending on changes in major risk factors. Additionally, considering policy changes, the carbon credit distribution ratio should be differentially applied depending on the project size, and this was presented as a specific figure.

키워드

참고문헌

  1. Chopra, K., Tyagi, V.V., Popli, S., and Pandey, A.K. (2023). "Technical & financial feasibility assessment of heat pipe evacuated tube collector for water heating using Monte Carlo technique for buildings." Energy, 267(2023), 126338.
  2. Chung, Y.B. (2013). "Analysis and evaluation of net present value by means of Monte carlo simulation." J. Korean Soc. Hazard Mitig., KOSHAM, 13(6), pp. 15-20. https://doi.org/10.9798/KOSHAM.2013.13.6.015
  3. Collins, W.C., Frame, D.J., Fuglestvedt, J.S., Shine, K.P. William J.C., and David J.F. (2020). "Stable climate metrics for emissions of Short and long-lived species - combining steps and pulses." Environmental Research Letter, 15(2020), 024018.
  4. Daniel D. Otero Meza, Alexis Sagastume Gutierrez, Juan J. Cabello Eras, Jairo Salcedo Mendoza, Jorge Hernandez Ruydiaz (2023). "Techno-economic and environmental assessment of the landfill gas to energy potential of major Colombian cities." Energy Conversion and Management, 293(2023), 117522.
  5. Gam M.J., and Cho Y.S. (2023). "Economic feasibility analysis of xVDC power system considering carbon reduction effect." Journal of Energy Engineering, 32(1), pp. 86-102. https://doi.org/10.5855/ENERGY.2023.32.1.086
  6. Greenhouse Gas Inventory and Research Center of Korea (GIR) (2023). National Inventory(1990~2020) Report, 2022.
  7. IMF (2022). IMF Country Reports, No. 22/189.
  8. IPCC (1995). Climate Change 1995 - The Science of Climate Change, Contribution of Working Group I to the Second Assessment Report of the IPCC.
  9. Kim, H.R., and Yun, H.Y. (2022). "Analysis of joint credit mechanism and its policy implications for Korea under Paris agreement." Environmental Law Review, 40(3), pp. 91-122. https://doi.org/10.35769/ELR.2018.40.3.003
  10. Lee, C.Y. (2021). "Economic feasibility analysis of hydrogen gas turbine power generation project." Innovation Studies, 16(1), pp. 35-59.
  11. Lee, J.H. (2020). "Real option study on SME's fuel switching offset project under emission allowance price uncertainty." Korean Energy Economic Review, 19(1), pp. 59-87.
  12. Ministry of Environment of Korea (MOE) (2022). Global warming coefficient for each greenhouse gas, Decree of the Act on Allocation and Trading of Greenhouse Gas Emission Permits. Attached Table #2.
  13. Noh, D.W. (2021). "Complementing of the methodology of estimating greenhouse gases emission abatement costs of clean development mechanism projects using investment analysis information." Journal of Climate Change Research, 12(5-2), pp. 537-557.
  14. Oh, C.W., Park, S.C., Moon, R.S., and Song, Y.W. (2022). "Interpretation of corresponding adjustment rules of article 6 of the Paris agreement and implications for Korea's NDC implementation policy." Journal of Climate Change Research, 13(2), pp. 243-261.
  15. Statistics Agency of "C" government (2023). PricesPrice index for investments in fixed assets and construction work in republic of "C".
  16. World Bank (2020). International Development Association Project Appraisal Document.