Browse > Article
http://dx.doi.org/10.5855/ENERGY.2015.24.3.040

Measurement of the Benefits from Safeguarding Energy Security through Building the Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle Power Plant  

Lim, Seul-Ye (Department of Energy Policy, Graduate School of Energy & Environment, Seoul National University of Science & Technology)
Choi, Hyo-Yeon (Department of Economics, Korea University)
Yoo, Seung-Hoon (Department of Energy Policy, Graduate School of Energy & Environment, Seoul National University of Science & Technology)
Publication Information
Journal of Energy Engineering / v.24, no.3, 2015 , pp. 40-47 More about this Journal
Abstract
Integrated gasification combined cycle (IGCC) power plants not only emit less greenhouse gases and air pollutants than conventional coal-fired power plants, but also use low-price, low-quality, and internationally easily procurable coal. Thus we can benefit from safeguarding energy security through building the IGCC power plant. This paper attempts to value the benefits of energy security enhanced by IGCC power plant. To this end, we report here the results from a contingent valuation survey of randomly selected 600 households. A combination of a double-bounded model and a spike model is applied for the purpose of increasing statistical efficiency and dealing with zero(0) willingness to pay data, respectively. The results show that the respondents are additionally willing to pay 6.05 won for 1kWh of electricity generated from IGCC power plant. In other words, the benefits from safeguarding energy security through building the IGCC power plant are 6.05 won per kWh. Given that the expected amount of generation from the Taean IGCC power plant that is scheduled to be built in late 2015 is 2.27 TWh per year, the benefits are estimated to be 13.74 billion won per year.
Keywords
integrated gasification combined cycle; benefits from safeguarding energy security; contingent valuation; willingness to pay; double-bounded model;
Citations & Related Records
연도 인용수 순위
  • Reference
1 Arrow, K. Rolow, R. Portney, P. R., Leamer, E. E., Radner, R., Schuman, H. Report of the NOAA panel on contingent valuation. Federal Register, 1993, 58, 4601-4614.
2 Bang, G. Energy security and climate change concerns: Triggers for energy policy change in the United States? Energy Policy, 2010, 38, 1645-1653.   DOI
3 Damigos, D., Tourkolias, C., Diakoulaki, D. Households' willingness to pay for safeguarding security of natural gas supply in electricity generation. Energy Policy, 2009, 37, 2008-2017.   DOI
4 Greene, D. L. Measuring energy security: Can the United States achieve oil independence? Energy Policy, 2010, 38, 1614-1621.   DOI
5 Hanemann, M. W., Loomis, J. B., Kanninen, B. J., Statistical efficiency of double-bounded dichotomous choice contingent valuation. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 1991, 73, 1255-1263.   DOI
6 Hanemann, W. M. Welfare evaluations in contingent valueation experiments with discrete responses. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 1984, 66, 332-341.   DOI
7 Hipple, D. V., Savage, T., Hayes, P. Introduction to the Asian Energy Security project: Project organization and methodologies. Energy Policy, 2011, 39, 6712-6718.   DOI
8 Jang, J.-Y., Lee, J.-S., Yoo, S.-H. The public's willingness to pay for securing a reliable natural gas supply in Korea. Energy Policy, 2014, 69, 3-13.   DOI
9 Kim, J.-S., Kim, J.-H. Korean public's perceptions on supply security of fossil fuels: A contingent valuation analysis. Applied Energy, 2015, 137, 301-309.   DOI
10 Korea Development Institute. A feasibility study on the construction of the Korea model 300MW IGCC demonstration, 2010.
11 Krinsky, I., Robb, A. On approximating the statistical properties of elasticities. Review of Economics and Statistics, 1986, 68, 715-719.   DOI
12 Kristrom, B. Spike models in contingent valuation, American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 1997, 79, 1013-1023.   DOI
13 Lefevre, N. Measuring the energy security implications of fossil fuel resource concentration. Energy Policy, 2010, 38, 1635-1644.   DOI
14 Markandya, A., Pemberton, M. Energy security, energy modelling and uncertainty. Energy Policy, 2010, 38, 1609-1613.   DOI
15 Ministry of Trade, Industry & Energy. The 3rd basic plan for technology development, application, and deployment of new & renewable energy. 2008.
16 Ministry of Trade, Industry & Energy. The 4th basic plan of electricity demand and supply. 2014.
17 Mitchell, R. C., Carson, R. T. Using Surveys to Value Public Goods : The Contingent Valuation Method, Washington, D.C. : Resources for the Future. 1989.
18 Park, T. J., Loomis, B., Creel, M. Confidence intervals for evaluating benefits estimates from dichotomous choice contingent valuation studies, Land Economics, 1991, 67, 64-73.   DOI
19 Umbach, F. Global energy security and the implications for the EU. Energy Policy, 2010, 38, 1229-1240.   DOI
20 Yoo, S.-H., Kwak, S.-J. Using a spike model to deal with zero response data from double bounded dichotomous choice contingent valuation surveys. Applied Economics Letters, 2002, 9, 929-932.   DOI
21 Yoo, S.-H., Kwak, S.-J., Kim, T.-Y. Modeling willingness to pay responses from dichotomous choice contingent valuation surveys with zero observations. Applied Economics, 2001, 33, 523-529.   DOI   ScienceOn