DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

석탄화력 발전 대비 수력 발전에 대한 국민 선호도 분석

Public Preferences for Replacing Hydro-Electricity Generation with Coal-Fired Power Generation

  • 최효연 (고려대학교 경제학과) ;
  • 류문현 (한국수자원공사 K-water 연구원 수자원 정책경제연구소) ;
  • 유승훈 (서울과학기술대학교 에너지환경대학원 에너지정책학과)
  • Choi, Hyo-Yeon (Department of Economics, Korea University) ;
  • Ryu, Mun-Hyun (Korea Institute of Water and Environment) ;
  • Yoo, Seung-Hoon (Department of Energy Policy, Graduate School of Energy & Environment, Seoul National University of Science & Technology)
  • 투고 : 2015.02.09
  • 심사 : 2015.03.05
  • 발행 : 2015.03.31

초록

석탄화력 발전은 기저발전원으로서 전력을 안정적으로 공급하는 역할을 해왔으나 전력을 생산하여 공급하는 과정에서 다양한 사회적 비용을 발생시킨다. 기후변화에 대응하기 위하여 석탄화력 발전의 비중을 낮추고 저탄소 발전원의 비중을 늘릴 필요가 있다. 이에 본 연구는 대표적인 재생에너지인 수력발전으로 석탄화력 발전의 전력생산을 대체하는 것에 대한 국민들의 지불의사액을 추정해 보고자 한다. 이를 위하여 비시장 재화를 대표하는 기법인 조건부 가치측정법을 적용하였으며, 영의 지불의사액(willingness to pay, WTP)을 명시적으로 다루기 위하여 스파이크 모형을 적용하였다. 분석결과, 석탄화력 발전으로 공급받는 전기를 수력 발전으로 대체하기 위한 국민들의 추가적 WTP 평균값은 1kWh당 약 54원으로 추정되었다. 이러한 연구결과는 발전원의 환경적 가치를 활용하는 연구 및 발전원 구성에 있어 중요한 참고자료로 활용될 수 있다.

Although coal-fired power generation has played a role as base load unit, it has incurred various social costs in the process of generating and providing electricity. It is necessary to extend the proportion of low-carbon power generations, and reduce the ratio of coal-fired power generation to cope with global climate changes. This study, therefore, attempts to estimate the public's willingness-to-pay (WTP) for substitution of supplied electricity from hydro-electricity generation, a representative renewable energy, for coal-fired power generation. To this end, we apply the contingent valuation (CV) method, widely used technique when valuing non-market goods, to elicit the public's WTP. In addition, a spike model is employed to consider zero WTPs. After the empirical analysis with 1,000 households CV survey data, the results show that mean household's WTP for replacing supplied electricity from hydro-electricity generation with coal-fired power generation is estimated to be about 54 KRW per kWh. The results of this study are expected to contribute to determining energy-mix and provide benefit information of hydro-electricity generation.

키워드

참고문헌

  1. 산업통상자원부, 제3차 신재생에너지 기술개발 및 이용보급 기본계획, 2008.
  2. 산업통상자원부, 제6차 전력수급기본계획, 2013.
  3. 산업통상자원부, 제2차 에너지기본계획, 2014.
  4. 한국개발연구원, 예비타당성조사 수행을 위한 일반지침 수정․보완 연구(제5판), 2008, 한국개발연구원 공공투자관리센터.
  5. Arrow, K., Solow R., Portney P. R., Leamer E. E., Radner R. and Schuman H., Report of the NOAA Panel on Contingent Valuation, 1993, Federal Register, 58 pp. 4601-4614.
  6. Bergmann, A., Colombo, S. and Hanley, N., Rural versus urban preferences for renewable energy developments, 2008, Ecological Economics, 65, 616-625. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2007.08.011
  7. Hanemann, W. M., Welfare evaluations in contingent valuation experiments with discrete responses, 1984, American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 66(3), 332-341. https://doi.org/10.2307/1240800
  8. Hanemann, W. M., Loomis, J., and Kaninnen, B. J., Statistical efficiency of double-bounded dichotomous choice contingent valuation, 1991, American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 73, pp. 1255-1263. https://doi.org/10.2307/1242453
  9. Kim, J., Park, J., Kim, J. and Heo, E., Renewable electricity as a differentiated good? The case of the Republic of Korea, 2013, Energy Policy, 54, 327-334. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2012.11.042
  10. Kosenius, A.-K., Ollikainen, M., Valuation of environmental and societal trade-offs of renewable energy sources, 2013, Energy Policy, 62, 1148-1156. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2013.07.020
  11. Kristrom, B., Spike models in contingent valuation, 1997, American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 79, pp. 1013-1023. https://doi.org/10.2307/1244440
  12. McFadden, D., Contingent valuation and social choice, 1994, American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 76, 689-708. https://doi.org/10.2307/1243732
  13. Markandya, A., Bigano, A., and Prochia, R., The Social Cost of Electricity: Scenarios and Policy Implications, 2009, Edward Elgar.
  14. Murakami, K., Ida, T., Tanaka, M., Lee, F., Consumers' willingness to pay for renewable and nuclear energy: A comparative analysis between the US and Japan, 2014, Working Paper.
  15. Nomura, N., Akai, M., Willingness to pay for green electricity in Japan as estimated through contingent valuation method, 2004, Applied Energy, 78, 453-463. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2003.10.001
  16. Wiser, R.H., Using contingent valuation to explore willingness to pay for renewable energy: A comparison of collective and voluntary payment vehicles, 2007, Ecological Economics, 62, 419-432. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2006.07.003
  17. Yoo, S. -H., Kwak, S.-Y., Willingness to pay for green electricity in Korea: A contingent valuation study, 2009, Energy Policy, 37, 5408-5416. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2009.07.062