Applied Chemistry for Engineering (공업화학)

The Korean Society of Industrial and Engineering Chemistry (한국공업화학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Limitations and Solutions of MACC for Designing Optimal Greenhouse Gas Reduction Strategies in the Industrial Sector

산업 부문의 온실가스 감축 최적 방안 설계를 위한 MACC의 한계 및 해결 방안

  • Hyang-Soo Lee (Department of Chemical and Biomolecular Engineering, Chonnam National University) ;
  • Soon-Do Yoon (Department of Chemical and Biomolecular Engineering, Chonnam National University)
  • 이향수 (전남대학교 화공생명공학과) ;
  • 윤순도 (전남대학교 화공생명공학과)
  • Received : 2025.02.09
  • Accepted : 2025.03.17
  • Published : 2025.04.10
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

This study discusses solutions to the limitations of using the marginal abatement cost curve (MACC) in designing optimal strategies for achieving carbon neutrality by 2050. While MACC is useful for identifying the priority of mitigation measures, it falls short in strategy formulation. To address this, a decision-making model based on net present value (NPV) was developed, incorporating variables such as the cost, abatement potential, and implementation speed of mitigation technologies. The results showed that relying solely on low-cost measures is insufficient, and combining high-cost measures is more effective depending on the emission reduction targets. For more ambitious goals, early implementation of high-cost measures is necessary. Additionally, it was found that failing to consider the long-term 2050 carbon neutrality target when setting the 2030 industrial sector reduction goal (11.4%) could result in a shortfall of approximately 15% in meeting the final target. This study highlights the need to complement MACC with an NPV-based decision-making model in greenhouse gas reduction policy design and demonstrates its potential as a practical guide for developing and evaluating reduction strategies at national and industrial levels.

본 연구는 2050년 탄소중립 최적 전략 설계를 위해 marginal abatement cost curve (MACC) 사용 시 감축 수단 우선순위를 파악하는 데 유용하나 최적 전략 설계 방법에는 한계가 있어 이에 대한 해결책을 논의하였다. 최적 전략 도출을 위해 감축 기술의 비용, 감축량, 감축 속도를 변수로 하는 순현재가치(net present value, NPV) 기반 의사결정 모델을 개발하였다. 그 결과, 배출 목표가 높고 낮음에 따라 저비용 수단만으로는 한계가 있고 고비용 수단 병용이 효율적이며, 도전적 목표일수록 고비용 수단의 조기 실행이 필요함을 모델을 통해 확인하였다. 또한 2030년 산업계 감축목표(11.4%)를 설정할 때 2050년 탄소중립 장기 목표를 고려하지 않으면 최종 목표에 약 15% 미달함을 확인하였다. 본 연구를 통해 온실가스 감축 정책 설계 시 MACC를 보완하기 위해 NPV 기반 의사결정 모델 활용이 필요함을 확인하였고, 국가 및 산업의 감축 정책을 설계하고 검토하는 가이드로 활용될 수 있다고 판단된다.

Keywords

References

  1. D. A. Lashof and D. R. Ahuja, Relative contributions of greenhouse gas emissions to global warming, Nature, 344, 529-531 (1990). https://doi.org/10.1038/344529a0
  2. J. E. Hansen, M. Sato, A. Lacis, R. Ruedy, I. Tegen, and E. Matthews, Climate forcings in the industrial era, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci., 95, 12753-12758 (1998). https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.95.22.12753
  3. R. Quadrelli and S. Peterson, The energy–climate challenge: Recent trends in CO2 emissions from fuel combustion, Energy Policy, 35, 5938-5952 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2007.07.001
  4. A. Michaelowa, L. Hermwille, W. Obergassel, and S. Butzengeiger, Additionality revisited: guarding the integrity of market mechanisms under the Paris Agreement, Clim. Policy, 19, 1211-1224 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1080/14693062.2019.1628695
  5. J. Rogelj, M. Den Elzen, N. Höhne, T. Fransen, H. Fekete, H. Winkler, R. Schaeffer, F. Sha, K. Riahi, and M. Meinshausen, Paris Agreement climate proposals need a boost to keep warming well below 2 °C, Nature, 534, 631-639 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1038/nature18307
  6. S. J. Davis, N. S. Lewis, M. Shaner, S. Aggarwal, D. Arent, I. L. Azevedo, S. M. Benson, T. Bradley, J. Brouwer, Y. M. Chiang, C. T. M. Clack, A. Cohen, S. Doig, J. Edmonds, P. Fennell, C. B. Field, B. Hannegan, B. M. Hodge, M. I. Hoffert, E. Ingersoll, P. Jaramillo, K. S. Lackner, K. J. Mach, M. Mastrandrea, J. Ogden, P. F. Peterson, D. L. Sanchez, D. Sperling, J. Stagner, J. E. Trancik, C. J. Yang, and K. Caldeira, Net-zero emissions energy systems, Science, 360, 1419 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aas9793
  7. O. Rents, H. D. Haasis, A. Jattke, P. Ru, M. Wietschel, and M. Amann, Influence of energy-supply structure on emission-reduction costs, Energy, 19, 641-651 (1994). https://doi.org/10.1016/0360-5442(94)90004-3
  8. G. Klepper and S. Peterson, Marginal abatement cost curves in general equilibrium: The influence of world energy prices, Resour. Energy Econ., 28, 1-23 (2006)
  9. K. Gillingham and J. H. Stock, The cost of reducing greenhouse gas emissions, J. Econ. Perspect., 32, 53-72 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.32.4.53
  10. F. Kesicki and N. Strachan, Marginal abatement cost (MAC) curves: confronting theory and practice, Environ. Sci. Policy, 14, 1195-1204 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2011.08.004
  11. A. S. Nur Chairat, L. Abdullah, M. N. Maslan, and H. Batih, Applications of marginal abatement cost curve (MACC) for reducing greenhouse gas emissions: A review of methodologies, Nat. Environ. Pollut. Technol., 21, 1317-1323 (2022). https://doi.org/10.46488/NEPT.2022.v21i03.038
  12. E. S. Rubin, R. N. Cooper, R. A. Frosch, T. H. Lee, G. Marland, A. H. Rosenfeld, and D. D. Stine, Realistic mitigation options for global warming, Science, 257, 148-149 (1992) https://doi.org/10.1126/science.257.5067.148
  13. A. A. A. Almihoub, J. M. Mula, and M. M. Rahman, Are there differences between estimate (theoretical) and actual MACC approaches of emission reduction?, Int. Rev. Econ. Finance, 14, 65-88 (2022)
  14. A. A. A. Almihoub, J. M. Mula1, and M. M. Rahman, Marginal abatement cost curves (MACCs): Important approaches to obtain (firm and sector) greenhouse gases (GHGs) reduction, Int. Rev. Econ. Finance, 5, 35-54 (2013).
  15. F. Lecocq, J. C. Hourcade, and M. H. Duong, Decision making under uncertainty and inertia constraints: Sectoral implications of the when flexibility, Energy Econ., 20, 539-555 (1998). https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-9883(98)00012-7
  16. M. Schwoon and R. S. Tol, Optimal CO2-abatement with socio-economic inertia and induced technological change, Energy J., 27, 25-60 (2006). https://doi.org/10.5547/ISSN0195-6574-EJ-Vol27-No4-2
  17. M. Jaccard and N. Rivers, Heterogeneous capital stocks and the optimal timing for CO2 abatement, Resour. Energy Econ., 29, 1-16 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.reseneeco.2006.03.002
  18. C. Wilson, A. Grubler, N. Bauer, V. Krey, and K. Riahi, Future capacity growth of energy technologies: Are scenarios consistent with historical evidence?, Clim. Change, 118, 381-395 (2013) https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-012-0618-y
  19. W. Li, R. Long, H. Chen, F. Chen, X. Zheng, and M. Yang, Effect of policy incentives on the uptake of electric vehicles in China, Sustainability, 11, 3323 (2019). https://doi.org/10.3390/su11123323