An economic and environmental assessment of future electricity generation mixes in Japan - an assessment using the E3MG macro-econometric model

Energy Policy

Volumn 67, Issue , 2014, Pages 243-254

  Pollitt, Hector ^a   Park, Seung Joon ^b   Lee, Soocheol ^c   Ueta, Kazuhiro ^d  

^a CAMBRIDGE ECONOMETRICS   (United Kingdom)

^b KWANSEI GAKUIN UNIVERSITY   (Japan)

^c MEIJO UNIVERSITY   (Japan)

^d KYOTO UNIVERSITY   (Japan)

Author keywords

Japan; Macroeconomic modelling; Nuclear

Indexed keywords

EID: 84893861833     PISSN: 03014215     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.enpol.2013.12.018     Document Type: Article

References (33)

1. Akimoto K., Sano F., Homma T., Oda J., Nagashima M., Kii M. Estimates of GHG emission reduction potential by country, sector, and cost. Energy Policy 2010, 38:3384-3393.
2. Andersen M.S., Ekins P. Carbon-Energy Taxation, Lessons from Europe, Oxford University Press, 2009, 2009.
3. Ban, K, 2013. The relationship between energy policy and economic growth, Keizai Seminar, No. 669, pp. 35-41 (in Japanese)
4. Barker T., Pan H., Köhler J., Warren R., Winne S. Avoiding dangerous climate change by inducing technological progress: scenarios using a large-scale econometric model. Avoiding Dangerous Climate Change 2005, Cambridge University Press, (Chapter 38). H.J. Schellnhuber, W. Cramer, N. Nakicenovic, T. Wigley, G. Yohe (Eds.).
5. Barker, T., Pan, H., Köhler, J. Warren, R., Winne, S., 2006. Decarbonizing the global economy with induced technological change: scenarios to 2100 using E3MG. In: Edenhofer, O., Lessmann, K., Kemfert, K., Grubb, M., Köhler, J. (Eds.), Induced Technological Change: Exploring its Implications for the Economics of Atmospheric Stabilization, Energy Journal (special issue on the International Model Comparison Project).
6. Barker T., Foxon T., Scrieciu S.S. Achieving the G8 50% target: modelling induced and accelerated technological change using the macro-econometric model E3MG. Climate Policy 2008, 8:S30-S45. (special issue on modelling long-term scenarios for low-carbon societies).
7. Barker T., Scrieciu S.S. Unilateral climate change mitigation, carbon leakage and competitiveness: an application to the European Union. Int. J. Global Warm. 2009, 1(4):405-417.
8. Barker T., De-Ramon S., Pollitt H. Revenue recycling and labour markets: effects on costs of policies for sustainability. Modelling Sustainable Development: Transitions to a Sustainable Future 2009, Elgar, Cheltenham, UK. V. Bosetti, R. Gerlagh, S. Schleicher (Eds.).
9. Barker T., Anger A., Chewpreecha U., Pollitt H. A new economics approach to modelling policies to achieve global 2020 targets for climate stabilisation. International Review of Applied Economics 2012, Routledge, (special issue on economic policies of the new thinking in economics), London.
10. Cambridge Econometrics An Appraisal of Carbon Pricing Revenue Recycling Options 2013, International Council on Mining and Metals, London.
11. Cost Estimation and Review Committee, 2011. The Report of the Cost Estimation and Review Committee, The Energy and Environment Council, the Cost Estimation and Review Committee 2011.12.19. (in Japanese)
12. Dagoumas A., Barker T. Pathways to a low-carbon economy for the UK with the macro-econometric E3MG model. Energy Policy 2010, 38(6):3067-3077.
13. Duscha V., Schumacher K., Schleich J., Buisson P. Costs of meeting international climate targets without nuclear power. Climate Policy 2013, 10.1080/14693062.2014.852018.
14. Ekins P., Speck S. Environmental Tax Reform (ETR), A Policy for Green Growth, Oxford University Press, 2011, 2009.
15. Engle R.F., Granger C.W.J. Cointegration and error correction: representation, estimation and testing. Econometrica 1987, 55:251-276.
16. European Commission, 2010. Analysis of options to move beyond 20% greenhouse gas emission reductions and assessing the risk of carbon leakage, COM (2010) 265 final, Brussels, 26/05/2010.
17. European Communities, 2009. International Monetary Fund, Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, United Nations and World Bank, System of National Accounts 2008, New York.
18. Hendry D.F., Pagan A., Sargan J.D. Dynamic specification. Handbook of Econometrics 1984, vol. II. Amsterdam, North Holland.
19. Hertel T. Global Trade Analysis: Modeling and Applications 1999, Cambridge University Press, New York, USA.
20. Homma T., Akimoto K. Analysis of Japan's energy and environment strategy after the Fukushima nuclear plant accident. Energy Policy 2013, 62:1216-1225.
21. Hong S., Bradshaw C.J.A., Brook B.W. Evaluating options for the future energy mix of Japan after the Fukushima nuclear crisis. Energy Policy 2013, 56:418-424.
22. International Energy Agency (IEA), 2010. World Energy Outlook 2010, OECD/IEA, Paris.
23. International Energy Agency World Energy Outlook 2012 2012, OECD Publishing.
24. Lee K., Pesaran M.H., Pierse R.G. Aggregation bias in labour demand equations for the UK economy. Disaggregation in Econometric Modelling 1990, Routledge, London, (Chapter 6). T. Barker, M.H. Pesaran (Eds.).
25. Lee S.C., Pollitt H., Ueta K. A model- based econometric assessment of Japanese environmental tax reform. Sci. World J. 2012, 2012. (Article ID 835917). http://www.hindawi.com/journals/tswj/2012/835917/.
26. Matsuo, Y., 2012. Summary and Evaluation of Cost Calculation for Nuclear Power Generation by the Cost Estimation and Review Committee, Institute for Energy Economics Japan (IEEJ), May 2012.
27. McLellan B., Zhang Q., Utama N.A., Farzaneh H., Ishihara K.N. Analysis of Japan's post-Fukushima energy strategy. Energy Strategy Rev. 2013, 2(2):190-198.
28. Park, S.J., Yamazaki, M., Takeda, S., 2012. Environmental Tax Reform: Major findings and policy implications from a multi-regional economic simulation analysis, Background Policy Paper for the Low Carbon Green Growth Roadmap for Asia and the Pacific, UNESCAP.
29. The Energy and Environment Council, 2012a. Options for Energy and the Environment on 29th July 2012 (in Japanese)
30. The Energy and Environment Council, 2012b. Options for Energy and the Environment, The Energy and Environment Council Decision on June 29, 2012 [Outline, in English], National Policy Unit, July 2012.
31. The Energy and Environment Council, 2012c. Innovative Strategy for Energy and the Environment on 14th September 2012 (in Japanese)
32. UNESCAP, 2012. Double dividend and revenue neutrality, in Part III: Fact Sheets and Case Studies of Low Carbon Green Growth Roadmap for Asia and the Pacific, UNESCAP, http://www.unescap.org/esd/environment/lcgg/.
33. Zhang Q., Ishihara K.N., Mclellan B.C., Tezuka T. Scenario analysis on future electricity supply and demand in Japan. Energy 2012, 38(1):376-385.