首頁 > 資料下載 > 可再生燃料標準：前進之路THE RENEWABLE FUEL STANDARD: A PATH FORWARD

可再生燃料標準：前進之路THE RENEWABLE FUEL STANDARD: A PATH FORWARD

資料類別：
資料大?。?/li>
資料編號：
資料狀態(tài)：
更新時間：2021-09-19
下載次數(shù)：次

資料簡介

美國的可再生能源政策正處于十字路口。一些人嘲笑可再生燃料標準（RFS）是一項效率低下的計劃，它推高了燃料供應(yīng)商的成本，并對加油站的駕駛者構(gòu)成威脅，而另一些人則堅持認為，這是一個有價值的工具，可以減少美國對外國石油的依賴，而外國石油也將在應(yīng)對氣候變化的斗爭中支付未來的紅利。RFS最初于2005年制定，并在2007年的《能源獨立與安全法》（EISA）中得到擴展，旨在通過增加必須與運輸燃料混合的可再生燃料數(shù)量，減少溫室氣體排放和美國對石油進口的依賴。部分原因是由于RFS，從2007年到2013年，美國地面運輸燃料供應(yīng)中的可再生燃料數(shù)量翻了一番多。但是，盡管RFS的雙重氣候和能源安全目標仍然像EISA頒布時一樣有效，但今天RFS面臨著多重挑戰(zhàn)。目前的第一代生物燃料主要使用糧食作物作為原料，與石油燃料相比，它們要么價格昂貴，要么溫室氣體排放量略有改善。低溫室氣體第二代生物燃料的開發(fā)和商業(yè)化對該計劃的最終成功至關(guān)重要，但遠遠沒有達到《環(huán)境影響報告書》中提出的非常雄心勃勃的目標。此外，許多汽車僅限于使用乙醇（占主導(dǎo)地位的生物燃料）含量不超過10%的汽油，即所謂的E10混合墻，2013年，美國燃料供應(yīng)中的乙醇量達到了E10高原。因此，RFS，以及更普遍的美國生物燃料政策，已經(jīng)到了一個關(guān)鍵時刻，一些能源行業(yè)的領(lǐng)導(dǎo)人和政策制定者呼吁改革甚至推翻RFS。然而，向低碳交通部門轉(zhuǎn)型的挑戰(zhàn)依然存在，如果說由于汽油價格低以及可能伴隨的消費增長，任何事情變得更加困難和緊迫的話。由于征收碳稅的第一個最佳選擇，再加上前期大量的研發(fā)資金，在政治上仍不太可能實現(xiàn)，因此，通過支持廣泛的低碳技術(shù)研究和投資，保持選擇的開放性非常重要。本文考察了RFS的經(jīng)濟性，以了解其自2013年以來所面臨的挑戰(zhàn)，并對RFS和美國生物燃料政策目前面臨的選擇進行了批判性的審視。簡言之，RFS是對石油燃料的征稅，是對可再生燃料的糾正性補貼。從經(jīng)濟學(xué)角度講，當一種燃料產(chǎn)生的成本（即外部性）超過另一種燃料而不是由其使用者承擔(dān)時，這種制度是合理的。這里就是這樣：可再生燃料既減少了對外國石油的依賴，又比石油燃料產(chǎn)生更少的溫室氣體排放。根據(jù)RFS，對可再生燃料的補貼通過RFS合規(guī)許可證市場運作，這種許可證被稱為可再生標識號（rin）。RIN價格的基本驅(qū)動因素是可再生燃料的生產(chǎn)價格和銷售價格之間的差異，在給定的可再生燃料法定數(shù)量下。由于RINs可以存入銀行，因此RIN價格不僅取決于本年度的基本補貼價值，還取決于對未來基本補貼價值的預(yù)期。這些當前和未來的補貼價值又取決于經(jīng)濟因素，例如石油價格和生產(chǎn)生物燃料的成本，以及目前和未來關(guān)于燃料供應(yīng)中可再生燃料數(shù)量（或比例）的RFS政策。

America’s renewable fuels policy is at a crossroads. The Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) is derided by some as an inefficient program that is driving up costs for fuel suppliers and a threat to motorists at the pumps, while others insist it is a valuable tool to reduce US dependence on foreign oil that will also pay future dividends in the fight against climate change. Developed initially in 2005 and expanded in the Energy Independence and Security Act (EISA) of 2007, the RFS seeks to reduce both greenhouse gas emissions and US dependence on oil imports by establishing increasing quantities of renewable fuels that must be blended into transportation fuels. In part because of the RFS, the volume of renewable fuels in the US surface transportation fuel supply more than doubled from 2007 to 2013. But even though the twin climate and energy security goals of the RFS remain as valid as when the EISA was enacted, today the RFS is facing multiple challenges. The current first-generation biofuels mainly use food crops as feedstock and are either expensive or have modest GHG improvements over petroleum fuels. The development and commercialization of low greenhouse gas second-generation biofuels— critical to the ultimate success of the program—has fallen far short of the very ambitious goals laid out in the EISA. Moreover, many cars are limited to gasoline with at most 10% ethanol (the dominant biofuel)—the so-called E10 blend wall—and in 2013 the amount of ethanol in the US fuel supply reached the E10 plateau. As a result, the RFS, and US biofuels policy more generally, has reached a critical point at which some energy industry leaders and policy makers have called for it to be reformed or even overturned. Yet the challenge of transitioning to a lowcarbon transportation sector remains, and if anything is made both more difficult and more pressing because of low gasoline prices and the likely associated increase in consumption. Because the first-best option of a carbon tax combined with substantial early-stage research and development funding remains politically unlikely, it is important to keep options open by supporting research and investment in a wide range of low-carbon technologies. This paper examines the economics of the RFS in order to understand the challenges it has faced since 2013 and takes a critical look at the choices currently facing the RFS and US biofuels policy. In brief, the RFS serves as a tax on petroleum fuels and a corrective subsidy to renewable fuels. As a matter of economics, such a system is justified when one of the fuels generates more costs not borne by its users (i.e. externalities) than does the other fuel. That is the case here: renewable fuels both reduce dependence on foreign oil and generate less greenhouse gas emissions than do petroleum fuels. Under the RFS, the subsidy to renewable fuels operates through the market for RFS compliance permits, which are called Renewable Identification Numbers (RINs). The fundamental driver of RIN prices is the difference in the price at which a renewable fuel can be produced and the price at which it can be sold, at a given mandated volume of the renewable fuel. Because RINs can be banked, the RIN price depends not only on this fundamental subsidy value in the current year, but on expectations of future fundamental subsidy values. These current and future subsidy values in turn depend on economic factors, such as the price of oil and the cost of producing biofuels, as well as on current and future RFS policy about the volume (or fraction) of renewable fuels in the fuel supply.

資料截圖

上一條：2009年乙醇工業(yè)展望2009 ETHANOL INDUSTRY OUTLOOK

下一條：2014年世界能源三難困境國家可持續(xù)發(fā)展標桿(2014)World Energy Trilemma 2014 Benchmarking the sustainability of national(2

版權(quán)：如無特殊注明，文章轉(zhuǎn)載自網(wǎng)絡(luò)，侵權(quán)請聯(lián)系cnmhg168#163.com刪除！文件均為網(wǎng)友上傳，僅供研究和學(xué)習(xí)使用，務(wù)必24小時內(nèi)刪除。