Export your learner materials as an interactive game, a webpage, or FAQ style cheatsheet.
Unsaved Work Found!
It looks like you have unsaved work from a previous session. Would you like to restore it?
Total Categories: 5
Carbon pricing, also known as CO2 pricing, is a governmental strategy designed to apply a monetary cost to greenhouse gas emissions, primarily to encourage the reduction of fossil fuel combustion.
Answer: True
Carbon pricing aims to internalize the external costs of greenhouse gas emissions, thereby discouraging, not encouraging, the combustion of fossil fuels.
The two primary forms of carbon pricing mechanisms are a direct carbon tax and an emissions trading scheme (ETS), which mandates that firms acquire allowances to emit greenhouse gases.
Answer: True
The source identifies a carbon tax and an emissions trading scheme (ETS) as the two main forms of carbon pricing, each with distinct operational methodologies.
Carbon pricing aims to address the economic problem of positive externalities by charging for the beneficial products of CO2 emissions.
Answer: False
Carbon pricing is designed to internalize the costs of negative externalities, such as environmental damage from greenhouse gas emissions, by making polluters pay for these previously unpriced impacts.
In a carbon tax model, the government first sets an overall emissions cap and then allocates allowances to firms.
Answer: False
The description provided refers to an emissions trading scheme (ETS) or cap-and-trade system. In a carbon tax model, a direct tax is imposed on carbon emissions, without setting an overall cap or allocating allowances.
What is the primary objective of carbon pricing?
Answer: To apply a monetary cost to greenhouse gas emissions, encouraging polluters to reduce fossil fuel combustion.
Carbon pricing aims to internalize the external costs of greenhouse gas emissions by assigning a monetary value to them, thereby incentivizing polluters to reduce their reliance on fossil fuels and mitigate climate change.
Which of the following are the two main forms that carbon pricing typically takes?
Answer: A carbon tax and an emissions trading scheme (ETS).
The two primary mechanisms for carbon pricing are a direct carbon tax, which levies a charge per unit of emission, and an emissions trading scheme (ETS), which sets a cap on total emissions and allows for the trading of emission allowances.
Carbon pricing primarily aims to address which economic problem?
Answer: Negative externalities.
Carbon pricing is fundamentally an economic instrument designed to address negative externalities, specifically the unpriced environmental and societal costs associated with greenhouse gas emissions.
How does a carbon tax model operate?
Answer: A direct tax is imposed on the carbon emissions produced by a firm.
In a carbon tax model, the government directly levies a tax on the carbon content of fuels or on the emissions produced by entities, providing a clear price signal for reducing carbon output.
In 2021, less than 10% of global greenhouse gas emissions were covered by carbon pricing, indicating a lack of significant progress from previous years.
Answer: False
In 2021, carbon pricing covered 21.7% of global greenhouse gas emissions, representing a significant increase largely due to the introduction of China's national carbon trading scheme.
As of 2021, top emitters like India, Russia, and many US states had not introduced carbon pricing, while most European countries and Canada had implemented it.
Answer: True
As of 2021, major emitters such as India, Russia, the Gulf states, and many US states had not implemented carbon pricing, in contrast to most European countries and Canada, which had.
Global revenue generated by carbon pricing in 2020 exceeded $100 billion, indicating widespread high-level implementation.
Answer: False
In 2020, global revenue from carbon pricing amounted to $53 billion, which is less than $100 billion, and does not necessarily indicate widespread high-level implementation across all regions.
Many carbon pricing schemes, including China's ETS, maintain carbon prices below $10 per ton of CO2, with the EU-ETS being a notable exception.
Answer: True
Many carbon pricing schemes, such as China's ETS, typically feature carbon prices below $10 per ton of CO2, while the European Union Emissions Trading System (EU-ETS) stands out as an exception, having exceeded $100 per ton in early 2023.
The European Union Emissions Trading System (EU-ETS) has consistently maintained a strong carbon price since its inception in 2005, unaffected by economic downturns.
Answer: False
The EU-ETS carbon price was undermined by an oversupply of allowances and the impact of the Great Recession between 2009 and recent policy changes, indicating it was not consistently strong or unaffected by economic downturns.
In 2021, the majority of carbon pricing systems globally had prices consistently above $100 per ton of CO2, with Sweden and Switzerland being exceptions.
Answer: False
In 2021, the majority of carbon pricing systems globally had prices below $40 per ton of CO2, with only Sweden and Switzerland consistently above $100 per ton, making them exceptions to the general trend.
The market price surge in fossil fuels in 2021 led to a debate about whether carbon price increases should be accelerated to capitalize on high energy costs.
Answer: False
The market price surge in fossil fuels in 2021 prompted a debate about postponing carbon price increases to avoid imposing additional social burdens, rather than accelerating them.
Carbon pricing schemes typically cover a narrow range of emissions, usually less than 20% of total emissions in implementing countries.
Answer: False
Carbon pricing schemes typically cover a substantial portion of emissions, ranging from approximately 40% to 80% of total emissions in implementing countries, not less than 20%.
Carbon pricing schemes are uniform in their scope, always including all fuels, transport, heating, and all greenhouse gases.
Answer: False
Carbon pricing schemes exhibit significant variations in their scope, often excluding specific fuels, transport, heating, agriculture, or certain greenhouse gases beyond CO2.
In some EU member states like France and Germany, two distinct carbon pricing systems coexist, one for power generation and industry, and another for private consumption fuels.
Answer: True
In several EU member states, including France and Germany, two distinct carbon pricing systems operate concurrently: the EU-ETS for power generation and large industrial facilities, and national schemes or taxes for fuels used in private consumption and heating.
Germany's ETS, launched in 2021, was expected to generate $8.75 billion in revenue, covering non EU-ETS transport and heating.
Answer: True
Germany's national ETS, initiated in 2021, was projected to generate $8.75 billion (or €7.4 billion) in revenue, specifically targeting emissions from non-EU-ETS transport and heating sectors.
What percentage of global greenhouse gas emissions were covered by carbon pricing in 2021, and what was a major reason for this increase?
Answer: 21.7%, largely due to the introduction of the Chinese national carbon trading scheme.
In 2021, carbon pricing covered 21.7% of global greenhouse gas emissions, a notable increase primarily driven by the launch of China's national carbon trading scheme.
According to 2021 data, which of the following regions had NOT introduced carbon pricing?
Answer: India, Russia, and many US states.
As of 2021, top emitters such as India, Russia, the Gulf states, and many US states had not implemented carbon pricing, in contrast to most European countries and Canada.
How much revenue did carbon pricing generate globally in 2020?
Answer: $53 billion.
In 2020, carbon pricing mechanisms worldwide generated a total revenue of $53 billion.
Which carbon pricing scheme notably exceeded €100 (approximately $108) per ton of CO2 in February 2023?
Answer: The European Union Emissions Trading System (EU-ETS).
The European Union Emissions Trading System (EU-ETS) notably surpassed €100 (approximately $108) per ton of CO2 in February 2023, distinguishing it from many other schemes with lower price levels.
What was a key factor that undermined the carbon price in the EU-ETS between 2009 and recent policy changes?
Answer: An oversupply of allowances and the impact of the Great Recession.
Between 2009 and recent policy reforms, the carbon price within the EU-ETS was significantly weakened by an excess supply of emission allowances coupled with reduced industrial activity during the Great Recession.
In 2021, what was the general trend for carbon prices in most carbon pricing systems globally?
Answer: The majority remained below $40 per ton of CO2.
In 2021, the prevailing trend indicated that most global carbon pricing systems maintained prices below $40 per ton of CO2, with only a few exceptions exceeding this level.
How did the unexpected spikes in fossil fuel prices in 2021 impact the debate around carbon price increases?
Answer: It sparked a debate about postponing carbon price increases to avoid additional social burdens.
The unforeseen surge in fossil fuel prices in 2021 initiated a policy debate concerning the deferral of carbon price increases, aimed at alleviating potential additional financial burdens on consumers and businesses.
What is the typical range of emission coverage in countries with Emissions Trading Systems (ETS) and carbon taxes?
Answer: Approximately 40% to 80% of total emissions.
Emissions Trading Systems (ETS) and carbon taxes typically cover a significant portion of a country's total greenhouse gas emissions, generally ranging from 40% to 80%.
The IPCC suggests that a carbon price of $135–$5500 per metric ton of CO2 would be needed in 2030 to limit global warming to 1.5°C.
Answer: True
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) indicates that a carbon price within the range of $135–$5500 per metric ton of CO2 would be required by 2030 to effectively limit global warming to 1.5°C.
Latest models calculate the social cost of carbon to be less than $50 per ton, aligning closely with current policy recommendations.
Answer: False
Latest models estimate the social cost of carbon to be over $300 per ton, which is significantly higher than current policy recommendations that typically range from $50 to $200 per ton.
Economists generally consider carbon pricing inefficient because it fails to account for the costs of efficiency measures and the inconvenience of using fewer fossil fuels.
Answer: False
Economists generally consider carbon pricing to be an efficient method for reducing emissions because it accounts for the costs of both efficiency measures and the inconvenience of using fewer fossil fuels, thereby correcting market failures.
Evaluations of carbon pricing schemes have shown that a majority have successfully reduced greenhouse gas emissions, with reductions typically ranging from 5% to 21%.
Answer: True
Evaluations of 21 carbon pricing schemes indicate that at least 17 have successfully reduced greenhouse gas emissions, with observed reductions ranging from 5% to 21%.
The US Interagency Working Group estimated the social cost of carbon at $42 per ton of CO2 as a central estimate for 2020, using a 3% discount rate.
Answer: True
The US Interagency Working Group indeed estimated the social cost of carbon at $42 per ton of CO2 as a central estimate for 2020, based on a 3% discount rate.
The German Environmental Agency's 2019 estimate for the social cost of carbon without time preference was lower than its estimate with a 1% time preference.
Answer: False
The German Environmental Agency's 2019 estimate for the social cost of carbon without time preference was $757 per ton of CO2, which is significantly higher than its estimate of $213 per ton with a 1% time preference.
Cap-based carbon prices are generally less volatile than carbon taxes, offering greater stability for investors.
Answer: False
Cap-based carbon prices tend to be more volatile than carbon taxes, introducing greater risk for investors, consumers, and governments, while carbon taxes generally offer more price stability.
A carbon tax can have an additive environmental effect when combined with renewable energy subsidies, unlike a binding cap-and-trade system.
Answer: True
A carbon tax can indeed yield an additive environmental benefit when paired with non-price policies like renewable energy subsidies. In contrast, a binding cap-and-trade system, by fixing total emissions, does not achieve further emission reductions from such additional policies within the cap's period.
A 2020 study found that carbon prices have significantly harmed economic growth in wealthy industrialized democracies.
Answer: False
A 2020 study concluded that carbon prices have not harmed economic growth in wealthy industrialized democracies, suggesting that these policies can be implemented without necessarily impeding economic expansion.
What carbon price range does the IPCC suggest is necessary in 2030 to limit global warming to 1.5°C?
Answer: $135–$5500 per metric ton of CO2.
The IPCC's projections indicate that a carbon price ranging from $135 to $5500 per metric ton of CO2 will be essential by 2030 to achieve the target of limiting global warming to 1.5°C.
How do the latest models of the social cost of carbon compare to current policy recommendations for carbon prices?
Answer: Latest models calculate the social cost to be more than $300 per ton, while policy recommendations typically range from $50 to $200 per ton.
Recent modeling efforts estimate the social cost of carbon to exceed $300 per ton, a figure substantially higher than the $50 to $200 per ton range commonly found in current carbon pricing policy recommendations.
Why is carbon pricing considered an economically efficient method for reducing emissions?
Answer: It accounts for the costs of both efficiency measures and the inconvenience of using fewer fossil fuels, correcting market failure.
Economists view carbon pricing as efficient because it internalizes the external costs of emissions, compelling polluters to consider the full societal cost of their activities and thus correcting a fundamental market failure.
What range of emission reductions have been observed in successful carbon pricing schemes?
Answer: Between 5% and 21%.
Evaluations of successful carbon pricing schemes have demonstrated emission reductions typically falling within the range of 5% to 21%.
What was the central estimate for the social cost of carbon provided by the US Interagency Working Group in 2020 (at a 3% discount rate)?
Answer: $42 per ton of CO2.
The US Interagency Working Group's central estimate for the social cost of carbon in 2020, calculated with a 3% discount rate, was $42 per ton of CO2.
What was the German Environmental Agency's 2019 estimate for the social cost of carbon without time preference?
Answer: $757 per ton of CO2.
The German Environmental Agency's 2019 assessment of the social cost of carbon, when calculated without applying a time preference, yielded a significantly higher estimate of $757 per ton of CO2.
What is a key economic difference between cap-based carbon prices and carbon taxes?
Answer: Cap-based systems can diminish the effect of non-price policies, while carbon taxes do not.
A significant economic distinction is that cap-based carbon pricing systems can reduce the effectiveness of complementary non-price policies, such as renewable energy subsidies, whereas carbon taxes typically allow for an additive environmental effect from such policies.
How do carbon taxes interact with non-price policies like renewable energy subsidies, compared to a binding cap-and-trade system?
Answer: A carbon tax can have an additive environmental effect, while a binding cap-and-trade system has no further impact on emissions reductions.
A carbon tax can complement non-price policies like renewable energy subsidies, leading to additional emission reductions. In contrast, a binding cap-and-trade system, by setting a fixed emissions limit, means that such additional policies do not result in further reductions within the capped period.
What did a 2020 study conclude about the impact of carbon prices on economic growth in wealthy industrialized democracies?
Answer: Carbon prices have not harmed economic growth.
A 2020 study examining wealthy industrialized democracies found no evidence that carbon pricing policies have negatively impacted economic growth, suggesting that climate action through carbon pricing can be pursued without detrimental economic consequences.
A key advantage of carbon emissions trading over a fixed carbon tax is its ability to set a quantitative limit on emissions, ensuring the reduction goal is met.
Answer: True
A primary advantage of carbon emissions trading is its capacity to establish a quantitative limit on total emissions, thereby providing certainty that the specified reduction target will be achieved, unlike a carbon tax which offers only an estimated reduction.
A carbon tax is generally more difficult to enforce on a broad scale compared to cap-and-trade programs due to its complexity.
Answer: False
A carbon tax is generally considered easier to enforce on a broad scale due to its simplicity, as demonstrated by examples like British Columbia's rapid implementation, whereas cap-and-trade programs can involve more complex administrative structures.
Hybrid cap-and-trade programs achieve price stability by allowing unlimited price fluctuations based on market demand.
Answer: False
Hybrid cap-and-trade programs achieve price stability by implementing both floor and ceiling limits on prices, thereby preventing unlimited fluctuations and combining features of cap-and-trade with those of a carbon tax.
The free distribution of emission permits in an ETS can lead to corrupt behavior, while industry lobbying can result in exemptions from carbon taxes.
Answer: True
Both carbon taxes and emissions trading schemes face potential integrity challenges: free permit distribution in an ETS can foster corrupt practices, and industry lobbying can lead to exemptions from carbon taxes, undermining their effectiveness.
A cap-and-trade program with a descending cap offers market certainty that emissions will increase over time, providing flexibility for industries.
Answer: False
A cap-and-trade program with a descending cap provides market certainty that emissions will decline over time, ensuring reduction targets are met, rather than increasing.
Standard proposals for utilizing carbon revenues include funding research for carbon neutrality and providing subsidies for negative emissions technologies.
Answer: True
Standard proposals for carbon revenue utilization include reinvesting funds into research for carbon neutrality, supporting public transport, and providing subsidies for negative emissions technologies, alongside per-capita redistribution.
A per-capita redistribution of carbon revenues could benefit wealthier households more, as they typically consume more energy.
Answer: False
A per-capita redistribution of carbon revenues is more likely to benefit poorer households, as they generally consume less energy and would therefore receive more in compensation than they pay in increased energy costs.
Carbon leakage occurs when emissions regulations in one country lead to a decrease in emissions in other unregulated countries.
Answer: False
Carbon leakage is defined as the phenomenon where emissions regulations in one country or sector lead to an increase in emissions in other unregulated countries or sectors, rather than a decrease.
Estimates for carbon leakage rates under the Kyoto Protocol were considered highly certain, ranging from 5% to 20%.
Answer: False
While estimates for carbon leakage rates under the Kyoto Protocol ranged from 5% to 20%, these figures were considered very uncertain, and the beneficial effects of technological development were not reliably quantified.
William Nordhaus proposed an international 'carbon price regime' where countries commit to a specific carbon price rather than a specific policy.
Answer: True
William Nordhaus advocated for an international 'carbon price regime' where nations would commit to a uniform carbon price, allowing flexibility in the specific domestic policies (e.g., taxes or trading schemes) used to achieve that price.
The 'Economists' Statement on Climate Change' from 1997 advocated for direct government regulation and mandates as the most efficient approach to slowing climate change.
Answer: False
The 1997 'Economists' Statement on Climate Change' explicitly argued that market-based policies, such as carbon taxes or auctioned permits, represent the most economically efficient approach to mitigating climate change, rather than direct government regulation.
Individuals and businesses can engage in carbon offsetting by purchasing carbon offsets through retailers that fund emission reduction projects.
Answer: True
Carbon offsetting allows individuals and businesses to compensate for their own greenhouse gas emissions by purchasing carbon offsets from retailers, which in turn fund projects designed to reduce emissions elsewhere.
Mutsuyoshi Nishimura suggested a quantity commitment approach where all countries would commit to the same global emission target, with permits issued by an assembly of governments.
Answer: True
Mutsuyoshi Nishimura proposed a quantity commitment approach for international climate policy, where all participating countries would agree to a common global emission target, and an 'assembly of governments' would be responsible for issuing permits up to this agreed limit.
In 2019, the UN Secretary General recommended that governments prioritize subsidies for fossil fuel industries over carbon taxation.
Answer: False
In 2019, the UN Secretary General explicitly recommended that governments tax carbon, indicating a prioritization of carbon taxation over subsidies for fossil fuel industries as a climate policy instrument.
The 'additionality' requirement in project-based emission trading ensures projects reduce emissions beyond what would have occurred naturally or by existing regulations.
Answer: True
The 'additionality' requirement in project-based emission trading mandates that projects must achieve emission reductions that are demonstrably beyond what would have occurred in the absence of the project or what is already required by existing regulations, ensuring genuine environmental benefit.
The 'additionality' concept in project-based emission trading has been easy to define and monitor, preventing any misuse of the system.
Answer: False
The 'additionality' concept in project-based emission trading has proven difficult to define and monitor effectively, leading to instances of misuse where companies might increase emissions to then get paid for their reduction.
'Banking' of permits in cap-and-trade programs allows entities to save unused emission permits for future use, helping to stabilize prices.
Answer: True
The 'banking' feature in cap-and-trade programs permits entities to save unused emission allowances from one compliance period for use in a subsequent period, which contributes to price stability and allows for strategic over-compliance.
What is a main advantage of carbon emissions trading compared to a fixed carbon tax?
Answer: It provides certainty that the emissions reduction goal will be achieved by setting a quantitative limit.
A key advantage of carbon emissions trading is its ability to establish a firm quantitative cap on total emissions, thereby ensuring with certainty that the predetermined reduction target will be met, a feature not inherently guaranteed by a fixed carbon tax.
Which of the following is an advantage of a carbon tax over cap-and-trade programs in terms of implementation?
Answer: It is generally considered easier to enforce on a broad scale.
A notable advantage of a carbon tax is its relative simplicity and ease of broad-scale implementation compared to the more complex administrative requirements of cap-and-trade programs.
How do hybrid cap-and-trade programs incorporate price stability?
Answer: By setting both floor and ceiling limits on prices.
Hybrid cap-and-trade programs integrate price stability mechanisms by establishing both a floor price (preventing sales below a certain level) and a ceiling price (introducing more allowances if prices rise too high), thereby mitigating extreme price volatility.
What potential issue is associated with the free distribution of emission permits in an Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS)?
Answer: It can lead to corrupt behavior, undermining the system's integrity.
The free allocation of emission permits within an ETS carries the risk of fostering corrupt practices, which can compromise the fairness and effectiveness of the entire trading system.
What certainty does a cap-and-trade program with a descending cap offer to the market?
Answer: That emissions will decline over time, guaranteeing reduction targets.
A cap-and-trade program featuring a descending cap provides market participants with the assurance that overall emissions will systematically decrease over time, thereby guaranteeing the achievement of predetermined reduction targets.
Which of the following is a standard proposal for utilizing carbon revenues?
Answer: Returning the funds to the public on a per-capita basis.
A common proposal for the allocation of carbon revenues involves redistributing the funds to the public on a per-capita basis, which can help offset the financial impact of carbon pricing on households.
How might a per-capita redistribution of carbon revenues affect poorer households?
Answer: They would likely benefit, receiving more in compensation than they pay due to lower energy consumption.
A per-capita redistribution of carbon revenues is generally structured to benefit lower-income households, as their typically lower energy consumption means they receive more in compensatory payments than they incur in increased energy costs.
What is 'carbon leakage' in the context of emissions regulation?
Answer: The phenomenon where emissions regulation in one area leads to increased emissions in unregulated areas.
Carbon leakage describes the unintended consequence where stringent emissions regulations in one jurisdiction cause carbon-intensive industries to relocate to regions with weaker environmental policies, resulting in an overall increase in global emissions.
What were the estimated carbon leakage rates under the Kyoto Protocol, and how certain were these estimates?
Answer: Rates ranged from 5% to 20%, but were considered very uncertain.
Under the Kyoto Protocol, estimated carbon leakage rates were between 5% and 20%, primarily due to competitive disadvantages; however, these estimates were characterized by high uncertainty.
What was the core argument of the 'Economists' Statement on Climate Change' from 1997?
Answer: That market-based policies, such as carbon taxes or auctioned permits, are the most efficient approach.
The 1997 'Economists' Statement on Climate Change,' endorsed by numerous leading economists, asserted that market-based mechanisms like carbon taxes or auctioned emission permits represent the most efficient and effective strategies for addressing climate change.
How can individuals and businesses engage in carbon offsetting?
Answer: By purchasing carbon offsets through retailers that fund emission reduction projects elsewhere.
Individuals and businesses can participate in carbon offsetting by acquiring carbon offsets from specialized retailers, which then channel these funds into projects designed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in other locations, thereby compensating for their own emissions.
What did the UN Secretary General recommend to governments in 2019 regarding carbon?
Answer: To tax carbon.
In 2019, the UN Secretary General issued a clear recommendation to governments worldwide to implement carbon taxation as a crucial measure to combat climate change.
What is the 'additionality' requirement in project-based emission trading?
Answer: Projects must reduce emissions beyond what would have occurred in the absence of the project or what is already required by regulations.
The 'additionality' principle in project-based emission trading mandates that for a project to generate valid carbon credits, its emission reductions must be demonstrably greater than what would have transpired under a business-as-usual scenario or existing regulatory frameworks.
What issue has arisen with the 'additionality' concept in project-based emission trading?
Answer: It has led to companies purposefully increasing emissions to get paid to eliminate them.
A significant challenge with the 'additionality' concept is its inherent difficulty in precise definition and rigorous monitoring, which has, in some cases, created perverse incentives for entities to inflate baseline emissions to claim credits for reductions that might not be genuinely additional.
What is the purpose of 'banking' permits in cap-and-trade programs?
Answer: To enable entities to save unused emission permits for use in a future period, stabilizing prices.
The 'banking' provision in cap-and-trade systems allows participants to retain surplus emission permits for use in subsequent compliance periods, a mechanism that enhances market flexibility, encourages early reductions, and contributes to price stability over time.
The estimated cost for generating negative emissions using technologies like PyCCS or BECCS is approximately $50-$75 per ton of CO2.
Answer: False
The estimated cost for generating negative emissions through technologies such as PyCCS or BECCS is approximately $150-$165 per ton of CO2, which is significantly higher than $50-$75.
The final consumer price for fuels and electric energy is solely determined by carbon pricing, with no other factors influencing it.
Answer: False
The final consumer price for fuels and electric energy is influenced by a multitude of factors beyond carbon pricing, including individual tax regulations, energy taxes, Value Added Tax (VAT), and utility expenses.
A $100 carbon price would impact the price of 1 liter of petrol by $0.24 and 1 liter of diesel by $0.27.
Answer: True
With a carbon price of $100, the estimated impact on the price of 1 liter of petrol is $0.24, and for 1 liter of diesel, it is $0.27.
A 500 km car journey with one passenger would incur a higher carbon price impact than a 500 km jet aircraft journey per seat on a small aircraft (less than 50 seats) at a $100 carbon price.
Answer: False
At a $100 carbon price, a 500 km car journey with one passenger would incur an impact of $8.40, whereas a 500 km jet aircraft journey per seat on a small aircraft (less than 50 seats) would have a significantly higher impact of $32.95.
A $100 carbon price would result in a higher impact on the cost of 1 kWh of electricity generated from lignite ($0.11) compared to natural gas generated using a CCGT ($0.04).
Answer: True
With a $100 carbon price, the impact on 1 kWh of electricity from lignite is indeed $0.11, which is higher than the $0.04 impact for electricity generated from natural gas using a Closed-Cycle Gas Turbine (CCGT).
What is the estimated cost for generating negative emissions using technologies like PyCCS or BECCS?
Answer: Approximately $150-$165 per ton of CO2.
The estimated cost for achieving negative emissions through advanced technologies such as Pyrogenic Carbon Capture and Storage (PyCCS) or Bioenergy with Carbon Capture and Storage (BECCS) ranges from approximately $150 to $165 per ton of CO2.
Which of the following factors, besides carbon pricing, influences the final consumer price for fuels and electric energy?
Answer: Individual tax regulations, energy taxes, VAT, and utility expenses.
The final consumer price for energy commodities is a composite of multiple factors, including country-specific tax regulations, energy taxes, Value Added Tax (VAT), and various utility expenses, in addition to any carbon pricing mechanisms.
What is the estimated impact on the price of 1 liter of petrol with a carbon price of $100?
Answer: $0.24.
At a carbon price of $100 per ton of CO2, the estimated impact on the retail price of 1 liter of petrol is an increase of $0.24.
At a carbon price of $100, which journey type has the highest estimated impact per seat for a 500 km distance?
Answer: A 500 km jet aircraft journey per seat on a small aircraft (less than 50 seats).
For a 500 km journey at a $100 carbon price, a jet aircraft journey on a small aircraft (less than 50 seats) incurs the highest estimated impact per seat ($32.95), significantly more than a car journey ($8.40) or a domestic A320 flight ($6.70).
With a carbon price of $100, what is the estimated impact on the cost of 1 kWh of electricity generated from lignite?
Answer: $0.11.
At a carbon price of $100 per ton of CO2, the estimated impact on the cost of 1 kWh of electricity generated from lignite is $0.11, reflecting its high carbon intensity.