Advertisement

Study on a Model of Cost of Electricity for Biomass Including Learning Effect to Evaluate Feed-in-Tariff Pricing

  • Hiroto Takaki
  • Koji Tokimatsu
Chapter

Abstract

Feed-in-tariff (FIT) contributes to the diffusion of renewable energies. FIT was reconsidered, but policy changed insufficiently in the biomass area. Then, in this research, we evaluate reasonable FIT price which targets small- and medium-scale plants. Cost of electricity model which includes cost reduction by the learning effect for operation and maintenance (O&M) is considered. This effect is observed with cumulative electric power generation. As results, it is observed that present FIT price is too low for small and medium plants. If cost reduction by learning effect is included, FIT price is still low for the profit these plants get. However, the effect of numbers of plant and difference among target technologies are needed to consider the next step.

Keywords

Renewable energy Feed-in-tariff Biomass Learning effect Cost of electricity 

References

  1. 1.
    Kajiyama H. Present utility and problems of woody bioenergy—Comparison and analysis focused on FIT between Japan and Germany-(in Japanese), Fujitsu Research Institute Research Report, No. 409. 2013:p. 1–25.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Ando N. Woody biomass power generation concerned about the lack of supply of primary forest material-estimation on demand and supply by region and vision—(in Japanese). Norin Kinyu. 2014;820:2–16.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Yanagida T, Yoshida T, Kuboyama H, Jinkawa M. Relationship between feedstock Price and break-even point of wood biomass power generation under FIT program. Jpn Inst Energy. 2015;94(3):311–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Mitsubishi UFJ Research and Consulting Co., Ltd. Report for Biomass Electricity Production for Sustainable Development. 2016. http://www.meti.go.jp/meti_lib/report/2016fy/000971.pdf.
  5. 5.
    Renewable Energy Institute and Institute of Energy for Sustainable Policy. The concept of FIT from the consumers view point. 2012. http://www.renewable-ei.org/images/pdf/20120703/20120703_FIT_consumer_final.pdf.
  6. 6.
    IEA, NEA, and OECD. Projected costs of generating energy. 2015:p 27-35.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    National Policy Unit, the Cost Evaluation Committee. Cost of electricity calculation sheet. 2016. http://www.cas.go.jp/jp/seisaku/npu/policy09/archive02_shisan_sheet.html.
  8. 8.
    Ministry of Economy, Trade, and Industry and Agency for Natural Resources and Energy, the first meeting of the Comprehensive Resource and Energy Investigation Committee. 2017. http://www.enecho.meti.go.jp/committee/council/basic_policy_subcommittee/mitoshi/cost_wg/001/.
  9. 9.
    Junginger M, Wilfried van S, Andre F. Technological learning in the energy sector lesson for policy, industry and science. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing; 2010. p. 119–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Junginger M, Erika V, Hjort-Gregersen K, Koornneef J, Raven R, Faaij A, Turkenburg W. Technological learning in bioenergy systems. Energy Policy. 2006;34:4024–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Junginger M, Faaij A, Bjorheden R, Turkenburg WC. Technological learning and cost reductions in wood fuel supply chains in Sweden. Biomass Bioenergy. 2005;29:399–418.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Ministry of Economy, Trade, and Industry and Agency for Natural Resources and Energy. Nattoku Renewable Energy (in Japanese). 2017. http://www.enecho.meti.go.jp/category/saving_and_new/saiene/.

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Pacific Consultants Co., Ltd.TokyoJapan
  2. 2.School of Environment and SocietyTokyo Institute of TechnologyTokyoJapan

Personalised recommendations