Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Available
online
at www.tshe.org/EA
Available
online
at www.tshe.org/EA
EnvironmentAsia2 8(2)
(2015)
9-17
EnvironmentAsia
(2009)
50-54
DOI10.14456/ea.2015.18
The international journal published by the Thai Society of Higher Education Institutes on Environment
Abstract
Abstract
aimtax
of the
present
study was toinstrument
standardize
to assess
the predictive
of the
the carbon
cytogenetic
analysis
The
Carbon
policy
is a cost-effective
forand
emission
reduction.
However,value
setting
tax is one
of the
by
Micronucleus
(MN)
testmakers
in fish erythrocytes
biomarker
environmental
contamination.
Micronucleus
challenging
task for
policy
as it will leadastoa higher
pricefor
of marine
emission-intensive
sources
especially the
utility price.
frequency
baseline
in erythrocytes
was evaluated
in and
a common
chemical
wasare
determined
In a large-scale
power
generation system,
minimizing
the genotoxic
operationalpotential
cost andofthe
environmental
impact
conflicting
in
fish experimentally
exposed
inthe
aquarium
undersolution.
controlled
conditions.
Fish (Therapon
jaruba)
were exposed
96
objectives
and it is difficult
to find
compromise
This
paper proposes
a methodology
of finding
a feasiblefor
carbon
hrs
heavylevel
metal
(mercuric
chloride).
Chromosomal
damageWe
was
determined
as micronuclei
in
tax to
ratea single
on strategic
using
the operational
unit
commitment model.
present
a multi-objective
mixedfrequency
integer linear
fish
erythrocytes.
Significant
increase
in MN frequency
of fish
exposed
mercuric
programming
model
to solve the
unit commitment
problemwas
andobserved
considerintheerythrocytes
environmental
impacts.
The to
methodology
chloride.
Concentration
ppmtax
induced
thethe
highest
MN
frequencyoperating
(2.95 micronucleated
cells compared
of analyzing
of the effectofof0.25
carbon
rates on
power
generation,
cost, and COcells/1000
2 emission is also provided.
to
MNcell/1000
cells inbetween
controltotal
animals).
Thecost
study
micronucleus
test,
as
an
index
of cumulative
The1 trade-off
relationship
operating
andrevealed
total COthat
emission
is
presented
in
the
Pareto-optimal
curve to
2
exposure,
be a sensitive
model
to evaluateongenotoxic
in fish
controlled
conditions.
analyze theappears
feasibletocarbon
tax rate that
is influencing
electricitycompounds
operating cost.
Theunder
significant
outcome
of this paper
is a modeling framework for the policy makers to determine the possible carbon tax that can be imposed on the electricity
Keywords:
generation. genotoxicity; mercuric chloride; micronucleus
Keywords: CO2 emission reduction; multi-objective unit commitment; carbon tax policy; pareto-optimal curve; energy policy
1. Introduction
1. Introduction
In India, about 200 tons of mercury and its
compounds
introduced
into thedioxide
environment
Global are
warming
and carbon
(CO 2 )
annually
as
effluents
from
industries
(Saffi,
1981).
emissions reduction have become important issues. The
Mercuric
chloride
has CO
beenpolluter
used ininagriculture
as a
power sector
is a major
many countries.
2
fungicide,
in
medicine
as
a
topical
antiseptic
and
Under the pressure of global warming, it is crucial
for
disinfectant,
and
in
chemistry
as
an
intermediate
in
government to impose the effective policy to promote
the
of other mercury
compounds.
The
emission reduction.
Thailands
CO2 emissions
CO2production
contamination
of
aquatic
ecosystems
by
heavy
levels are continuing to rise in accordance with the
metals
andvolume
pesticides
has gained
increasing
attention
increased
of national
energy
consumption.
in
decades.
exposure totoreduce
and
recent
There are
several Chronic
policies introduced
accumulation
of
these
chemicals
in
aquatic
biota
CO2 emissions. The most widely proposed is a carbon
can
result because
in tissueit burdens
that produce
adverse
tax policy
is a cost-effective
instrument
for
effects
not
only
in
the
directly
exposed
organisms,
emission reduction (Baranzini et al., 2000; Nagurney
but
also2006).
in human
beings.
et al.,
Carbon
tax is the tax paid by polluters
Fish
provides
suitablefossil
model
for and
monitoring
who emit CO2 froma burning
fuels
releasing
aquatic
genotoxicity
and
wastewater
quality
CO2 into the atmosphere. In fact, CO2 emissions are
because
of its ability
to in
metabolize
xenobiotics
and
already implicitly
taxed
every country
even in those
accumulated
pollutants.
A
micronucleus
assay
developing countries that the Kyoto protocol hashas
not
been
used
successfully
in 2000).
severalHowever,
species (De
Flora,
targeted
(Baranzini
et al.,
setting
the
et
al.,
1993,
Al-Sabti
and
Metcalfe,
1995).
The
carbon tax is a challenging task for policy makers as it
micronucleus
(MN)
test
has been developed
will lead to higher
price of
emission-intensive
sources,
together
with
DNA-unwinding
assays
as
especially utility prices. The different carbon
tax rate
perspective
methods
for
mass
monitoring
of
imposed in each country depends on the regulation and
clastogenicity
several factors.and genotoxicity in fish and mussels
(Dailianis
al., 2003).have formulated mathematical
Severaletresearchers
The
MN
have
beensuch
successfully
used as
models and tests
applied
tools
as the HERMES
a measure of genotoxic stress in fish, under both
Figure 1.
Half an
houran
demand
for one for
dayone
for day
electricity
in Thailand
from EGAT
Figure
1. Half
hour demand
for electricity
in Thailand
fromdata
EGAT data
There are two fuel modes in each generator which are the single and mixed fuel mode.
The single fuel mode means the generating unit is allowed to use only one type of fuel to
10the generating unit is allowed to mix two types
generate electricity. The mixed fuel mode means
of fuel and the mixture is considered as a new fuel type.
The model is formulated to solve the unit commitment (UC) problem to minimize tot
operating cost regardless of the CO2 emission. The proportion of the fuel usage for each type
obtained by this model.
N. Intalar
et al. / EnvironmentAsia
8(2)objective
(2015) 9-17
1) Objective
Function: The
function
i
t
t
t
Min a
c
FU
P
SC
(1
f
i
i
i si
u
U
f
F
i I tT
t
tcost t
In
thisOperating
section, Cost
two Minimization
models are Model
introduced
(2)
pizt the Loperating
pwkp
= d z , z Z , t T
2.2.1.
(Modeland
A) formulated;
ij
minimization
(Model
A)
and
the
utility
optimization
model
(Model
B).
=
,
i
I
i
z
j
j
k
The model is formulated to solve the unit
commitment (UC) problem to minimize total operating
(2)
2.2.1. Operating Cost Minimization Model (Model
A) Unit Constraints: This constraint is the turn on/off status for each generatin
General
cost regardless of the CO2 emission. The
proportion
of
The model is formulated to solve
the
unit
commitment
problem
tothis
minimize
total horizon starts, then it is not turned o
If the
unit
i ismodel.
already(UC)
operating
when
scheduling
the fuel usage for each type isunit.
obtained
by
this
General
Unit
Constraints:
This constraint is the
operating cost regardless of the CO2 emission.
The
proportion
of
the
fuel
usage
for
each
type
isscheduling horizon starts, then it w
at
the
start
as
(3).
If
the
unit
i
is
already
on
when
this
1) Objective Function: The objective function is the turn on/off status for each generating unit. If the unit i
obtained by this model.
eithercost
be turned
off at time is1 already
or remain
operating
atthis
time
1 as (4). horizon
If the unit
i is off when th
minimization of the total operating
which includes
operating
when
scheduling
starts,
scheduling
horizon
starts,
then
it
is
not
turned
off
at
the
start
as
(5).
If
the
unit
theObjective
fuel cost and
the startup
of the function
generating
then it is not
turned
onoperating
at the start as (3). If the unit i iisis off when th
1)
Function:
The cost
objective
is units
the
minimization
of the
scheduling
horizon
starts,
then the turn
on total
variable
must be the same as operating variable
overincludes
the planning
horizon,
subjected
to the load
demand
already on when
this scheduling
horizon starts, then it
cost which
the fuel
cost and
the Ifstartup
cost
theatgenerating
(6).
the unit
i isofoff
time t and units
on at over
time the
t+1,planning
then it was turned on at time t+1 as (7). Th
and
other
individual
unit
constraints
such
as
the
fuel
will
either
be
turned
off
at
time
1
horizon, subjected to the load demand
and other
constraints such as the fuel or remain operating
constraints
areindividual
expressed unit
as follows:
usage.
The
objective
function
is
formulated
as
follows:
at
time
1 as (4). If the unit i is off when this scheduling
usage. The objective function is formulated as follows:
then
the
turn
on
variable
must
be the same as operating
(1)
variable
as
(6).
If
the
unit
i
is
Where I is set of power generating units (thermal, gas turbine, combined cycle and off at time t and on at
hydro), T is the length of the planning horizon, U is the total number of the generating units, F is
CO2(lignite,
emissionnatural
intensitygas
value
the set ofTable
fuel 1.
types
and diesel oil).
The fuel cost function is calculated by the multiplication of cost of fuel type f used in
i
Type of fuel used in unit i at time t ( FU t Fuel
Type
kgCO2/MWha
unit i ( c f Generator
), the amount
i ), and the production of unit i at time
t ( Pi ).
t
System Load Balance Constraint: There are five zones of power generation in Thailand
which are central, metro, northern, northeast, and southern zones. The total amount of
t
production of unit i in zone z at time t ( Piz ) plus the total of power transmitted through
11
t
transmission line from demand zone i to demand zone j at time t ( Lij ) minus the amount of
water pumped by pump k in plant p at time t ( pwt ) must meet load demand d in zone z at time t
622
600
914
469
469
426
si1 =si10s=i1 =
00
0
i
{i
Ii
|IpS Ii0|S >
{I{I
IS
p|i0p0}
>
0}0}(3)
i >
111 1 1
1i i i i i
s soso1o 1 1
i
{
iIi
{II{
Ip I| p| 0}
p 0}
0} (4)
SI |
s s0s 0 0
sss==0o 0 1
(5)
1
i
si = 0
0
0 0
Si S i 0 i
i {I I S | pi > 0}
max
for plant p (qfip ). Second, the generating unit i cannot
t
use more than one type of fuel f at time t (FUi ). The
constraints are expressed as follows:
(3) (3)(3)
qtfip qmax
p Pi , f Fi (15)
fp
tT iI
max(4) (4)(4)
t q
qtfip
FU
tT iI
f F
i
{
(5)(5)
i Ii
{II{
IpSi0I|0S0p|i000}
pi0 0}
0}
SI |
FUit 1 (5)
iI
(3)
(3)
IISSI|S| pp|i ipi>0}
ii
i
{{I{
I
>0}0} (6)Spinning
(4)
Reserve Reserve
Constraint:
reserve
is provided to co
tThe spinning
max
Spinning
Constraint:
The
spinning
1 1 11 1 1
0 0 0
f F
qreserve
reserve
p
P, f F
(6)
si =sios=ii =
i
{i
Ii
|IpS Ii|S=
(6)
(6)
fip q fp
oi oi
{I{I
IS
p|i p0}
=i =
0}0} occur.
shortfalls
The
total
spinning
is
greater
than
is provided to compensate
when shortfalls occur. or
Theiequal toi the
tT iI
1 11 1 1
0 00
Reserve reserve
Constraint:
The
spinning
reserve
).total
required
(Spinning
The spinning
constraint
is expressed
as follows:
oo1i0tot1i1st 1t t1 t 1t 1 i
i i
{I{I
I
ItSI
| p||ipp
i 0}
0}
(4)
(4)greater
0}
t
(7)
is
or equal
to is
theprovided to c
osit is1sioii
,T
(7)(5)
oii oi oii si si
I
i
i
I
I SIS,IS{1,
ti{1,
{1,
, T1}
,
T1}
1} occur.
(7)
(7) t than
SI,
St ,
shortfalls
The
total
spinning
reserve
is
greater
than
or
FU
1
equal
i I to the
i constraint is expressed
t
max spinning reserve
( ). The
t P ,required
max
1
1
0
q
F
tq
t(6)
p
fip
fp ( ). The
iF
1= o
0p
0
required
constraint
isfpexpressed
(15)
f
ii
I|SSpower
=generation
0}
si1ssi
Generation
Limit Constraint:
as follows:
(
pI iqmaxfipunit
oiiunit
t tasfollows:
Pti ,f T Fi
0 0Limit
{power
IThe
{{
IIpower
IThe
p| |generation
pTi
0}
i Limit
ii
i
i (5)
ti
I 0}
iLimit
SI
Generation
Constraint:
The
generation
from
the
generating
at
t)time
Generation
Generation
Constraint:
Constraint:
The
power
generation
from
from
the
the
generating
generating
itime
atip(5)
at
time
tT iunit
1
1 1
i 111i i 1
i
i ii
I S ,ist
{1,is
,FU
T as
1}
max
t
(7)
1 i 1lower
1 bound
0
0expressed
oitit
IReserve
i
FU
1
TI is(17)
i 1
bound
limits.
The constraint
isI{expressed
as
follows:
(
p
p
)
ti
(6)
(6)
si s=
=
o
o
I
I
|
p
|
p
=
=
0}
0}
shortfalls
occur.
The
total
spinning
reserve
greater
i
i
i
(16) than o
i
i i
S S i i
f F 2.2.2. Utility Optimization
f
F
i
I
Model
(Model
B)
required unit
( ).i The
constraint
is expressed as follows:
t
t min
t tt 1ttt1 max
max power generation from the generating
t tt min
t max
at model
time
t(8)
1 Limit
oitoit
sii i
iip
iThe
I
I
I SI,S
t,ti
{1,
TI,
T,It1}
,
1}
(7)(7)
oGeneration
sConstraint:
poitopi
{1,
Ii
,,t
T
(8)
oimin
oopii oip1i
i
tConstraint:
TThe
T utilityThe
(8)
ip
optimization
(Model
B) istoformulated
the mu
i p
i p
iipo
i
Spinning
Reserve
spinning
reserve
is
provided
compensate
when
Spinning
Reserve Constraint: The spinning
reserve
is using
provided
to
has upper and lower bound limits. The constraint is expressed
as(8)
follows
: Utility
2.2.2.
Optimization
Model
(Model
B)that
technique
to
find
the
compromise
solution
minimizes
both
op
2.2.2.
Utility
Optimization
Model
(Model
B)
max
t
t
shortfalls occur. The commitment
total
spinning
reserve
is
greater
than
or
equal
to
the
spinning
reserve
shortfalls occur. The total spinning
reserve
is
greater
than
or
equal
to
the
( tp~ti ~is(Model
oimodel
pB)i )(Model
formulated
B)
t Tbytheusing
~
Generation
GenerationLimit
LimitConstraint:
Constraint:
The
The
power
power
generation
generation
from
from
the
the
generating
generating
unit
unit
i
at
i
at
time
time
The
utility
optimization
is
CO
emission
cost.
The
CO
emission
converted
to
monetary
cost
The
utility
optimization
model
is
using
mu
2
2
generating
required
(generating
). Theunits
constraint
is
expressed
follows:
).)( and
I )(fuel
Ramp-Up/Down
Constraints:
TheThe
generating
ramp-up
ramp-down
required
((
The
constraint
isi(expressed
( ) costs,
)as
and
ramp-down
ramp-down
) as follows:
Ramp-Up/Down
Ramp-Up/Down
Constraints:
The
units
units
ramp-up
ramp-up
()and
min
max
t
t Constraints:
t
rate.
The
objective
ofthethe
start-up
cost,
lower
Ramp-Up/Down
Constraints:
The
generating
units
formulated
using
multi-objective
unit commitment
as
hasupper
upperand
and
lower
bound
bound
limits.
limits.
The
The
constraint
constraint
isisexpressed
expressed
as
as
follows
follows
:technique
: consists
commitment
to find
compromise
solution
that operating
minimizescost,
bothan
o
o
p
o
p
i
I
,
t
T
(8)
i
i
i
i
i
erate
atrate
time
t.time
For
each
ramping,
we
divided
the
equation
into
two
stages
which
are
the
initial
at at
time
t.
For
t.
For
each
each
ramping,
ramping,
we
we
divided
divided
the
the
equation
equation
into
into
two
two
stages
stages
which
which
are
are
the
the
initial
initial
The
formulation
are
presented
as
follows.
CO
emission
cost.
The
CO
emission
is
converted
to
monetary
cost
by
usin
ramp-up () and ramp-down (%) rate at time t.costs.
For
each
technique
to
find
the
compromise
solution
that
2
max2 t
t
max
t andand
t and
age
andand
the
processing
stage.
Constraint
(9) (9)
and
(10)
the
initial
stages
for
ramp-up
stage
stage
and
the
processing
stage.
stage.
Constraint
Constraint
(9)
and
and
(10)
(10)
are
stages
for
(are
prate.
othe
initial
pinitial
stages
ramp-up
tramp-up
the
Tp~ifuel
Optimization
Model
(Model
B) cost.
(Utility
pfor
ooperating
)cost
costs,
2 emission
t cost,
T
The
objective
consists
of
start-up
operating
min
minprocessing
max
max
t the
t ramping,
t tdivided
t t the
iare
i the
i ) 2.2.2.
we
equation
into
two
stages
which
minimizes
both
and CO
(17) cost, a
i
i
o
o
p
p
p
p
o
o
p
p
I
,
I
t
,
T
T
(8)
(8)
mp-down,
Constraint
(11)
and
(12)
are
the
ramp-up
and
ramp-down
limitation,
ramp-down,
ramp-down,
Constraint
Constraint
(11)
(11)
and
and
(12)
(12)
are
are
the
the
ramp-up
ramp-up
and
and
ramp-down
ramp-down
limitation,
limitation,
The
utility
optimization
model
(Model
B) is formulate
irespectively.
i are
irespectively.
i respectively.
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
I
Ramp-Up/Down
Constraints:
The
generating
units
ramp-up
(
)
and
ramp-down
(
)
1) Objective
The
objective
is the
of
costs. The
formulation
are presented
as follows.
i I2Function:
the initial stage and the processing stage. Constraint
The CO
emission
is converted
tofunction
monetary
costminimization
by
spectively.
constraints
are are
expressed
as follows:
respectively.
respectively.
The
The
constraints
constraints
are
expressed
expressed
asthe
as
follows:
follows:
commitment
findobjective
the compromise
that mi
formulated
rate
at timeThe
t.(9)
For
each
we
divided
equation
into
two below:
stages
which
are technique
the
and
(10)ramping,
are the initial
stages for
ramp-up
and
rampusing
the carbon
taxinitial
rate. toThe
consists solution
of
~and
~objective
emission
cost.
The
COB)2 emission
isisconverted
to moneta
2B)
2.2.2.
Utility
Optimization
Model
1) (Model
Objective
Function:
The
function
thet minimization
of
stage and
thedown,
processing
stage. Constraint
(9)
and
(10)
are
the
initial
for
ramp-up
CO
2.2.2.
Utility
Model
(Model
respectively.
Constraint
(11)
and
(12)
are
the
fuel
costs,
start-up
cost,
(Optimization
)stages
and
) and
ramp-down
ramp-down
)t ) operating
Ramp-Up/Down
Ramp-Up/Down
Constraints:
The
The
generating
generating
units
units
ramp-up
ramp-up
(the
2
i
t ( (
t cost, and CO
1 1 10 0Constraints:
0
Min
c
FU
P
SC
s
E
P
CT
rate.
The
objective
consists
of
the
fuel
costs,
start-up
cost,
op
The
utility
optimization
model
(Model
B)
is
formulated
using
the
multi-objective
unit
f
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
formulated
below:
(9)
p
I
(9)
(9)
p
p
p
p
I
I
ramp-down,
respectively.
Constraint
(11)
and
(12)
are
the
ramp-up
and
ramp-down
limitation,
The
utility
optimization
model
B) presented
is formulated
the m
which
(Modelare
limitation,
respectively.
emission
costs.
The
formulation
as using
iFor
i and
i each
ieach
i ramping,
i iramp-down
i i we
ate
rateatattime
timet. t.ramp-up
For
ramping,
wedivided
divided
thetheequation
equationinto
intoThe
two
two
are
thethe
initial
initial
I stages
tstages
T
uUwhich
f The
F are
costs.
minimizes
technique
formulation
are
presented
as follows.
commitment
technique commitment
to findithe
compromise
solution
that
both
operating
cost and
respectively.
The
constraints
are
expressed
as
follows:
~
to
find
the
compromise
solution
that
minimizes
both
~
~
constraints
are
expressed
as
follows:
follows.
0
1
0
0
1
1
i ramp-up
t and
t
tage
stageand
andthethe
processing
Constraint(9)(9)and
and
the
initial
initialstages
stages
forfor
and
cost.
isSC
(10)
p processing
ipp
iConstraint
(10)
i(10)
Iiare
Min
cramp-up
P(10)
s it using
FUto
(10)
to
Pi tcarbon
CTcost
pi pstage.
iistage.
iare
Ithe
I 2emission
i Emonetary
The
CO
emission
is
converted
cost
f CO
i monetary
i
i by
i the
i tax
i p
ii
i CO2 emission cost.
CO
The
emission
converted
by
usi
2
2
emission
for
each
generation:
E
FC
E
CO
T ramp-down
1)
Objective
Function: The objective
function
is
i=
f
amp-down,
ramp-down,respectively.
respectively.Constraint
Constraint(11)
(11)and
and(12)
(12)arearethetheramp-up
ramp-up
and
limitation,
limitation,
f
i Iand
t
uU f F 1) Objective
Function:
The
objective
function
2ramp-down
is the m
rate. The objective consists
of
the
fuel
costs,
start-up
cost,
operating
cost,
and
CO
t 11 t 1t 10t
t t
2 emissioncost,
rate.
The
objective
consists
of
the
fuel
costs,
start-up
cost,
operating
theformulated
minimization
of(11)
the(9)
total
below:
p ipconstraints
constraints
p pi pare
expressed
i
i
espectively.
respectively.p
The
asasfollows:
follows:
(11)
(11)cost as formulated
expressed
iIi II presented
I (9)
iThe
ip
i i
iii are
i
i
below:
i intensity from genera
The formulation
CO
emission
cost
is generation:
the
CO2 emission
costs. The formulation are
as2 follows.
costs.
The
are
presented
as
follows.
emission
for
each
E
FC
Ef
CO
2
i
=
~~1 ~ ~
0
1 1t
t
(12)
frate fromt generating t
(10)
(10)
I
i and carbon
t
t
(12)
(12)
p itp1
I
P
multiplied
by
the
total
production
(
)
tax
pi 1itppitit p0p1i 0itp
I
I
i
i
SC (18)
Min function
c minimization
FU emission
from
Easi gener
Pi
(9)
cost
f
i Pi of
i s i cost
p ip i p ip i i iii i i
i
i Function:
I I
1) Objective
The
objective
isis(9)
the
the
total
The
CO
the
CO
intensity
2 emission
2 function
1)
Objective
Function:
The
objective
is
the
minimization
o
i
i I tT
u
U
f
F
t 1
t
i the
i
Ithe
Itheunit
Minimum
Up/Down
Constraints:
When
unit
iunit
is scheduled
to start-up
or or
Minimum
Minimum
Time
Constraints:
Constraints:
When
is
i isscheduled
scheduled
to to).
start-up
start-up
ipUp/Down
i
ofgeneration:
When
default
value
emission factor
isiobtaine
Factor
for iteach
fuel
Ef
each
Ei = FC
type (ECO
t
t 1
ft The
2 emission
for
i
t
i
t
t t by
t
t ( FC i )f multip
(12)
(12)
p
Min
c
FU
P
SC
s
E
P
CT
t
t
t
t
1
emission
intensity
(E
)
is
calculated
fuel
consumption
CO
(18)
2
i
i
i
i
)
or
minimum
down
time
(
)
before
the
utdown,
it
has
a
duration
of
minimum
up
time
(
Min
c
FU
P
SC
s
E
P
CT
(i
)
or
) Ior
minimum
down
time
()i before
) before
the
shutdown,
shutdown,
itp has
it
has
a duration
apduration
of
of
minimum
minimum
upup
time
time
(
fminimum
i Guideline
i down
i ( fNational
i Greenhouse
i
i i Gas
f i B co
time
IPCC
for
Inventories.
Model
i (11)
i the
i
i
i
i
i2006
(11)
p
i
i
I
i i
i i
i I tT
uU f F
i i
i I tT
uU f The
F
isofthe
CO
CO2 emission
cost
2 emission
fuel
function
with
constraints
(2)-(17).
The
default
value
emission
factor isintens
obtain
Factor
for
each
type
(E
itunit
isunit
startup
ort shutdown
because
the
generating
unit
cannot
be
immediately
turned
or
is isstartup
startup
or
or
shutdown
shutdown
because
because
the
the
generating
generating
unit
unit
cannot
cannot
be
be
immediately
immediately
turned
turned
on
on
or
or
f).on
~
~
t Minimum
t t1 1 Up/Down Time Constraints: When the
t
itotal
(12)
(12)
p
p
p
p
I
I
i
P
Minimum
Up/Down
Time
Constraints:
When
the
unit
i
is
scheduled
to
start-up
or
multiplied
by
the
production
(
)
and
carbon
tax
rate
2006
IPCC
Guideline
for
National
Greenhouse
Gas
Inventories.
Model
rned
off.off.
The
constraints
up/down
time
expressed
in (13)
and
(14)
asE
follows:
turned
turned
off.
The
constraints
of
minimum
up/down
up/down
time
are
are
expressed
expressed
ingeneration:
in
(13)
(13)
and
and
(14)
(14)
asFC
as
follows:
follows:
iThe
i constraints
i of minimum
i of
iminimum
emission
for aeach
Ef
COtime
(19) B frc
2are
CO
Ei = iFC f Ef
f generation:
2 emissioni =for each
unit
i tisi scheduled
to start-up or shutdown,
it has
t
t
with
constraints
i ) or3.function
minimum
down
( (2)-(17).
) before
the (Ei) is calculated by fuel
shutdown, it duration
has at duration
of minimum
up(time
(minimum
Results
and
discussion
emission
intensity
COtime
t t minimum
t of
t t
2CO
up
time
down
i), or
The
CO
emission
cost
is CO
the
intensity
from
generating (19)
unitconsumption
i (Ei) gene
s
I
,
t
{
T
>
}
2| tT
2 emission
s
s
I
I
t
,
t
{
{
T
|
t
|
>
t
>
}
}
The
emission
cost
isor
the CO
2
2 emission intensity from
i
i
i
(13)
i
i
i
i
i
i
(13)
(13)
Minimum
Up/Down
Up/Down
Time
Time
Constraints:
Constraints:
When
When
the
the
unit
unit
i
i
is
is
scheduled
scheduled
to
to
start-up
start-up
or
unit is Minimum
startup
or
shutdown
because
the
generating
unit
cannot
be
immediately
turned
on
or
t
time
(
%i) before the unit is startup or shutdown because
).
The
default
value
of
Factor
for
each
fuel
type
(E
'
t
'
'
f generating unit i (CT ). emission
=t ti=t1t=
Pidiscussion
multiplied
by time
the total3.
production
((13)
)and
and
carbon
tax rate
from
The the
it
1i 1
In in
this
section,
analysis
results
multiplied
the
total
(P
) and
carbon
taxobtained
rate fromi from
generating
Results
and
turned
off.ittThe
constraints
of
minimum
up/down
(14)
as
follows:
i of
or
) orexpressed
minimum
minimum
down
down
time
time
( (production
)2the
before
)emission
before
thethe
hutdown,
shutdown,
ithas
has
agenerating
aduration
duration
of
of
minimum
minimum
up
uptime
time
( (i)iare
the
unit
cannot
be
immediately
turned
on or
by
The
CO
cost
isthethe
CO
2006
IPCC
Guideline
for
National
Greenhouse
Gas
Inventori
2 emission
i optimization model i(Model
t t t t
Minimization
Modelby(Model
A) and the (utility
emission
intensity
(E
)
is
calculated
fuel
consumption
FC
)
multiplied
by
Emission
CO
2
i
turned
off.
The
constraints
of
minimum
up/down
time
intensity
from
generating
unit
i
(E
)
multiplied
by
the
t shutdown
emission
intensitywith
(E
ison
calculated
by iffuel consumption ( FC f ) multi
function
t t
nit
unitis isstartup
startuporor~
the
generating
unit
cannot
beimmediately
immediately
turned
turned
on
ororthe(2)-(17).
i)constraints
t~t ~t t t because
sshutdown
i
I
,
{It T
tT|{unit
>t|Tt~
}tCO
were
formulated
find
that from
satisfies
s1so1iin
1obecause
oi andthe
ias
It,
,
{|
i~
>}i }2~imodels
}be
In this
section,
the
analysis
ofcompromise
the resultssolution
obtained
theb
t to
i
generating
Iti,follows:
{tT
>These
cannot
i s
i|>
(14)
i(13)
(14)
(14)factor
i i ioi of
(13)
are
expressed
(14)
total
production
(P
)
and
carbon
tax
rate
from
generating
urned
turnedoff.
off.The
The
constraints
constraints
of
minimum
minimum
up/down
up/down
time
time
are
are
expressed
expressed
in
in
(13)
(13)
and
and
(14)
(14)
as
as
follows:
follows:
i
).
The
default
value
of
emission
is
obtained
from
Revised
Factor
for
each
fuel
type
(E
f forlevels.
't =t
~
).
The
default
value
of
emission
factor
is
obtai
Factor
each
fuel
type
(E
'
'
~
~
'
f
operational
Minimization
Model
(Model
A)
and
the
utility
optimization
model
(Model
1tt=1t1 1
t =tti=
ti i i
CO
intensity
(E
) iscontains
calculated
2006 IPCC Guideline These
for
National
Greenhouse
Gas
Inventories.
Model
objective
i). The
2 emission
iB
3.i (CT
Results
and
discussion
2006
IPCCunit
Guideline
for
National
Gas
Inventories.
Model B
t t
t t
models
were
formulated
to
findGreenhouse
i the compromise solution that satisfies b
t s s
o
o
I
,
I
t
,
{
T
{
T
|
t
|
>
t
>
}
}
(13)
by
fuel
consumption
(FC
)
multiplied
by
Emission
function with constraints
(2)-(17).
i
i
i~ti
i i t
(13)
(13)
f
function
with
constraints
(2)-(17).
Solution
of Operating
Cost, CO2 emission Cost and CO2 emiss
operational
levels.
FuelFuel
Usage
are
two
for
thefor
fuel
usage
limitation.
First,
1Constraints:
oi There
iare
are
Itwo
,constraints
ttwo
{constraints
Tconstraints
| t >3.1.
~i }Compromise
Fuel
Constraints:
There
There
for
the
the
fuel
fuel
usage
usage
limitation.
limitation.
First,
First,
tiUsage
1i Constraints:
1si
t ' =t '=Usage
Factor
for
each
fuel
type
(Efthe
). The
default of
value
(14)
In
this
section,
analysis
the ofresults obtain
t
t
t
t ' =ttof
~ti fuel
1of of
e the
total
amount
usages
f off 3.
the
unit
i unit
in
plant
p
at
time
t
(
q
)
must
not
exceed
the
the
total
total
amount
amount
fuel
fuel
usages
usages
of
f Results
of
the
the
unit
i
in
i
in
plant
plant
p
at
p
at
time
time
t
(
t
(
q
q
)
must
)
must
not
not
exceed
exceed
the
the
emission
factor
is
obtained
from
Revised
2006
IPCC
Minimization
Model
(Model
A)
and
the
utility
optimization
fip
fip
In this
weof present
theCost,
resultCOof2 emission
Model ACost
andand
B CO
using
th
and discussion
3.1.
Compromise
Solution
Operating
2 emis
3.~ Results
andfipsection,
discussion
t~t
t t
~
~
(14)
Guideline
for
National
Greenhouse
Gas
Inventories.
max
s
s
o
o
I
,
I
t
,
{
T
{
T
|
t
|
>
t
>
}
}
max
max
These
models
were
formulated
to
find
the
compromise
solution
programming.
The
comparison
is
divided
into
three
terms
which
are
the
total
op
(14)
(14)
i
i
i
i
i
i
aximum
amount
of fuel
f fuel
available
for for
plant
pplant
( qpfp(pq().fpqSecond,
the the
generating
unitunit
i unit
cannot
use useuse
maximum
maximum
amount
amount
of of
fuel
f available
f available
for
plant
). Second,
the
generating
generating
i cannot
i cannot
fp). Second,
Model
B
contains
objective
function
with
constraints
Fuelt'=
Usage
constraints
for
the
fuel
usage
limitation.
First,
operational
levels.
total
CO
emission
cost
and
the
total
CO
emission.
For
the
total
operating
cost
t '=~ti~1i 1 Constraints: There areIntwo
this
section,
we
present
the
result
of
Model
A
and
B
using
th
this
section,
the
analysis
of
the
results
obtained
from
the
Operating
Cost
2In
2
In this
section, the analysis of the results obtained from the
t
t t
t as follows:
ore
than
one
type
of
fuel
fusages
at
(Minimization
FU
The
constraints
are
expressed
more
more
than
one
one
type
of of
fuel
fuel
ftime
atf at
time
tthe
( tFU
FU
).
The
).
The
constraints
constraints
are
are
expressed
expressed
as
as
follows:
follows:
(2)-(17).
Utility
Optimization
Model
(Model
B)
has
only
0.28
percent
higher
cost
tha
programming.
The
comparison
is
divided
into
three
terms
which
are
the
total
i ().
Model
(Model
A)
and
the
utility
optimization
model
(Model
B)
is
presented.
the
totalthan
amount
oftype
fuel
ft time
of
unit
i
in
plant
p
at
time
t
(
q
)
must
not
exceed
the
i i
Minimizationfip Model (Model A) and the utility optimization model (Modeo
emission
3.1.
Compromise
Solution
Operating
CO2 operating
Fuel
Usage
Constraints:
There
are
two
constraints
Cost
Minimization
(Model
A)
which
iscompromise
considered
acceptable.
theCos
to
total
CO
emission
cost
and
the First,
total
COthe
emission.
ForCost,
the
total
cos
These
models
were
find
theModel
compromise
solution
that
satisfies
both
strategic
and
2to
2of
These
models
were
formulated
to
find
solution
thatFor
satisfies
Fuel
Fuel
Usage
UsageConstraints:
Constraints:
There
There
are
are
two
two
constraints
constraints
forfor
the
the
fuel
fuel
usage
usage
limitation.
limitation.
First,
max formulated
maximum
amount
fuelusage
f available
for
plant
p
(
q
).
Second,
the
generating
unit
i
cannot
use
fp
cost,
Model
B
is
1.23
percent
lower
than
Model
A.
Moreover,
the
total
CO
for theoffuel
limitation.
First,
the
total
amount
of
3.
Results
and
discussion
Utility Optimization
Model (Model B) has only 0.28 percent higher cost th
t
levels.
hethetotal
totalamount
amountofoffuel
fuelusages
usagesf of
f operational
ofthe
theunit
unit
i in
i inplant
plantp pattoperational
attime
timet (t q( tfip
qlevels.
) must
) mustnot
notexceed
exceed
thethe we present the result of Model A a
fip
In
this
section,
t
Model
B
is
lower
than
Model
AA)approximately
4.82 million
kilograms
fuel
usages
f
of
the
unit
i
in
plant
p
at
time
t
(q
)
must
Cost
Minimization
Model
(Model
which is considered
acceptable.
For theofto
fip
more than one type of fuel f at time t ( FU i ). The max
constraints
are
expressed
as
follows:
max
programming.
The
comparison
is
divided
into
three
terms
which
(kgCO
)
or
4,816
tons
of
carbon
dioxide
(tCO
)).
Once,
the
multi-objective
u
cost,
Model
B
is
1.23
percent
lower
than
Model
A.
Moreover,
the
total
CO
maximum
maximumamount
amount
ofoffuel
fuelfthe
available
f available
forforplant
plantp p( qof
( fpqfuel
).
).
Second,
Second,
the
the
generating
generating
unit
unit
i
cannot
i
cannot
use
use
not exceed
maximum
amount
f
available
In
this
section,
the
analysis
of
the
results
obtained
emission
Cost
and
CO
emission
3.1.
Compromise
Solution
of
Operating
Cost,
CO
2
2
2
2
Cost and CO
3.1. Compromise Solution of Operating Cost,
fp
2
2 emi
total
CO
emission
cost
and
the
total
CO
emission.
For
the
tota
2 Model
2 operating
approach
is
applied,
Model
B
is
not
only
minimize
total
cost,
but
al
Model
B
is
lower
than
A
approximately
4.82
million
kilograms
o
t t
more
morethan
thanone
onetype
typeofoffuel
fuelf at
f attime
timet (t FU
( FU
).The
The
constraints
constraints
are
areexpressed
asas
follows:
follows:
Optimization
Model
(Model
B)
hasthe
only
0.28
i ).
i In
this
section,
we
the
result
of
Model
Athe
and(tCO
B 2using
the
mixed
integer
(kgCO
)expressed
or 4,816
tons
of we
carbon
dioxide
)).ofOnce,
2present
In
thisUtility
section,
present
result
Model
Amulti-objective
and
B percent
using
Cost
Minimization
Model
(Model
A)
which
is
considered
programming. The comparison
is
divided
into
three
terms
which
are
the
total
operating
cost,
theaccep
approach
is
applied,
Model
B
is
not
only
minimize
total
operating
cost,
but a
programming. The comparison is divided into three terms which are the
total
12
cost,
Model
B
is
1.23
percent
lower
than
Model
A.
Moreove
total CO2 emission cost total
and the
total
CO
emission.
For
the
total
operating
cost
comparison,
the
2 cost and the total CO2 emission. For the total operating co
CO2 emission
Model
B is 0.28
lower
than
A
approximately
4.82 millio
Utility Optimization Model
B)
has only
percent
higher
cost
than
the Operating
Utility(Model
Optimization
Model
(Model
B)Model
has only
0.28
percent
higher
cost t
Emission (kgCO2)
Model A
201,056,448.00
29,027,026.93
139,715,145.47
369,798,620.39
Model B
171,202,150.53
35,750,944.71
153,286,247.06
360,239,342.31
13
%
Change
- 17.44
18.81
8.85
- 2.65
Figure 2.
Sensitivity
analysisanalysis
of the power
for eachfor
plant
type
to the
Figure
2. Sensitivity
of thegeneration
power generation
each
plant
typecarbon
to the tax
carbon tax
The significant change obvious occurs when the called the marginal operating cost and the marginal
price is greater than 2.00 baht/kgCO2. On average, CO2 emission, respectively. The obvious trade-off
from the rate of 2.00 - 3.00 baht/kgCO2, the generation between the operating cost and the CO2 emission
from thermal is decreased by 57.58 percent while the occurs at the price of 0.70 baht/kgCO2. The CO2
combined cycle is increased by 33.93 percent. This emission is decreased by 5.13 percent while the
operating cost is increased only 1.66 percent. For the
leads to higher CO2 emission reduction.
Fig. 4 shows the percentage of change of the based case, the imposition of carbon tax at 0.349 baht/
operating cost and the CO2 emission when the carbon kgCO2 reduces approximately 1.96 percent while the
total
operating
increases
by only 0.04 percent.
tax rateFigure
is increased
by 0.10
baht/kgCO
are for
2. There
2. Sensitivity
analysis
of the power
generation
each
plant typecost
to the
carbon tax
Figure 3. The percent change of power generation for each plant type from the carbon tax rate of 0.10
baht/kgCO2
Fig. 4 shows the percentage of change of the operating cost and the CO2 emission when
the carbon tax rate is increased by 0.10 baht/kgCO2. There are called the marginal operating cost
and the marginal CO2 emission, respectively. The obvious trade-off between the operating cost
and the CO2 emission occurs at the price of 0.70 baht/kgCO2. The CO2 emission is decreased by
5.13 percent while the operating cost is increased only 1.66 percent. For the based case, the
imposition of carbon tax at 0.349 baht/kgCO2 reduces approximately 1.96 percent while the
Figure 2. Sensitivity analysis of the power generation for each plant type to the carbon tax
total operating
cost increases by only 0.04 percent.
Figure 3.
The percent
change of
powerofgeneration
for eachfor
plant
type
from
thefrom
carbon
rate tax
of 0.10
2
Figure
3. The percent
change
power generation
each
plant
type
the tax
carbon
rate baht/kgCO
of 0.10
baht/kgCO2
Fig. 4 shows the percentage of change of the operating cost and the CO2 emission when
the carbon tax rate is increased by 0.10 baht/kgCO
14 2. There are called the marginal operating cost
and the marginal CO2 emission, respectively. The obvious trade-off between the operating cost
and the CO2 emission occurs at the price of 0.70 baht/kgCO2. The CO2 emission is decreased by
CO2
Figure 2. Sensitivity analysis of the power generation for each plant type to the carbon tax
Figure 4. The increase in percent of total operating cost and reduction of the emission
Figure 4. The increase in percent of total operating cost and reduction of the emission
3.3. Pareto-Optimal
Analysis
of Utility
Optimization
Model
which
is 3 percent. From 2.40 to 2.50 baht/kgCO2 and
3.3. Pareto-Optimal
Analysis
of Utility
Optimization
the marginal reduction of CO2 emission is equal to the
Model
In this section we present the Pareto-Optimal
analysis
by of
using
the efficient
frontier
marginal
increment
operating
cost which
is 5 percent.
of the
utility
optimizationis model.
It
betweenwe
thepresent
total operating
cost and the COThe
2 emission
suggestion
from
this relationship
the approapriate
In graph
this section
the Pareto-Optimal
is
illustrated
as
a
guideline
for
a
strategic
planner
to
determine
the
compromise
solution
for
the
analysis by using the efficient frontier graph between carbon tax range that can decreased large proportion
generation
based
considerations.
Besides,iswe
suggest0.60
the to
methodology
between
0.70 baht/kgCO2.
of CO2 emission
the totalpower
operating
cost and
theon
COenvironmental
2 emission of the
to
set
an
appropriate
carbon
tax
that
maximizes
the
reduction
of
the
CO
emission
while
the tax at
2
carbon
utility optimization model. It is illustrated as a guideline In the utility optimization model, the
operating
cost
increases
in
the
lowest
proportion.
for a strategic planner to determine the compromise any rate can be set to test the effect of the operating
The trade-off graph of Model B is obtained by plotting the point representing the total
solution for the power generation based on environmental cost and the CO2 emission instantly. Therefore, the
operating cost and total CO emission for each carbon tax rate as shown in Fig. 5. This graph
considerations. Besides, we suggest2 the methodology computational time of the utility optimization model
shows the different behavior of the increment of the total operating cost over the decrement of
to set an appropriate carbon tax that maximizes the is fast and continent.
the total CO2 emission as the carbon tax rate increased. The marginal CO2 emission is the
reduction
of thein
COthe
while thewhen
operating
cost tax has an increment by unit. The marginal
2 emission
change
CO2 emission
the carbon
4. Conclusions
increases
in
the
lowest
proportion.
operating cost is the change in the operating cost when
the carbon tax has an increment by unit.
The trade-off
graph
of
Model
B
is
obtained
by
When the carbon tax is changed from 0.60 to 0.70 baht/kgCO2, the marginal CO2
This paper
modeling
framework to
plottingemission
the point
representing
the total
operating
is decreased
by 6.30
percent
while the operating
cost ispresented
increaseda only
1.72 percent.
determine
the
possible
carbon
tax
rates
cost andThe
total
CO
emission
for
each
carbon
tax
rate
2 change of the operating cost and the CO2 emission is 1:4. From 1.90 to that
rate of
2.00can be
imposed
on
the
electricity
operating
cost
for
as shown
in
Fig.
5.
This
graph
shows
the
different
baht/kgCO2, the marginal reduction of CO2 emission is equal to the marginal increment the
of policy
makers.
It was significant
to know reduction
the best achievable
behavior
of the increment
total operating
costto 2.50
operating
cost whichofisthe
3 percent.
From 2.40
baht/kgCO2
and the marginal
of
level
of
the
total
operating
cost
and
the
CO
emission
over theCO
decrement
of
the
total
CO
emission
as
the
emission
is
equal
to
the
marginal
increment
of
operating
cost
which
is
5
percent.
The
2
2
2
based
on
the
capacity
of
existing
power
generators.
carbon suggestion
tax rateFigure
increased.
The
marginal
CO
emission
from
this
relationship
is
the
approapriate
carbon
tax
range
that
can
decreased
large
2
3. The percent change of power
generation for each plant type from the carbon tax rate of 0.10
Optimization
proposed in this
proportion
emission
is the
between
0.70Utility
baht/kgCO
is the change
in
theof
COCO2
when
carbon0.60
tax toThe
utilitywas
optimization
baht/kgCO
2. In themodel
22emission
model, theby
carbon
tax at
any rateoperating
can be set
the effect
of theaoperating
cost and the
CO2 for a
paper
to generate
good compromise
solution
has an increment
unit. The
marginal
costto test
Fig. 4Therefore,
shows
thethe
percentage
operating
cost and theproblem
CO
emission
instantly.
timeofofthethe
utility
optimization
model
is
fast when
2 emission
multi-objective
unit commitment
in large-scale
is the change
in the
operating
cost when
thecomputational
carbon of
taxchange
the carbon
called the The
marginal
operating
and continent.
2. There areplanning.
power generation
operating
cost cost
was
has an increment
by unit.tax rate is increased by 0.10 baht/kgCO
emission,
respectively.
The
obvious
trade-off
between
the
operating
cost
and
the
marginal
CO
2
When the carbon tax is changed from 0.60 to 0.70 increase in small proportion compared with large
andmarginal
the CO2 emission
occurs
the price ofamount
0.70 baht/kgCO
. The CO2itemission
decreased
by
of CO2 2emission
reduced.isThe
trade-off
baht/kgCO2, the
CO2 emission
is at
decreased
5.13
percent
while
the
operating
cost
is
increased
only
1.66
percent.
For
the
based
case,
the
by 6.30 percent while the operating cost is increased relationship between the operating cost and CO 2
imposition
ofofcarbon
baht/kgCO
approximately
percent
while the
2 reduces
emission
and the
marginal cost1.96
of CO
only 1.72 percent.
The rate
changetax
of at
the0.349
operating
2 reduction were
totalemission
operatingiscost
by only
0.04 percent.
illustrated to use as a guideline for a planner to make
cost and the CO
1:4.increases
From 1.90
to 2.00
2
baht/kgCO2, the marginal reduction of CO2 emission an optimal decision for the unit commitment dispatch
is equal to the marginal increment of operating cost with the acceptable emission allowance.
15
emission
and
the
cost
the
Utility
Optimization
Model.
5.
Efficient
frontier
of
CO
Figure
5.analysis
Efficient
of2the
CO
emission
and
the type
operating
cost
using
theto
Utility
Optimization
FigureFigure
2. Sensitivity
Figure
2. Sensitivity
of frontier
thethe
power
analysis
generation
of2 the
for
power
eachoperating
generation
plant
for
to using
the
each
carbon
plant
tax
type
the carbon
tax
Model.
The
carbon tax rate that can be imposed Catalo JPS, Mariano SJPS, Mendes VMF, Ferreira LAFM.
4. possible
Conclusions
Short-term scheduling of thermal units: emission
to reduce CO2 emissions in long term is between 0.60
constraints
andthe
trade-off
curves.
European
Transactions
. In order
to seta the
carbonframework
tax
to 0.70 baht/kgCO
This 2paper
presented
modeling
to
determine
possible
carbon
tax rates
on
Electrical
Power
2008;
18(1):
1-14.
on electricity
it is needed
involvement
of cost for the policy makers. It was significant to
that cancost,
be imposed
on thethe
electricity
operating
Cosmo VD, Hyland M. Carbon tax scenarios and their effects
government
andachievable
related parties.
knowoffice
the best
levelThe
of appropriate
the total operating cost and the CO2 emission based on the
on the Irish energy sector. Energy Policy 2013; 59: 404existing
generators.
The Utility Optimization model was proposed in this
carboncapacity
tax rate of
setting
willpower
lead to
CO2 emissions
14.
paper
generate
good
solution
a multi-objective
commitment
problemofinEnergy.
reduction
in atolong
term.a In
the compromise
beginning phase,
the for Energy
Policy and unit
Planning
Office Ministry
large-scale
power
generation
planning.
The
operating
cost
was
increase
in
small
lower carbon tax rate can be imposed on electricity
Energy Statistics of Thailand 2012.proportion
Report.
compared
with
large
amount
of
CO
emission
it
reduced.
The
trade-off
relationship
between
the Power
2
cost to observe the impact on different perspective
Electricity
Generating
Authority
of Thailand
(EGAT).
operating
cost
and
CO
emission
and
the
marginal
cost
of
CO
reduction
were
illustrated
to
use
2 0.349 baht/kgCO2 as
2
by using the carbon tax rate of
Development
Plan 2010 (PDP2010). EGAT, Bangkok,
as a It
guideline
a planner
make
an optimal
for the2010.
unit commitment dispatch with
Thailand.
a baseline.
might beforapplied
for atofew
years.
Once decision
acceptable emission allowance.
IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories.
the COthe
2 emissions can be decreased by this policy, the
The
possible
carbon
tax
rate
that
can
be
imposed
to reduce
CO2 2.1,
emissions
Chapter
2, Equation
Energy;in
2: long
2.11. term
2006.
government sector can increase the carbon tax rate and
is
between
0.60
to
0.70
baht/kgCO
.
In
order
to
set
the
carbon
tax
on
electricity
cost,
it
is
needed
IPCC
Guidelines
for
National
Greenhouse
Gas
Inventories.
2
reduce more emissions. The options that can
be used
parties.
Chapter
2, Table 2.2carbon
Defaulttaxemission
factors for
the
involvement
of
government
office
and
related
The
appropriate
rate
setting
to limit the CO2 emissions from electricity generation
stationary
combustion
in thethe
energy
industries,
will lead to CO2 emissions reduction in a long term.
In the beginning
phase,
lower
carbonEnergy;
include increasing the usage of renewable energy,
2: 2.16.
2006. on different perspective by
tax rate can be imposed on electricity cost to observe
the impact
using fuels with lower CO2 emission per kWh produced Lu C, Tong Q, Liu, X. The impacts of carbon tax and
using the carbon tax rate of 0.349 baht/kgCO as a baseline. It might be applied for a few years.
and/or increasing the efficiency of the electricity2
complementary
policies
on Chinese
economy.
Once the CO2 emissions can be decreased by this policy,
the government
sector
can increase
the Energy
production.
In
future
research,
the
model
should
Policy
2010;
38(11):
7278-85.
carbon tax rate and reduce more emissions. The options that can be used to limit the CO2
consider
the sharefrom
of renewable
and formulate
Nagurneythe
A, Liu
Z, Woolley
T. Optimal
endogenous
emissions
electricityenergy
generation
include increasing
usage
of renewable
energy,
using carbon
taxes
for
electric
power
supply
chains
with
the equation
that
also
involved
renewable
energy.
fuels with lower CO emission per kWh produced and/or increasing the efficiency ofpower
the plants.
2 generation
Figure 3. The percent
Figure
change
3. The
of power
percent
change offor
power
eachgeneration
plant type
from
each
theplant
carbon
type
tax
from
rate
the
of 0.10
carbon
tax rate2006;
of 0.10
for
Mathematical
and
Computer
Modelling
44: 899electricity
production.
In future research, the model should consider the share of renewable
baht/kgCO
baht/kgCO
2
2
916.
Acknowledgments
energy and formulate the equation that also involved renewable energy.
Social Cost of Carbon Fact Sheet. United States EnvironFig. 4 shows the Fig.
percentage
4 shows
ofthe
change
percentage
of the operating
of change
cost
ofmental
the
andoperating
the
CO2 cost
emission
and the
when
CO2 emission
when
Protection
Agency.
November
2013. 1-4.
TheAcknowledgments
authors gratefully acknowledge the support of
the carbon
tax
rate
the
is
carbon
increased
tax
by
rate
0.10
is
increased
baht/kgCO
by
0.10
baht/kgCO
.
There
are
called
.
the
There
marginal
are
called
operating
the
marginal
cost
operating
cost
2
Grant 51-2115-023-JOB NO.544-SIIT from EGAT
and Sutham2 P. Investigation on Carbon Intensity of Cement
and the
and
CO2the
marginal
CO2 emission,
emission,
respectively.
Therespectively.
obvious
trade-off
obvious
between
trade-off
the
operating
between
costthe
operating
cost
The
Iron
Industry
and Energy
Industry
(Fossil
fuel
the marginal
BCP Research
Grant
fromgratefully
Bangchak
Petroleum
Public
The
authors
acknowledge
the support
ofIndustry,
Grant 51-2115-023-JOB
NO.544-SIIT
from
and the
CO
and
the
CO
emission
occurs
at
emission
the
price
occurs
of
0.70
at
baht/kgCO
the
price
of
.
0.70
The
baht/kgCO
CO
emission
.
The
is
decreased
CO
emission
by
is
decreased
by
2
2
2
2
2
2
power
plants)
in
Thailand.
The
Joint
Graduate
School
of
Company
Limited
EGAT
and (BCP).
the BCP Research Grant from Bangchak Petroleum Public Company Limited (BCP).
5.13 percent while
5.13
thepercent
operating
while
cost
theis operating
increased cost
onlyis1.66
increased
only
For
1.66
theEnvironment.
percent.
based case,
For the
the
basedbycase,
the
percent.
Energy
and
Funded
Thailand
imposition
of carbon
imposition
tax at of
0.349
carbon
baht/kgCO
tax at 0.349
baht/kgCO
approximately
1.96
approximately
percent
while
1.96theOrganization
percent while(TGO).
the
2 reduces
Greenhouse
Gas
Management
2 reduces
References
total operating cost
total
increases
operating
by cost
onlyincreases
0.04 percent.
by only 0.04 percent.
2011.
Baranzini A, Goldemberg J, Speck S. A future for carbon
taxes. Ecological Economics 2000; 32(3): 395-412.
16
17