低碳氢融资:欧盟、英国和美国公共政策和战略的作用

IF 5.5 Q1 BUSINESS, FINANCE Green Finance Pub Date : 2023-01-01 DOI:10.3934/gf.2023011
J. Moura, I. Soares
{"title":"低碳氢融资:欧盟、英国和美国公共政策和战略的作用","authors":"J. Moura, I. Soares","doi":"10.3934/gf.2023011","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The goal of this study is twofold: first, to understand the rationales of public policies and possible outcomes on energy systems design behind supporting national hydrogen strategies in three major economic blocs (the EU, UK and USA) and possible outcomes on energy systems design; second, to identify differences in policy approaches to decarbonization through H2 promotion. Large-scale expansion of low-carbon H2 demands careful analysis and understanding of how public policies can be fundamental drivers of change. Our methodological approach was essentially economic, using the International Energy Agency (IEA) policy database as a main information source. First, we identified all regional policies and measures that include actions related to H2, either directly or indirectly. Then, we reclassified policy types, sectors and technologies to conduct a comparative analysis which allowed us to reduce the high degree of economic ambiguity in the database. Finally, we composed a detailed discussion of our findings. While the EU pushed for renewable H2, the UK immediately targeted low-carbon H2 solutions, equally considering both blue and green alternatives. The USA pursues a clean H2 economy based on both nuclear and CCS fossil technology. Although there is a general focus on fiscal and financing policy actions, distinct intensities were identified, and the EU presents a much stricter regulatory framework than the UK and USA. Another major difference between blocs concerns target sectors: While the EU shows a broad policy strategy, the UK is currently prioritizing the transport sector. The USA is focusing on H2 production and supply as well as the power and heat sectors. In all cases, policy patterns and financing options seem to be in line with national hydrogen strategies, but policies' balances reflect diverse institutional frameworks and economic development models.","PeriodicalId":41466,"journal":{"name":"Green Finance","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":5.5000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Financing low-carbon hydrogen: The role of public policies and strategies in the EU, UK and USA\",\"authors\":\"J. Moura, I. Soares\",\"doi\":\"10.3934/gf.2023011\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The goal of this study is twofold: first, to understand the rationales of public policies and possible outcomes on energy systems design behind supporting national hydrogen strategies in three major economic blocs (the EU, UK and USA) and possible outcomes on energy systems design; second, to identify differences in policy approaches to decarbonization through H2 promotion. Large-scale expansion of low-carbon H2 demands careful analysis and understanding of how public policies can be fundamental drivers of change. Our methodological approach was essentially economic, using the International Energy Agency (IEA) policy database as a main information source. First, we identified all regional policies and measures that include actions related to H2, either directly or indirectly. Then, we reclassified policy types, sectors and technologies to conduct a comparative analysis which allowed us to reduce the high degree of economic ambiguity in the database. Finally, we composed a detailed discussion of our findings. While the EU pushed for renewable H2, the UK immediately targeted low-carbon H2 solutions, equally considering both blue and green alternatives. The USA pursues a clean H2 economy based on both nuclear and CCS fossil technology. Although there is a general focus on fiscal and financing policy actions, distinct intensities were identified, and the EU presents a much stricter regulatory framework than the UK and USA. Another major difference between blocs concerns target sectors: While the EU shows a broad policy strategy, the UK is currently prioritizing the transport sector. The USA is focusing on H2 production and supply as well as the power and heat sectors. In all cases, policy patterns and financing options seem to be in line with national hydrogen strategies, but policies' balances reflect diverse institutional frameworks and economic development models.\",\"PeriodicalId\":41466,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Green Finance\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":5.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Green Finance\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3934/gf.2023011\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"BUSINESS, FINANCE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Green Finance","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3934/gf.2023011","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"BUSINESS, FINANCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本研究的目标有两个:首先,了解三大经济集团(欧盟、英国和美国)支持国家氢能战略背后的公共政策的基本原理和能源系统设计的可能结果,以及能源系统设计的可能结果;其次,确定通过H2促进脱碳的政策途径的差异。大规模推广低碳氢气需要仔细分析和理解公共政策如何成为变革的根本驱动力。我们的方法基本上是经济的,使用国际能源署(IEA)的政策数据库作为主要的信息来源。首先,我们确定了所有包括直接或间接与氢气相关行动的区域政策和措施。然后,我们对政策类型、部门和技术进行了重新分类,以进行比较分析,这使我们能够减少数据库中高度的经济模糊性。最后,我们对我们的发现进行了详细的讨论。当欧盟推动可再生氢气时,英国立即瞄准了低碳氢气解决方案,同时考虑了蓝色和绿色替代方案。美国追求基于核能和CCS化石技术的清洁氢经济。尽管普遍关注财政和融资政策行动,但确定了不同的强度,欧盟提出了比英国和美国严格得多的监管框架。集团之间的另一个主要区别在于目标行业:欧盟展示了一个广泛的政策战略,而英国目前优先考虑的是交通部门。美国正专注于氢气的生产和供应,以及电力和供热部门。在所有情况下,政策模式和融资选择似乎都符合国家氢战略,但政策的平衡反映了不同的制度框架和经济发展模式。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Financing low-carbon hydrogen: The role of public policies and strategies in the EU, UK and USA
The goal of this study is twofold: first, to understand the rationales of public policies and possible outcomes on energy systems design behind supporting national hydrogen strategies in three major economic blocs (the EU, UK and USA) and possible outcomes on energy systems design; second, to identify differences in policy approaches to decarbonization through H2 promotion. Large-scale expansion of low-carbon H2 demands careful analysis and understanding of how public policies can be fundamental drivers of change. Our methodological approach was essentially economic, using the International Energy Agency (IEA) policy database as a main information source. First, we identified all regional policies and measures that include actions related to H2, either directly or indirectly. Then, we reclassified policy types, sectors and technologies to conduct a comparative analysis which allowed us to reduce the high degree of economic ambiguity in the database. Finally, we composed a detailed discussion of our findings. While the EU pushed for renewable H2, the UK immediately targeted low-carbon H2 solutions, equally considering both blue and green alternatives. The USA pursues a clean H2 economy based on both nuclear and CCS fossil technology. Although there is a general focus on fiscal and financing policy actions, distinct intensities were identified, and the EU presents a much stricter regulatory framework than the UK and USA. Another major difference between blocs concerns target sectors: While the EU shows a broad policy strategy, the UK is currently prioritizing the transport sector. The USA is focusing on H2 production and supply as well as the power and heat sectors. In all cases, policy patterns and financing options seem to be in line with national hydrogen strategies, but policies' balances reflect diverse institutional frameworks and economic development models.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Green Finance
Green Finance Multiple-
CiteScore
9.60
自引率
3.50%
发文量
14
审稿时长
6 weeks
期刊介绍: Green Finance is an international, interdisciplinary Open Access journal dedicated to green finance, environmental, and sustainability research and practice. It offers a platform for publishing original contributions and technical reviews on green finance and related topics, following a rigorous peer-review process. Accepted article types include original research, reviews, editorials, letters, and conference reports.
期刊最新文献
Prospects of green financing in democratic societies Insuring a greener future: How green insurance drives investment in sustainable projects in developing countries? Cultural context, organizational performance and Sustainable Development Goals: A pending task Does corporate reputation play a mediating role in the association between manufacturing companies' corporate social responsibility (CSR) and financial performance? Financing low-carbon hydrogen: The role of public policies and strategies in the EU, UK and USA
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1