Refine
Has Fulltext
- yes (5)
Year of Publication
- 2021 (5) (remove)
Document Type
- Peer-Reviewed Article (3)
- Report (2)
Division
Green hydrogen will play a key role in building a climate-neutral energy-intensive industry, as key technologies for defossilising the production of steel and basic chemicals depend on it. Thus, policy-making needs to support the creation of a market for green hydrogen and its use in industry. However, it is unclear how appropriate policies should be designed, and a number of challenges need to be addressed. Based on an analysis of the ongoing German debate on hydrogen policies, this paper analyses how policy-making for green hydrogen development may support industry defossilisation. For the assessment of policy instruments, a simplified multi-criteria analysis (MCA) is used with an innovative approach that derives criteria from specific challenges. Four challenges and seven relevant policy instruments are identified. The results of the MCA reveal the potential of each of the selected instruments to address the challenges. The paper furthermore outlines how instruments might be combined in a policy package that supports industry defossilisation, creates synergies and avoids trade-offs. The paper's impact may reach beyond the German case, as the challenges are not specific to the country. The results are relevant for policy-makers in other countries with energy-intensive industries aiming to set the course towards a hydrogen future.
The aim of this study is to contribute to a learning process about innovative and successful approaches to overcoming problems and challenges of urban environmental protection. To this end, a detailed overview of the importance of environmental challenges, political priorities and successful solutions in selected countries and cities is given. Based on this, the study analyzes specific success factors and discusses the extent to which these can be transferred and replicated to other cities. Finally, recommendations are made for cities, countries and the international community on how environmental protection at the urban level can be further strengthened. The role of German cities and institutions will also be discussed. The case studies analyzed include Belo Horizonte in Brazil, Moscow in Russia, Kochi in India, Beijing in China, Cape Town in South Africa and Jakarta in Indonesia. These cities were selected because they have already implemented successful policies, measures and other initiatives in the past. For each city, the study analyzes relevant policy documents in order to present the respective challenges and political priorities. The analysis aims to understand the effectiveness of the plans and instruments taking into account the national political environment. Despite the cross-sectoral approach, the analysis of each case study focuses on specific sectors in order to produce well-founded results. The success factors that are worked out based on this sectoral analysis are placed in a holistic context in order to be able to make generalizable statements about success factors.
The Digital Product Passport (DPP) is a concept of a policy instrument particularly pushed by policy circles to contribute to a circular economy. The preliminary design of the DPP is supposed to have product-related information compiled mainly by manufactures and, thus, to provide the basis for more circular products. Given the lack of scientific debate on the DPP, this study seeks to work out design options of the DPP and how these options might benefit stakeholders in a product's value chain. In so doing, we introduce the concept of the DPP and, then, describe the existing regime of regulated and voluntary product information tools focusing on the role of stakeholders. These initial results are reflected in an actor-centered analysis on potential advantages gained through the DPP. Data is generated through desk research and a stakeholder workshop. In particular, by having explored the role the DPP for different actors, we find substantial demand for further research on a variety of issues, for instance, on how to reduce red tape and increase incentives for manufacturers to deliver certain information and on how or through what data collection tool (e.g., database) relevant data can be compiled and how such data is provided to which stakeholder group. We call upon other researchers to close the research gaps explored in this paper also to provide better policy direction on the DPP.
Durch den "European Green Deal" und den "Circular Economy Action Plan" der Europäischen Union (EU) hat die EU-Produktpolitik 2019 und 2020 neue Impulse erhalten. In beiden Strategiepapieren der Europäischen Kommission wird ein elektronischer bzw. digitaler Produktpass als wesentliches Instrument für eine klimaschonende und ressourceneffiziente Wirtschaft genannt. Dieser soll unter anderem Informationen über Herkunft, Zusammensetzung, Reparatur- und Demontagemöglichkeiten eines Produktes sowie über die Handhabung am Ende seiner Lebensdauer liefern.
Auch auf nationaler Ebene wird das Thema "digitaler Produktpass" diskutiert und insbesondere in der Umweltpolitischen Digitalagenda des Bundesumweltministeriums als zentrale Maßnahme genannt.
Auch wenn das Thema derzeit stärker in den Mittelpunkt rückt, ist ein breit anwendbarer digitaler Produktpass in der Praxis bislang nicht etabliert. Erste Teilansätze bestehen, die allerdings bislang oftmals nicht durch verpflichtende Standarddatensätze oder zentrale Datenbanken institutionalisiert sind. Entsprechend sind auf politischer Ebene auch noch keine konkreten und umfassenden Konzepte vorhanden, wie ein solcher umfassender Produktpass in Zukunft ausgestaltet und implementiert werden soll. An diesem Punkt setzt diese Kurzstudie an. Sie greift hierbei auch Erfahrungen aus bestehenden Projekten und Initiativen auf, bei denen bereits Erkenntnisse hinsichtlich der (Teil-)Umsetzung von unterschiedlichen Konzepten rund um das Thema Produktpass gewonnen werden konnten. Diese Kurzstudie hat entsprechend das Ziel, den aktuellen Diskussionsstand zum Thema "digitaler Produktpass" kompakt darzustellen und Handlungsoptionen für eine mögliche Umsetzung zu skizzieren. Dabei hat sie nicht den Anspruch und die Möglichkeit ein umfassendes Konzept zu erarbeiten, sondern soll erste Ansätze und Optionen vermitteln, um weitere Diskussionen und Forschungsansätze anzuregen. Insbesondere soll die Kurzstudie Impulse für anschließende Initiativen auf nationaler und europäischer Ebene liefern.
In order to calculate the financial return of energy efficiency measures, a cost-benefit analysis (CBA) is a proven tool for investors. Generally, however, most CBAs for investors have a narrow focus, which is - simply speaking - on investment costs compared with energy cost savings over the life span of the investment. This only provides part of the full picture. Ideally, a comprehensive or extended CBA would take additional benefits as well as additional costs into account. The objective of this paper is to reflect upon integrating into a CBA two important cost components: transaction costs and energy efficiency services - and how they interact. Even though this concept has not been carried out to the knowledge of the authors, we even go a step further to try to apply this idea. In so doing, we carried out a meta-analysis on relevant literature and existing data and interviewed a limited number of energy experts with comprehensive experience in carrying out energy services. Even though data is hardly available, we succeeded in constructing three real-world cases and applied an extended CBA making use of information gathered on transaction costs and energy services costs. We were able to show that, despite these additional cost components, the energy efficiency measures are economically viable. Quantitative data was not available on how energy services reduce transaction costs; more information on this aspect could render our results even more positive. Even though empirical and conceptual research must intensify efforts to design an even more comprehensive CBA, these first-of-its-kind findings can counterargue those that believe energy efficiency is not worth it (in monetary terms) due to transaction costs or energy services costs. In fact, this is good news for energy efficiency and for those that seek to make use of our findings to argue in favor of taking up energy efficiency investments in businesses.