发表机构
University of Michigan; Sogang University; KU Leuven（密歇根大学; 西江大学; 荷语鲁汶大学）
机构由 AI 辅助整理，请以论文原文为准。AI 中文总结
研究构建框架比较补贴替代减排技术有效性，应用于韩国乘用车市场，发现将补贴从BEV重分配给HEV可额外减排47%，在特定条件下BEV补贴才更优，表明当前HEV补贴更有效。
AI 中文摘要
我们构建了一个框架来比较补贴替代减排技术的相对有效性。研究表明，如果一种中间技术能促使更多地替代现有高排放技术，那么它可能比最清洁技术更有效地减少排放。我们将该框架应用于韩国乘用车市场，使用包含里程异质性（燃料类型选择的重要决定因素）的需求模型。首先，将现有补贴从最清洁的电池电动汽车（BEV）重新分配给中间技术的混合动力电动汽车（HEV），将使温室气体总排放量额外减少47%。其次，以BEV为重点的补贴政策要优于以HEV为重点的政策，发电的碳强度需要下降约45%。我们的研究结果表明，在消费者有足够意愿转向BEV或发电充分脱碳之前，HEV补贴仍然比BEV补贴更有效。
英文摘要
We develop a framework to compare the relative effectiveness of subsidizing alternative emission-reducing technologies. We show that an intermediate technology may reduce emissions more effectively than the cleanest technology if it induces sufficiently greater substitution away from the prevailing high-emission technology. We apply the framework to the South Korean passenger vehicle market using a demand model that incorporates mileage heterogeneity, an important determinant of fuel-type choice. First, reallocating existing subsidies from battery electric vehicles (BEVs), the cleanest technology, to hybrid electric vehicles (HEVs), an intermediate technology, would reduce total greenhouse gas emissions by an additional 47%. Second, for a BEV-focused subsidy policy to outperform an HEV-focused policy, the carbon intensity of electricity generation would need to fall by approximately 45%. Our findings suggest that HEV subsidies remain more effective than BEV subsidies until consumers become sufficiently willing to switch to BEVs or electricity generation becomes sufficiently decarbonized.
