Table 1.

Some recent publications on MACC of different climate technologies and in different sectors

AuthorsFocusFindings
Andersson et al. (2018) The Swedish building sectorIdentified cost-neutral measures that can lead to a 15% reduction of the embodied emissions from the building environment.
Identified additional cost-effective measures, at about €59/t of CO2-eq, that can lead to a 18% reduction of CO2-eq emissions
Beiron et al. (2022) CO2 capture in Swedish biomass or waste-fired combined heat and power plantsAbout 10.6–13.6 MtCO2/year are available for capture at a cost, excluding costs for ship transport and storage, smaller than €100/t CO2
Biermann et al. (2022) Residual heat from existing refineries’ boilersMarginal abatement costs between €35 and €60 for each ton of CO2
Johnsson et al. (2020) Carbon capture and storage (CCS) measures to curb emissions from the largest manufacturing companies in SwedenAbout 50% of the total Swedish emissions from all sectors could be captured at a cost ranging between €40/t CO2 and €110/t CO2
Timilsina et al. (2017) The building sector in Georgia and ArmeniaSignificant emissions reductions from this sector in these countries can be achieved through measures that present a negative net present value (NPV)

Notes: Table 1 lists recent studies that used the MACC methodology, specifying the sector to which the study belongs and reporting the results on the marginal abatement costs of the measures considered there. It is meant to provide an overview of recent methodology trends and show its flexibility to be applied across several sectors

Source: Authors’ elaboration

or Create an Account

Close subscription notice
Close access options