If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information. About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.comEmerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and services.Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation.

This paper originated in an observation that there is a discrepancy between assumptions made in some areas of tax theory and the actual investment analyses conducted by the companies, in particular how tax deductions are to be treated in investment analysis.

No abstract

No abstract

Concerns about the cost of CO 2 capture and sequestration, and the effectiveness of carbon abatement policies loom large in discussions on climate change mitigation. Several writers address the issue from various perspectives. This paper attempts to add relative realism to discussions on CO 2 capture costs, and, the deployment of carbon capture technology in the UK by using publicly available company data on the long term capacity expansion and CO 2 capture investment programmes of selected power plants in the UK. With an estimated £8 billion plan to install a generation capacity of 11 GW and capture capability of 44 MtCO 2 /year, it is imperative to optimise this huge potential investment. A least-cost optimisation model was formulated and solved with the LP algorithm available in GAMS. The model was then applied to address a number of issues, including the choice of an optimal carbon abatement policy within the EU-ETS framework. The major findings of the study include (a) the long term total cost curve of CO 2 capture has three phases -rising, plateau, rising; (b) alternative capture technologies do not have permanent relative cost advantages or disadvantages; (c) Government incentives encourage carbon capture and the avoidance of emission penalty charges; and (d) the goals of EU-ETS are more effectively realised with deeper cuts in the EUA ratios than merely hiking the emission penalty, as proposed in EU-ETS Phase II.