Advertisement

Natural Hazards

, Volume 99, Issue 3, pp 1455–1468 | Cite as

Assessing the technology impact for industry carbon density reduction in China based on C3IAM-Tice

  • Mingquan Wang
  • Lingyun Zhang
  • Xin Su
  • Yang Lei
  • Qun Shen
  • Wei WeiEmail author
  • Maohua WangEmail author
Original Paper
  • 331 Downloads

Abstract

Thermal power, steel, cement, and coal chemical industries account 62.6% energy consumption and 84.6% carbon emissions of China simultaneously in 2015. This research use C3IAM-Tice model to analyze the impact of advanced technologies ratio increasing quantitatively. The model can explore the balance of emission reduction and economy efficiency of energy use, finally got the technology structure optimization for these four industries. The paper uses the historical energy consumption and CO2 emission, combing with the low-carbon developing goal objection, to create the database for these four energy- and carbon-intensive industries. As the result, the scenario-4, which is the most advanced technology-oriented strategy, shows 282 Mt CO2 emission reductions for the 2020 Goal. In this scenario, 26.19%, 47.43%, 65.39%, and 28.98% of the CO2 emissions per unit of added value in thermal power industry, steel industry, cement industry, and coal chemical industry could be reduced comparing with data in 2005. Although the advanced technology-oriented strategy shows the positive impact, we need to consider the cost of elimination of existed technology. On the other hand, the paper notices the future technology, with new energy alternative, low-carbon economy development, and industry restructure together, which are important factors for the low-carbon development of China.

Keywords

C3IAM-Tice Carbon reduction Industry 

1 Introduction

1.1 Industry historical development-based on data analysis

Thermal power industry, steel industry, cement industry, and coal chemical industry support the rapid economy increase in China in the past 20 years, accounting for 62.6% energy consumption and 84.6% carbon emissions of China simultaneously in 2015, as shown in Fig. 1.
Fig. 1

China’s energy consumption and CO2 emission Trends (2005–2020)

Figure 1a, b shows the large ratio of these industries in whole China energy consumption and CO2 emission. In 2015, the whole China energy consumption is 4.3 billion tce, and thermal power industry, steel industry, cement industry, and coal chemical industry dividedly consumed 1.5 billion tce, 0.73 billion tce, 0.22 billion tce, and 0.23 billion tce of energy and account 35.2%, 16.9%, 5.1%, and 5.4% of the whole primary energy consumption (Wei et al. 2015). In the same time, the whole China CO2 emission in 2015 is 9.1 billion tone, and thermal power industry, steel industry, cement industry, and coal chemical industry dividedly emit 4.3 billion tons, 1.9 billion tons, 1.1 billion tons, and 0.5 billion tons of CO2, and account 47.2%, 20.4%, 11.8%, and 5.1% of the whole primary carbon emissions.

The increasing trend of thermal power, steel, cement, coal chemical industry CO2 emission from 2005 to 2015 is shown in Fig. 1c. As the economic scale of these four carbon intensity industries increase, they simultaneously occupy the major part of the whole China CO2 emission.

1.2 Set these four industry emission control goal combining with the whole China INDC

The carbon reduction for these four energy-intensive industries will affect the existed economy and the INDC (Intended Nationally Determined Contributions) target for China. The INDC of China shows the ambition to achieve the goals of reducing CO2 emissions per unit of GDP (Gross Domestic Product) by 40–45% by 2020 from the 2005 level and peaking carbon emission in around 2030 (the state council determined). By that time, we will control the non-fossil energy consumption accounting for about 20% of the primary energy consumption, as shown in Fig. 1d.

The low-carbon development of these four industries should consider these five divided goals together. Figure 1d shows the divided goals for different scale of emission control for 2020 comparing to 2005, including: (1) primary energy consumption ≤ 5000 Mt means the increase in primary energy consumption during 2015–2020 should be limited in 700 Mt; (2) non-fossil fuel consumption ratio is around 15% which means the increase in non-fossil fuel consumption ratio during 2015–2020 should be higher than 3%; (3) coal consumption ratio ≤ 58% and the whole coal consumption ≤ 2900 Mt mean the increase in coal consumption during 2015–2020 should be limited in 140 Mt; (4) GDP = ¥64,020 Billion Yuan, raising double from 2010, means the increase in GDP during 2015–2020 should be higher than 17,271 billion Yuan; (5) CO2/GDP reduce 40–45% from 2005, means the whole CO2 emission should be controlled in 10.1–11.0 billion tons, and the increase in CO2 during 2015–2020 should be limited in 1820 Mt.
  1. a)

    Thermal power industry emits large parts of CO2 but contributes less added value, comparing with its emission.

    The installed thermal power capacity is 9.93 billion kw in 2015 (CNEB 2015). It consumes large part of coal, and this number is increasing from 0.77 to 1.433 billion tce, and in the same time, carbon emission is increasing from 2.197 to 4.109 billion tons which accounted 32–40% in China emissions in 2005–2015 (China National Bureau of Statitics 2005–2015). In the same time, it has 471.7 billion Yuan, accounting 2.24% of all China industry GDP in 2013. This number is 150.3 billion Yuan, accounting 1.94% of GDP in 2005.

     
  2. b)

    Steel industry supports GDP when emits lots of CO2 as well.

    The added value of steel industry is 1683.3 billion Yuan, accounting 7.99% of all China industry GDP in 2013 (China National Bureau of Statitics 2013; World Steel Association 2013). This number is 493.6 billion Yuan, accounting 6.39% of GDP in 2005. In the same time, it consumes large part of China coal, increasing from 212 to 645 Mt, accounted 15.5–17.9% of all, and emit 793.04–1905.08 Mt with ratio of 11.67–18.32% in China CO2 emissions from 2005 to 2015.

     
  3. c)

    Cement industry emits large parts of CO2 during its chemical process of production.

    Cement industry’s carbon emission is increasing from 754.33 to 1096.95 Mt accounted for 11.11–10.55% in China emissions in 2005–2015. Most of CO2 emission is coming from its chemical process of production, as well as its energy consumption. Its added value is 558.6 billion Yuan, accounting 2.65% of all China industry GDP in 2013. This number is 95 billion Yuan, accounting 1.23% of GDP in 2005.

     
  4. d)

    Coal chemical industry contributes a lot of added value in China but emits more CO2.

    The coal chemical industry support 868.79 billion Yuan added value, accounting 4.12% of all China industry GDP in 2013. This number is 253.58 billion Yuan, accounting 3.28% of GDP in 2005. Coal chemical industry also consumes large part of China energy increasing from 52.26 to 231.25 Mtce accounted 1.99–5.38%. In the same time, the coal chemical industry’s carbon emission is increasing from 215.38 to 468.57 Mt accounted 4.03–5.10% in China emissions in 2005–2015.

     

1.3 Assessing the technology impact on industry carbon density reduction in China

These four industries have advanced technologies as well as backward capacity, which need eliminate. The technology structure optimization for these four industries is the major low-carbon roadmap for the future development. It is meaningful to increase the ratio of more advanced technologies including the ultra-supercritical thermal power producing technology, the short process steel-making technology, the new dry process cement producing technology, and the carbon capture and storage technology (CCS) especially in coal chemical industry. It is valuable to assess the impacts for technology application in industry low-carbon developing road map and industry carbon density reduction in China, during by 2020. Scenarios can be set up to explore the benefit and cost impact of low-carbon technologies.

China GDP increased fast from 1978, so do the trend of increase in CO2 emission. It seems GDP has a higher speed, making the CO2 emission per GDP unit decrease these years. It is possible to assess the technology reduction impact with energy structure reduction impact, using the scenarios strategic planning methodology. Different scenarios could be set to show the roadmap to reach the carbon emission peak, and the year 2020 point which INDC announce China will reduce 40–45% of CO2 emission per GDP by 2005.

2 Literature review

Since these four industries occupy large amount of the whole China’ CO2 emission and energy consumption, supporting the economy as well, it is necessary to draw a whole picture of China economy development and emission control in the future. In the same time, since the large part of these four industries’ fuel use and its producing process, the low-carbon technology is also the major consideration for future development.

To explore the impact of advanced technology-oriented strategy, a multiple models need to be developed, combined with economy, energy use, and CO2 emission. A lot of researchers and institutes have done excellent work on energy, economy, emission and environment impacts assessing as shown in Table 1.
Table 1

Energy and environmental technology impact model literature review

Industry

Time

Model

Major points

References

Thermal power industry

2017

Profit maximization model on carbon tax

Emission factor decreased, increasing the generation, manpower and transportation, using low-carbon energy to reduce cost of carbon tax

(Yan et al. 2017)

2014

DEA

The generation structure dominated by thermal power affects the eco-efficiency of the power industry

(Liu et al. 2014)

Steel

2016

Two-stage game model

Under discriminated emission tax regime, a smaller emission abatement cost is achieved

(Xu et al. 2016)

2015

Scenario analysis

Use mature low-carbon technology to control the steel output rate and GDP growth rate of 3%, can achieve 2020 CO2 emissions target

(Lin and Wang 2015)

2016

Scenario analysis

Compared the relationship between energy consumption and carbon intensity of steel industry in different countries, found that industrial boundary definition, transformation factor and industrial structure have influence on emission intensity

(Hasanbeigi et al. 2016)

Cement

2012

CFD

Simulate the actual speed, temperature and other related physical and chemical processes in the cement producing to optimize the reaction conditions to reduce fuel consumption

(Mikulčić et al. 2012)

2010

LEAP

Through economic measures, energy substitution and reduced use of the method, 10 years of CO2 emissions by 28%

(Deja et al. 2010)

Coal chemical industry

2014

Two levels of kernel

From the industry and enterprise level of coal chemical greenhouse gas emissions accounting, to confirm the emission point source, accounting boundary

(Xie et al. 2010)

2013

Two-stage CO2 accounting model

Considering the scale of the development of the industry, structural adjustment, technological progress and other factors, that low-carbon transformation should follow the principle of product structure adjustment and technological progress

(Rahman et al. 2017)

2010

Scenario analysis

Raw material structure and energy efficiency are the main factors affecting CO2 emissions

(Zhou et al. 2010)

Most of the models existed is developed in IPCC structure. Our model is referenced by different mature models, including the economy-based models such as the 3Es model [energy, economy, and environment, CGE model (computable general equilibrium)] (Yahoo and Othman 2015), IO model (input and output) (Dietzenbacher et al. 2013; Timmer et al. 2015; Tukker and Dietzenbacher, 2013; Wiedmann 2009; Miller and Blair 2009); the regional models, such as global energy–economy model (Quirion 2015; Nakata 2004; Cai et al. 2015), national energy system model (Schank 1978; Gabriel and Kydes 1994; Energy Information Administration 1994); the technology choice model; and system optimization model (El-Khattam et al. 2005; Yang et al. 2007; Lansey and Mays 1989). All these models are based on the historical analysis, which could help to forecast the future development and help us to set up two levels of models.

The model with China economy, energy use, and CO2 emission need to be developed, suitable for the emission factor, energy type, and resource demographic of China. The existed models could help us explore the technology impact on industry carbon density reduction. The next chapter will introduce the C3IAM-Tice model we develop and the data we use to assess the impact technology-oriented scenarios.

3 Methodology, data, and model

3.1 C3IAM-Tice model and data

This research developed C3IAM-Tice model to assess technological impacts for CO2 emission reduction potentials in China’s key industries, including power plant, steel, cement and coal chemistry. C3IAM-Tice model, a part of C3IAM (China Climate Change Integrated Assessment Model), has been developed by CAS carbon project, based on LEAP (Long-range Energy Alternative Planning System). Tice (technological impacts for carbon emission) is an accounting and scenario-based model to generate carbon emission, emission intensity, and reduction cost for different scenarios, detailed in technological settings, as shown in Fig. 2.
Fig. 2

C3IAM-Tice model, combined by China ICEC model and China TICE model

Figure 2 shows the C3IAM-Tice model, which is mainly combined by China ICEC model (Industry Carbon Emission Calculation Model) and China TICE model. ICEC model is developed by CAS, which considers IPCC methodology (IPCC), SAC methodology, and CAS carbon project methodology (Wei et al. 2015) together. IPCC methodology is a global and regional model to help us calculate different countries, but China emission factor is not well defined. SAC methodology is suitable for different industries’ emission and energy consumption calculation using the input and output data of companies, and its processing technology, but SAC methodology is not suitable for the regional calculation when we calculate China as divided regions. CAS carbon project methodology gets full covered technology emission factors and specific industry processing energy efficiency factors and sets up a China industry emission and energy efficiency factor database, which could help us to combine IPCC methodology, SAC methodology, and CAS carbon project methodology together. It is possible for us to calculate the industry emission using technology proportion and its different emission and energy efficiency factor based on ICEC model. With the base of ICEC model, it is possible to further our study on China TICE model.

The TICE model has four parts of main functions, the industry model, the technology scenarios, the technology structure, and the technology cost, which is similar to LEAP methodology. The TICE model based on ICEC model could help us explore the technology impact on industry carbon density reduction, with the energy, economy, emission, and environment impacts assessing.

3.2 Methodology

The C3IAM-TICE model contains three main parts, carbon emission, emission intensity, and reduction cost. The accounting of carbon emission is the fundamental part of Tice model and is technologically detailed. Emission intensity is calculated based on carbon emission, together with industrial added value. Reduction cost derives from operating cost, investment as well as technology structure. The detailed explanation is as follows.
  1. a)

    Carbon emission

     
For each of the industries, including power plant, steel, cement, and coal chemistry, its carbon emission is calculated as follows:
$${\text{CE}}_{t} = \mathop \sum \limits_{k} P_{t,k} \times {\text{EI}}_{t,k} \times {\text{EF}}_{\left( c \right)t,k } + \mathop \sum \limits_{k} P_{t,k} \times EF_{\left( p \right)t,k } ,$$
(1)
$$P_{t,k} = P_{t} \times S_{t,k}$$
(2)
where \({\text{CE}}_{t}\) is carbon emission in year t, \(P_{t,k}\) is the production by technology k in year t, \({\text{EI}}_{t,k}\) is the energy intensity by technology k in year t, \({\text{EF}}_{\left( c \right)t,k }\) is the emission factor of fossil fuel combustion by technology k in year t, \({\text{EF}}_{\left( p \right)t,k }\) is the emission factor of industrial process by technology k in year t, \(P_{t}\) is the total production in year t, and \(S_{t,k}\) is the proportion of the total production by technology k in year t.
Carbon emission of power plant and steel comes from fossil fuel combustion while that of cement and coal chemistry is from fossil fuel combustion and industrial process. The technologies for those industries are shown in Table 1.
  1. b)

    Emission intensity

     
For each of the industries, including power plant, steel, cement, and coal chemistry, its emission intensity is calculated as follows:
$${\text{EmI}}_{t} = \frac{{{\text{CE}}_{t} }}{{{\text{AV}}_{t} }}$$
(3)
$${\text{EmI}}\%_{2020 - 2005} = \frac{{{\text{EmI}}_{2020} - {\text{EmI}}_{2005} }}{{{\text{EmI}}_{2005} }}$$
(4)
where \({\text{EmI}}_{t}\) is the emission intensity in year t, \({\text{AV}}_{t}\) is the added value in year t, \({\text{EmI}}\%_{2020 - 2005}\) is the emission reduction potential between 2005 and 2020.
  1. c)

    Reduction cost

     
For each of the industries, including power plant, steel, cement, and coal chemistry, its reduction cost is calculated as follows:
$${\text{RC}}_{\Delta S,t} = \left( {\mathop \sum \limits_{k} P_{k,t} \times C_{k,t} } \right)_{Si} - \left( {\mathop \sum \limits_{k} P_{k,t} \times C_{k,t} } \right)_{S0}$$
(5)
where \(P_{k,t}\) is the production by technology k in year t, \(C_{k,t}\) is the total cost (operating cost, investment, abatement cost of CCUS) by technology k in year t, \({\text{RC}}_{\Delta S,t}\) is the reduction cost between total cost of scenario I and basic scenario in year t.

3.3 Scenarios

This study has used C3IAM-Tice model to calculate carbon emission, emission intensity, and reduction cost, aiming at evaluating emission reduction target of the four industries with different low-carbon technology proportion. For example, supercritical pressure is a relative low-carbon technology compared with the other three. If its proportion increases in the future, the emission intensity of power plant in 2020 will be much lower compared with that in 2005, likely fulfilling the emission intensity target of China (carbon emission per unit GDP in 2020 is 40–45% lower than that in 2005). Owing to the aim, four scenarios are designed for all the four industries to explore the emission reduction potential when different percentages of low-carbon technology are used in 2020, as shown in Table 2.
Table 2

The scenario description of thermal power, steel, cement, and chemical industry in 2020

 

Medium temperature and pressure

Subcritical pressure

High temperature and pressure

Ultra-supercritical pressure

(a) The scenario description of power plant in 2020

 Scenario 1

The same technology structure

 Scenario 2

The same capacity

New generating capacity is added, based on the same technology structure of advanced technology

 Scenario 3

The same capacity

30% of new generating capacity added

70% of new generating capacity added

 Scenario 4

The same capacity

100% of New generating capacity added

 

Blast furnace-basic oxygen furnace

Electric arc furnace

(b) The scenario description of steel in 2020

 Scenario 1

The percentages are the same

 Scenario 2

 

Percentage increases to 7%, 10%, and 13%, respectively

 Scenario 3

Percentage decreases to 93%, 90%, and 87%, respectively

 Scenario 4

 
 

Shaft kiln process

New dry kiln

(c) The scenario description of cement in 2020

 Scenario 1

The percentages are the same

 Scenario 2

 

Percentage increases to 97%, 98%, and 99%, respectively

 Scenario 3

Percentage with other process decreases to 3%, 2%, and 1%, respectively

 Scenario 4

 
 

Traditional coal chemistry

Advanced coal chemistry

(d) The scenario description of coal chemical industry in 2020

 Scenario 1

Without CCS

 Scenario 2

 

Percentage of CCS increases to 10%, 20% and 40%, respectively

 Scenario 3

Without CCS

 Scenario 4

 

3.4 Data

As discussed in the methodology, this study requires data of production, energy intensity, emission factor, industrial added value, and cost of these four industries.

The carbon dioxide emission factors for different industries and energy intensity are collected from CAS Strategic Priority Research Program named Carbon Budget and Relevant Issues, which project investigated 4243 coal mines and around 2000 enterprises, to collect more than 600 coal samples, forming carbon oxidation factors of 15 industries.

The past and present production, technology structure, industrial added value, and cost are compiled from various statistical yearbooks (China National Bureau of Statitics 2013; World Steel Association 2013, Committee, Committee, Bureau, Committee, Committee, Committee) and previous studies (Wang et al. 2007; Xu et al. 2015; Shen et al. 2014; Sun et al. 2011). The projected data of those in 2020 refer to policies and studies.

4 Analysis and results

The research uses C3IAM-TICE model to explore existing mature technology efficiency and its impacts on CO2 emission reduction, CO2 emission per added value, and its different reduction proportion comparing 2005. The model sets up four scenarios, to assess technology impact on these four industries’ carbon density reduction in China, including the Scenario 1—Baseline, Scenario 2—Trend, Scenario 3—Optimized, and Scenario 4—Advanced. The Scenario 1—Baseline is the baseline scenario without technology-oriented policy. Scenario 1 shows the reduction of CO2 emission per unit of added value in thermal power industry, steel industry, cement industry, and coal chemical industry, and is divided into 23.74%, 45.58%, 65.11%, and 14.94%, comparing with 2005. On the other hand, the Scenario 4—Advanced is the advanced technology-oriented policy scenario. Scenario 4 shows 26.19% reduction ratio in thermal power industry, as well as 47.43% reduction ratio in steel industry, 65.39% reduction ratio in cement industry, and 28.98% reduction ratio in coal chemical industry, comparing factor of CO2 emission per unit of added value with 2005.

The scenario-4 shows 282 Mt CO2 emission reductions for the 2020 Goal, which is around 3.35% of the high-control whole China CO2 emission. This scenario assumes the increase in advanced technology applied in these four industries, which means 8.9%, 40.0%, 8.8% and 3.0% advanced technology applied proportion increase in thermal power, coal chemical, steel, and cement industries, as shown in Fig. 3.
Fig. 3

Technology impacts circle for the CO2 emission from 2005 to 2020. a Trend circle, b technology oriented circle, c technology impacts of industry CO2 emission reduction

Figure 3 shows two circles for the CO2 emission of industries. Four scenarios are set up to explore how the existing backward technology and low-carbon advanced technology application, in-depth analysis of carbon emission, construction investment, and technical changes in the proportion of overall influence on production cost. Figure 3 shows the technology-oriented development CO2 emission circle based on Scenario 4 and the trend development CO2 emission circle based on Scenario 1. The trend development means that the similar trend of existed technology, and it will emit 8695 Mt for these four industries. The technology-oriented development means most advanced technology exchanging existed technology, and it will emit 8413 Mt for these four industries.

Figure 3 shows the combination, and four colors are the description of carbon emission reduction impacts of four industries. The red one is the thermal power industry impacts of using advanced technology, has 8.9 proportion pointes higher ultra-supercritical power technology ratio, and will reduce 64 Mt CO2 emissions. The yellow one is the cement industry impacts of using advanced technology, has 3 proportion pointes higher new dry process technology ratio, and will reduce 5 Mt CO2 emissions. The blue one is the steel industry impacts of using advanced technology, has 40 proportion pointes higher electric arc furnace ratio, and will reduce 90 Mt CO2 emissions. The black one is the coal chemical industry impacts of using advanced technology, has 40 proportion pointes higher CCS technology application ratio in new coal chemical, and will reduce 121 Mt CO2 emissions.

4.1 Thermal power industry

Through scenario analysis, we can see thermal power industry technology has the most CO2 emission reduction impacts, as shown in Appendix 1 in ESM.

Appendix 1 in ESM shows the 8.9% gap of ultra-supercritical power technology ratio, will have the impacts of 64 Mt of CO2 emission reduction, 39 kg/Yuan of CO2 emission per coal power industry added value reduction, 2.5% of CO2 emission per coal power industry added value reduction comparing with 2005.

4.2 Coal chemical industry

Through scenario analysis, we can see coal chemical industry is cost valuable when applied CCS technology based on the carbon tax, as shown in Appendix 2 in ESM.

Due to the industry added value data of coal chemical industry cannot be obtained, we refer to the CO2 emission per industry added value data in the literature and then obtain the industry added value of each sub-industry through a series of conversion. Specifically, the CO2 emission per industry added value for coal-to-methanol, coal-to-natural gas, coal-to-oil, coal-to-olefins ,and coal-to-ethylene glycol was 25.8 t/10,000 Yuan, 37.09 t/10,000 Yuan, 14.55 t/10,000 Yuan, 20.91 t/10,000 Yuan, 16.73 t/10,000 Yuan (YuanYuan et al. 2016), respectively.

4.3 Steel industry

Through scenario analysis, we can see steel industry is cost valuable when applied low-carbon technology, as shown in Appendix 3 in ESM.

Appendix 3 in ESM shows the 8.8% gap of electric arc furnace process technology ratio, will have the impacts of 90 Mt of CO2 emission reduction, 3 kg/Yuan of CO2 emission per coal power industry added value reduction, 1.9% of CO2 emission per coal power industry added value reduction from 2005.

4.4 Cement industry

Through scenario analysis, we can see cement industry is pursuing the future technology for its next step carbon reduction, as shown in Appendix 4 in ESM.

Appendix 4 in ESM shows the 3.0% gap of new dry process technology ratio, will have the impacts of 5 Mt of CO2 emission reduction, 2.3 kg/Yuan of CO2 emission per coal power industry added value reduction, 0.28% of CO2 emission per coal power industry added value reduction from 2005.

5 Conclusions

Thermal power industry, steel industry, cement industry, and coal chemical industry have the most advanced technologies but also most backward capacity need eliminate. Although these four industries support the rapid economy increase in China, they maintain large energy consumption and carbon emissions of China simultaneously.

This paper develops C3IAM-Tice model to assess technology impact on industry carbon density reduction. From the scenarios analysis, it finds that 8.9%, 40.0%, 8.8%, and 3.0% gap of advanced technology in thermal power, coal chemical, steel, and cement industries and will have the total 282 Mt CO2 emissions impacts, as shown in Fig. 4.
Fig. 4

Technology Impacts for thermal power, coal chemical, steel, and cement industry during 2017–2020

Figure 4 shows the technology-oriented development cost impacts of CO2 emission and that would be valuable for low-carbon future. C3IAM-Tice model would be a quantitative analyzing tool for energy industry technology in China, with the deep analysis for reduction impact of CO2 emission, CO2 emission per unit of GDP, and how the technology impact on energy and carbon insensitivity.

As the conclusion, the result of model arises the thinking about how policy applied for the future low-carbon development in industries.

First, the technology development should follow the energy planning and industry planning, as well as the INDC targets. The carbon reduction for these four energy-intensive industries will affect the existing economy and the INDC target for China, in achieving the goals of reducing CO2 emission per unit of GDP by 40–45% by 2020 from the 2005 level and peaking carbon emission in around 2030. In C3IAM-Tice model, the energy and industry planning targets as well as the INDC targets are used to create database and scenario factor, which make the forecasting more applicable.

Secondly, the economical and CO2-reduction efficiency should be the balance situation for the decision maker. These four industries have the most advanced technologies but also most backward capacity need eliminate. The advanced technologies can improve the carbon efficiency of industry, including the ultra-supercritical thermal power producing technology, the short process steel-making technology, the new dry process cement producing technology, and the Carbon capture and storage technology especially in coal chemical industry. The technology structure optimization for these four industries is the major low-carbon roadmap for the future development, but we still need to consider the cost of elimination of existed technology. To increase the ratio of more advanced technologies means more existed industry be eliminated.

Thirdly, the research finds that although the technology impact on the industry low-carbon development is obvious, the future technology, the new energy alternative, low-carbon economy development, and the industry restructure together are important factors for the low-carbon development of China.

Notes

Acknowledgements

This research is supported by (1) National Key R&D Program (Nos. 2016YFA0602603, 2016YFA0602602); (2) National Natural Science Foundation of China (No.51778601); (3) Shanghai Science and Technology Committee key R & D projects (No.15DZ1170600); (4) Chinese Academy of Sciences Youth Innovation Promotion Association Funding.

Supplementary material

11069_2018_3484_MOESM1_ESM.pptx (481 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (PPTX 480 kb)
11069_2018_3484_MOESM2_ESM.pptx (490 kb)
Supplementary material 2 (PPTX 490 kb)
11069_2018_3484_MOESM3_ESM.pptx (489 kb)
Supplementary material 3 (PPTX 489 kb)
11069_2018_3484_MOESM4_ESM.pptx (455 kb)
Supplementary material 4 (PPTX 454 kb)

References

  1. Cai Y, Newth D, Finnigan J, Gunasekera D (2015) A hybrid energy-economy model for global integrated assessment of climate change, carbon mitigation and energy transformation. Appl Energy 148(3):381–395CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. China National Bureau of Statitics (2005–2015) China energy statistical yearbook. China Statistics PressGoogle Scholar
  3. China National Bureau of Statitics (2013) China statistical yearbook. China Statistics Press, BeijingGoogle Scholar
  4. CNEB (2015) Energy development in “13-th plan”. Chin Natl Energy Bur 19(1):1–47Google Scholar
  5. Deja J, Uliasz-Bochenczyk A, Mokrzycki E (2010) CO2 emissions from Polish cement industry. Int J Greenh Gas Control 4(4):583–588CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Dietzenbacher E, Lenzen M, Los B, Guan D, Lahr ML, Sancho F, Suh S, Yang C (2013) Input–output analysis: the next 25 years. Econ Syst Res 25(4):369–389CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. El-Khattam W, Hegazy YG, Salama MMA (2005) An integrated distributed generation optimization model for distribution system planning. IEEE Trans Power Syst 20(2):1158–1165CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Energy Information Administration (1994) The national energy modeling system: an overviewGoogle Scholar
  9. Gabriel S, Kydes A (1994) The national energy modeling system: a large-scale equilibrium model at the U.S. Department of EnergyGoogle Scholar
  10. Hasanbeigi A, Arens M, Cardenas JCR, Price L, Triolo R (2016) Comparison of carbon dioxide emissions intensity of steel production in China, Germany, Mexico, and the United States. Resour Conserv Recycl 113:127–139CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Lansey KE, Mays LW (1989) Optimization model for water distribution system design. J Hydraul Eng 115(10):1401–1418CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Lin B, Wang X (2015) Carbon emissions from energy intensive industry in China: evidence from the iron & steel industry. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 47:746–754CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Liu L, Zong H, Zhao E, Chen C, Wang J (2014) Can China realize its carbon emission reduction goal in 2020: from the perspective of thermal power development. Appl Energy 124:199–212CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Mikulčić H, Vujanović M, Fidaros DK, Priesching P, Minić I, Tatschl R, Duić N, Stefanović G (2012) The application of CFD modelling to support the reduction of CO2 emissions in cement industry. Energy 45(1):464–473CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Miller RE, Blair PD (2009) Input-output analysis—foundations and extensions. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Nakata T (2004) Energy-economic models and the environment. Prog Energy Combust Sci 30(4):417–475CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Quirion P (2015) Global sensitivity analysis of an energy-economy model of the residential building sector. Environ Model Softw 70(1):45–54Google Scholar
  18. Rahman M, Pudasainee D, Gupta R (2017) Review on chemical upgrading of coal: production processes, potential applications and recent developments. Fuel Process Technol 158:35–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Schank J (1978) Multiobjective analysis in a national energy system modelGoogle Scholar
  20. Shen L, Gao T, Zhao J, Wang L, Wang L, Liu L, Chen F, Xue J (2014) Factory-level measurements on CO2 emission factors of cement production in China. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 34:337–349CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Sun WQ, Cai JJ, Mao HJ, Guan DJ (2011) Change in carbon dioxide emissions from energy use in China’s CO2 iron and steel industry. J Iron Steel Res Int 18(6):31–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Timmer MP, Dietzenbacher E, Los B, Stehrer R, de Vries GJ (2015) An illustrated user guide to the world input-output database: the case of global automotive production. Rev Int Econ 23(3):575–605CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Tukker A, Dietzenbacher E (2013) Global multiregional input-output frameworks: an introduction and outlook. Econ Syst Res 25(1):1–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Wang K, Wang C, Lu X, Chen J (2007) Scenario analysis on CO2 emissions reduction potential in China’s iron and steel industry. Energy Policy 35(4):2320–2335CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Wei W, Ren X, Cai Z, Hou Q, Liu Y, Li Q (2015) Research on China’ s greenhouse gas emission——progress on emission inventory from the CAS strategic priority research program. Bull Chin Acad Sci 6:839–847Google Scholar
  26. Wiedmann T (2009) A review of recent multi-region input–output models used for consumption-based emission and resource accounting. Ecol Econ 69(2):211–222CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. World Steel Association (2013) Steel statistical yearbookGoogle Scholar
  28. Xie K, Li W, Zhao W (2010) Coal chemical industry and its sustainable development in China. Energy 35(11):4349–4355CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Xu D, Cui Y, Li H, Yang K, Xu W, Chen Y (2015) On the future of Chinese cement industry. Cem Concr Res 78:2–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Xu W, Wan B, Zhu T, Shao M (2016) CO2 emissions from China’s iron and steel industry. J Clean Prod 139:1504–1511CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Yahoo M, Othman J (2015) Carbon and energy taxation for CO2 mitigation: a CGE model of the Malaysia. Environ Dev Sustain 19(1):239–262CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Yan D, Lei Y, Li L, Song W (2017) Carbon emission efficiency and spatial clustering analyses in China’s thermal power industry: evidence from the provincial level. J Clean Prod 156:518–527CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Yang H, Lu L, Zhou W (2007) A novel optimization sizing model for hybrid solar-wind power generation system. Sol Energy 81(1):76–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. YuanYuan Z, Yonggang W, Yajun T (2016) Comparative studies on carbon dioxide emissions of typical modern coal chemical process. Chem Ind Eng Process 35(12):4060–4064Google Scholar
  35. Zhou W, Zhu B, Li Q, Ma T, Hu S, Griffy-Brown C (2010) CO2 emissions and mitigation potential in China’s ammonia industry. Energy Policy 38(7):3701–3709CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Shanghai Advanced Research InstituteChinese Academy of SciencesShanghaiChina
  2. 2.School of Environmental and Chemical EngineeringShanghai UniversityShanghaiChina

Personalised recommendations