Goal and technology path of CO2 mitigation in China's cement industry: from the perspective of co-benefit

被引:44
|
作者
Tan, Qilu [1 ]
Wen, Zongguo [1 ,2 ]
Chen, Jining [1 ]
机构
[1] Tsinghua Univ, Sch Environm, State Key Joint Lab Environm Simulat & Pollut Con, Beijing 100084, Peoples R China
[2] JCGCS, Beijing 100875, Peoples R China
基金
中国国家自然科学基金;
关键词
CO2; mitigation; Local air pollution (LAP); Co-benefit; Cost-effectiveness; Bottom-up model; ANCILLARY BENEFITS; CLIMATE POLICY; AIR-POLLUTION; ENERGY; EMISSIONS; GENERATION; SO2;
D O I
10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.06.148
中图分类号
X [环境科学、安全科学];
学科分类号
08 ; 0830 ;
摘要
The concept of co-benefit, a negotiation topic in CO2 mitigation attracts worldwide attention including China in coping with climate change. Energy saving technologies as common measures for CO2 abatement, generally lead to co-benefits of local air pollution (LAP) because most LAP emissions are generated from combustion of carbonic fuels along with CO2. However, in the technological dimension, there are technologies that induce opposite effects on the co-benefit of CO2 and LAP in specific industry sectors. Precalcinating line and shaft kiln, two types of technologies adopted in clinker calcinating procedure in cement industry are examples: the former consume less energy but emit more dust and NOx than the later. As a result, the overall co-benefits of LAP reductions for cement industry are uncertain. This study consequently aims at assessing the overall co-benefit (although it may be a negative co-benefit) of CO2 mitigation policy on dust, NOx, SO2 emissions in China's cement industry aggregately by establishing bottom-up optimization model on the basis of all types of technologies which are called technology system in cement production. CO2 mitigation goal, as represented by reduction rate is regarded as constraint input into the model. In order to investigate the evolution of co-benefits and technology paths with the change of CO2 mitigation goal, hundreds of reduction rates are selected randomly between the range 0.5-10.5%. The lower bound 0.5% reveals CO2 emission reduction that can be reached for cement industry under existing political constraints and without any extra CO2 mitigation goal. The upper bound 10.5% is the greatest reduction rate under which the model could derive feasible solution. According to changes of technology penetration rates as CO2 goal tightens, we could evaluate the more cost-effective technologies from the perspective of co-benefit. They are vertical milling, precalcinating line with the scale of 7000-10,000 ton/day, roll-squeezer belonging to Main Production Technology (MPT), utilization of cement grinding aids, multi-channel coal burner belonging to Affiliated Energy-saving technology (AES), combination of bag-filter and electrostatic precipitator and ultra-low NOx burning technology belonging to Pollution Control Technology (PCT). With respect to the evolution of co-benefits on air pollutions, when the CO2 reduction rate is below 2.3%, co-benefit of dust and SO2 reduction exist while that of NOx does not; and when the rate is above 2.3%, co-benefits of all the three pollutants exist. A practically referable goal of CO2 mitigation rate of short/mid-term is approximately 5.5% in view of the following three considerations: a) co-benefits augment as CO2 reduction rate increases; b) total cost increases as the CO2 abatement goal becomes stricter; and c) the majority of emerging technologies normally cannot penetrate to 100% in cement production within a relatively short time. (C) 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
引用
收藏
页码:299 / 313
页数:15
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Co-benefit of carbon mitigation on resource use in China
    Wang, Heming
    Dai, Hancheng
    Dong, Lang
    Xie, Yang
    Geng, Yong
    Yue, Qiang
    Ma, Fengmei
    Wang, Jian
    Du, Tao
    JOURNAL OF CLEANER PRODUCTION, 2018, 174 : 1096 - 1113
  • [2] An estimation of the effect of carbon pricing for CO2 mitigation in China's cement industry
    Liu, Xianbing
    Fan, Yongbin
    Wang, Can
    APPLIED ENERGY, 2017, 185 : 671 - 686
  • [3] Quantifying CO2 emissions from China's cement industry
    Shen, Weiguo
    Cao, Liu
    Li, Qiu
    Zhang, Wensheng
    Wang, Guiming
    Li, Chaochao
    RENEWABLE & SUSTAINABLE ENERGY REVIEWS, 2015, 50 : 1004 - 1012
  • [4] Evaluating CO2 emission performance in China's cement industry: An enterprise perspective
    Cai, Bofeng
    Wang, Jinnan
    He, Jie
    Geng, Yong
    APPLIED ENERGY, 2016, 166 : 191 - 200
  • [5] Technology options for CO2 mitigation in China
    He, JK
    Zhang, AL
    Ye, Y
    AMBIO, 1996, 25 (04) : 249 - 253
  • [6] Analysis of the co-benefit of emission reduction measures in China's iron and steel industry
    Research Center of Contemporary Management, Tsinghua University, Beijing
    100084, China
    不详
    100084, China
    Zhongguo Huanjing Kexue, 1 (298-303):
  • [7] Energy consumption and CO2 emissions in China's cement industry: A perspective from LMDI decomposition analysis
    Xu, Jin-Hua
    Fleiter, Tobias
    Eichhammer, Wolfgang
    Fan, Ying
    ENERGY POLICY, 2012, 50 : 821 - 832
  • [8] CO2 emissions and mitigation potential in China's ammonia industry
    Zhou, Wenji
    Zhu, Bing
    Li, Qiang
    Ma, Tieju
    Hu, Shanying
    Griffy-Brown, Charla
    ENERGY POLICY, 2010, 38 (07) : 3701 - 3709
  • [9] China’s cement demand and CO2 emissions toward 2030: from the perspective of socioeconomic, technology and population
    Junxiao Wei
    Kuang Cen
    Yuanbo Geng
    Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 2019, 26 : 6409 - 6423
  • [10] China's cement demand and CO2 emissions toward 2030: from the perspective of socioeconomic, technology and population
    Wei, Junxiao
    Cen, Kuang
    Geng, Yuanbo
    ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE AND POLLUTION RESEARCH, 2019, 26 (07) : 6409 - 6423