4.7 Article

Black carbon emissions from biomass and coal in rural China

Journal

ATMOSPHERIC ENVIRONMENT
Volume 176, Issue -, Pages 158-170

Publisher

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.atmosenv.2017.12.029

Keywords

Black carbon emissions; Rural solid fuel use; Field energy survey; China

Funding

  1. China Ministry of Science and Technology in the national 973 program: Equity and justice in climate change and regional development [A.02.12.00301]
  2. Office of Biological and Environmental Research in the U.S. Department of Energy (U.S. DOE), Office of Science
  3. UChicago Argonne, LLC [DE-AC02-06CH11357]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Residential solid fuel combustion makes a major contribution to black carbon (BC) emissions in China. A new estimation of BC emissions from rural solid biomass and coal consumption has been derived from field survey data. The following new contributions are made: (1) emission factors are collected and reviewed; (2) household energy data are collected from field survey data and from the literature; (3) a new extrapolation method is developed to extend the field survey data to other locations; (4) the ownership and usage of two stove types are estimated and considered in the emission calculations; and (5) uncertainties associated with the estimation results are quantified. It is shown that rural households with higher income will consume less biomass but more coal. Agricultural acreage and temperature also significantly influence the amount of solid fuel consumed in rural areas. It is estimated that 640 +/- 245 Gg BC/y were emitted to the atmosphere due to residential solid fuel consumption in rural China in 2014. Emissions of BC from straw, wood, and coal contributed 42 +/- 13%, 36 +/- 15%, and 22 +/- 10% of the total, respectively. We show that effective BC mitigation (a reduction of 47%) could be obtained through widespread introduction of improved stoves in rural households.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available