4.8 Article

CH4 mitigation potentials from China landfills and related environmental co-benefits

Journal

SCIENCE ADVANCES
Volume 4, Issue 7, Pages -

Publisher

AMER ASSOC ADVANCEMENT SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1126/sciadv.aar8400

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [41173108, 51678357, 71325006, 71690241, 71461137008]
  2. Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities through Shanghai Jiao Tong University [16JCCS04]
  3. Shanghai Municipal Government [17XD1401800]
  4. National Key Technology RD Program [2014BAL02B03-4]
  5. Shanghai Institute of Pollution Control and Ecological Safety

Ask authors/readers for more resources

China's CH4 emissions from 1955 existing (old) and 495 planned (new) landfills are estimated and projected by adopting a bottom-up method, targeting a 2012 baseline year and a 2030 projected target year. Nine key CH4 mitigation measures are proposed for the CH4 mitigation assessment from landfills. Approximately 0.66 million metric tons (Mt) of CH4 and 1.14 Mt of CH4 will be released, respectively, from new and existing landfills under a 2030 business-as-usual (BAU) scenario, which is 23.5% lower than a U.S. Environmental Protection Agency estimation. It is estimated that 0.60 and 0.97 Mt of CH4 can be reduced under new policies (NP) and low-carbon (LC) policy scenarios, respectively. The combined biocover and landfill gas collection and flaring system is the most promising mitigation measure, while mechanical biological treatment and mineral landfill also contribute substantially to CH4 reduction. The odor-affected population under NP and LC scenarios will decrease by 39.5 and 64.2%, respectively, when compared to the 2030 BAU scenario. The LC scenario is a recommended policy for meeting China's nationally determined contribution targets and reducing the not-in-my-backyard impact due to this policy's significant reduction of CH4 emissions.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available