4.3 Article

Research on New and Traditional Energy Sources in OECD Countries

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/ijerph16071122

关键词

dynamic DEA; new energy; OECD; PM2; 5; undesirable output

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [71773082]
  2. Sichuan University project [2018hhs-42]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

To mitigate the problems associated with climate change, the low-carbon economy concept is now being championed around the world in an effort to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and ensure sustainable economic growth. Therefore, to reduce the dependence on traditional energy sources, the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) has been actively promoting the use of renewable energy. Past research has tended to neglect the influence of other pollutants such as fine particulate matter (PM2.5) and sulfur dioxide (SO2) and have mainly been based on static analyses. To make up for these research gaps, this study examined OECD country data from 2010-2014, with labor, fixed assets, new energy, and traditional energy as the inputs, and Gross Domestic Product (GDP), carbon dioxide (CO2), and PM2.5 as the outputs, from which it was found: (1) the overall efficiency of the individual countries varied significantly, with nine countries being found to have efficiencies of 1 for all five years, but many others having efficiencies below 0.2; (2) in countries where there was a need for improvements in traditional energy (which here refers to coal, petroleum and other fossil energy sources), there was also a significant need for improvement in new energy sources (which here refers to clean energy which will produce pollutant emissions and can be directly used for production and life, including resources like nuclear energy and renewable energy); (3) countries with poor traditional energy and new energy efficiencies also had poor CO2 and PM2.5 efficiencies; (4) many OECD countries have made progress towards sustainable new energy developments

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据