4.8 Review

A systematic comparison of biogas development and related policies between China and Europe and corresponding insights

期刊

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.rser.2019.109474

关键词

Biogas development; Biogas industry; Biogas-related policy; Policy framework; Biogas plant; Biogas commercialization

资金

  1. Youth Talent Cultivation Program Funding of Northwest AF University
  2. National Natural Science Foundation of China [51508467, 41871205]
  3. China Postdoctoral Science Foundation [2016T90950, 2015M582708]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In order to promote China's biogas industry development, this paper comprehensively compared the biogas status and related policies between China and Europe and tried to find the shortage and potential implications. China has access to abundant biomass resources, with considerable biogas potential and an annual theoretical output of 73.6 billion m(3). Household-based biogas digesters coexist with medium and large-scale biogas plants (MLBPs) in China. Although the number of MLBPs in China was almost two times higher than Europe, the annul biogas production yield was only half of those in Europe. In China, biogas is mainly used for heating and cooking, and its power generation capacity is far lower than that in Europe. Overall, biogas industry is more commercialized in Europe than China. In terms of biogas related policies, China has an advantage in quantity, but is weak in their implementation. Biogas related policies in China mainly focus on agricultural and rural development, while in Europe, they are aimed at increasing the utilization of renewable energy and reducing greenhouse gas emissions. In addition, policies in China are mostly filled with encouragement, lacking detailed subsidy schemes and modes, whereas in European countries are more targeted and scientific. Based on the dissimilarity of current status and the disparity in policies, a series of countermeasures and suggestions for the development of the Chinese biogas industry are presented.

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

4.8
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