4.7 Article

Estimates of energy demand and energy saving potential in China's agricultural sector

期刊

ENERGY
卷 135, 期 -, 页码 865-875

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.energy.2017.06.173

关键词

China's agricultural sector; Energy saving potentiality; Error correction model; Monte Carlo simulation; Scenario analysis

资金

  1. Collaborative Innovation Center [1260-Z0210011]
  2. Xiamen University [1260-Y07200]
  3. China National Social Science [15ZD058]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This paper analyzed the energy saving potentials of China's agricultural sector by using an econometric approach and a scenario analysis. First a co-integration analysis and an error correction model are employed to analyze the long-term equilibrium relationship between agricultural energy consumption and its influencing factors such as agricultural output, mechanical power, agricultural industrial structure, fiscal expenditure and energy prices during the period 1980-2012. Then stability test, fitting effect test and Monte Carlo simulation method are applied to confirm the rationality of the prediction model. Further, the scenario analysis method is used to predict the energy-saving potentials in 2020 and 2025 under different scenarios. It is found that agricultural output and mechanical power have positive impacts on energy consumption, while agricultural industrial structure, fiscal expenditure and energy prices have negative influences. The results demonstrate that under BAU condition, the energy demand of China's agricultural sector will reach 128, 94 and 161,61million tons of standard coal by 2020 and 2025 respectively. Moreover, the energy savings potential will be 7, 967 million tons and 15,701 million tons under moderate and advanced scenarios by the year 2020, and 17, 225 million tons and 31,094 million tons by the year 2025. This study provides a reference for establishing energy saving policies for China's agricultural sector. (C) 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

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

4.7
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