4.7 Article

Investigating the driving forces of NOx generation from energy consumption in China

期刊

JOURNAL OF CLEANER PRODUCTION
卷 184, 期 -, 页码 836-846

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.02.305

关键词

China; NOx generation; LMDI; Driving forces; Population effects

资金

  1. Natural Science Foundation of China [71373134, 71603134]
  2. Special Foundation to build Universities of Tianjin [C0291760]
  3. Natural Science Foundation of Tianjin, China [13JCQNJC08300]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In China, nitrogen oxide (NOx) emissions have been declining in recent years, whereas NOx generation continues to increase. This has prompted a growing focus of policy design to inspect the driving mechanisms of NOx generation. In this study, a decomposition model of NOx generation in China from 1995 to 2014 was built using the Logarithmic Mean Divisia Index (LMDI) method. According to the decomposition results, technological effects (e.g., energy intensity and the sector generation factor) inhibited NOx generation in China, while gross domestic product (GDP) per capita was found to have the most positive effect on increasing NOx generation, accounting for 151.00% of the total change and showing an increasing trend in recent years. The sector structure of energy consumption always increased NOx generation, which contradicts the results of previous studies. All population effects considered in this study contributed to the growth in NOx generation. The population scale effect was increasingly impactful on the growth of NOx generation; the population spatial structure was active but less impactful. In general, technological impact cannot offset the increases caused by economic, structural, and population effects. Considering NOx reduction policy in China, more attention should be given to emission reduction policies, energy consumption, and socio-economic effects; together, these approaches will improve initiatives to reduce NOx. (C) 2018 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