4.5 Article

Alternative Scenarios for the Development of a Low-Carbon City: A Case Study of Beijing, China

期刊

ENERGIES
卷 4, 期 12, 页码 2295-2310

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/en4122295

关键词

LEAP model; low-carbon city; energy saving; emissions reduction; scenario analysis

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The establishment of low-carbon cities has been suggested all over the World, since cities are key drivers of energy usage and the associated carbon emissions. This paper presents a scenario analysis of future energy consumption and carbon emissions for the city of Beijing. The Long-range Energy Alternatives Planning (LEAP) model is used to simulate a range of pathways and to analyze how these would change energy consumption and carbon emissions from 2007 to 2030. Three scenarios have been designed to describe future energy strategies in relation to the development of Beijing city, namely a reference scenario (RS), control scenario (CS), and integrated scenario (IS). The results show that under the IS the total energy demand in Beijing is expected to reach 88.61 million tonnes coal equivalent (Mtce) by 2030 (59.32 Mtce in 2007), 55.82% and 32.72% lower than the values under the RS and the CS, respectively. The total carbon emissions in 2030 under the IS, although higher than the 2007 level, will be 62.22% and 40.27% lower than under the RS and the CS, respectively, with emissions peaking in 2026 and declining afterwards. In terms of the potential for reduction of energy consumption and carbon emissions, the industrial sector will continue to act as the largest contributor under the IS and CS compared with the RS, while the building and transport sectors are identified as promising fields for achieving effective control of energy consumption and carbon emissions over the next two decades. The calculation results show that an integrated package of measures is the most effective in terms of energy savings and carbon emissions mitigation, although it also faces the largest challenge to achieve the related targets.

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

4.5
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