4.7 Article

Regional disparity and cost-effective SO2 pollution control in China: A case study in 5 mega-cities

期刊

ENERGY POLICY
卷 61, 期 -, 页码 1322-1331

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.enpol.2013.05.105

关键词

Regional disparity; Cost-effective SO2 control; GAINS-China model

资金

  1. Environment Research and Technology Development Fund of the Ministry of the Environment, Japan [K113002]
  2. Natural Science Foundation of China [71033004, 712111042]
  3. Chinese Academy of Sciences [2008-318]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

With rapid development, increasing sulfur dioxide (SO2) emission becomes a key environmental issue in China. To respond to this challenge, the Chinese government established a top-down scheme to reduce its SO2 emissions. However, regional disparity and the associated cost differences brought uncertainties to the policy effectiveness and efficiency. Few studies focus on this field. Therefore, this study tries to fill such a gap by investigating the differences of SO2 emissions, reduction potential, and cost-effectiveness through use of the GAINS-China model in five mega-cities in China, namely, Beijing, Shanghai, Tianjin, Chongqing, and Hong Kong. A scenario analysis approach is employed, focusing on two technologies named flue gas desulfurization (FGD) and limestone injection (LINJ). Results demonstrated that a large SO2 reduction potential exists, as well as a great disparity, among the five mega-cities. Chongqing had the largest reduction potential with lowest unit cost, while Beijng and Hong Kong showed the lowest reduction potential with higher unit cost. In Beijing and Shanghai, FGD and LINJ in the power generation sector had the larger reduction potential with the highest cost-effectiveness. However, in Chongqing, the industry sectors also had large reduction potentials. Finally, appropriate SO2 control strategies and policies are raised by considering the local realities. (C) 2013 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