Search

Energy sectors of all the countries around the world are faced with a big challenge: the energy transition under the imperative of continuous reduction of carbon dioxide emissions. The energy transition and the sustainability constraints pose a significant challenge for engineers, researcher and scientists developing new and clean energy-efficient technologies. Energy production and transformations, along with its storage, distribution and consumption, are achieved by utilising new and clean energy technologies, with the goal of the continuous increase of energy efficiency, the growth of renewable energy sources utilisation, the uninterrupted switch from fossil fuels to alternative energy sources, and the continued reduction of CO2 emissions. This editorial paper addresses the latest progress and the findings in research and developments in the sustainable energy technologies, energy and environment systems from selected papers of the conference on Sustainable Development of Energy, Water and Environment Systems held in 2019. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Accurately understanding the real situation of China’s carbon emissions at the provincial level is not only crucial for realizing carbon mitigation in China, but also of great importance for tackling climate change on a global scale. This paper uses detailed energy consumption data subdivided within each fuel type and sector-specific emission factors, to calculate both direct and indirect energy-related CO 2 emissions for China’s provinces, and offers provincially-targeted policy proposals on emission reductions. The results uncover large divergences in calculation of provincial CO 2 emissions between production-based and consumption-based accounting approaches. Considering the large amount of interprovincial CO 2 emission transfers embodied in secondary energy deployment, the consumption-based accounting performs better in reflecting the actual features and responsibilities of carbon emissions in the provinces of China. From the consumption perspective, Shandong, Hebei, Jiangsu, Inner Mongolia, Guangdong, Henan, Liaoning and Shanxi contributed to the majority of China’s carbon emission growth during the period of 1996–2013, while Xinjiang, Sichuan, Anhui, Tianjin and Hunan were playing an increasingly important role. These two groups of provinces should be regarded as the key regions for national emissions abatement. Meanwhile, the energy industry was the top sectoral contributor to CO 2 emissions growth in most provinces, while service and household sectors made increasingly significant impacts on driving up provincial emissions. Together with ongoing efforts in the energy sector, the mitigation of CO 2 emissions in service and household sectors deserves much more attention, especially in the transportation and urban household sectors. Furthermore, the temporal trends of carbon emissions in various provinces, as well as their factor and sectoral driving forces, varied greatly with each other. Therefore, each of the provinces should formulate emission reduction policies according to their own situation, and target the key driving factors and sectors of carbon emissions at the current stage or in the near future. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Addressing climate change requires the efforts of all countries with common but differentiated responsibilities. The mitigation responsibilities one country takes greatly depends on its national emission inventories. As a good complement to the production-based accounting (PBA) principle, consumption-based accounting (CBA) principle has been widely concerned. However, few studies focus on emissions equity issues temporally and spatially. In this paper, we explore the characteristics of production-based and consumption-based CO 2 emissions for 14 major economies through multiple-dimension comparisons to get insight into the emissions equity comparisons among major emitters. In particular, four categories of economies with different dynamic features are divided based on their percentage differences between PBA and CBA emissions. Demographical and economic variables are additionally taken into consideration. The results indicate that France and Russia hold extreme characteristic on evaluating the emission difference between two principles, while China and Chinese Taiwan reveal uniquely increasingly larger gaps between two principle emissions. Besides, the per capita CBA emissions grows more prominently and possesses a more obviously positive correlation with their own per capita GDP which confirms that CBA principle is potentially attractive for estimating national emissions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper presents a methodology to allocate carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) emissions that result from fuel combusted to produce electricity and heat to the end-use sectors (industry, buildings, transport, and agriculture) where the electricity and heat are actually consumed. Attributing these indirect emissions to the appropriate sectors results in a very different picture of CO 2 emissions per sector than is seen when only direct emissions are characterized. With attribution to the demand side, the industrial and buildings sectors contribute the largest shares of CO 2 emissions globally. When indirect emissions are allocated to their respective end-use sectors, the buildings sector’s share of total emissions increases the most, from 9% (direct emissions only) to 31% (including indirect emissions), which reflects the large share of electricity and heat consumed in this sector. The share of CO 2 emissions attributable to the industrial sector also increases significantly, from 18% to 37%. These increased values include emissions from both electricity and heat used in end-use sectors, in contrast to the traditional accounting method, which allocates all electricity and heat emissions to the transformation and energy sector. Allocating these emissions to end-use sectors makes it possible to assess the full potential impact of demand reduction of electricity and heat use. This article is based on contributions to the Fifth Assessment Report of Working Group III of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]