Search

We present an integrated model, SWITCH-China, of the Chinese power sector with which to analyze the economic and technological implications of a medium to long-term decarbonization scenario while accounting for very-short-term renewable variability. On the basis of the model and assumptions used, we find that the announced 2030 carbon peak can be achieved with a carbon price of ~$40/tCO2. Current trends in renewable energy price reductions alone are insufficient to replace coal; however, an 80% carbon emission reduction by 2050 is achievable in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Target Scenario with an optimal electricity mix in 2050 including nuclear (14%), wind (23%), solar (27%), hydro (6%), gas (1%), coal (3%), and carbon capture and sequestration coal energy (26%). The co-benefits of carbon-price strategy would offset 22% to 42% of the increased electricity costs if the true cost of coal and the social cost of carbon are incorporated. In such a scenario, aggressive attention to research and both technological and financial innovation mechanisms are crucial to enabling the transition at a reasonable cost, along with strong carbon policies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Critical assessment of mega-projects is emerging as a much-needed discipline in an era when, in many places, resource demands exceed environmental capacity. This techno-economic study, using the Desalination Economic Evaluation Program developed by the International Atomic Energy Agency, shows that by 2030, China will have the capacity to produce 23.1 billion m 3 of water annually, at $0.86/m 3 , as a co-product of electricity generation through nuclear power, provided that the country favors desalination over water diversion. We calculate that the resulting water production and supply chain needed to eradicate absolute scarcity for 0.16 billion people will cost between $0.99/m 3 and $1.79/m 3 , and we prove that this will be affordable, even for the poorest inhabitants. We then compare both coal and nuclear desalination with the currently planned South–North Water Transfer Mega-Project and show that, while the short-run cost of water diversion is lower, critical vulnerabilities and future resource demands favor nuclear desalination. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]