Assessment on the Cost Synergies and Impacts among Measures on Energy Conservation, Decarbonization, and Air Pollutant Reductions Using an MCEE Model: A Case of Guangzhou, China
Assessment on the Cost Synergies and Impacts among Measures on Energy Conservation, Decarbonization, and Air Pollutant Reductions Using an MCEE Model: A Case of Guangzhou, China
复制标题
DOI：
10.3390/en15041258
复制
发表时间：
2022-02
期刊：
影响因子：
3.2
通讯作者：
Yunsheng Xie;Peng Wang;Yi Dou;Lei Yang;Songyan Ren;Daiqing Zhao
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Yunsheng Xie;Peng Wang;Yi Dou;Lei Yang;Songyan Ren;Daiqing Zhao
城市可持续发展面临着能源需求持续增长、CO2和大气污染物排放快速增加等诸多挑战。本研究以解决这些问题的措施成本为重点，建立了节能、CO2和污染物排放的多目标综合评价模型（MCEE）。以广州市为例，将可持续发展措施分为节能、需求优化和环境保护三大类。设定了五种情景，以定量评估2015-2035年期间单独或协调执行这些措施的成本。结论如下：（1）节能与需求优化措施对节能减排的协同效应最好。协同效益包括节能和二氧化碳减排量分别增加80%和84%，污染物减排量增加50%以上。(2)需求优化和节能措施对成本节约的协同效应最好，节能和CO2减排的单位技改成本分别降低49.5%和54.9%，四种污染物的单位末端成本分别降低59.15%、54.43%、61.15%和51.96%. (3)环境保护措施在减少健康损失和劳动力损失方面具有显著的协同效应。以技术改造费用增加5%、末端治理费用增加9%为代价，健康损失、劳动力损失和社会总成本将分别减少18%、19%和3%。上述结论为同类型城市协调各种措施，减少措施实施的阻力和障碍，弥补部分措施成本高的市场不足，实现可持续发展目标提供了支持。
Many challenges are faced in the process of urban sustainable development, including the continuous growth in energy demand and rapid increase in CO2 and air pollutant emissions. This study focuses on the costs of measures to address these issues and establishes a multi-objective comprehensive assessment model for energy saving, CO2, and pollutant emission (MCEE). Taking Guangzhou as an example, the sustainable development measures are divided into three categories, energy-saving, demand-optimization, and environmental-protection. Five scenarios are set to quantitatively evaluate the costs when these measures are implemented alone or coordinately for the period 2015–2035. Conclusions are as follows: (1) Measures of energy-saving and demand-optimization have the best synergistic effect on energy saving and emission reduction. The synergistic benefits include an 80% and 84% increase in energy savings and CO2 reductions, respectively, and more than 50% increase in pollutant reductions. (2) Measures of demand-optimization and energy-saving have the best synergistic effect on cost saving, which reduces the unit technical improvement costs of energy saving and CO2 reduction by 49.5% and 54.9%, respectively, and the unit end-of-pipe costs of four pollutants by 59.15%, 54.43%, 61.15%, and 51.96, respectively. (3) Environmental-protection measures have remarkable synergistic effects in reducing the cost of health loss and labor loss. At the price of a 5% increase in technical improvement cost and 9% in end-of-pipe treatment cost, health loss, labor loss, and total social cost will be reduced by 18%, 19%, and 3%, respectively. The above conclusions provide support for cities of the same type to coordinate various measures, reduce resistance and barriers to their implementation, compensate for the market deficiency of high costs of some measures, and achieve the goal of sustainable development.