国际典型碳数据库对中国碳排放核算的对比分析

doi:10.12006/j.issn.1673-1719.2017.083

气候变化研究进展 ›› 2018, Vol. 14 ›› Issue (3): 275-280.doi: 10.12006/j.issn.1673-1719.2017.083

国际典型碳数据库对中国碳排放核算的对比分析

李青青¹,苏颖²,尚丽¹,魏伟¹,王茂华¹()

1 中国科学院上海高等研究院,上海 201210
2 同济大学,上海 200092

收稿日期:2017-05-07 修回日期:2017-06-12 出版日期:2018-05-31 发布日期:2018-06-07
作者简介:李青青,女,助理研究员
基金资助:
上海市科学技术委员会重点研发项目(15DZ1170600)

Comparison analysis of China’s emissions accounting by typical international carbon databases

Qing-Qing LI¹,Ying SU²,Li SHANG¹,Wei WEI¹,Mao-Hua WANG¹()

1 Shanghai Advanced Research Institute, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Shanghai 201210, China
2 Tongji University, Shanghai 200092, China

Received:2017-05-07 Revised:2017-06-12 Online:2018-05-31 Published:2018-06-07

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

选取国际上四大典型碳数据库——国际能源署(IEA）数据库、美国橡树岭国家实验室CO₂信息分析中心(CDIAC)数据库、全球大气研究排放数据库(EDGAR)以及美国能源信息管理局(EIA)数据库,对中国碳排放核算进行了参数级层面的对比分析。研究发现：(1)整体来看,IEA和EDGAR的核算更深入;(2)活动水平数据分类方式差异较大,各数据库将煤基燃料分别分为8、4、8、5类,油基燃料分为15、10、14、13类,气体燃料分为4、1、4、2类;(3)各类燃料碳排放因子选用原则不一,有的选用所在机构的特有中国参数,有的选用IPCC缺省因子。

关键词: 碳数据库, 对比分析, 中国碳排放, 燃料分类

Abstract:

Four typical international carbon databases International Energy Agency (IEA), Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center (CDIAC), The Emissions Database for Global Atmospheric Research (EDGAR) and Energy Information Administration (EIA) have been selected to carry out a comparison analysis of their carbon emissions accounting for China’s fossil fuels and cement production. The results show that: 1) the accounting by IEA and EDGAR is more detailed; 2) there is a large difference in activity data classification for the four carbon databases, which is 8, 4, 8, 5 for coal-based fuels, 15, 10, 14, 13 for oil-based fuels, and 4, 1, 4, 2 for gaseous fuels; 3) the carbon emission factors are selected in different way, some use the institute’s own China-specific parameter, some use the default value from IPCC.

Key words: Carbon database, Comparison analysis, China’s carbon emissions, Fuels classification

李青青,苏颖,尚丽,魏伟,王茂华. 国际典型碳数据库对中国碳排放核算的对比分析[J]. 气候变化研究进展, 2018, 14(3): 275-280.

Qing-Qing LI,Ying SU,Li SHANG,Wei WEI,Mao-Hua WANG. Comparison analysis of China’s emissions accounting by typical international carbon databases[J]. Climate Change Research, 2018, 14(3): 275-280.

图/表 3

表1 四大数据库对中国碳排放核算的对比分析

Table 1 The comparisons of 4 carbon databases for China’s carbon emission accounting

表2 IEA气体燃料分类

Table 2 The classification of gaseous fuels by IEA

图1 IEA和CDIAC核算中国碳排放的氧化率系数对比 IEA数据来自CO2 Emissions From Fuel Combustion (2007 Edition),CDIAC数据来自与CDIAC沟通。

Fig. 1 Oxidation value used when accounting China’s carbon emissions by IEA and CDIAC

参考文献

[1]	马翠梅, 徐华清, 苏明山 . 温室气体清单编制方法研究进展[J]. 地理科学进展, 2013,32(3):400-407. DOI: 10.11820/dlkxjz.2013.03.009
[2]	Rotty R M . Commentary on and extension of calculative procedure for CO2 production[J]. Tellus, 1973,25(5):508-517
[3]	Gregg M . Atmospheric emissions of carbon dioxide from fossil fuels [R]. Pasadena, California, USA: Oak Ridge National Laboratory, 2010: 1-42
[4]	曲建升, 曾静静, 张志强 . 国际主要温室气体排放数据集比较分析研究[J]. 地球科学进展, 2008,23(1):47-54
[5]	魏伟, 任小波, 蔡祖聪 , 等. 中国温室气体排放研究: 中国科学院战略性先导科技专项“应对气候变化的碳收支认证及相关问题”之排放清单任务群研究进展[J]. 中国科学院院刊, 2015,30(6):839-847. DOI: 10.16418/j.issn.1000-3045.2015.06.018
[6]	Zhu S L . Comparison and analysis of CO2 emissions data for China[J]. Advances in Climate Change Research, 2014,5(1):17-27. DOI: 10.3724/SP.J.1248.2014.017
[7]	International Energy Agency (IEA). CO2 emissions from fuel combustion highlights 2016 [R]. Paris, France, 2016: 1-166
[8]	U.S. Energy Information Administration ( EIA) U.S. Energy Information Administration [EB/OL]. 2017 [ 2017-06-09]. /
[9]	Boden T A, Andres R J, Marland G. Carbon dioxide information center [EB/OL]. 2017 [ 2017- 07- 04].
[10]	Olivier J, Janssens-Maenhout G, Muntean M, et al. Joint research center. Emissions database for global atmospheric research [EB/OL]. 2017 [ 2017- 07- 04].
[11]	Liu Z, Guan D B, Wei W , et al. Reduced carbon emission estimates from fossil fuel combustion and cement production in China[J]. Nature, 2015,524(7565):335-338. DOI:/ 10.1038/nature14677
[12]	国家发展和改革委员会应对气候变化司. 2005中国温室气体清单研究[M]. 北京: 中国环境出版社, 2014: 3-4
[13]	International Energy Agency ( IEA). CO2 emissions from fuel combustion 1971-2005 [R]. Paris, France: 2007: 7
[14]	Marland G, Rotty R M . Carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuels: a procedure for estimation and results for 1950-1982[J]. Tellus B, 1984,36(4):232-261
[15]	Andres R, Fielding D, Marland G , et al. Carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuel use, 1751-1950[J]. Tellus B, 1999,51(4):759-765
[16]	U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA). Emissions of greenhouse gases in the United States 2006 [R]. Washington, DC, 2007
[17]	Robert J A, Thomas A B, David H . A new evaluation of the uncertainty associated with CDIAC estimates of fossil fuel carbon dioxide emission[J]. Tellus B, 2014: 66. DOI: 10.3402/tellusb.v66.23616
[18]	罗陨飞, 陈亚飞, 姜英 . 煤炭分类国际标准与中国标准异同之比较[J]. 煤质技术, 2007 ( 1):22-24
[19]	董大啸, 邵龙义 . 国际常见的煤炭分类标准对比分析[J]. 煤质技术, 2015 ( 2):54-57
[20]	中华人民共和国国家质量监督检验检疫总局, 中国国家标准化管理委员会. 中国煤炭分类: GB/T5751-2009[S]. 2009
[21]	International Energy Agency . Energy statistics of non-OECD countries (2008 edition) [R]. Paris, France, 2008: 34
[22]	郜二刚, 李社红, 吴代赦 , 等 /.基于发热量的中国煤炭碳含量研究[J].地球与环境, 2014, ( 42) 1:95-101. DOI: 10.14050/j.cnki.1672-9250.2014.01.007
[23]	International Energy Agency . Energy balance statistics of non-OECD countries 2004-2005 (2007 edition) [R]. Paris, France, 2007
[24]	U.S. Geological Survey. Cement statistics and information[EB/OL] . 2017 [ 2017-06-09].
[25]	Boden T A, Marland G, Andres R J . Estimates of global, regional, and national annual CO2 emissions from fossil-fuel burning, hydraulic cement production, and gas flaring: 1950-1992 [R]. U.S. Department of Energy,Oak Ridge National Laboratory, 1995: 1-604. DOI: 10.2172/207068

国际典型碳数据库对中国碳排放核算的对比分析

Comparison analysis of China’s emissions accounting by typical international carbon databases

RichHTML

PDF

可视化

摘要/Abstract

引用本文

使用本文

图/表 3

参考文献

相关文章 1

编辑推荐

Metrics

本文评价