Dynamic mechanism for the decline of China's energy intensity during the 11th FYP (Five-Year Plan)

被引：2
作者：
Li M. [1 ,2 ]
机构：
[1] Institute of Energy, Environment and Economy, Tsinghua University
[2] Institute of Transport and Economic Research, China Academy of Railway Science
来源：
Frontiers in Energy | 2011年 / 5卷 / 3期
基金：
中国博士后科学基金;
关键词：
energy intensity; structural energy savings; technical energy savings;
D O I：
10.1007/s11708-010-0130-x
中图分类号：
学科分类号：
摘要：
From 2006 to 2009, the aggregate energy intensity of China fell by 14.38%,1) which means that China has made substantial progress towards its goal of achieving approximately a 20% reduction in energy intensity during the period of the 11th FYP (Five-Year Plan). This paper describes some new properties of the mechanism for the decrease in China's energy intensity since the beginning of the 11th FYP. First, compared with the period of the 10th FYP, technical, structural, and residential energy-savings have been improved to a certain extent. Secondly, unlike the dynamic mechanism before 2000, technical energy savings have been the main driver of momentum since the beginning of the 11th FYP. Next, although structural energy savings are not the main factor, they are still a key factor for the decrease in energy intensity. Finally, residential energy savings are still a stable driver of momentum for the decline in China's energy intensity. © 2010 Higher Education Press and Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg.
引用
收藏
页码：237 / 249
页数：12
相关论文
共 38 条
  • [1] Galli R., The relationship between energy intensity and income levels: forecasting long term energy demand in Asia emerging countries, The Energy Journal, 19, 4, pp. 85-105, (1998)
  • [2] Quah D.T., Empirics for growth and distribution: polarization, stratification, and convergence clubs, Journal of Economic Growth, 2, 1, pp. 27-59, (1997)
  • [3] Janicke M., Monch H., Ranneberg T., Simonis U.E., Structural change and environmental impact: Empirical evidence on thirty-one countries in east and west, Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 12, 2, pp. 99-114, (1989)
  • [4] Wernick I.K., Herman R., Govind S., Ausubel J.H., Materialization and dematerialization: measures and trends, Daedalus, 125, 3, pp. 171-198, (1996)
  • [5] Lin J., Zhou N., Levine M., Fridley D., Taking out 1 Billion tons of CO<sub>2</sub>: The magic of China's 11<sup>th</sup> FYP?, Energy Policy, 36, 3, pp. 954-970, (2008)
  • [6] The Medium and long-term Planning of Energy-saving, (2004)
  • [7] Sinton J., Levine M., Changing energy intensity in Chinese industry, Energy Policy, 22, 3, pp. 239-258, (1994)
  • [8] Garbaccio R.F., Ho M.S., Jorgenson D.W., Why has the Energy-output Ratio Fallen in China, The Energy Journal, 20, 3, pp. 63-91, (1999)
  • [9] Fisher-Vanden K., Jefferson G.H., Liu H.M., Tao Q., What is driving China's decline in energy intensity?, Resource and Energy Economics, 26, 1, pp. 77-97, (2004)
  • [10] Ma C.B., Stern D.I., China's changing energy intensity trend: a decomposition analysis, Energy Economics, 30, 3, pp. 1037-1053, (2008)
1234