Low Carbon Scenarios vs. Clean Coal Scenarios in
China: How to Close the Carbon Gap?
Working Paper No. 8 within the project:
Lead Markets
Funded under the BMBF Programme „WIN 2“
Authors:
Chen Qian
Chinese Academy of Science (CAS), Institute of Policy and Management, Beijing
Klaus Rennings
Centre for European Economic Research (ZEW), Research Area Environmental and Resource
Economics, Environmental Management, Mannheim
Mannheim, October 2012
Non-technical summary:
Boasting annual growth rates of nearly 10 percent over the past two decades, China surpassed
America in 2010 as the world's largest energy consumer. As the main domestic energy
resource that accounts for some 70 percent of the energy supply mix, coal plays the most
important role in China's energy strategy, especially in the electricity sector, which is a very
large emitter of greenhouse gases and the biggest direct consumer of coal in China.
Meanwhile, the indiscriminate burning of coal and other fossil fuels has become a major
environmental issue. China, currently the largest greenhouse gas emitter in the world, has
plans for transitioning to more green and sustainable forms of development. While China has
been taking active measures to reduce its reliance on coal (for example, by developing nonfossil energy), imbalance in resource availability and the low maturity of green technologies
make non-fossil fuel generation much less economically efficient. The challenge posed to
China by global climate change is how economic growth can be pursued such that it does not
undermine climate goals.
Due to the above constraints, the transition to greener forms of energy generation is unlikely
to take place in China only by using sustainable energies such as solar and wind. The
literature predominantly agrees that coal will be the dominant source of energy in China over
the next 30 years at least. Against this backdrop, the first question addressed by this paper is
how the development of coal power in China meshes with the country’s official low carbon
policy. The paper shows that current plans for the expansion of coal power will lead to higher
CO2 emissions than targeted under certain low-carbon scenarios. Moreover, the gap becomes
larger as time goes by. While the CO2 emission reduction in clean coal scenarios corresponds
to 19 to 35 percent of overall reductions in the low carbon scenario in 2020 (depending on the
specific scenario), it corresponds to just 6 to 17 percent of reduced emissions in 2030.
This gap has implications for Chinese climate and energy policy. There would appear to be
three possible options for policymakers: First, reduction targets could be scaled back such that
targets are achieved at a later date. A second option would be to make use of more advanced
coal technologies. As shown in this paper, however, the second option is quite expensive and
would only have a moderate impact on CO2 emissions. If all supercritical plants were replaced
by ultra-supercritical plants in 2030, this would only lead to 139 million tons of CO2
reduction, which corresponds to less than 10 percent of the CO2 reduction foreseen under the
low carbon scenario. A third option is the widespread deployment of carbon capture and
storage (CCS). However, this technology is still expensive for China, but more effective
compared to the clean coal technologies mentioned above. Average CO2 avoidance costs with
CCS are today, depending on the specific technology, between $27 and $42 per ton of CO2. In
light of the size of the Chinese market, this would amount to additional costs between $ 24
and 38 billion in 2030 to meet the necessary CO2-reduction of the coal fired sector in the low
carbon scenario. To close the gap between the 450 scenario and the clean coal (SCCC)
scenario, the additional cost of CO2 avoided in China would be between $88billion (for
oxyfuel technology) and $138billion (for post-combustion technology). Moreover, a lot of
uncertainties exist regarding the future development of CCS. And the fact that CCS will not
be realized in some European countries such as Germany due to public resistance may have a
negative impact on the global diffusion of this technology.
The paper concludes that climate policy in China will likely be a process of small and
incremental steps, with emissions reductions taking probably longer than expected especially
from Europe. Even if CCS technology is introduced in the next two decades, absolute
reductions in CO2 emissions can first be expected after 2030.
Das Wichtigste in Kürze:
Mit nahezu 10 Prozent jährlichem ökonomischem Wachstum in den vergangenen zwei
Dekaden ist China auf Platz eins der weltweit größten Energiekonsumenten gelandet. Kohle
spielt dabei die wichtigste Rolle als Energieressource mit einem Anteil von 70 Prozent am
Energiemix, vor allem für den Elektrizitätssektor, der ein großer Treibhausgasemittent ist und
für den größten Teil des Kohlekonsums verantwortlich ist.
Durch die Verbrennung von Kohle und anderen fossilen Ressourcen ist China auch zum
größten Treibhausgasemittenten der Welt geworden. Dieses Problem ist inzwischen erkannt
worden. Die chinesische Regierung plant einen Umbau der Wirtschaft in Richtung grüner und
nachhaltiger Entwicklung. Die Herausforderung des Klimawandels besteht für China darin,
ökonomisches Wachstum weiterhin zu ermöglichen und trotzdem konstruktive Beiträge zum
globalen Klimaschutz zu leisten. Es erscheint unwahrscheinlich, dass der Wandel zu grüner
und nachhaltiger Entwicklung ausschließlich auf der Basis von erneuerbaren Energien wie
Wind oder Solarenergie stattfinden wird. Es besteht vielmehr Konsens darüber, dass die
Kohle auch in den nächsten 30 Jahren der dominante Energieträger in China bleiben wird.
Vor diesem Hintergrund diskutiert dieses Papier die Implikationen von Innovationen im
Bereich Kohlekraftwerke, d.h. „sauberer“ Kohletechnologien für die chinesische
Klimapolitik. Bezüglich der Szenarien zeigt sich eine Lücke zwischen Low CarbonSzenarien, die vor allem für die Klimapolitik erstellt werden, und Clean Coal-Szenarien, die
vornehmlich der Energiepolitik dienen. Die Lücke klafft im Zeitablauf mehr und mehr
auseinander. Während die CO2-Emissionsreduktionen im Clean Coal-Szenario im Jahre 2020
noch je nach gewähltem Szenario 19 bis 35 Prozent der gesamten Emissionsreduktion des
Low Carbon-Szenario ausmacht, sind es 2030 nur noch 6 bis 17 Prozent.
Aus dieser Lücke ergeben sich Implikationen für die Klima- und Energiepolitik. Eine erste
Option bestünde darin, CO2-Reduktionen zeitlich zu verschieben. Eine zweite Option könnte
der Einsatz von moderneren Kohlekraftwerken sein. Diese Lösung – die außerdem sehr teuer
wäre – hätte nur eine moderate Wirkung auf die CO2 Emissionen. Würden bis 2030 alle
superkritischen Kraftwerke durch ultra-superkritische Kraftwerke ersetzt werden, ergäbe sich
eine Emissionsminderung von nur 139 Millionen Tonnen CO2, d.h. 10 Prozent des
Reduktionspotentials im Low Carbon-Szenario. Eine dritte Option besteht im Rückgriff auf
Carbon Capture Storage-Technologien (CCS), deren durchschnittliche CO2Vermeidungskosten je nach spezifischer Technologie zwischen 27 und 42 $ pro Tonne CO2
betragen. Hochgerechnet auf den chinesischen Kohlemarkt würde dies zu zusätzlichen Kosten
führen, die bei den erforderlichen Reduktionen des Low Carbon Szenarios bis 2030 zwischen
24 und 38 Milliarden $ betragen würden. . Um die Lücke zwischen dem 450 Szenario und
dem Clean Coal Szenario zu schließen, müssten sogar Kosten zwischen 88 Milliarden und
138 Milliarden $ aufgebracht werden. Zusätzliche bestehen eine Reihe von Unsicherheit
bezüglich der künftigen Entwicklung der CCS Technologie. Auch die Tatsache, dass CCS in
einigen Europäischen Ländern wie Deutschland auf öffentliche Akzeptanzprobleme stößt,
dürfte einen negativen Effekt auf die weltweite Ausbreitung dieser Technologie haben.
Es lässt sich das Fazit ziehen, dass sich Klimaschutz in China wird sich vermutlich in kleinen,
inkrementellen Schritten entwickeln, und vermutlich mehr Zeit benötigen wird als heute
vielfach erwartet. Selbst wenn CCS-Technologie in den nächsten zwei Dekaden eingeführt
wird, ist mit absoluten Reduktionen von CO2 erst nach dem Jahre 2030 zu rechnen.
Low Carbon Scenarios vs. Clean Coal Scenarios in
China: How to Close the Carbon Gap?
Chen Qian
Chinese Academy of Science (CAS), Institute of Policy and Management, Beijing
Klaus Rennings
Centre for European Economic Research (ZEW), Research Area Environmental and Resource
Economics, Environmental Management, Mannheim
Abstract:
With an annual growth rate of nearly 10 percent over the past two decades, China has already
surpassed America to become the world's greatest energy consumer. As the main domestic
energy resource that accounts for some 70 percent of the country's energy supply mix, coal
plays the most important role in China's energy strategy, especially in the electricity sector,
which is a very large emitter of greenhouse gases and the biggest direct consumer of coal in
China.
Against this backdrop, the first question addressed by this paper is how the development of
coal power in China meshes with the country’s official low carbon policy. The paper shows
that current plans for the expansion of coal power will lead to higher CO2 emissions than
targeted under certain low-carbon scenarios.
The paper then examines the implications of this development for climate and energy policy.
There are three possible options for reconciling the gap between coal-power expansion plans
and CO2 reduction scenarios: First, reduction targets could be scaled back such that targets are
achieved at a later date than currently foreseen. A second option would be to make use of
more advanced coal technologies. As shown in this paper, however, the second option is quite
expensive and would only have a moderate impact on CO2 emissions. A third option is the
introduction of carbon capture and storage (CCS). This technology is still expensive for
China, but more effective compared to the other clean coal technologies.
This paper concludes that climate policy in China will likely be a process of small and
incremental steps, with emissions reductions taking probably longer than currently forecasted.
Even if CCS technology is introduced in the next two decades, absolute reductions in CO2
emissions can first be expected after 2030.
Keywords: China, climate policy, low carbon economy, clean coal technologies
JEL: Q40, Q48, Q54, Q55
1 Introduction
With an annual growth rate of nearly 10 percent over the past two decades, China has already
surpassed America to become the world's greatest energy consumer (BP, 2011). As the main
domestic energy resource that accounts for some 70 percent of the country’s energy supply
mix (National Bureau of Statistics of China, 2011), coal plays the most important role in
China's energy strategy, especially in the electricity sector, which is a very large emitter of
greenhouse gases and the biggest direct consumer of coal in China. In 2009 the sector
produced 3.2 gigatons (Gt) of CO2 (i.e. 47 percent of China's total greenhouse gas emissions)
and consumed 1 billion tons of coal (close to half of China's total coal consumption) (IEA,
2011a). About 46 percent of coal consumption is attributable to electricity generation in order
to meet rapid demand growth.
The great trends of urbanization, population growth and an increasing national income will
result in major challenges for the supply of electricity in China. As shown in Figure 1, coalfired generation capacity increased at an average rate of 8.66 percent between 1980 and 2009
(IEA, 2011), and is expected to increase further during the next two decades.
Figure 1. Size of conventional thermal electricity industry in China: historical and projection
data
Sources: IEA: Coal database 2011 for historical development until 2010. World Energy Outlook (WEO) (2011)
1
for future projections.
Some forecasts, including the World Energy Outlook (IEA, 2011c), even expect total
electricity generation (in general and from coal) to triple by the year 2030. This means that
China's rapidly growing demand for energy from its largely coal-based power plants will
drive a substantial increase in coal consumption. Considering resource abundance and price,
this dependency on coal is difficult to change even over the mid to long term (Steenhof abd
Fulton, cited in Yu et al., 2011).
Meanwhile, the indiscriminate burning of coal and other fossil fuels has become a major
environmental issue. For example, the coal-fired electricity industry released 56 percent of
industrial SO2 emissions in 2006 (Editorial Board of China Environment Yearbook, 2007)
and 47.5 percent of national CO2 emissions in 2009 (Yu et al., 2011). Adding the external
1
BAU.WEO.2011 means the ‘business as usual scenario’ in the 2011 World Energy Outlook.
costs of such pollution to total social costs increases the true cost of coal by 150 percent
(McKinsey & Company, 2009). The total cost of coal externalities is estimated to have
reached €170 billion in 2007 (Mao et al., 2008).
China, the biggest greenhouse gas emitter in the world, has plans for transitioning to forms of
development that are more green and sustainable (Chinese Academy of Sciences, 2009).
While China has been taking active measures to reduce its reliance on coal (for example, by
developing non-fossil energy), imbalance in resource availability and the low maturity of
green technologies make non-fossil fuel generation much less economically efficient. The
challenge posed to China by global climate change is how economic growth can be pursued
such that it does not undermine climate goals. Due to the above trends, the transition to
greener forms of energy generation is unlikely to take place with sustainable energies such as
solar and wind alone.
The development of cleaner fossil fuels will also play a major role. The literature agrees that
coal will remain a dominant source of energy in China over the next 30 years at least
(WangYi et al., 2004; Steenhof and Fulton, 2007; Rennings and Smidt, 2010). As it is quite
difficult to achieve significant CO2 reductions with the existing coal combustion technology
(Ni, 2010), the development and deployment of innovative clean coal technologies is crucial
to mitigate air pollution, energy security problems, greenhouse gas emissions, and promote
sustainable development in China. There are two main ways to reduce greenhouse gas
emissions and the electricity sector's dependence on coal. First, China could develop cleaner
energy sources (e.g. nuclear, solar, wind and small hydroelectric power plants). Second, it
could deploy clean coal technologies, particularly integrated gasification combined cycle
(IGCC) and carbon capture and storage (CCS). There is agreement in the literature that both
options will be important for China. However, this paper focuses on the implications of the
second option – i.e. scenarios for the deployment of clean coal technologies – while also
discussing the timing of China’s attainment of emission reduction targets.
This paper is structured as follows: Section 2 provides background information on China’s
development of its electricity sector, including coal utilization trends and various
development scenarios. Section 3 calculates the CO2 emission gap between clean coal
scenarios, which are mainly done for energy policy, and scenarios for a low carbon economy,
which are directed to climate policy. Section 4 discusses solutions to close the gap between
these two types of scenarios. Finally, Section 5 presents our conclusions.
2 Background
2.1 The current status of coal utilization in China
China is one of the few countries in the world that lacks oil and gas resources and uses coal as
its main energy source. In 2010, China’s proven recoverable reserves of coal were 114.5
billion tons or 82 billion tons of coal equivalent (Btce), 13.3 percent of the world total.
China’s proven recoverable reserves of oil and gases were only 2,000 million tons (2.86 Btce)
and 2,800 billion cubic meters (3.73 Btce), 1.1 percent (for oil) and 1.5 percent (for gas) of
the world total (British Petroleum, 2011). The total proven recoverable reserves for oil and
gas are only 8.04 percent that of coal. Furthermore, although China has relatively rich coal
reserves, the quality of its coal is low. China's coal resource is classified as 29 percent
bituminous, 29 percent sub-bituminous and 16 percent lignite (Atwood et al., 2003). Overall,
this means that energy sources are a long-term bottleneck and lasting problem for Chinese
development.
China is currently the world's largest producer of coal, accounting for approximately 45
percent of the world's total annual coal production (XMECC, 2011). It is also the world's
greatest consumer of coal, accounting for more than 47 percent of the world's total annual
coal consumption. From 1999 to 2010, China's coal production increased from 39200 kilotons
(kt) to 6037004 kt, as shown in Figure 2.
Figure 2. Annual coal production in China
million tons of oil equivalent
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
Year
1971
1973
1975
1977
1979
1981
1983
1985
1987
1989
1991
1993
1995
1997
1999
2001
2003
2005
2007
2009
0
Data source: IEA 2011b
In 2011, the rise in coal production in China was still being driven by high coal prices and
tight domestic supply and demand conditions. However, China became a net importer of coal
for the first time since 2009. China's coal consumption had experienced a rapid and
continuous increase, with an average annual increase of 7.36 percent from 1999 to 2010
(British Petroleum, 2011). In 2010, the volume of China's coal consumption reached 32.5
hundred million tons, accounting for more than 70 percent of China's overall energy
consumption (Neng Yuan Ju, 2011). The electricity sector alone was responsible for about 50
percent of the country's coal consumption (Wang, J., Y. Dong, et al. 2011). Coal has played a
crucial role in China's economic growth. In 2010, coal generated about 80.3 percent of
China's power; just 1.77 percent came from nuclear and 1.04 percent from wind (Finance,
2011).
2.2 Clean coal technologies
Electrical power plants come in various forms, including thermal, hydroelectric and solar. The
most common type is the thermal power station, which includes coal-fired power plants.
The most prevalent technological trajectory is pulverized bed combustion (PC), which
represents 90 percent of coal-fired capacity worldwide. Consequently, this study focuses on
this combustion technique. Coal-fired power stations with pulverized bed combustion are
differentiated according to the condition of the steam entering the turbine, although this is not
the only property that defines a coal-fired power station. Steam conditions may be subcritical
(S), supercritical (SC) or ultra-supercritical (USC). Steam is called supercritical when the
steam parameters exceed a critical point. 2 The higher the temperature and pressure of the
steam, the higher the efficiency of the power plant. 3
Efforts to improve power-plant technology focus primarily on achieving increased efficiency
and decreased emissions. To achieve such improvements many branches of knowledge must
be considered, because improvements are often based on incremental changes in a range of
technologies, including new materials and improvements in computer technology.
Subcritical-pressure power plants have been the mainstream technology since the late 1990s,
and their share of the entire coal-ﬁred electricity sector remains steady at about 40 percent.
Integrated gasification combined cycle (IGCC) is only a niche technology. Figure 3 shows
that, after obvious growth in the last decade, circulating fluidized bed combustion (CFBC),
supercritical and ultra-supercritical pressure units comprised 9.7 percent, 12.8 percent and 1.7
percent of the total in 2007, respectively (Editorial Board of China Electric Power Yearbook,
1999–2008).
2
The “critical point” is the temperature and pressure above which the working fluid – in this case water – no longer turns into steam but
instead decreases in density when it is heated above “boiling point.” By eliminating the transition into steam (phase change) the efficiency of
the process can be improved. For water the actual conditions are temperatures and pressures of over 374°C and 221.2 bar respectively.
3
The rule of thumb in power plant construction is that each additional bar causes a 0.005% increase in the degree of efficiency and each
additional degree Celsius causes a 0.011% increase in efficiency.
Figure 3. Installed capacity of China’s coal-ﬁred generation technologies
IGCC
16000
14000
CFBC
10000
8000
UltraSupercritical
6000
4000
Supercritical
2000
0
Year
1960
1963
1966
1969
1972
1975
1978
1981
1984
1987
1990
1993
1996
1999
2002
2005
2008
(Megawatts electrical
12000
Data source: IEA 2011b
Subcritical
4
2.3 Scenarios for China developed in past studies
2.3.1 Low carbon scenarios for the Chinese electricity sector
As lowering carbon emissions has become an increasing concern worldwide, more and more
research is being conducted to forecast Chinese emission trends. Several institutions have
developed scenarios regarding China’s carbon emissions, including the Energy Research
Institute (ERI), Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL), McKinsey & Company
(McKinsey), the International Energy Agency (IEA) and the United Nations Development
Program (UNDP). We can basically divide the forecasts developed in past studies into two
categories: reference scenarios and comparison scenarios (see details in Appendix 1).
There are clear differences between these two types of scenarios with regard to time horizons
and emission reduction levels. However, we can find similar trends in both the reference and
comparison scenarios:
(1) Reference scenarios: the CO2 emission peak arrives around 2040 in the ERI scenario and
2030 in LBNL scenario, while there is no CO2 emission peak arriving before 2050 in the
UNDP and IEA scenarios;
(2) Comparison scenarios: the CO2 emission peak arrives around 2030 in most scenarios; 5
Compared to the reference scenarios, the most optimistic comparison scenario forecasts lower
emissions of 0.8 billion tons in 2010, 5 billion tons in 2030 and 11 billion tons in 2050. Under
this scenario, China reduces its CO2 emissions drastically in the coming decades, at least in
terms of relative reductions (emissions per unit of output).
4
IEA (2011), "OECD – Coal balances", IEA Coal Information Statistics (database).doi: 10.1787/data-00552-en (Accessed on 5 June 2012).
Except for the low carbon scenario in IEA and emissions control scenario in UNDP.
5
China is now under pressure to achieve its avowed climate goals. Figure 4 shows different
scenarios from the IEA, ranging from business as usual (current policies scenario) to a very
ambitious scenario from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (the “450”
scenario). To reach the absolute emission reductions foreseen in the 450 scenario, radical
changes in Chinese energy and climate policy would be needed. We could also find that CO2
reduction of electricity sector accounts about half of the total reduction.
Figure 4. CO2 emissions in China: historic data and projections
Total CO2 emissions
(history)
14000
Total CO2 emissions
(Current Policies Scenario)
12000
Total CO2 emissions (New
Policies Scenario)
Million tons
10000
8000
Total CO2 emissions (450
Scenario)
6000
CO2 emissions from
electricity sector (history)
4000
2000
CO2 emissions from
electricity sector (Current
Policies Scenario)
0
Year
1971 1980 1990 2000 2009 2020 2030 2035
Data source: IEA (2011a)
In the IEA projection in Figure 4, we can see that the electricity sector is expected to reduce
CO2 emissions from 5339 Mt in the current policies scenario to 4278 Mt CO2 in the low
carbon scenario, which means that annual CO2 emissions should be reduced by 1061 Mt by
2030 6.
2.3.2 Previous
work on clean coal scenarios in China
We reviewed four articles that forecast future scenarios based on existing coal-fired
technology (see details in Appendix 2). We can essentially divide these scenarios into two
types: baseline clean coal (BCC) scenarios and clean coal scenarios.
In Figure 5, the BCC scenarios assume hardly any development of new technologies such as
integrated gasification combined cycle (IGCC) and carbon capture and storage (CCS). In
these scenarios, the main clean coal technologies in 2030 are still subcritical and supercritical
technologies.
6
More details about scenario can be found in IEA,(2011a).
Figure 5. Technology structure in different BCC scenarios in the literature
8000
Other
6000
IGCC
5000
CFBC
Terawatt-hours
7000
4000
PFBC-CC
3000
USC
2000
SC
1000
Subcritical
0
200520102015202020252030
BCC scenario 1
2000201020202030
BCC scenario 2
Data source: Yu, F., J. Chen, et al. (2011) and Cai, W., C. Wang, et al. (2007)
7
In Figure 6 we can see that IGCC and CCS are developed substantially in order to meet
ambitious CO2 reduction goals.
Figure 6. Technology structure in different clean coal scenarios in the literature
8000
7000
Other
Terawatt-hours (TWh)
6000
5000
PFBC
4000
IGCC
3000
CFBC
2000
1000
0
2010 2020 2030
clean coal scenario 1
2010 2020 2030
SC/USC
units
Subcritical
units
clean coal scenario 2
Data source: Yu, F., J. Chen, et al. (2011) and Cai, W., C. Wang, et al. (2007)
In the next section we will explore whether the clean coal technology structure in the clean
coal scenarios could help to reduce CO2 emissions to fulfill the targets of the low carbon
scenario. We are concerned with two interrelated questions: Is there an emissions gap
between the low carbon and clean coal scenarios? And if so, how large is this gap?
7
PFBC means pressurized fluidized bed combustion. Otherwise clean coal scenario 1 includes low and medium
pressure (LMP), high pressure (HP), ultra-high pressure (UHP) and clean coal scenario 2 includes thermal power
plants (less than 300 MW) and CCS mitigation.
3 The gap between the clean coal and low carbon scenarios
In this section we first calculate the amount of CO2 emission in the clean coal and low carbon
scenarios. Clean coal scenario means we use clean coal technologies such as SC/USC and
IGCC technologies to realize the CO2 mitigation objection.
3.1 Scenario description and main assumptions
We use three scenarios in this paper, all of them derived from IEA (2011). They are the
Baseline Clean Coal Scenario (BCC) and Strict Control Clean Coal Scenario (SCCC). The
data are based on information from 2000. Energy consumption factors, emissions factors and
the cost information for each measurement are based on relevant literature, such as IEA
(2011), Cai, W., C. Wang, et al. (2007) and Yu, F., J. Chen, et al. (2011). Low carbon
scenario in blow means the new policy scenario in WEO (IEA (2011)).
In this paper we focus on clean coal technology in the coal power sector. Specifically, we
examine the impact of different policies on the choice of coal technology. We assume that the
share of coal fired electricity compared to other energy sources such as renewables does not
vary between the different scenarios. This assumption is in line with the studies mentioned
above, especially Yu. et al. (2011). The amount of coal may change due to the increased
efficiency of innovative coal technologies. The major purpose of this assumption is to provide
a standardized set for the comparison and analysis of different technology choices (Wang et
al., 2007). Our projection for net electricity generation is in line with IEA (2011). Appendix 3
and 4 show the main assumptions in the different scenarios.
3.2 Projected CO2 emissions from coal power in the clean coal scenarios
Without considering CCS systems, CO2 emissions in the BCC scenario rise from 3.2 billion
tons in 2009 to 4.11 billion tons in 2030 as a result of an increase in installed capacity.
However, in SCCC scenario, technological innovation will lead to a lower increase in
emissions, with emissions rising to 4.11 billion instead of 4.38 billion tons by 2030 (Fig 7).
This lower emissions level is attributable to the development of more advanced coal
technologies.
Figure 7. CO2 emissions from coal power in different scenarios 8
5,0
4,5
Other
4,0
3,5
IGCC
3,0
CFBC
Billion tons
2,5
2,0
PFBC-CC
1,5
USCCC
1,0
SCCC
0,5
0,0
2010 2015 2020 2025 2030
BCC scenario
2010 2015 2020 2025 2030
Subcritical
SCCC scenario
3.3 The gap between low carbon scenarios and clean coal scenarios
We can see from Figure 8 that even when clean coal technologies are developed, there is still
a large gap between low carbon and clean coal scenarios. Furthermore, the gap becomes
larger with time.
8
Clean coal scenario 1 includes low and medium pressure (LMP), high pressure (HP) and ultra-high pressure
(UHP).
Figure 8.Coal-power CO2 emission forecasts in three different scenarios
6320
CO2 emissions in BAU
scenario
5820
Million tons
5320
4820
CO2 emission in SCCC
scenario
4320
3820
CO2 emission in low
carbon scenario
3320
2820
2320
Year
2015
2020
2025
2030
CO2 emission in 450
scenario
Source: Authors’ calculations
As shown in Table 1, CO2 emission reduction in the clean coal scenario only comprise 19 to
35 percent of overall CO2 emission reductions in the low carbon scenarios in 2020, and only
represent 6 to 17 percent of reductions in 2030. A primary reason for this declining
percentage is the ever-lower efficiency gains obtainable from clean coal technologies.
Table 1: Gap between the low carbon and clean coal scenarios
Unit: millions of tons
2020
2030
CO2 emission reduction in clean coal (SCCC) scenario
175.9
273.3
CO2 emission reduction in low carbon scenario
493.0
1539.0
CO2 emission reduction in 450 scenario
894.0
4.094.00
Gap between the low carbon and clean coal (SCCC) scenarios
317.1
1265.7
Gap between the 450 scenario and clean coal (SCCC) scenarios
718.1
3820.7
4 Closing the gap between low carbon and clean coal scenarios
4.1 Options for closing the gap
In the previous section we highlighted the large emissions reduction gap between the clean
coal and low carbon scenarios. In this section, we will explore the implications of this gap for
climate and energy policy. A first option for reconciling the reductions obtainable with clean
coal technology with the avowed goals of climate protection policy would be to delay the
timeline for emissions reduction: If climate protection policy relies exclusively on clean coal
technologies, the carbon reductions in China’s electricity sector will be realized later than is
discussed and expected today (particularly in European forecasts).
A second potential option for closing the gap is the deployment of more advanced coal
technologies (in a more strict clean coal scenario). For example, if all subcritical plants were
replaced by supercritical power plants in 2020, there would be an additional 43 million tons of
CO2 reduction. And if all the supercritical plants were replaced by ultra-supercritical plants in
2030, there would be another 139 million tons of CO2 reduction. However, this solution
would not only be expensive, but would only have a moderate impact on emissions (see Fig.
9).
Figure 9. The CO2 emissions gap between clean coal and strict clean coal scenarios from 2009
to 2030 9
CO2 emissions in BAU
scenario
7000
CO2 emissions in SCCC
scenario
6000
million tons
5000
CO2 emissions in low
carbon scenario
4000
3000
CO2 emission in clean coal
scenario (more strict clean
coal scenario )
2000
1000
Year
CO2 emission in 450
scenario
0
2009
2015
2020
2025
2030
Source: Authors’ calculations
A third option is large-scale deployment of carbon capture and storage (CCS). According to
the literature, CCS could be an important part of the solution since it combines continued coal
utilization with significant CO2 reduction (Hengwei Liu, 2010).
4.2 The cost of CCS in China
CO2 capture and storage (CCS) is an emissions reduction option that has been receiving
significant attention worldwide, but there are two notable barriers to implementation: First,
CCS is not yet ready technologically for commercial use (and faces serious resistance in
several countries). Second, it is a very expensive technology. Like most developing countries,
China is concerned that CCS is too costly. The Chinese government has indicated that it may
be willing to support CCS if more funding was available. China has included reference to
CCS as an important frontier technology in its Outline for Medium and Long-Term Science
and Technology Development (2006–2020). 10 Currently, significant R&D activities and a
number of pilot projects are underway to provide technical knowledge, training and further
research into CCS technologies.
The cost of deploying CCS in China could vary significantly depending on the projects in
question, from relatively low-cost early opportunity projects to more expensive large-scale
9
According to the strict clean coal scenario, all subcritical plants will be replaced by supercritical plants in 2020 and all supercritical plants
will be replaced by the ultra-supercritical plants in 2030.
10
See http://www.gov.cn/jrzg/2006-02/09/content_183787.htm (in Chinese)
industrial undertakings. An integrated CCS system involves three main phases: in the first
phase, CO2 is captured and compressed at a large stationary source, such as a coal-fired power
plant or steel factory. In the second phase, it is transported off-site. In the third phase, the
captured CO2 is sequestered through storage in geological formations or through
transformation into carbonates in reactions with metal oxides.
There are three main types of CO2 capture technologies: post-combustion, oxyfuel and precombustion (Rennings et al., 2009). Post-combustion involves scrubbing the CO2 out of flue
gases from combustion process. Within the oxyfuel technological process, fuel is combusted
in recycled flue gas, and then the gas is enriched with oxygen (Bliss, 2010). Pre-combustion
uses a gasification process followed by CO2 separation to yield a hydrogen fuel gas (IEA,
2009).
Depending on the technology, adding CCS is estimated to increase the cost of generating
coal-fired power by 40–80 percent. 11 According to the IEA’s Technology Roadmap for CCS
(IEA, 2009), achieving sustainable levels with this technology (the so-called BLUE Map level
of deployment) will require over US$1.3 trillion of additional global investment and US$5
trillion in total investment from 2010 to 2050, of which at least 15 percent will fall to China.
Further costs will be incurred for the construction of CCS transport pipelines: the capital costs
of constructing a 100-kilometer pipeline are between US$18 million and US$102 million in
China, depending on the amount of CO2 transported. NZEC Work Package 3 (2009) have
carried out case studies on capture for supercritical/ultra supercritical (SC/USC) in China, and
the results show that the investment cost of power generation with capture is around 7000–
9000 RMB/kW (1000–1300 US$/kW) before taking into account loan interest and taxes, etc.
(Chen, W., 2011).
According to the IEA World Energy Outlook 2011(IEA, 2011c), regarding the total cost of
CCS (including capital cost and operation and maintenance (O&M) costs), there is no cost
reduction for SUB/SC/USC technologies from 2015 to 2035 and slight reduction for IGCC in
2035. Besides, the cost in China accounts 39% to 53% in Europe regarding SUB/SC/USC
technologies and 43% to 53% regarding IGCC in 2035.
Based on Finkenrath (2011), average CO2 avoidance costs with CCS are today between $27
(for oxy-fuel technology) and $42 (for post-combustion technology) per ton of CO2. CO2
avoidance costs for IGCC in China are not available. We can estimate the avoidance costs
which are necessary to close gap between the clean coal and low carbon scenario. As
mentioned above, if it is assumed that 80% of the reduction from the electricity sector is from
coal-fired power plants (as is their share today), then the CO2 emission reduction needed by
the electricity sector is 901 million tons in 2030 compared to the low carbon scenario, and the
additional cost of CO2 avoided in China would be between $ 24 billion (for oxyfuel
technology) and $38 billion (for post-combustion technology). In order to close the gap
between SCCC scenario and 450 scenario, 3820 million tons of additional CO 2 mitigation are
needed. Accordingly, the additional cost of CO2 avoided in China would be between
$88billion (for oxyfuel technology) and $138billion (for post-combustion technology).
11
IPCC Special Report on Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage, 2005 and Carbon Capture and Storage: A Key
Abatement Option, IEA, 2008.
5 Summary and Conclusions
In coming decades China will continue to rely on coal and other fossil fuels for power
generation. Yet there is a large gap between the CO2 emissions that are forecasted in low
carbon and clean coal scenarios. Moreover, the larger the forecast horizon, the greater this gap
becomes: while CO2 reductions in clean coal scenarios are equivalent to 19 to 35 percent of
overall reductions in low carbon scenarios in 2020, in 2030 clean coal corresponds to just 6 to
17 percent of such reductions.
This gap has several implications for climate and energy policy. There would appear to be
three possible options for policymakers: First, reduction targets could be scaled back such that
targets are achieved at a later date than currently foreseen. A second option would be to make
use of more advanced coal technologies. As shown in this paper, however, the second option
is quite expensive and would only have a moderate impact on CO2 emissions. According to
the strict clean coal scenario, if all supercritical plants were replaced by ultra-supercritical
plants in 2030, this would only lead to 139 million tons of CO2 reduction, which corresponds
to less than 10 percent of the CO2 reduction foreseen under the low carbon scenario. A third
option is the large-scale deployment of carbon capture and storage (CCS). This option may
become indispensable if significant CO2 reductions are sought. CCS would be still expensive
for China, but more effective compared to the clean coal technologies mentioned above.
Average CO2 avoidance costs with CCS for China are today between $27 (for oxy-fuel
technology) and $42 (for post-combustion technology) per ton of CO2. To close the gap
between the low carbon and clean coal (SCCC) scenario, the additional cost of CO2 avoided in
China would be between $24billion (for oxyfuel technology) and $38billion (for postcombustion technology). And for closing the gap between the 450 scenario and clean coal
(SCCC) scenario, the additional cost of CO2 avoided in China would be between $88billion
(for oxyfuel technology) and $138billion (for post-combustion technology),. Moreover, a lot
of uncertainties exist regarding the future development of CCS (Watson, 2012). The fact that
CCS will not be realized in some European countries such as Germany due to public
resistance may have a negative impact on the global diffusion of the technology (Kolhoff,
2012).
This paper concludes that climate policy in China will likely be a process of small and
incremental steps, with emissions reductions taking probably longer than currently forecasted.
Even if CCS technology is introduced in the next two decades, absolute reductions in CO2
emissions can first be expected after 2030.
Acknowledgements
This work was made possible by funding from the project “Lead Market Strategies: First
Mover, Early Follower, Late Follower” (financed by the German Ministry of Research and
Education under the Program “Science for Sustainability, Economics and Sustainability”) as
well as by a grant from the China Scholarship Council. We are grateful for helpful comments
from Stefan Voegele from the Research Center Jülich.
References
Attwood, T., V. Fung, et al. (2003). "Market opportunities for coal gasification in China." Journal of
Cleaner Production 11(4), 473–479.
Bin, X., S. Chen xia, et al. (2011). "Comparing Chinese Clean Coal Power Generation Technologies with
Life Cycle Inventory." Energy Procedia 5(0), 2195–2200.
Bliss, K. (2010). “Policy, legal, and regulatory evaluation of the feasibility of a national pipeline
infrastructure for the transport and storage of carbon dioxide.” Interstate Oil and Gas Compact
Commisssion, Oklahoma
BP (British Petroleum) (2011). BP Statistical Review of World Energy. June 2011. London.
Best, D. and B. Beck (2011). "Status of CCS development in China. "Energy Procedia 4(0), 6141–6147.
Cai, W., C. Wang, et al. (2007). "Scenario analysis on CO2 emissions reduction potential in China's
electricity sector." Energy Policy 35(12), 6445–6456.
Chinese Academy of Sciences (2009), China Sustainable Development Strategy Report 2009 – China's
Approach towards a Low Carbon Future. Beijing: Science Press
CEC
(2010).
The
indicates
of
electric
power
reliability
in
2009.
〈
http://www.cec.org.cn/kekaoxing/zhibiaofabu/linianzhibiao/2010-11-18/355.html〉.
CEC
(2011).
The
Preliminary
statistics
of
national
electric
power
industry
in
2010.〈
http://www.cec.org.cn/tongjixinxibu/tongji/niandushuju/2011-02-23/44236.html〉
Chen, W. (2011). "The potential role of CCS to mitigate carbon emissions in future China." Energy
Procedia 4(0), 6007–6014.
China's National Development and Reform Commission (NDRC). (2007). Medium and Long-Term
Development Plan for Renewable Energy in China. Beijing.
Chen, W. and R. Xu (2010). "Clean coal technology development in China." Energy Policy 38(5), 2123–
2130.
China Environmental Yearbook Society(2007). Editorial Board of China Environment Yearbook. Beijing,
China (2007)
Fan, Lin, Norman, Catherine S., Patt, Anthony G., Electricity capacity investment under risk aversion: A
case study of coal, gas, and concentrated solar power, Energy Economics (2011), doi:
10.1016/j.eneco.2011.10.010
Finance, 2011.〈http://finance.cib.com.cn/generalview/news_info.jsp?tab=news&newsId=1403420〉.
Finkenrath, Matthias (2011). Cost and Performance of Carbon Dioxide Capture from Power Generation.
IEA, Paris.
H Liu, Kelly Sims Gallagher (2010). Catalysing strategic transformation to a low-carbon economy: A CCS
road map for China. Energy Policy38, 59–74.
Harkin, T., A. Hoadley, et al. (2009). "Process integration analysis of a brown coal-fired power station with
CO2 capture and storage and lignite drying." Energy Procedia 1(1), 3817–3825.
IEA (International Energy Agency) (2011a). CO2 Emissions from Fuel Combustion 2011. OECD, Paris.
IEA (International Energy Agency) (2011b). Coal Information 2011. OECD/IEA, Paris
IEA (International Energy Agency) (2011c). World Energy Outlook 2011. OECD/IEA, Paris.
IEA (International Energy Agency) (2011d). Power Generation from Coal. OECD/IEA, Paris.
IEA (2010) (International Energy Agency). Projected Costs of Generating Electricity 2010.Edition
OECD/IEA, Paris.IEA (International Energy Agency) (2010). Projected Costs of Generating Electricity.
OECD/IEA, Paris.
IEA (International Energy Agency) (2009 a). Technology roadmap: carbon capture and storage.
OECD/IEA, Paris.
IEA (International Energy Agency) (2007). Clean Coal Technology, December 1, 2007. http://www.ieacoal.org.uk/content/default.asp?PageId=988.
IEA/OECD International Energy Agency. Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development
(2007a).Energy Technology R&D, RDD budgets Vol. 2007(01), Paris.
IEA/OECD International Energy Agency. Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development
(2007b). Energy balances of OECD countries 1960–2005, Paris.
IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change)(2005). Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage:Special
Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press.
Glomsrød, S. and W. Taoyuan (2005). "Coal cleaning: a viable strategy for reduced carbon emissions and
improved environment in China?" Energy Policy 33(4), 525–542.
Kolhoff, W. (2012). “Energiewende: Bundesumweltminister Altmaier strebt bis Ende 2012 Konsens mit
allen beteiligten an”. Saarbrücker Zeitung, 23.7.2012
Kong, G. and R. White (2010). "Toward cleaner production of hot dip galvanizing industry in China."
Journal of Cleaner Production 18(10–11), 1092–1099.
Li, Y. "Dynamics of clean coal-fired power generation development in China." Energy Policy (2011),
doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2011.06.012
Li Huimin, Qi Ye (2011). Comparison on China’s Carbon Emission Scenarios in 2050. Advances in
Climate Change Research 2011, 7 (4), 271–280.
Lei Zhu, Fan Y. (2011). Zhu L, A real options–based CCS investment evaluation model: Case study of
China’s power generation sector. Apply Energy (2011), doi:10.1016/j.apenergy.2011.04.005
Liu, H. and K. S. Gallagher (2011)."Preparing to ramp up large-scale CCS demonstrations: An
engineering-economic assessment of CO2 pipe line transportation in China." International Journal of
Greenhouse Gas Control 5(4), 798–804.
Liu, H. and K. S. Gallagher (2010)."Catalyzing strategic transformation to a low-carbon economy: A CCS
roadmap for China." Energy Policy 38(1), 59–74.
Liu, H., W. Ni, et al. (2008). "Strategic thinking on IGCC development in China." Energy Policy 36(1), 1–
11.
Lu, X., Z. Yu, et al. (2008)."Policy study on development and utilization of clean coal technology in
China." Fuel Processing Technology 89(4), 475–484.
Mao Y., S. Hong, F. Yang (2008). The True Cost of Coal, The Energy Foundation,WWF.
Amsterdam/Beijing.
Martelli, E., T. Kreutz, et al. (2009). "Comparison of coal IGCC with and without CO2 capture and storage:
Shell gasification with standard vs. partial water quench." Energy Procedia (1), 607–614.
McKinsey & Company (2009). China’s green revolution: Prioritizing technologies to achieve energy and
environmental sustainability. McKinsey & Company.
NZEC (The Joint UK-China Near Zero Emissions Coal) (2009). Work Package 3: Case Studies for Carbon
Dioxide
Capture
from
Coal-Fired
Power
Plants
in
ChinaNeng
Yuan
Ju,
2011.〈
http://nyj.ahpc.gov.cn/info.jsp?xxnr_id=10083516〉
NDRC (China National Development and Reform Commission), SEPA (China State Environmental
Protection Administration), 2007a NDRC (China National Development and Reform Commission),
SEPA (China State Environmental Protection Administration), 2007a.The Eleventh Five-Year Plan of
National
Environmetal
Protection.
Available
from:
〈http://www.gov.cn/zwgk/2007-
11/26/content_815498.htm〉 (in Chinese)
Pérez-Fortes, M., A. D. Bojarski, et al. (2009). "Conceptual model and evaluation of generated power and
emissions in an IGCC plant." Energy 34(10), 1721–1732.
Rennings, Klaus, Peter Markewitz and Stefan Vögele (2009), How Clean is Clean? Incremental Versus
Radical Technological Change in Coal-Fired Power Plants, ZEW Discussion Paper No. 09-021,
Mannheim
Rennings, Klaus, Wilko Smidt (2010), A Lead Market Approach Towards the Emergence and Diffusion of
Coal-fired Power Plant Technology, Politica Economia XXVII, no. 2, 301–327.
Rong, F. and D. G. Victor (2011). "Coal liquefaction policy in China: Explaining the policy reversal since
2006." Energy Policy 39(12), 8175–8184.
SEPA (State Environmental Protection Administration), 2001 SEPA (State Environmental Protection
Administration), 2001. The Tenth Five-Year Plan of National Environmental Protection. Available from
〈www.caep.org.cn/uploadfile/11-5/10-5.doc〉 (in Chinese).
Steenhof, P. A. and W. Fulton (2007). "Scenario development in China's electricity sector." Technological
Forecasting and Social Change 74(6), 779–797.
The Climate Group(2010). CCS: Towards Market Transformation in China. Beijing, China
Wang, J., Y. Dong, et al. (2011). "Coal production forecast and low carbon policies in China." Energy
Policy 39(10), 5970–5979.
Wang, H., T. Nakata (2009). Analysis of the market penetration of clean coal technologies and its impacts
in China's electricity sector. Energy Policy 37, 338–351
Wang et al., (2007). K. Wang, C. Wang, X. Lu, J. Chen. Scenario analysis on CO2 emissions reduction
potential in China's iron and steel industry. Energy Policy 35, 2320–2335
Watson, J. (Ed.) (2012). Carbon Capture and Storage – Realising the potential? Project Report, UK Energy
Research Centre, London
XMECC, 2011.〈http://xmecc.xmsme.gov.cn/2011-1/20111783916.htm〉.
Yu, F., J. Chen, et al. Trend of technology innovation in China's coal-fired electricity industry under
resource and environmental constraints. Energy Policy 39, 1586–1599
ZEP (European Technology Platform for Zero Emission Fossil Fuel Power Plants) (2011). The Costs of
CO2 Capture, Transport and Storage. Belgium
Appendix 1. Comparison of scenario settings in the five low carbon scenarios studies
ERI
Reference scenarios
Comparison scenarios
Current scenario: considers current emission reduction
policies
Low carbon scenario: considers the sustainable development of
China, with more efforts to realize low carbon economy
IEA
The Current Policies Scenario, which assumes no change
in government policies and measures beyond those that
were enacted or adopted by mid-2011, is considerably
worse, and is consistent with a long term temperature
increase of 6°C or more.
LBNL
Continued Improvement Scenario (CIS): Chinese
economy will continue lowering its energy intensity as a
function of GDP to achieve levels that are common in
industrialized countries
UNDP
Business as usual: Imposes certain extra policies, but
compulsory emissions reduction measures are not put in
place
Strict low carbon scenario: based on global emission reduction
goals
New policy scenario: which takes account of both existing
government policies and declared policy intentions (including
cautious implementation of the Copenhagen Accord and Cancun
Agreements), would result in a level of emissions that is
consistent with a long-term average temperature increase of
more than 3.5°C.
450 scenario: The trends and implications of the 450 Scenario, a
scenario based on achieving an emissions trajectory consistent
with an average temperature increase of 2°C.
Accelerated Improvement Scenario (AIS): Assesses the impact of
actions already taken by the Chinese government, planned or
proposed actions, and actions that may not yet have been
considered, in order to evaluate the potential for China to
control energy demand growth and mitigate CO2 emissions. In
addition, there are also scenarios with CCS (CIS and AIS assume
no CCS)
Emissions controls scenario: Foresees implementation of a
package of industrial and energy structure policies to reduce
growth-related energy consumption
Emissions abatement scenario: Foresees policymakers setting
2030 as the year China will reach peak emissions, with the
maximum possible reduction in emissions achieved by 2050
Appendix 2. Comparison of scenario settings in the four clean coal scenarios studies
Reference
scenarios
Yu, F., J. Chen, et al. (2011).
"Trend of technology
innovation in China's coalfired electricity industry
under resource and
environmental"
Wang, H. and T. Nakata
(2009)."Analysis of the
market penetration of clean
coal technologies and its
impacts in China's
electricity"
Cai, W., C. Wang, et al.
(2007). "Scenario analysis
on CO2 emissions reduction
potential in China's
electricity sector"
Baseline scenario:
Assumes
governments
introduce no new
energy and climate
policies
Comparison scenarios
Planning policy (PP) scenario: Significant penetration of advanced technologies are
objectives in planning for 2010 and later. SC and USC will be the mainstream
generation technologies, while IGCC and PFBC-CC will begin operation after 2020.
These two technologies will both make up 5 percent of newly built power plants. FGD is
compulsory for coal-ﬁred power plants with capacities more than 300 MW, and CCS will
be implemented in some IGCC plants after 2025.
Strict control (SC) scenario: Rigorous management and strong promotion of efﬁcient
technologies, aimed at achieving a signiﬁcant decline in resource consumption and
environmental effects. Compared with the PP scenario, the development and
application of immature technologies, including IGCC, PFBC-CC and CCS, will be more
vigorous. Five percent of newly built IGCC plants will install CCS system after 2020. All
of the new coal-ﬁred power plants install FGD systems, and air cooling is mandatory in
water-deﬁcient areas (as in clean coal scenario 2).
Baseline scenario: Sulfur emission tax (Stax) scenario: In this scenario, more strict environmental policies
Reflects current
and regulations are implemented. The effectiveness of sulfur fees to promote clean
government policy coal technologies and improve environment quality is tested by applying different tax
rates.
Carbon emission tax (Ctax) scenario: Clean coal technologies are assumed to be
equipped with CCS in order to offset the inﬂuence of a carbon tax. The capture
efficiency is assumed to be 90 percent.
Subsidization (SUB) scenario: 15 percent of the capital costs of all three clean coal
technologies are subsidized by the Chinese government. The variable cost subsidy is
not considered in this research. Similar to the Stax and Ctax scenarios, two different
subsidy rates, 5 percent and 45 percent, are utilized in the SUB scenario for the
purpose of comparison.
The main options Scenario 2: Installed capacities of current power plants have been enlarged and smallare focused on
scale facilities have been phased out of the market. Advanced generation technologies
demand-side
have been widely introduced, such as PFBC and IGCC.
management,
Scenario 3: All plants less than 50 kW have to be closed before 2003 and all plants less
improving energy than 100 kW have to be gradually phased out of the market. Supercritical turbine
efﬁciency of end- generators will be used in projects from 2015. Carbon capture and storage (CCS) starts
users, SO2 and NOx service in 2020, and can mitigate 60 million tons of CO2 nationwide by 2030. Other
control, and
advanced coal-ﬁred technologies will be used to a larger extent than in scenario 2.
refurbishment of (as in clean coal scenario 2).
old coal-ﬁred
plants. Generation
ratio of renewable
energy grows
slowly.
Appendix 3. Main technology parameter: Gross standard coal
consumption of different generation technologies in China
(gce/kWh) 12
Year
Subcritical
SC
USC
CFBC
PFBC-CC
IGCC
2000
322
320
291
315
–
–
2020
312
298
280
315
290
255
Source: Yu, F., J. Chen, et al. (2011)
Appendix 4. Main technology structures in different scenarios for
coal electricity generation(GW)
Scenarios
SCCC
Year
2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030
Subcritical
43.5
43.9
43.9
44
44
44
43.5
37.8
28.7
22.9
20.5
18.4
5.2
18.5
21.9
24.1
24.9
25.7
5.2
23.1
29.3
29.7
26.7
23.9
USC
0
3.7
4.9
5.7
6
6.2
0
10.5
19.8
30.6
36.6
41.8
PFBC-CC
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1.3
2.4
3.3
CFBC
8.4
11.2
12.1
12.6
12.9
13.1
8.4
10.2
10.4
10.1
9.6
9.2
IGCC
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1.3
2.4
3.3
42.9
22.7
17.2
13.6
12.2
11
42.9
18.4
11.8
4.1
1.8
0.1
SC
Other
12
BCC
PFBC-CC stands for pressurized fluidized bed combustion combined cycle.
PFBC-CC and IGCC are not available in 2000 in China.