Abstract

Based on the MAP-CGE model, this paper simulated the impacts on the output, energy consumption and pollutant emissions of different cement production processes when implementing a low carbon cement standard in China. It also calculated the impacts on the marginal abatement cost and equilibrium price of the cement industry, and analyzed the co-abatement effects of different pollutants. The results showed that implementing the low carbon cement standard will be beneficial in promoting an upgrading of cement production processes, and strengthening the energy conservation and emission reduction in the cement industry. If there is no change in the existing technology, the cement industry will reduce SO2  emissions by 1.17 kg and NOx  emissions by 4.44 kg per ton of CO2  emission reduction. Implementing low carbon cement standard can also promote NOx  abatement in the cement industry. However, the cement industry will bear the abatement costs, and their equilibrium price will increase slightly.

Keywords

low carbon cement standard ; co-abatement effects ; MAP-CGE model

1. Introduction

In recent years, along with the continuously fast growth of the economy, the cement industry has also developed rapidly as an important basic industry. China is gradually becoming the largest producer of cement in the world, and now accounts for half of the world’s total cement production. The cement industry is a large energy user whose main sources of energy consumption are coal and electricity. In 2009, China’s cement industry consumed 186.62 Mt coal, accounting for 86.18% of the total energy consumption of the cement industry, and consumed 1.376 billion kW h electricity, accounting for 11.03% of the total energy consumption of the cement industry [ CCA , 2011 ]. Meanwhile, the cement industry is also a large emitter of CO2 , SO2 , NOx  and dust. In 2009, the SO2 , CO2 , dust and NOx  emissions of the national cement industry reached 0.887 Mt, 970 Mt, 3.58 Mt and 0.87 Mt respectively [ Mao , 2011 ]. Since 2006, the industry smoke and SO2  emissions of China’s cement industry have decreased yearly, but the emissions of NOx  and CO2  emissions have kept increasing rapidly.

In December 2010, the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology issued Instructional Advice on the Energy Saving and Emission Reduction in the Cement Industry, which clearly pointed out that at the end of the 12th Five-Year Plan, the emissions of particulate and NOx  in the cement industry should decrease by 50% and 25% respectively compared with 2009, and the CO2  emission intensity should decrease further. In November 2012, the technical requirements for environmental label products — low carbon cement issued by the Ministry of Environmental Protection set clear demands for the transition of the cement industry to low carbon and environmental protection. Therefore, being the big energy user and pollutants emitter in China, the cement industry has arduous tasks in energy-saving and emission-cutting during the 12th Five-Year Plan period. Applying effective policy instruments to promote the co-abatement of various pollutants in the cement industry plays an important role in the realization of the cement industry, not to mention the whole country’s emission reduction and energy saving targets during the 12th Five-Year Plan period.

At home and abroad, the analysis of co-abatement effects of various pollutants stems from the proposed concept of co-benefits and coordinate control, and related research. Currently, there are no widely recognized or completely standardized definitions of cobenefits and coordinate control. EPA  [2004] defined co-benefits as two or more resulting benefits gained from the same kind or the same type of approach. Hu et al.  [2002] defined coordinate control as the pollution control measures which can create the co-benefits and allow the maximum benefit.

Recently, the domestic researches in the cobenefits and coordinate control aspects have shown a more active situation. The definition of co-benefits and the direction of the policy to increase research measures have become clearer. On the one hand, the researches clearly pointed out that the co-benefits should be introduced into the evaluation studies of climate and environmental policy. On the other hand, the studies emphasized that the coordinate control policy can achieve lower abatement costs, and promote a decrease in both conventional pollutants and greenhouse gas emissions. Chen and Du  [2002] used the MARKAL model to study the effect of the energy system under future environmental policy. The results showed that after improving the energy efficiency and implementing the energy structure adjustment, the CO2 , SO2  and PM10 emissions in Shanghai will be significantly reduced. Tian et al.  [2006] used the AIM-LOCAL/CHINA model to analyze changes of the SO2  and CO2  emissions under the convention scenario and transit-to-natural gas scenario. The co-benefits of the West-to-East Gas Project were also analyzed. Li and Zhou  [2009] proposed the co-benefits of pollution reduction should not be ignored because the positive co-benefits are cost-saving. Mao et al.  [2011] used a cross elasticity analysis method of pollutant reduction to measure the coordinate control effects of abatement measures in the thermal power industry, and the results showed that the front control and process control were better than the pipe-end treatment from the coordinate control effects and cost-effectiveness.

Foreign studies have concentrated mostly on the co-benefits while the researches on the coordinate control have been relatively rare. The studies from abroad about the co-benefits focused on two main areas: firstly the health benefits caused by local pollutants and greenhouse gas emission reduction measures; secondly the cost-benefit analysis of multi-objective pollution control measures. Anuan et al.  [2004] measured the economic value of health benefits due to the control of CO2  emissions from coal combustion in Shanxi province. van Harmelen et al.  [2002] used the TIMER model to simulate the cost of meeting the requirements of local pollutants emission reduction targets as required by the Gothenburg Protocol after the introduction of the greenhouse gas reduction policy. The studies for Northeast Asia by Chae and Hope  [2003] proved that CO2  emission control cost under combined emission reduction policies was far less than it was separate. van Vuuren et al.  [2006] used the FAIR, TIMER, and RAINS models and found that under the bound of the Kyoto Protocol, when the CO2  emissions of Europe reduced by 4%–7%, the SO2  emissions could reduce by 5%–14% or more at the same time.

This study aims to use the MAP-CGE model to calculate and analyze the co-abatement effects of implementing the low carbon cement standard, which includes: 1) the impacts on the output of different production processes in the cement industry; 2) the impacts on the energy consumption of different production processes in the cement industry; 3) the impacts on the CO2 , SO2 , NOx emissions of different production processes in the cement industry and the co-abatement effects analysis for various pollutants; 4) the impacts on marginal abatement costs and output prices for the cement industry.

2. Model and scenarios

2.1. MAP-CGE model

The project team developed the Multi-pollutant Abatement Planning (MAP) model. The model consists of two modules: the top-down and the bottom-up. The top-down is a Chinese energy-economy-environment CGE model (referred to as the MAP-CGE model), and the bottom-up is a TIMES model to analyze the choice of energy utilization technology in key industry (referred to as MAP-TIMES model). In this study, the MAP-CGE model has been used to simulate analysis.

The MAP-CGE model is essentially a computable general equilibrium model which structures its social accounting matrix (SAM) on the basic data sources of the latest 2007 Chinese input-output table and sets 2007 as the base year. Then it uses a comparative static analysis method to simulate the impacts and results of the implementation of low carbon cement standard. In the MAP-CGE model, the national economy is divided into 32 industries (Table 1 ). There are 5 production and supply industries of energy which are coal mining and the dressing industry, petroleum processing and coking, the nuclear fuel processing industry, production and supply of electric power and the hot power industry, the natural gas mining and supply industry. Market players are divided into four categories, namely business, household, government, and international. Government revenue comes from taxes on business and household. In addition to government consumption, government spending also includes transfer payments to business and residents. In dealing with foreign trade, we took the assumption of a small country: imported products are not only the final consumption goods, but also the intermediate inputs in the production process.

Table 1. Industries in the MAP-CGE model
No. Industry
1 Agriculture
2 Coal mining and dressing industry
3 Petroleum mining industry
4 Metals mining and dressing industry
5 Nonmetal minerals mining and dressing industry
6 Food manufacturing and tobacco processing industry
7 Textile industry
8 Leather, furs, down and related products industry
9 Timber processing and furniture manufacturing industry
10 Papermaking, printing, cultural and educational goods manufacturing industry
11 Petroleum processing and nuclear fuel processing industry
12 Coking industry
13 Chemical products industry
14 Cement, lime and gypsum manufacturing industry
15 Other nonmetal minerals products industry
16 Steel industry
17 Smelting and pressing of metals industry
18 Metal products industry
19 General and special purpose equipment manufacturing industry
20 Transport equipment manufacturing industry
21 Electric equipment and machinery manufacturing industry
22 Telecommunications, computer, and other electronic equipment manufacturing industry
23 Instruments, meters, cultural and clerical machinery manufacturing industry
24 Other manufacturing industry
25 Waste
26 Production and supply of electric power and hot power industry
27 Natural gas mining and supply industry
28 Production and supply of other gasses industry
29 Production and supply of water industry
30 Construction industry
31 Transport and storage industry
32 Service industry

2.2. Subdividing the cement industry

In China, the discharge coefficients of SO2  and NOx  in the cement industry differ a lot from different kiln types and different scales of production (Table 2 ).

Table 2. SO2  and NOx  emission levels of different production processes in the cement industry of China
Kiln Scale (t d–1 ) Discharge coefficient of SO2 (kg t1  clinker) Discharge coefficient of NOx  (kg t–1  clinker)
C < 1% 1%≤C < 2% C ≥ 2%
New dry process ≥ 4,000 0.066 0.099 0.132 1.584
2,000–4,000 0.073 0.109 0.146 1.746
< 2,000 0.079 0.119 0.158 1.746
Shaft kiln ≥ 1×105 0.234 0.352 0.470 0.243
< 1×105 0.234 0.352 0.470 0.202

Note:C indicates the content of total sulfur, SO2  emissions data were based on the value of total sulfur in coal; data came from Yao  [2010]

To get a more detailed calculation of the co-abatement effects of implementing the low carbon cement standard in China, this study referred to the method of Wing  [2008] and added the technical characteristics and technical economic data of the cement industry into the MAP-CGE model, namely the cement industry in the MAP-CGE model was represented by a group of different production processes. After an assessment, the MAP-CGE model can describe the cement industry in better detail, including the input structures, the contribution to the total industry output, energy consumption structure and pollution emissions of different production processes. The MAP-CGE model can simulate the impacts and coabatement effects of implementing the low carbon cement standard to different production process selections.

According to the characteristics of the current cement production process in China’s cement industry, this study first divided the cement industry into new dry process and shaft kiln as different production processes in the MAP-CGE model, then it divided the new dry production process into 3 parts, whose production scale is no less than 4,000 t d–1 , 2,000–4,000 t d–1  and less than 2,000 t d–1  respectively. Finally it classified the processes with a production scale of no less than 4,000 t d–1  and 2,000–4,000 t d–1  according to whether it had cogeneration. As a result, this study subdivided the cement industry into 6 sub-industries in Table 3 according to by production technology and production scale. The table also shows the production and respective ratio of the 6 sub-industries’ model base year (2007).

Table 3. Six sub-industries in the cement industry based on the process and scale of production
No. Cement production (scale) Production of 2007 (109  t) Ratio (%)
New dry process (≥ 4,000 t d–1 ) with cogeneration 0.943 6.93
2 New dry process (≥ 4,000 t d–1 ) without cogeneration 2.201 16.17
3 New dry process (2,000–4,000 t d–1 ) with cogeneration 0.853 6.27
4 New dry process (2,000–4,000 t d–1 ) without cogeneration 1.991 14.63
5 New dry process (< 2,000 t d–1 ) 1.497 11.00
6 Shaft kiln 6.125 45.00
Whole cement industry 13.610 100.00

The products of the 6 sub-industries were homogeneous, but there were big differences in the structure of energy inputs and the pollution emission coefficients, which might impact the choice of cement production technology after the introduction of low carbon cement standard. For the specific structures of the 6 sub-industries, the MAP-CGE model used the approach shown in Figure 1 , in which energy was factored into the production function just like labor and capital.


Structure of production function of different cement production processes in the ...


Figure 1.

Structure of production function of different cement production processes in the MAP-CGE model

After applying the above decomposition method, corresponding column data in the cement industry in the SAM of the MAP-CGE model also need to be decomposed. The specific decomposition process is as follows: first, gathering the proportion of energy consumption of all varieties in China’s cement industry in the model base year and collecting the output data of the whole cement industry and 6 sub-industries in the base year; then looking for the average price of cement products in 2007 and decomposing the output of the cement industry in SAM according to the proportion of output value for each sub-industry; next, calculating the amount of inputs and value of primary energy according to the energy consumption intensity of each cement production process. In addition, the decompositions of intermediate inputs, capital and labor were based on the inputs of the cement industry in the SAM table and decomposed by the proportion of output value for each sub-industry.

However, if we add the input and output data of all the cement production processes from the decomposition directly into SAM, a data inconsistency problem arises, namely, it does not meet the SAM equilibrium conditions. This study conducted the data calibration by establishing the nonlinear optimization models to minimize the squared deviations between the original SAM data and the decomposition data with existing technology, and it finally got the new SAM which was consistent with the model after the decomposition of the cement industry. On this basis, the MAP-CGE model passed the reliability test and could do the simulation analysis for the impacts and co-abatement effects of implementing the low carbon cement standard.

2.3. Scenarios

In addition to the CO2  emissions from fuel combustion in the cement production process, CO2  also remains in the calcinations and decomposition of raw materials. Due to the limitations of the model structure, this study only considered CO2 , SO2  and NOx  emissions in fuel combustion, including the indirect emissions from the electricity consumption rather than from the calcinations and decomposition of raw materials. Since the SO2  and NOx  emissions in the cement production process primarily come from the fuel combustion process, it is reasonable to use this processing method to calculate the impacts and co-abatement effects of implementing the low carbon cement standard.

According to the explanation of the technical requirements for environmental label products — low carbon cement, the low carbon standard of the cement industry had been set and the CO2 emissions per unit of cement clinker should be less than 860 kg CO2  t–1  (in which the CO2  from the fuel combustion is 286 kg as measured by the standard coal basis). If we limit the CO2  emissions from fuel combustion in the production process of every unit of cement clinker to 286 kg CO2  t–1 , the intensity index will decrease by 12.5% compared to the carbon emission levels of the cement industry in the base year when carbon emissions are about 327 kg CO2  t–1 .

Based on such considerations, this study set the following three scenarios to describe the CO2  emission reduction requirements in the low carbon cement standard, and limit the CO2  emissions from fuel combustion in the production process of each unit cement clinker.

S1 scenario: CO2  emissions per ton clinker decrease by 10% compared to a baseline scenario, no more than 294.30 CO2  t–1 ;

S2 scenario: CO2  emissions per ton clinker decrease by 15% compared to a baseline scenario, no more than 277.95 CO2  t–1 ;

S3 scenario: CO2  emissions per ton clinker decrease by 20% compared to a baseline scenario, no more than 261.60 CO2  t–1 .

In the simulations of the MAP-CGE model, the baseline scenario was set at the market equilibrium from 2007. Including the cement industry (the 6 subindustries), the production, price, energy consumption and emissions of 2007 were used as basis for comparative static analysis. Under the assumption of a perfectly competitive market, the model considered a scenario that the various industries (including the 6 cement sub-industries) of the economic entity had chosen an optimal level of output and factor inputs according to their own production and cost functions and the principle of cost minimization. This was furthermore considered in a setting that the whole economy was in equilibrium while implementing low carbon cement standard (S1, S2 and S3 scenarios) consequently would break the equilibrium state of the original economies. Then each industry (including the 6 cement sub-industries) would decide a new optimal level of output and factor inputs according to the new input cost, and reach a new equilibrium; the changing rates of each indicator between 2 equilibriums were the impacts we focused on.

3. Simulation results analysis

3.1. Impacts to the output of cement industry

Compared to the baseline scenario, the implementation of low carbon cement standard would result in decrease in the total output of the cement industry. The reduction was 0.96%, 1.49% and 2.06% under S1, S2 and S3 scenario respectively (Table 4 ). Overall, the impacts of implementing a low carbon cement standard on the output of the cement industry were minor.

Table 4. Change rates of output and their ratios in the cement industry under three scenarios
No. Cement production (scale) Change rate of output(%) Ratio of production(%)
Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3 Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3
1 New dry process (&gr;4,000 t d–1 ) with cogeneration 5.22 9.14 14.31 7.37 7.68 8.09
2 New dry process (&gr;4,000 t d–1 ) without cogeneration 3.05 4.93 7.05 16.84 17.24 17.69
3 New dry process (2,000–4,000 t d–1 ) with cogeneration 3.03 5.43 8.66 6.52 6.71 6.96
4 New dry process (2,000–4,000 t d–1 ) without cogeneration 1.12 1.73 2.31 14.95 15.12 15.30
5 New dry process (< 2,000 t d–1 ) –2.03 –3.42 –5.15 10.89 10.79 10.66
6 Shaft kiln –4.47 –7.16 –10.23 43.44 42.45 41.29
Whole cement industry –0.96 –1.49 –2.06 100.00 100.00 100.00

After the implementation of low carbon cement standard, the total outputs of the cement industry will decline. However, the outputs of different cement production processes will produce different trends. Compared to the baseline scenario, after the implementation of low carbon cement standard, the output of cement production processes 1–4 will increase, and the increase in process 1 will be the largest. Under S3 scenario, the increasing output of process 1 will reach 14.31%, and its share of the total cement outputs will increase from 6.93% (Table 3 ) under the reference scenario to 8.09% (Table 4 ). What’s more, from S1 to S3 scenario, with low carbon cement standard being increasingly strict, namely the CO2 emission intensity limits seeing a continuous fall, the growth rates of these four production processes will continue to grow. However, the implementation of low carbon cement standard will also result in the decrease of cement outputs in processes 5–6. Along with low carbon cement standard being more stringent, the outputs of the two production processes decline further, especially of process 6. Under S3 scenario, the output of process 6 declines by 10.23%, while its share decreases from 45.00% under the baseline scenario (Table 3 ) to 41.29% (Table 4 ). The implementation of low carbon cement standard will promote not only an increase in output on a large-scale, energy-efficient new dry process cement production, but also suppression of small-scale production, and low energy efficiency backward process. Therefore, the implementation of low carbon cement standard is conducive to the elimination of backward production capacity and promotion of an upgraded production process in the cement industry.

3.2. Impacts on the energy consumption of cement industry

Compared to the baseline scenario, the implementation of low carbon cement standard will reduce coal consumption in the cement industry. The decrease in the S1, S2 and S3 scenarios are 13.46%, 19.93% and 26.21% respectively (Table 5 ). This indicates that the stricter the standard of low carbon cement, the greater the decline of coal consumed in the cement industry. Considering the coal consumption change for different cement production processes after the implementation of low carbon cement standard, it can be found that the greatest decline of coal consumption is observed in production process 6, while the most minimal decrease is in process 1 under the 3 scenarios. Other cement production processes are found in between. Overall, the coal consumption of the 6 processes after the implementation of low carbon cement standard shows a downward trend. With the smaller, more backward technology, the coal consumption declines more. In the MAP-CGE model, the coal consumption levels of each cement production process under the baseline scenario is the average coal consumption of the corresponding cement production process of the whole society in the base year. Under the assumption of a perfectly competitive market, the limit to CO2  emission intensity in the cement industry from low carbon cement standard will change its production costs. So, each process will determine a new optimal level of output and factor inputs (including the energy factor) based on the principle of cost minimization, which will eventually lead to a decreasing coal consumption of all kinds of processes compared to those of the baseline scenario. The simulation results represent the change rates of the average coal consumption level of each production process compared to that of the base scenario in the whole society.

Table 5. Change rates of coal and electricity consumption in the cement industry under three scenarios
No. Cement production (scale) Change rate of coal consumption (%) Change rate of electricity consumption (%)
Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3 Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3
New dry process (≥ 4,000 t d–1 ) with cogeneration –8.89 –12.56 –15.58 0.73 1.57 2.85
2 New dry process (≥ 4,000 t d–1 ) without cogeneration –9.50 –14.04 –18.46 –0.07 –0.15 –0.65
3 New dry process (2,000–4,000 t d–1 ) with cogeneration –10.65 –15.32 –19.46 –1.21 –1.63 –1.88
4 New dry process (2,000–4,000 t d–1 ) without cogeneration –11.12 –16.55 –21.92 –1.73 –3.07 –4.87
5 New dry process (< 2,000 t d–1 ) –13.78 –20.60 –27.37 –4.67 –7.77 –11.52
6 Shaft kiln –16.08 –23.89 –31.52 –7.21 –11.59 –16.57
Whole cement industry –13.46 –19.93 –26.21 –4.05 –6.61 –9.61

Similarly, compared to the baseline scenario, the implementation of low carbon cement standard results in a decrease in the overall electricity consumption of the cement industry and the decline in the S1, S2 and S3 scenario are 4.05%, 6.61% and 9.61% respectively. The stricter the standard of low carbon cement, the greater the decline of electricity consumed in the cement industry. However in the same scenario, the proportion of the decrease in electricity consumption drops significantly lower than that of coal consumption. Simulation results show that: except the electricity consumption of process 1 increases, the electricity consumption of other processes will decrease in the 3 scenarios, while the decline of process 6 is the greatest (16.57% in the S3 scenario).

3.3. Co-abatement effects analysis for various pollutants

Compared to the baseline scenario of the cement industry, there were 10.85%, 16.24% and 21.60% reductions of CO2  emissions in the S1, S2 and S3 scenarios respectively (Table 6 ), suggesting that the implementation of the low carbon cement standard can indeed promote the CO2  emission reduction of the cement industry. The more stringent the standard, the more obvious the effect. In the three scenarios, the pollutant emission rate of production processes 5 and 6 are significantly higher than in other processes, indicating that the impact of implementing low carbon cement standard is more obvious in pollutant emission reduction of a backward cement production process.

Table 6. Change rates of CO2 , SO2  and NOx  emissions in the cement industry under three scenarios
No. Cement production (scale) Change rate of CO2  emissions(%) Change rate of SO2  emissions(%) Change rate of NOx  emissions(%)
S1 S2 S3 S1 S2 S3 S1 S2 S3
New dry process (≥ 4,000 t d–1 ) –6.71 –9.34 –11.37 –2.82 –3.64 –3.94 –8.25 –11.62 –14.35
2 New dry process (≥ 4,000 t d–1 ) without cogeneration –6.37 –9.49 –12.62 –2.35 –3.66 –5.16 –8.47 –12.54 –16.54
3 New dry process (2,000–4,000 t d–1 ) with cogeneration –8.54 –12.25 –15.50 –4.78 –6.81 –8.53 –10.05 –14.44 –18.34
4 New dry process (2,000–4,000 t d–1 ) without cogeneration –8.14 –12.27 –16.49 –4.23 –6.66 –9.41 –10.18 –15.20 –20.20
5 New dry process (< 2,000 t d–1 ) –11.02 –16.71 –22.56 –7.17 –11.29 –15.87 –12.82 –19.25 –25.71
6 Shaft kiln –13.82 –20.75 –27.69 –12.18 –18.49 –24.95 –12.29 –18.64 –25.13
Whole cement industry –10.85 –16.24 –21.60 –8.69 –13.23 –17.93 –10.34 –15.34 –20.24

In addition, the simulation results showed that: compared to the baseline scenario, the implementation of low carbon cement can promote SO2  and NOx  emissions to decline at the same time (SO2 and NOx  emission reduction of 17.93% and 20.24% respectively in the S3 scenario). The most important reason for this phenomenon is that in this model, CO2 , SO2  and NOx  emissions are closely related to energy consumption and those three emissions have high homology with each other. In the three scenarios, the energy consumption (especially coal) of the cement industry decreases, and thus the CO2 , SO2  and NOx  emissions decrease.

To further understand the co-abatement effects of implementing the low carbon cement standard, this study analyzed the co-abatement emissions of SO2  and NOx  brought about by an emission reduction of 1 t CO2  in the cement industry. By setting up linear regression between CO2  emission reduction and SO2  and NOx  emission reduction in the cement industry during different scenarios, we got the following results that under the goodness of fit greater than 0.9, when implementing the low carbon cement standard, emission reduction of 1 t CO2  would bring about 1.17 kg SO2  emission reduction and 4.44 kg NOx  emission reduction under the existing technological level (Table 7 ). In addition, the regression results showed that under the existing technological level, 1 t CO2  emission reduction might cause 0.23 kg and 10.99 kg SO2  and NOx  emission reduction respectively for process 1 and 1.47 kg and 1.39 kg SO2  and NOx  emission reduction respectively for process 6. The simulation results showed that to the co-abatement effects of SO2 , backward production technology allowed better results than advanced production technology while reducing CO2  emissions after the implementation of low carbon cement standard (such as process 6). However, to the co-abatement effects of NOx , advanced production technology showed better results than backward production technology (such as in process 1). Currently, the new dry process production line occupies an absolutely dominant position in the domestic cement industry and it will be further developed in future. Implementation of the low carbon cement industry standard was also conducive to the NOx  emissions control in the cement industry at the same time as CO2  emissions cutting.

Table 7. Co-abatement effects of different production processes in the cement industry
No. Cement production (scale) SO2 reduction caused by cutting 1 t CO2  emissions(kg) NOx reduction caused by cutting 1 t CO 2 emissions(kg)
New dry process (≥ 4,000 t d–1 ) cogeneration 0.23 10.99
2 New dry process (≥ 4,000 t d–1 ) without cogeneration 0.54 9.90
3 New dry process (2,000–4,000 t d–1 ) with cogeneration 0.52 10.32
4 New dry process (2,000–4,000 t d–1 ) without cogeneration 0.74 9.53
5 New dry process (< 2,000 t d–1 ) 0.87 8.15
6 Shaft kiln 1.47 1.39
Whole cement industry 1.17 4.44

3.4. Impacts on marginal abatement costs and output prices in the cement industry

The marginal abatement costs of implementing the low carbon cement standard should be considered first. This paper focused on a narrow aspect of the marginal abatement costs, which equalled to the additional economic costs or revenue loss when increasing reduction by one unit. According to the results of the MAP-CGE model, in the S1, S2 and S3 scenarios, the marginal CO2  abatement costs of the cement industry were 80 RMB, 142 RMB and 225 RMB per ton respectively. The simulation results showed that the implementation of low carbon cement standard in the cement industry does require paying a certain economic costs, and the more stringent the standard, the higher the cost.

When turning to the impacts on the output prices for the cement industry, the results of the MAP-CGE model showed that compared to the baseline scenario, the implementation of low carbon cement standard would result in an increase in cement industry output prices. In the S1, S2 and S3 scenarios, the price would rise by 8.14%, 13.91% and 21.30% respectively. This indicates that the implementation of low carbon cement standard in the cement industry will lead to a rise in its market equilibrium price.

4. Conclusions and discussion

Compared to the baseline scenario, the implementation of low carbon cement standard would result in a slight decline in the total output of the cement industry, but the output of other production processes showed different trends. The simulation results showed that the implementation of low carbon cement standard in the cement industry would help to eliminate backward production capacity and to promote an upgrade of the cement production process. Implementing the low carbon cement standard would reduce coal and electricity consumption in the cement industry. In the same scenario, the decrease of electricity consumption was lower than that of coal consumption. The implementation of low carbon cement standard would be effective in promoting CO2 , SO2  and NOx  emission reduction in the cement industry, and it would be more efficient in promoting pollutant emission reduction for backward production technology. When implementing the low carbon cement standard, 1 t CO2  emission reduction would bring about 1.17 kg SO2  emission reduction and 4.44 kg NOx  emission reduction under the existing technological level. For the reduction of SO2 emission, the co-abatement effect of backward production technology was better. However, for the reduction of NOx  emission, the coabatement effect of advanced production technology was better. Currently, the new dry process production line has occupied an absolutely dominant position in the domestic cement industry, and the implementation of the low carbon cement industry standard would also be conducive to the NOx  emissions control in the cement industry. However, the cement industry would need to bear the economic costs after the implementation of low carbon cement standard, and the market would face a rise in the equilibrium price.

The MAP-CGE model used in this study was built on the assumption that perfect market competition existed, which does not fully comply with the reality of the situation. This may lead to a certain bias in the simulation results. In addition, the data of a further subdivided cement industry and the setting of the elastic parameters also have some impacts on the results of the model. In particular, this study hasn’t coupled the MAP-CGE model with the MAP-TIMES model and hasn’t done more in-depth simulations in the cement industry’s choice of co-abatement technology after the implementation of the low carbon cement standard. In future studies, we are going to constantly revise and improve the MAP model according to changes in the technology and data.

Acknowledgements

The study was supported by the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities, and the Research Funds of Renmin University of China (No. 14XNJ008).

References

  1. Aunan et al., 2004 K. Aunan, J.H. Fang, H. Vennemo, et al.; Co-benefits of climate policy: Lessons learned from a study in Shanxi, China; Energy Policy, 32 (4) (2004), pp. 567–581
  2. CCA (China Cement Association), 2011 CCA (China Cement Association); China cement almanac 2010 (in Chinese) (2011)
  3. Chae and Hope, 2003 Y. Chae, C. Hope; Integrated assessment of CO2  and SO2  policies in North East Asia  ; Climate Policy, 3 (S1) (2003), pp. 57–79
  4. Chen and Du, 2002 C.-H. Chen, J. Du; Reduction of emissions from energy systems under implementing atmospheric-pollutant emission control; Energy Research and Information (in Chinese), 18 (1) (2002), pp. 10–16
  5. EPA, 2004 EPA (Environmental Protection Agency); The integrated environmental strategies handbook; Codex Stan 287–1978, Amended 2008  (2004) www.epa.gov/ies Accessed
  6. Hu et al., 2002 T. Hu, C.-X. Tian, X.-Q. Mao; Cocontrol: Look back and look forward; Environment and Sustainable Development (in Chinese), 37 (1) (2002), pp. 25–29
  7. Li and Zhou, 2009 L.-P. Li, G.-M. Zhou; Pay attention to the co-benefits of pollution reduction; Environmental Protection (in Chinese), 24 (2009), pp. 36–38
  8. Mao et al., 2011 X.-Q. Mao, A. Zeng, T. Hu, et al.; Study of coordinate control effect assessment of technological measures for emissions reduction; China Population, Resources and Environment (in Chinese), 21 (12) (2011), p. 17
  9. Mao, 2011 Z.-W. Mao; The discussion of the technology and management of coordinate control of air pollutants in cement industry; China Cement (in Chinese), 9 (2011), pp. 47–51
  10. Tian et al., 2006 C.-X. Tian, L.-P. Li, H.-W. Yang, et al.; The environmental co-benefits of the west-east of natural gas pipeline project; Research of Environmental Sciences (in Chinese), 19 (3) (2006), pp. 122–127
  11. van Harmelen et al., 2002 T. van Harmelen, J. Bakker, B.D. Vries, et al.; Long-term reductions in costs of controlling regional air pollution in Europe due to climate policy; Environmental Science & Policy, 5 (4) (2002), pp. 349–365
  12. van Vuuren et al., 2006 D.P. van Vuuren, J. Cofala, H.C. Eerens, et al.; Exploring the ancillary benefits of the Kyoto Protocol for air pollution in Europe; Energy Policy, 34 (4) (2006), pp. 444–460
  13. Wing, 2008 I.S. Wing; The synthesis of bottom-up and top-down approaches to climate policy modeling: Electric power technology detail in a social accounting framework; Energy Economics, 30 (2) (2008), pp. 547–573
  14. Yao, 2010 Y. Yao; Technical Guidelines for Energy-saving and Emission-reduction in Building Materials Industry  (in Chinese)  ; Chemical Industry Press (2010), pp. 21–25
Back to Top

Document information

Published on 15/05/17
Submitted on 15/05/17

Licence: Other

Document Score

0

Views 3
Recommendations 0

Share this document

claim authorship

Are you one of the authors of this document?