期刊文献+

能源政策模型在碳减排应用中的差异和CIMS模型的发展 被引量:1

Differences of Energy Policy Models Using in Carbon Emission Reduction and Development of CIMS Model
原文传递
导出
摘要 能源政策评价模型是进行碳减排定量分析和政策制定的主要工具。由于研究出发点不同,目前能源政策评价模型还无法为碳减排政策的制定提供相应的依据,因此对模型进行比较和分析意义重大。文中对3种常用的能源政策评价模型——自上而下分析模型、自下而上分析模型和混合模型进行概述,并对各种模型的具体分类进行说明,在此基础上对模型在碳减排中的成本定价问题进行分析,并介绍了近年来发展较快的CIMS模型。 Energy policy evaluation models are a major tool for quantitative analysis and policy making of carbon emission. However,energy policy evaluation models could not provide the evidence for carbon emission policy making because of their different research focuses. So,it is significant to compare and analyze the models. This paper firstly summarized the three common energy policy evaluation models,including: top-down model,bottom-up model and mixed model,and detailed the classification of the every model. Then,the issue of cost pricing in every model using in carbon emission reduction was analyzed.Finally,the CIMS model,which has been rapidly developing,was presented briefly.
出处 《世界林业研究》 CSCD 北大核心 2014年第3期7-13,共7页 World Forestry Research
基金 联合国开发计划署-中国合作生物质成型燃料炉/窑排放标准制定及合同能源管理运营模式示范项目 国家发展和改革委员会能源研究所项目(201304) 北京林业大学经济管理学院研究生科研基金项目(201301)
关键词 碳减排 能源政策评价模型 CIMS模型 carbon emission reduction energy policy evaluation model CIMS model
  • 相关文献

参考文献12

  • 1Brown M A, Levine M D, Romm J P, et a1. Engineering - economic studies of energy technologies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions: opportunities and challenges [ J ]. Annual Review of Energy and the Environment, 1998,23:287 - 385.
  • 2曹斌,林剑艺,崔胜辉,唐立娜.基于LEAP的厦门市节能与温室气体减排潜力情景分析[J].生态学报,2010,30(12):3358-3367. 被引量:40
  • 3Weyant J P, Hill J. Introduction and overview special issue on the costs of the Kyoto Protocol : a multi - model evaluation [ J ]. Energy Journal, 1999(7) :44.
  • 4石敏俊,李娜,周晟吕,袁永娜,马国霞.Can China Realize CO_2 Mitigation Target toward 2020?[J].Journal of Resources and Ecology,2010,1(2):145-154. 被引量:14
  • 5US Energy Information Administration. Impacts of the Kyoto Protocol on U. S. energy markets and economic activity [ R ]. Washington DC : US Department of Energy, 1998.
  • 6Jaccard M, Loulou R, Kanudia A, et al. Methodological contrasts in costing GHG abatement policies: optimization and simulation modeling of micro -economic effects in Canada[ J]. European Journal of Opera- tions Research ,2003,145 ( 1 ) : 148 - 164.
  • 7Bohringer C. The synthesis of bottom - up and top - down in energy policy modeling[ J ]. Energy Economics, 1998,20 (3) :233 - 248.
  • 8Jacobsen H K. Integrating the bottom - up and top - down approach to energy - economy modeling: the case of Denmark [ J ] . Energy Economics,1998,20(4) :443 -461.
  • 9Koopmans C C, te Velde D W. Bridging the energy efficiency gap : using bottom - up information in a top - down energy demand model [J]. Energy Eeonomies,2001,23( 1 ) :57 -75.
  • 10Frei C W, Haldi P - A, Sarlos G. Dynamic formulation of a top - down and bottom - up merging energy policy model [ J ] . Energy Policy, 2003,31 (10) :1017 - 1031.

二级参考文献9

共引文献52

同被引文献10

引证文献1

二级引证文献1

相关作者

内容加载中请稍等...

相关机构

内容加载中请稍等...

相关主题

内容加载中请稍等...

浏览历史

内容加载中请稍等...
;
使用帮助 返回顶部