Page 61 - Low Carbon Development in China and India
P. 61
Comprehensive energy
use of ethylene (kg coal 1125 1073 950 629 321 33.8%
37.6%
equivalent/tonne)
9.5%
Comprehensive energy 6.6%
10.2%
use of synthetic ammonia 1699 1700 1587 990 597 51.7%
(kg coal equivalent/tonne)
(large-scale)
Comprehensive energy 1439 1297 1006 910 96
use of caustic soda (kg
coal equivalent/tonne)
(membrane method)
Comprehensive energy use
of sodium carbonate (kg 406 396 332 310 22
coal equivalent/tonne)
Comprehensive energy use 3000 340
of calcium carbide (kg coal 3475 3450 3340
equivalent/tonne)
Comprehensive energy use 580 620
of paper and paper boards 1540 1380 1200
(kg coal equivalent/tonne)
Notes International advanced level is the average of the advanced countries in the world.
Source Wang Qingyi 2012; Energy Data 2013
As illustrated in Table 1.1, the coal consumption of thermal
generators fell from 363 to 312 grams of standard coal; the comparable
energy use per tonne of steel in key enterprises decreased from
784 to 675 grams of standard coal; and the overall energy use of copper
metallurgy decreased by more than 50 per cent from 1,277 kg to
500 kg of coal equivalent per tonne. The energy use of China’s
aluminium electrolysis sector has reached an advanced world level.
Despite the achievements made in improving energy efficiency
and introducing renewable energy, China’s overall technological
level is still well behind that of developed countries overall. Using
international energy intensity comparisons, China ranks first in terms
of energy intensity among the world’s major countries (see Table 1.2).
In 2005, China’s energy intensity was seven times that of Japan. Even
compared with India, China fell behind in terms of energy efficiency
levels. China’s industry energy intensity is also behind that of developed
countries. Despite China (70 per cent reduction) and India (43 per cent
reduction) having improved their energy intensity since 1990, their
absolute values are still relatively higher than those of developed
countries. Energy intensity improvement does not necessarily imply
26 Low Carbon Development in China and India
use of ethylene (kg coal 1125 1073 950 629 321 33.8%
37.6%
equivalent/tonne)
9.5%
Comprehensive energy 6.6%
10.2%
use of synthetic ammonia 1699 1700 1587 990 597 51.7%
(kg coal equivalent/tonne)
(large-scale)
Comprehensive energy 1439 1297 1006 910 96
use of caustic soda (kg
coal equivalent/tonne)
(membrane method)
Comprehensive energy use
of sodium carbonate (kg 406 396 332 310 22
coal equivalent/tonne)
Comprehensive energy use 3000 340
of calcium carbide (kg coal 3475 3450 3340
equivalent/tonne)
Comprehensive energy use 580 620
of paper and paper boards 1540 1380 1200
(kg coal equivalent/tonne)
Notes International advanced level is the average of the advanced countries in the world.
Source Wang Qingyi 2012; Energy Data 2013
As illustrated in Table 1.1, the coal consumption of thermal
generators fell from 363 to 312 grams of standard coal; the comparable
energy use per tonne of steel in key enterprises decreased from
784 to 675 grams of standard coal; and the overall energy use of copper
metallurgy decreased by more than 50 per cent from 1,277 kg to
500 kg of coal equivalent per tonne. The energy use of China’s
aluminium electrolysis sector has reached an advanced world level.
Despite the achievements made in improving energy efficiency
and introducing renewable energy, China’s overall technological
level is still well behind that of developed countries overall. Using
international energy intensity comparisons, China ranks first in terms
of energy intensity among the world’s major countries (see Table 1.2).
In 2005, China’s energy intensity was seven times that of Japan. Even
compared with India, China fell behind in terms of energy efficiency
levels. China’s industry energy intensity is also behind that of developed
countries. Despite China (70 per cent reduction) and India (43 per cent
reduction) having improved their energy intensity since 1990, their
absolute values are still relatively higher than those of developed
countries. Energy intensity improvement does not necessarily imply
26 Low Carbon Development in China and India
