4.8 Review

Electric power substitution for coal in China: Status quo and SWOT analysis

Journal

RENEWABLE & SUSTAINABLE ENERGY REVIEWS
Volume 70, Issue -, Pages 610-622

Publisher

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.rser.2016.12.092

Keywords

China; Coal; Electric power substitution; SWOT

Funding

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [71471059]
  2. Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities [2016XS75, 2016XS73]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

In 2013, haze-fog became an annual buzzword in China; this haze-fog is primarily attributed to coal combustion. If coal continues to be used as it has been previously, China will suffer as a result of air pollution. Different from coal, electricity is a highly efficient energy source with no pollution emissions. Electric power substitution (EPS) for coal can reduce air pollution and transmit electricity to a load intensive area by an ultra-high voltage transmission project that can promote renewable energy accommodations in remote areas. However, EPS was proposed in 2013 and is still in the initial stage. The present paper studies the relationship between coal and haze-fog, proposes an EPS action mechanism, and summarizes the EPS market and policies. A SWOT model has proved to be an efficient tool to analyze the internal and external competitiveness of a system. Therefore, to fully study the current development status of electric power substitution in China, this paper adopts a SWOT model to analyze the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats of EPS. The conclusion is drawn that EPS is a good substitution for coal, but increased interest and use of EPS in China still needs support, including energy price marketization, electricity price subsidy, UHV optimization, clean coal technology innovation, and so on. This research can promote optimization in the energy structure and provides policy makers with good references and a clear direction in EPS development.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available