4.7 Article

A comparative study of the interlinkages between energy poverty and low carbon development in China and Germany by developing an energy poverty index

期刊

ENERGY AND BUILDINGS
卷 183, 期 -, 页码 817-831

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE SA
DOI: 10.1016/j.enbuild.2018.09.042

关键词

Energy poverty; Energy poverty index; Low carbon development; Energy Access; Energy affordability

资金

  1. Shanghai Pujiang Program [17PJC098]
  2. Shanghai Science and Technology Innovation Fund for Soft Science [17692102400]
  3. State Key Program of National Social Science of China [17AZD011]
  4. National Natural Science Foundation of China [41301647]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Energy poverty in developing countries is primarily a problem of adequate physical access to clean and modern energy; whereas energy poverty in developed countries is rather an issue of affordability and energy efficiency. Measuring energy poverty therefore is a challenging issue. An energy poverty index (EPI) considering the different components of energy poverty was developed to measure and compare energy poverty in China and Germany. Results of the EPI show that energy poverty is an important issue in both countries whereas energy poverty in China is an equal issue of affordability and access, while in Germany it is only an issue of affordability. Besides the pressing issue of energy poverty, both countries showed considerable efforts in implementing low carbon development (LCD) strategies in the last decade. Many LCD measurements and policies are strongly linked to energy efficiency and renewable energy, which can also contribute to a reduction of energy poverty by decreasing the energy consumption and expanding the access to high-quality energy carriers. An analysis of the implemented LCD policies and their effects on access to energy and affordability of energy in Germany and China, highlight possible challenges but also benefits of the interlinkages between energy poverty and LCD. (C) 2018 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据