Center for Energy and Environmental Policy Research, Beijing Institute of Technology, Beijing, 100081, China; School of Management and Economics, Beijing Institute of Technology, Beijing, 100081, China; Beijing Key Lab of Energy Economics and Environmental Management, Beijing, 100081, China.
Center for Energy and Environmental Policy Research, Beijing Institute of Technology, Beijing, 100081, China; School of Management and Economics, Beijing Institute of Technology, Beijing, 100081, China; Beijing Key Lab of Energy Economics and Environmental Management, Beijing, 100081, China.
J Environ Manage. 2022 Feb 1;303:114135. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2021.114135. Epub 2021 Nov 30.
The Chinese government has called for clean and effective energy substitution for cooking in rural areas. This paper assesses the environmental and economic impacts of various types of cooking fuels and stoves. According to the assessment results, the environmental impacts are highly influenced by the types of fuels and the efficiency of stoves used for cooking. Using biogas, liquefied petroleum gas (LPG), and natural gas for cooking instead of solid fuels can significantly reduce environmental emissions. To provide 1 megajoule (MJ) of useful cooking heat, the environmental costs of lump coal, honeycomb briquettes, and straw are the largest, estimated to be 80.4 yuan/MJ, 73.1 yuan/MJ, and 71.4 yuan/MJ, respectively. In addition, the economic assessment results show that the most expensive source of cooking fuel is LPG, with an average annual cost of 1700 yuan, while the cost of straw and firewood is the cheapest, at less than 100 yuan. The average annual cost of electricity is higher than that of natural gas. Regarding the substitution effects, using natural gas for cooking is better than using electricity. The environmental benefit of electricity substitution is only 10%-20% of natural gas substitution, and the corresponding increasing cost for residents is 1.5 times that of natural gas substitution.
中国政府呼吁在农村地区实现清洁高效的炊事能源替代。本文评估了各种炊事燃料和炉灶的环境和经济影响。评估结果表明，环境影响高度取决于炊事使用的燃料类型和炉灶效率。使用沼气、液化石油气（LPG）和天然气代替固体燃料进行炊事可以显著减少环境排放。提供 1 兆焦耳（MJ）有用的炊事热量，原煤、蜂窝煤和秸秆的环境成本最大，估计分别为 80.4 元/MJ、73.1 元/MJ 和 71.4 元/MJ。此外，经济评估结果表明，LPG 是最昂贵的炊事燃料来源，年平均成本为 1700 元，而秸秆和薪柴的成本最低，不到 100 元。电的年平均成本高于天然气。关于替代效果，用天然气代替炊事优于用电。电力替代的环境效益仅为天然气替代的 10%-20%，而居民相应增加的成本是天然气替代的 1.5 倍。
