Chth

a State Key Joint Laboratory of Environment Simulation and Pollution Control (SKLESPC), School of Environment, Tsinghua University, Beijing 100084, China

China

gy savinct thepromoortant

ergy consumption are contributing to signicant global climate

emissions from industry, which is one of the greatest contributors

et al., 2010; Wenpogenic CO2 cancement industryfter the steel in-e country's totale country's total

The cement industry, as a pillar of Chinese economic develop-

production has increased dramatically from 65.24 million tons in

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

.el

Energy

Energy Policy 77 (2015) 227237http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2014.11.0301978 to 2099 million tons in 2011, with an average annual growthrate of 11.08% (NBSC, 2013). Up to 2011, China has been the largestcement-producer in the world for 26 consecutive years, account-ing for about 60% of the world's total cement production. During

0301-4215/& 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

n Corresponding author.E-mail addresses: wenzg@tsinghua.edu.cn (Z. Wen),

mengfanxin1226@163.com (F. Meng).change (Zhou et al., 2013). One such challenge is to reduce GHG ment, has grown rapidly alongside the national economy. Cementcreasingly large, even exceeding 50% after 2016.& 2014 Elsevier Ltd.

1. Introduction

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Fifth Assess-ment Report issued in 2013 clearly states that there is an ex-tremely likely (95100%) relation between human activity andwarming since the mid-20th century (IPCC, 2013). Rising CO2 andother greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions largely deriving from en-

to anthropogenic GHG concentration (Hashimotoet al., 2014c). Approximately 5% of global anthrobe attributed to cement production. In China, theis the second most energy intensive industry (adustry) accounting for 5.4% (179 million tce) of thenergy use and 15% (1137 million tons CO2) of thgreenhouse gas emissions in 2010 (CCA, 2011).Cement industryTechnology selectionEnergy-savingCO2 emissions reductionAIM/end-use model

scenario S3 would realize the potential for CO2 emissions mitigation of 361.0 million tons, accounting for25.24% of the predicted emissions, with an additional energy saving potential of 39.0 million tons of coalequivalent by 2020. Technology promotion and industrial structure adjustment are the main measuresthat can lead to energy savings. Structural adjustment is the most important approach to reduce the CO2emissions from the cement industry; the resulting potential for CO2 emissions reduction will be in-

All rights reserved.Keywords:technology policy measures in relation to the development of the cement industry. Results show thatArticle history:Received 11 July 2014Received in revised form25 September 2014Accepted 21 November 2014Available online 24 December 2014

Much of China's cement industry still uses outdated kilns and other inefcient technologies, which areobstacles to improving energy efciency. Huge improvements in energy consumption intensity can bemade by improving this technology. To evaluate the potential for energy-saving and CO2 emissions re-duction in China's cement industry between 2010 and 2020, a model was developed based on the Asian-Pacic Integrated Model (AIM). Three scenarios (S1, S2 and S3) were developed to describe futureH I G H L I G H T S

We evaluate the effectiveness of ener Three scenarios are simulated to proje Structural adjustment and technology Structural adjustment is the most imp

a r t i c l e i n f oGrid Corporation, Guangzhou 510080, Chinaand Pollution Control (SKLESPC), School of Environment, Beijing Normal University, Beijing 100875,

gs and emission reductions in China's cement industry via the AIM/end-use model.potential for energy savings and emission reductions over the next decade.tion are both key approaches for energy conservation.approach to reduce the CO2 emissions from the cement industry.

a b s t r a c tb Electric Power Research Institute of Guangdong Powerc State Key Joint Laboratory of Environment SimulationEvaluation of energy saving potential inthe Asian-Pacic Integrated Model andpolicy analysis

Zongguo Wen a,n, Min Chen b, Fanxin Meng c

journal homepage: wwwina's cement industry usinge technology promotion

sevier.com/locate/enpol

Policy

ergy demand and CO2 emissions, and to assess strategies for en-

Z. Wen et al. / Energy Policy 77 (2015) 227237228the 12th Five-Year Plan for National Economic and Social Devel-opment (12th FYP, 20112015), cement production will continueto increase rapidly. Overcapacity has become the biggest obstacleto overcome, and managing this is the key factor for reducing totalemissions in the cement industry (CCA, 2011).

In the cement industry, CO2 emissions come from fossil fuelcombustion and the calcination process. In 2010, the CO2 emis-sions from China's cement industry were 1137 million tons, anincrease of 38% from 820 million tons in 2005. According to Wu'scalculations (Wu, 2006), every ton of cement production produces0.815 t CO2 on average, of which 0.390 t is from fuel combustionand 0.425 t from raw material decomposition in the calcinationprocess.

During China's 11th FYP (20062010), the Chinese governmentaimed to phase out obsolete vertical kilns, and promote dry rotarykilns that have new suspension pre-heaters or pre-calciners (NSPkilns). The specic energy consumption of NSP kilns are 20% lowerthan that of vertical kilns. Widespread use in China began in 2000(Xu et al., 2012), and by 2010, the proportion of cement productionfrom NSP kilns had reached 80% (MIIT of PRC, 2011a), which showsa signicant shift in the cement industry to promote energy ef-ciency. From 2005 to 2010, the yearly total energy consumptionper unit of cement production decreased from 0.119 tce/t to0.096 tce/t, a drop of 24%; the total electricity consumption de-clined from 0.0123 tce/t to 0.0116 tce/t with a drop of 6.4%; and theheat consumption for clinker also went down from 0.146 tce/t to0.120 tce/t with a decline of 21.7%. However, there are still manyoutdated kilns (e.g. vertical kilns) used in China's cement industry,which is one of the biggest obstacles to improve the overall energyefciency of the industry. With the large-scale development ofNSP kilns in China's cement industry, the comprehensive energyconsumption of domestic advanced kilns has reached the inter-national advanced level. Taking the NSP kilns with large scaleproduction (44000 t/day) for example, comprehensive energyconsumption of the average domestic kiln and the internationallevel were 0.105 tce/t and 0.096 tce/t respectively. Therefore,overall there is 10% room for improvement in energy efciencycompared with international advanced NSP kilns.

In recent years, China's cement industry has taken severalmeasures to reduce its energy consumption and CO2 emissions,primarily through: increasing production efciency; regulating theindustry; and promoting advanced energy-saving and CO2 emis-sions-reduction technologies (Chen et al., 2012). During the 11thFYP, total CO2 emissions per ton of cement production decreasedto 0.605 t in 2010 from 0.770 t in 2005. And there was a total CO2emissions reduction of 309 million tons in 2010 compared withthe CO2 emission level in 2005. A total reduction of 28.88 milliontons of CO2 emissions was achieved by eliminating outdated ce-ment clinker capacity; the use of low-temperature cogenerationtechnologies reduced emissions by 14.45 million tons; andmixing materials with waste residues reduced emissions by139.70 million tons. The rest of emissions reductions were inducedby other energy saving and emission reduction technologies suchas combined grinding technology, motor frequency conversiontransformation and so on (Tsinghua University and ITIBMIC, 2012).Overall this led to a signicant effect on energy savings and thereduction of CO2 emissions. Related effects in China's cementsector have been discussed at depth in academic literature. Forexample, Jiang (2007) estimated the effects on energy-savings andCO2 reduction from the increased production efciency. Otherstudies (Wang et al., 2010; Xiong et al., 2004) focused on the po-tential for energy-savings and CO2 emissions reduction fromchanges in industrial structure, while some (Zeng, 2006) measuredthe benets of the promotion of energy saving technologies.However, the literature mentioned above only focuses on one as-

pect of energy saving and emission reduction measures, such asergy-saving and emissions reduction; these can be categorizedinto top-down and bottom-up models (Matsuoka et al., 1995;Turton, 2008). Top-down models start with an economic me-chanism using prices and elasticity as economic indices and pre-sent relationships between energy consumption, production andeconomic indices in an in-depth manner (Kainuma et al., 2000;Liang et al., 2013), of which the CGE (Computational GeneralEquilibrium) model is the most common (Farmer and Steinberger,1999; Naqvi and Peter, 1996; Wang et al., 2005). Bottom-upmodels simulate energy systems based on technologies for energyconsumption and production (Bohringer and Rutherford, 2009). Ofthese, the LEAP (Long-range Energy Alternatives Planning System)and AIM (Asian-Pacic Integrated Model) are the most common(SEI, 2006; UNFCCC, 2008; Wen et al., 2014b). The AIM/end-usemodel can simulate industry production processes and the effec-tiveness of energy-saving and CO2 emissions-reduction ap-proaches with an independent technical optimal selection module(Mikiko et al., 2000; Xu and Masui, 2009; Wen et al., 2014a;Chunark et al., 2013, 2014; Selvakkumaran et al., 2014a, 2014b),which is unique amongst the analysis of energy-saving and CO2emissions-reduction approaches. Other bottom-up models includethe Model for Analysis of Energy Demand (MAED) model, devel-oped by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) (Hainounet al., 2006; Yuksek et al., 2006), the MESSAGE model and theMarket Allocation (MARKAL) model etc. (Berger et al., 1987;Fishborne and Abilock, 1981). Moreover, the Industrial WaterConservation Potential Analysis Model (IWCPA) has been devel-oped for research on the potential for water saving in the elec-tricity, iron and steel, petrochemical, and textile industries (Duet al., 2007). The Conservation Supply Curve (CSC) model has beenapplied to the analysis of the energy efciency and CO2 emissionsof the steel and cement industries in India (Morrow et al., 2014).

In this paper, we analyze different technology policies andapproaches for energy-saving and CO2 emissions reduction inChina's cement industry using the AIM/end-use model. This paperhas been divided into ve sections: Section 2 describes themethodology used for this study on the cement industry and givesa sketch of three scenarios developed to describe future technol-ogy policies in relation to the development of the cement in-dustry; Section 3 presents analyses of the results and key ndings;discussion is presented in Section 4; and the nal section providesconclusion and policy implications.

2. Methods

2.1. AIM/end-use model

Developed by Japan's National Institute for EnvironmentalStudies (NIES), the AIM/end-use model is based on a cost mini-mization linear programming approach. It simulates the ows ofenergy and materials in an economy, from the source and supplyof primary materials and energy, through the conversion intosecondary energy and materials, and nally to the delivery of end-production efciency, industrial structure, promotion of a fewtechnologies and others. Further, many of the existing studies lackquantitative evaluations on the inuence of technology promotion(Gbel et al., 2004; Worrell et al., 2000), while the potential forenergy saving and emissions reduction by technology promotion isalso rarely mentioned. Those disadvantages make it difcult forgovernment managers to fully understand the potential for energysaving and emission reduction and formulate proper policies.

Several energy modeling approaches based on the system in-tegration method have been used to forecast future trends in en-use products or services. It is commonly used to estimate future

energy demand and emissions at the regional- and country-levels(Wen et al., 2014a; Kainuma et al., 2003; Strachan et al., 2009;Mikiko et al., 2000; Matsuoka et al., 1995; Promjiraprawat et al.,2014).

2.1.1. Simulation owSimulations using the AIM/end-use model include the follow-

ing processes (Hibino et al., 1996): 1) determine the product de-mand of industry through external modeling or scenario analysis;2) select the most appropriate production technology and opti-mize; 3) calculate energy consumption of the selected technology;and 4) calculate CO2 emissions and other air pollutants.

In the model, different technology units are connected bymaterial ow and energy ow. The inputs of units are regarded asenergy, while the outputs are products. Taking raw meal pro-cessing for example, limestone and electricity on the input side areknown as energy, the outputs of clinker are regarded as pro-ducts. The products or energy in one technology unit can alsobecome the energy or products in the next unit. The links witheach other form the material ow and energy ow in industrialproduction, connecting all the technologies and materials togetherto form a full analysis framework.

2.1.2. Technology selection frameSelection of technologies is the core module in the AIM/end-

use model, which can reect differences in energy consumption

= ++

fT C

T C (1)1

1 1

1 2

= ++ +

fT C

T T C (2)21 1

1 2 2

= ++ +

fT C

T T C (3)31 1

1 3 3

Where f1 is the replacement function when the technical life ex-pires, f2 is the improvement function when the original technicallife is still unexpired, and f3 is the replacement function when theoriginal technical life is still unexpired. T1 is the xed investmentcost of the original technology; C1 is the combined operating andmaintenance cost of the original technology; T1 is the xed in-vestment cost of the alternative technology used when the origi-nal technical life expires; T2 and T3 are the xed investment cost ofimprovement and replacement of the technology respectively,when the original technical life is still unexpired; C2 is the com-bined operating and maintenance cost of the original technical lifeafter improvement, and C3 is the combined operating and main-tenance cost of the replacement technology.

When f 41, the original technology should be replaced orimproved; when f r1, the original technology should still be used.

Z. Wen et al. / Energy Policy 77 (2015) 227237 229and CO2 emissions between different technologies. Various policymeasures and scenarios work through the effects of the technol-ogy selection process. For example, subsidy measures imposed onan advanced technology can accelerate the rate of technology re-placement by improving the techno-economic level, ultimatelyresulting in a decline in total industrial energy consumption andCO2 emissions.

In general, the change in one technology can be categorizedinto two scenarios: replacement when the original technical lifeexpires, and improvement or replacement despite the original lifenot having expired. The technology replacement process withinthe model can be expressed as follows:Fig. 1. Structure of the AIM/end-use mode2.1.3. Optimization algorithmThe mathematical functions in the AIM/end-use model are

single-objective linear optimization equations with multiple con-straints that include emissions constraints, a service demandconstraint, a technology popularizing rate constraint, operatingsituation constraints, resource possibility constraints and so on.The objective is a total cost minimization function (Eq. (4)) (Yang,2004). The model outputs contain the amount of productiontechnology, energy consumption and related emissions from in-dustry in a predicted year.l as applied to China's cement sector.

= + +

TC T C Q min(4)l

ll

lm

m m

Where TC is the total cost, Tl is the xed investment cost oftechnology l, Cl is the operating and maintenance cost of tech-

Within the industrial life cycle method, industrial developmentfollows the cycle of: initial industrial stage, growth stage, maturestage and decline stage. This is similar to the cycle of technologypromotion. Industrial production also shows an S-curve, whichcan be described by the Pearl Curve expression as follows:

Z. Wen et al. / Energy Policy 77 (2015) 227237230nology l, Qm is the emission of pollutants and greenhouse gas m,and m is the emission tax on pollutants and greenhouse gas m.

2.1.4. Construction of the modelFig. 1 shows the structure of the AIM/end-use model for China's

cement industry. Based on the production, technology and futuretrends of China's cement industry, the production process can bedivided into four main sub-processes: raw mix processing, pul-verized coal grinding, clinker sintering and cooling, and cementgrinding. Raw material grinding technology can be further dividedinto three types: balling and drying technology, vertical millingand drying technology, and roller press machine. Pulverized coalgrinding can be further divided into ball mill and vertical mill.Clinker sintering, according to production scale and technologytype, can be divided into four types of kilns: small-size new drykilns (o2000 t clinker/d), middle-size new dry kilns (20004000 t clinker/d), large-size new dry kilns (44000 t clinker/d),and vertical kilns. Finally, the cement grinding process includesthree technologies: cement ball mill, grinding technology combinedwith roller press machine and ball mill, and cement vertical mill.The concrete technical parameters were described in the Subsection2.2.3. In the model, the products, materials, energy and productiontechnologies corresponding to the relevant separate units in theAIM/end-use model approach, are linked by intermediate productsto form the complete cement production process.

2.2. Input data

The input data used in this study include product parameters,energy parameters, technical parameters and policy parameters.These can be obtained via an additional model, data input andscenarios analysis. In this paper, we set 2010 as the base year forsimulations, and 2020 as the objective year. Greenhouse gasmainly refers to CO2 emissions.

2.2.1. Production parameterThe production parameter is the amount of cement produced in

any given year, which is usually obtained through systemic fore-cast research. According to research (Mao et al., 2010; Li et al.,2005; Yang, 2010; Tong et al., 2010), there are four types of fore-casting methods including per capita consumption method, GDP-based method, curve tting method and industrial life cyclemethod. Although the methods were different, all studies de-termined that cement demand will reach saturation between 2015and 2020, and then begin to decrease. Out of these predictionmethods, the industrial life cycle method has a stronger accuracyfor the predicted values and the simulation on the rules of in-dustrial development. From the existing research results (Ke et al.,2012; Lei et al., 2011), the development of the cement industry inAmerica and Japan conformed to the industrial life cycle curve.And the process of industrialization in China is close to that ofJapan. Therefore, there is high accuracy using the industrial lifecycle curve to simulate the cement production in China.

Table 1Predicted value of cement products in China (million tons).

Year 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Cement 1868 1909 1952 1990 2025= +

+ >

Ke

t t

A Be t t

y 1,

, (5)

m at n

btn

Where y is the industrial product yield, t is year, m, K, a, etc., arethe unknowns.

With the help of the China Cement Association, we carried outsome efcient and important data research and simulated cementproduction in China between 2010 and 2020 using the industrylife cycle method. According to the national development plan andstrategy in China's cement industry (ITIBMIC, 2012), it could beascertained that the industrialization and urbanization in Chinawill reach preliminary completion between 2015 and 2020, whenthe saturation point of cement production will appear. The peakproduction values will be 19002300 million tons cement. Takingthe saturation point and peak values as references, we used thelogistic tting method from SPSS analysis software to evaluate andrectify the life cycle curve parameter to obtain the quantities seenin Table 1. From the table, there is an increase in cement pro-duction from 1868 million tons in 2010 to 2057 million tons in2015 and 2171 million tons in 2020. We predicted that 2020 wouldbe the peak of cement production in our study.

2.2.2. Energy parameterThe emission factor of energy fuels are given in Table 2. The CO2

emission contribution of fossil fuels is directly retrieved from IPCCguideline (2006), and the CO2 emission contribution from elec-tricity is from the Regional Grid Baseline Emission Factors of Chinain 2010, published by the National Development and ReformCommission. The conversion coefcients of different energy typesare from China Energy Statistical Yearbook, 2011 (NBSC, 2011).

2.2.3. Technical parameterThe technical parameters (life span, xed investment cost,

operating and maintenance cost, technology ratio and so on) weremainly obtained from the technology directory (ITIBMIC, 2012),the statistical data of industry associations, many data surveys ofcement industry plants and the cement industry association inChina and experts' advice (see Table 3). For the surveys, we askedmore than 200 NSP cement plants to ll in a technical ques-tionnaire and interviewed 3 design institutes, namely Tianjin Ce-ment Industry Design & Research Institute, Hefei Cement Design &Research Institute and the China Building Materials Academy. Inaddition, we visited some cement enterprises such as Jido Devel-opment Group, Huaxin Cement Company, BBMG Group and othersto carry out a eld survey in order to verify the data variables.

2.2.4. Policy parameterThe technology policies for energy savings and emission re-

ductions in China's cement industry are mainly divided into twotypes: control and command policies, and incentive-based po-licies. Control and command policies are usually mandatory policymeasures, such as elimination of backward production capacity,

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

2057 2085 2110 2133 2153 2171

emission constraints and so on. Incentive-based policies aremainly economic incentive measures within the market, such ascost subsidies, tax control and other approaches.

In this paper, we set different policy inuence factors andsimulate the effects of a single policy. Based on the simulationresults, we can quantitatively assess the effects of energy sav-ings and emission reductions through technology promotionand can also identify initially the promotion policies required byenergy-saving and emission-reduction technologies. In the AIM

2.3. Technological details

Energy-saving and CO2 emission-reduction technologies can bedivided into three types based on their technical features: pro-duction technology, technology for comprehensive utilization ofresources and energy, and pollution control technology. Out ofthose, the production technology mainly refers to resource re-duction technologies, namely material consumption, energy con-sumption, and pollutants discharge. These can be reduced in theproduction process, including the new technology with low en-ergy and low pollution, and substitution of original fuel or pre-treatment and process optimization. Technologies for compre-hensive utilization of resources and energy include the recycling,processing, transforming or extracting of waste heat, excess pres-sure and other waste generated from the production process. Thiscreates new accessible energy or materials, such as comprehensiveutilization of waste heat, treatment and reuse of wastewater athigh concentrations and solid waste disposal. Pollution controltechnology means that the pollutants are reduced or eliminated bychemical, physical or biological methods so that the pollutantdischarge can meet the environmental standard or demands.

Based on a survey of China's cement industry, in the three

Table 2Emission factors assigned to fuels used in the ce-ment industry (t CO2/tce).

Fuel type Emission factor

Raw coal 1.99Coke 2.72Electricity 2.14Fuel oil 2.16Natural gas 1.65

Z. Wen et al. / Energy Policy 77 (2015) 227237 231model, the ve technology policy simulation environments wecontrol are as follows: initial competition environment, ap-proach to the elimination of backward production capacity,policy constraints on energy consumption and emissions, andpolicy on cost subsidies and tax policy. Furthermore, for policyon cost subsidies, we x the three possible cost subsidy rates at10%, 30% and 50% in the light of foreign experiences (Ma, 2008).For tax policy, the carbon tax is one of three grades: 50 Yuan/tCO2, 100 Yuan/t CO2 and 300 Yuan/t CO2, based on research athome and abroad (Mao, 2010; Lu et al., 2010). There are thus9 technology policy environments in total. Then we put all theparameters of the 8 selected technologies into the AIM model tosimulate the technology promotion trend during the studyperiod individually under the 9 technology policy environ-ments. Finally, we get 9 separate simulation results, namely thechanging trend of technology promotion popularizing rate un-der different policy environments, shown in Table 4.

According to the results, we have derived the applicable po-licies for the promotion of energy saving and emission reductionin China's cement industry as shown in Table 5.

Table 3Parameters for production technologies in the cement industry.

Technology type Technology ratio (%)a

Raw mix processingRaw meal ball milling 25.0Raw meal vertical milling 45.0Raw meal roller pressing 30.0

Pulverized coal grindingCoal ball milling 65.0

Coal vertical milling 35.0

Clinker sinteringSmall-size new dry kiln 14.7Middle-size new dry kiln 28.9Large-size new dry kiln 28.9Vertical kiln etc. 27.5

Cement grindingCement ball milling 59.0Cement united grinding 40.0Cement vertical milling 1.0

a Mainly cleared up from the survey data, including technical questionnaires of 200b From the consulting from some industrial experts and front-line works of cementc Mainly from the The directory for advanced and applicable technologies of energy-sav

industry associations.technology types the proportion of advanced technologies pos-sessing strong positive effects on energy saving and emission re-duction and economic applicability was around 70% in 2010.However, the promotion popularizing rate of specic advancedtechnologies was still low: the popularizing rate of most tech-nologies was lower than 40%. For example, the efciency of xedgrate cooler technology in China has already achieved interna-tional standards, but it is used in China in less than 10% of cases,and is only expected to reach 25% by the end of the 12th FYP(ITIBMIC, 2012). During the 11th FYP, advanced technology pro-motion for energy-savings and CO2 emission reductions was stillgrowing. And the potential for energy-savings and CO2 emissionreductions by technology introduced will be considerable in the12th FYP, although it is now still in the early stages.

From the resource/energy consumption, pollutant emissionsand technical economic perspectives, we selected 8 technologiesfor this paper from the technical catalog published by governmentsectors and industry associations (ITIBMIC, 2012). The selectedtechnologies are mainly distributed amongst the following fourprocesses: raw meal grinding, calcination, cement grinding andthe entire process. Of these, 5 technologies are at the promotion

Life span/yearb Average energy consumptionc

3050 30 kWh/t raw meal3050 18 kWh/t raw meal3050 24 kWh/t raw meal

3050 38 kWh/t pulverized coal3050 20 kWh/t pulverized coal

3050 3800 kJ/kg clinker3050 3400 kJ/kg clinker3050 3200 kJ/kg clinker1020 3500 kJ/kg clinker

3050 3842 kWh/t cement3050 30 kWh/t cement3050 2530 kWh/t cement

NSP cement plants and interview with 3 cement design institutes.plants.ing and emission reduciton in building materials industry and some statistical data of

0.5. These show that those technologies can only be promoted

Table 4Popularization rates of selected technologies under different technology policy environ

No. Initial competition Control and command policies

Elimination of back production capacity Constraints policy

pulaarplmbe

Z. Wen et al. / Energy Policy 77 (2015) 227237232effectively with the support of suitable policies and economics.Only technologies 7 and 8, with a benet to cost ratio higher than1, have a strong promotion power and do not need special policysupports.

2.4. Scenario denitions

In this section, we introduce three scenarios for which wecompare and analyze the potential for energy savings and emis-sions reductions by technology promotion. Scenarios were de-signed both with reference to the results of the simulation oftechnology policies, and sectoral plans in China's cement industry.The three scenarios, S1, S2 and S3, described in Table 6, representpromotion technologies for energy savings and emissions reduc-tions under different policy conditions separately. The S1 scenariostage and the others are at the growth stage.1 From an economicperspective, the cost-benet level is the best driver to promotetechnology under market competition conditions (Xu and Wang,2006). Benet to cost ratios can be used to evaluate the cost-benet level of technologies under consideration (Wen et al.,2014a). The selected technologies and related energy conservationand emissions mitigation effects are listed in Table 5.

From Table 5, we can see that the popularizing rate of all the8 technologies analyzed is lower than 50%. Moreover, the benetto cost ratio for most technologies is lower than 1 and often below

1 D A D2 D D A3 D D A4 D A D5 D D B6 D D D7 A A A8 A A A

Note: A, B, C and D represent the changing trend and extent of the promotion poincreasing slightly, C represents decreasing slightly, D represents decreasing shlarger than 50%, and the extent of lightly means the change is below 50%. The nuis a baseline scenario without any change except for the produc-tion scale. The S2 scenario mainly reects a situation of im-plementing many integrated policies and measures aimed at sav-ing energy and reducing emissions. The industrial technicalstructure and product structure have been adjusted according tothe policy development. The policy mainly refers to the 12th ve-year plan of industrial energy saving and other industrial mea-sures issued by government. The S3 scenario is also a policy sce-nario, very similar to the S2 scenario, but with a higher intensityfor policy implementation.

1 Similar to the logistic growth curve for microbes, the technology diffusionprocess can be divided into four stages: technology growth period, technologypromotion period, technology maturity period and technology decline period,which is in the shape of compounding and rising S (Lin, 2010; Rogers, 2003;Brown, 1992). Of which, technology promotion mainly refers to technology inpromotion period substituting technology in decline period. Technologies in pro-motion stage are mainly focused on in this study.3. Results

3.1. Energy consumption and CO2 emissions

The proposed AIM/end-use model has been run for three dif-ferent scenarios. The predicted energy consumption and relatedCO2 emissions in China cement industry are shown in Fig. 2.Under Scenario S1, energy consumption increases from 166 milliontce to 192 million tce with an average annual growth rate of 1.51%,while the related CO2 emissions rise is from 1540 million tons to1790 million tons with a 1.64% growth rate. The increase is mainlydue to the upsurge in cement production. Compared with the ironand steel industry in China, the correlation between CO2 emissionsand energy consumption in the cement industry is relativelylower, and the CO2 emissions from the cement industry is muchmore than for the equivalent energy consumption in the steelindustry (rge-Vorsatz and Novikova, 2008). This is mainly be-cause there is a high level of CO2 emissions from the decomposi-tion of calcium carbonate in the production process in addition toemissions from the energy consumption process.

Under Scenario S2, as the structural adjustment of ring sys-tems technology and main products are strengthened, along withimprovement in the popularizing rate afterwards, energy con-sumption and CO2 emissions decline after a brief rise. Energyconsumption would decline to 164 million tce in 2020 from166 million tce in 2010, and CO2 emissions would descend from1540 million tons to 1520 million tons. Under Scenario S3, energyconsumption and CO2 emissions begin to show a declining trend.

ments.

Incentive-based policies

Policy on cost subsidies Tax policy

10% 30% 50% 50 Yuan/t CO2 100 Yuan/t CO2 300 Yuan/t CO2

D B A D B AD D D D D DD D D D D DD C A D D AD D B D D CD D D D D DA A A A A AA A A A A A

rization rate of technologies selected. A represents rising sharply, B representsy. The extent of sharply means that compared with 2010, the change to 2020 isrs 18 represent the selected technologies as listed in Table 2 respectively.Furethermore, energy consumption would decline to 154 milliontce in 2020, while CO2 emissions would descend to 1430 milliontons during the same period.

3.2. Energy intensity and CO2 emission intensity

Under Scenario S1, the energy intensity and CO2 emissions in-tensity maintain their 2010 values of 0.089 tce/t cement and0.825 t CO2/t cement shown in Fig. 3. The main cause is that thereis no change in technical structure and product structure in Sce-nario S1.

On the energy intensity front, under Scenario S2, the valuewould decrease from 0.089 tce/t cement in 2010 to 0.075 tce/tcement in 2020. In Scenario S3, it would decrease to 0.071 tce/tcement in 2020. One of the goals in the 12th FYP for China's ce-ment industry is to reduce energy consumption to 0.093 tce/t ce-ment by 2015 (MIIT of PRC, 2011b), higher than the value in 2010in this paper. Although there is no comparison between the givengoal and our results, we can see a trend of decline in Scenario S2,

Table

5Selected

technolog

iesan

dtheirrelateden

ergy

savingan

dem

ission

reductioneffectsin

China'scemen

tindustry.

No.

Technolog

ynam

eApplicationstage

Technolog

yfeature

Technolog

ytype

Energy-savingan

dem

ission

-red

uction

effectsn

pop

ularizingrate

(%)#

Ben

et/Cost

Applicable

policies

1Raw

Materialmill

technolog

yRaw

mealgrindingprocess

APT

9kw

h/traw

material

350.81

PI;PIII

2Fixedgratecooler

technolog

yFiringprocess

BPT

75KJ/kg

cham

otte

100.20

PII;PIII;PIV

3Waste

heatpow

ergenerationtechnolog

yFiringprocess

BPC

T/TC

URE

80KJ/kg

cham

otte

100.25

PII;PIII

4Multi-aircombu

stiontechnolog

yFiringprocess

APT

80KJ/kg

cham

otte

50.70

PI;PII;PIV

5Motor

frequen

cyconversiontran

sformation

Cem

entgrindingprocess

APT

8kw

h/tcham

otte

400.60

PIII;PIV

6Com

bined

grindingtechnolog

yEn

tire

process

BPT

10kw

h/tcemen

t20

0.45

PII;PIII;PIV

7Efcien

tseparator

technolog

yFiringprocess

APT

0.2kw

h/tcemen

t35

1.25

PII;PIII

8Solution

ofER

P(Enterprise

Resource

Plan

ning)

Entire

process

APT

1kw

h/tcham

otte

15.00

PI;PII

Note:

Arepresents

technolog

ypromotionperiod;Brepresentstechnolog

ygrow

thperiod;PT

represents

produ

ctiontechnolog

y;TC

UREtechnolog

yforcomprehen

sive

utilizationof

resources

anden

ergy;PC

Trepresents

pollution

control

technolog

y.nisfrom

theTh

edirectoryforad

vanced

andap

plicab

letechno

logies

ofen

ergy-sav

ingan

dem

ission

redu

citonin

build

ingmaterialsindu

stry

andnormalized

.#isfrom

thetechnolog

ypromotionstatistics

inthe20

10Indu

stry

Techno

logy

Directory.P

Irepresents

thepolicyon

elim

inationof

backwardproductiontechnolog

ies;

PIIrepresents

theconstraints

policy;

PIIIrepresents

thepolicyon

cost

subsidies;

PIVrepresents

thetaxpolicy.

Z. Wen et al. / Energy Policy 77 (2015) 227237 233where energy consumption and CO2 emissions can be controlledeffectively with sufcient policy support. Furthermore, our ana-lysis agrees with other research results (MIIT of PRC, 2012) thatsuggest that the middle policy scenario can meet this energy-saving goal, and decrease energy intensity to below 0.090 tce/tcement.

Concerning CO2 emissions intensity, this descends to 0.701 tCO2/t cement in 2020 from 0.825 t CO2/t cement in 2010 underScenario S2. This is mainly because many additional policies forenergy savings and emissions reduction have been implementedunder Scenario S2. At the same time, in Scenario S3, we can see asignicantly sharper decline: the CO2 emissions intensity de-creases to 0.659 t CO2/t cement in 2020 from 0.825 t CO2/t cementin 2010.

Based on the Getting the Numbers Right (GNR) database of theCement Sustainability Initiative (CSI) (CSI, 2013), CO2 emissionsintensity in China is compared with other countries in Fig. 4. Ac-cording to Fig. 4, it can be concluded that CO2 emissions intensityin China is much lower than in the U.S. or Canada, close to theworld average level, and slightly higher than that of other devel-oped nations, such as Germany and Austria. Although there was ahuge increase in CO2 emissions from China's cement industry inthe past few years, the direct CO2 emissions per ton of cementdecreased from 0.686 t in 2005 to 0.548 t in 2010, a drop of 20.1%(Tsinghua University and ITIBMIC, 2012).

3.3. Potential for reduction of energy consumption and CO2emissions

3.3.1. Potential for reduction in energy consumptionIn this paper, the potential for reduction in energy consumption

and CO2 emissions mainly refers to the potential compared withScenario S1, listed in Table 7. The results show that the energy-saving potential will gradually grow alongside the implementationof the series of policy measures for energy consumption reduction.The more energy-saving policies that are implemented, the greaterthe energy consumption reduction potential. Under Scenario S2,the energy-saving potential is 8.28% and 17.68% for 2015 and 2020respectively. Under Scenario S3, the energy-saving potentialamounts to 18.83% and 25.32% in 2015 and 2020 respectively.Compared with 2010, the energy consumption can be cut by2 million tce and 12 million tce in 2020 respectively under S2 andS3 scenarios, accounting for 1.2% and 7.23% of the energy con-sumption in 2010.

In this study, only two energy-saving approaches, namely thepromotion of energy-saving technologies and the adjustment ofindustrial structure (products and technical), were considered forreducing energy consumption in the cement industry. The pro-portion of energy-saving potential in China's cement industryfrom the two approaches under S2 and S3 scenarios is shown inFig. 5. In contrast to China's iron and steel industry, the re-structuring of the cement industry is still in progress. In 2010,there was still 20% of backward productivity in the cement in-dustry that should be eliminated urgently, and there is much roomfor the adjustment of the cement production ratio. As Fig. 5 shows,the energy-saving potential of technology promotion is roughlycomparable to that of structural changes under Scenario S2. Afterfurther strengthening of the external policy environment, thespeed of energy-saving technology promotion increases sharply. InScenario S3, the potential for energy savings from technologypromotion is slightly more than that from structural changes ofthe cement industry. The results show that structural changes andtechnology promotion are both key approaches for reducing en-ergy use in cement industry, and the energy saved by technologypromotion is a little greater than that saved by structural

adjustment.

Table 6Scenario denitions.

Scenario name Major assumptions

S1: Baseline scenario No further energy saving and emissions reduction policies wplemented between 2010 and 2020. And the industrial stru(technical structure and product structure), technology poprate and external policy environment will maintain the leveOnly the production scale of cement industry keeps the chais no external policy elements should be set additionally

S2: Integrated policiesscenario

Several measures will be implemented in order to simulatetential for energy saving and emissions reduction by technomotion, such as elimination of vertical kiln before 2015, andtion of small dry kiln and restricted technologies before 202the constraints of energy consumption and emissions. In theincentive measures, 16 technologies will be the priority tosubsidies by 20%; while 7 and 8 technologies have the secoto obtain cost subsidies by 15%. The amount of carbon tax wi50 Yuan/t CO2.

S3: Strength policiesscenario

S3 scenario is very similar to S2 scenario but with a highertent. For example, the elimination of outdated production capas vertical kiln, small dry kiln and restricted technologies, wcompleted before 2015. And the subsidies for cost will be in20% of 7 and 8 technologies, and 25% of 16 technologies. Tof carbon tax will be set as 100 Yuan/t CO2.

Note: Restricted technologies mainly refers to the technologies not included in industrby government.

Fig. 2. Energy consumption and CO2 emissions forecasts for the cement industryunder different scenarios, 20102020.

Fig. 3. Energy intensity and CO2 emissions intensity for China's cement industryunder different scenarios, 20102020.

Z. Wen et al. / Energy Policy 77 (2015) 227237234Key variables setting

ill be im-ctureularizingl in 2010.nge. There

The technical structure and the popularizing rate are seen inTables 1 and 2 respectively. The product structure sustains the valueof 2010: Portland cement (62.1%), Fly ashes-cement (1.9%) and Blastfurnace slag cement (36%) (MIIT of PRC, 2012).

the po- The product structure changes in 2015 and 2020 respectively as be-3.3.2. Potential for CO2 emissions reductionTable 7 displays the potential for CO2 emissions mitigation in

China's cement industry under Scenarios S2 and S3. The resultsshow that emission reduction effects will be amplied by theimplementation of a series of policies as planned for China's ce-ment industry. Under Scenario S2, the potential for CO2 emissionreduction takes up 8.15% and 17.63% of the predicted CO2 emis-sions in 2015 and 2020 respectively. Under Scenario S3, the po-tential amounts to 18.67% of CO2 emissions in 2015. Even in 2020,the potential for CO2 emission reduction reaches 25.24% of thepredicted CO2 emissions in Scenario S3. Compared with 2010, the

logy pro-elimina-0, settingeconomicget costnd priorityll be set as

low: Portland cement (58%, 55%), Fly ashes-cement (4%, 6%) and Blastfurnace slag cement (38%, 39%). The industry technical structure andpopularizing rate will be simulated based on the external policyenvironment in the AIM model.

policy ex-acity suchill becreased tohe amount

The product structure changes in 2015 and 2020 respectively as be-low: Portland cement (55%, 50%), Fly ashes-cement (6%, 8%) and Blastfurnace slag cement (39%, 42%). The industry technical structure andpopularizing rate will be simulated based on the external policyenvironment in the AIM model.

ial accession scope, but the technologies are not limited in the elimination list ruled

Fig. 4. Comparison of typical per product CO2 emissions for different countriesfrom CSI in 2010. Note: total CO2 emissions does not include emissions frombiomass combustion, and net emissions refer to total CO2 emissions excludingalternative fossil fuel combustion. These data have been gathered from enterprisesin the Cement Sustainability Initiative (CSI) with good quality data (CSI, 2013).

Table 7The potential for energy savings and CO2 emissions reduction in China's cementindustry compared with Scenario S1.

Potential type S2 S3

2015 2020 2015 2020

Energy savings (million tce/year) 14 29 29 39CO2 emissions reduction (million tons CO2/year) 128 268 267 361

a b

Fig. 5. Potential for energy savings in China's cement industry under Scenarios S2 and S3 from technology promotion and structural adjustment.

Z. Wen et al. / Energy Policy 77 (2015) 227237 2354. Discussion

Rapid urbanization and development have resulted in a boom inthe construction sector in China, increasing the demand for cement.The growth of cement production is the most important factordriving energy consumption and CO2 emissions upwards in China'scement sector. The main drivers for rising production are marketreform of real estate beginning in 1998, and the dynamic devel-opment of the Chinese economy, with extensive infrastructure ex-pansion. Under these conditions, it is practical and important tomake a prognosis for the development trends of energy saving andemissions reduction policies in the cement industry.absolute emissions reduction can reach 20 million tons CO2 and110 million tons CO2 under Scenarios S2 and S3 respectively, ac-counting for 1.3% and 7.14% of CO2 emissions in 2010.

The CO2 emissions of the cement industry derive from energyconsumption and the decomposition of raw materials in the pro-duction process. Therefore, structural change is the most im-portant approach to reduce CO2 emissions from the cement in-dustry. CO2 emissions reduced by technology promotion are lowerthan that from structural changes. However, if the enhanced ex-ternal policies are implemented, the contribution to the CO2emissions reduction of technology promotion will rise slightly, ascan be concluded from Fig. 6.a

Fig. 6. Potentials for CO2 emissions reduction in China's cement industry underThe results in this study indicated that structural adjustmentand technology promotion are both key approaches for reducingenergy use in cement industry. And the potential for energy sav-ings by technology promotion is a little greater than that bystructural adjustment. The potential for CO2 emissions reductionfrom structural adjustment is larger than that from technologypromotion. Therefore, for the cement industry, structural adjust-ment and technology promotion should be reinforced simulta-neously by energy-saving policies, and technology promotionshould be emphasized. The structural adjustment of the industryshould be further developed and improved with less demandingemissions reduction policies.

We have compared the predicted data in 2012 with the realdata of China's cement industry in order to analyze the accuracy offorecasting by AIM/end-use model. The data include the produc-tion yield, energy consumption and carbon emissions. Accordingto China statistical yearbook (NBSC, 2013), the production of ce-ment in 2012 is 2210 million tons which is far above the predictedvalue (1952 million tons) in 2012 and also higher than in 2020(2171 million tons). The results show that the cement demand inthe rapid urbanization process is far more than expected. Nowa-days, there is no ofcial statistical data of energy consumption andCO2 emissions in China's cement industry in 2012, which are es-timated by survey information and expert advice in this study. Theestimation value of energy consumption is up to 180.87 million tcein 2012. This is higher than the predicted value (16,220 millionb

Scenarios S2 and S3 from technology promotion and structural adjustment.

and approaches can have a signicant effect on energy savings and

duction, Scenarios S2 and S3 will save 29.0 and 39.0 million tons of

Z. Wen et al. / Energy Policy 77 (2015) 227237236tce) in the S3 scenario, which is decided by large cement demands.However, the CO2 emissions in 2012 is predicted to be up to1350 million tons, much less than in S1 scenario (1610 milliontons). The comparative result shows that the cement production iscleaner than before, which is due to cement industrial develop-ment such as industrial structure adjustment and the promotion ofenergy-saving and emission-reduction technologies, and the strictimplementation of government policy such as the 12th ve-yearplanning of industrial energy saving and so on.

According to the road map for emission reductions in the globalcement industry issued jointly by the Cement Sustainability In-itiative (CSI) and the International Energy Agency (IEA), the fourmain means for reducing CO2 emissions are energy efciency (heatefciency and electricity efciency) improvements, alternativefuels, clinker alternatives and Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS).The direct reduction potential from the above measures will con-tribute about 10%, 24%, 10% and 56% respectively in 2050 under theassumption that CCS technology will be ready for commercialapplications after 2030 (IEA and WBCSD, 2009). Energy efciencyimprovements should be implemented continuously, playing themost important role in CO2 emission reduction. Alternative fuelsshould be encouraged to substitute coal consumption. Consider-able economic benets can be generated by the clinker alter-natives with blast furnace slag (BFS), y ash and limestone. CCScould become a very important technology in the cement industryand the costs can be reduced in the early commercial, large-scaleapplication stage. It can contribute more signicantly to CO2 re-duction, but the higer costs incurred may put off its application(Wang et al., 2014). Currently, CCS technology has not yet beencommercialized in the industry, so the other three measures willbe the main means for saving energy and reducing CO2 emissionsin China's cement industry.

In addition, some other policies and measures are re-commended for future energy conservation and CO2 emissionsreduction in China's cement industry (Tsinghua University andITIBMIC, 2012; Napp et al., 2014). First, the Chinese governmentshould develop policy tools to promote the use of the most energyefcient technologies. For example, create a database of CSI to ndperformance gaps between the cement industry in China andthose in other countries; set minimum energy efciency stan-dards, and then phase out those technologies that do not meet thestandards. Second, we should encourage and accelerate the use ofalternative fuels such as coal gangue and industrial waste to saveenergy and reduce CO2 emissions. The share of alternative fuels forclinker calcinations in 2010 reached about 31% in Europe and 60%in Germany. In China, a legal framework should be created toencourage the use of alternative fuels, give more publicity to theeffects on CO2 emissions mitigation from alternative fuels, and ndspecic research institutes and companies to develop the use ofalternative fuels in the cement industry. Thirdly, alternative clin-kers should be encouraged to reduce CO2 emissions. Instead ofcommon hybrid materials, we can consider other materials likelimestone, phosphorus, aluminates, glasses, etc. Existing cementstandards should be revised to include energy intensity, settingtime and CO2 emissions per cement product instead of just in-gredients. The European Union standards are a good framework tofollow. Lastly, innovative low-carbon cement should be vigorouslydeveloped in the future, which can reduce more than 50% of theCO2 emissions per unit of cement produced. Relevant buildingcodes and norms should be revised to accelerate the application oflow-carbon cement, since more than 80% of CO2 emissions fromthe construction of buildings stems from cement production (Jiang

et al., 2012).coal equivalents by 2020 and the related-CO2 emissions saved willbe 268.0 million tons CO2 and 361.0 million tons CO2 by 2020 se-parately. Technology promotion and industry structural adjustmentare almost equally important for saving energy. Structural adjust-ment is the most important approach to reducing CO2 emissionsfrom the cement industry; its proportion of potential for CO2emissions reductionwill continue to grow, exceeding 50% after 2016.

In the future, in order to reduce the CO2 emissions of China'scement industry, more attention should be paid to the adjustmentof the industrial structure, including technical structure and pro-duct structure. The main measures include elimination of verticalkilns, small dry kilns, improving the technology ratio of the large-size new dry kilns in the ring process as soon as possible, andraising the product proportion of y ashes-cement and blast fur-nace slag cement.

Additionally, technology promotion approaches should also befocused on in order to save energy consumption in China's cementindustry. Control and command policies and incentive-based po-licies should be implemented to promote the signicant energy-saving and emission-reduction technologies, such as raw materialmill technology in the raw material grinding process; xed gratecoolers, waste heat power generation, multi-air combustion andefcient separator technologies in the ring process; motor fre-quency conversion transformation technologies in the cementgrinding process; and combined grinding technologies and thesolution of ERP in the entire process.

Acknowledgments

The authors gratefully acknowledge funding by the NationalKey R&D Program (Nos. 2009BAC65B14 and 2012BAC20B10) andthe National Basic Research Program of China (973 Program, No.2010CB955903) from Ministry of Science and Technology of thePeople's Republic of China. The responsibility for any errors restssolely with the authors.

References

Berger, C., et al., 1987. Modeling Long Range Energy/Technology Choices: TheMARKAL Approach. GERAD, Montreal, Canada.

Bohringer, C., Rutherford, T.F., 2009. Integrated assessment of energy policies: de-composing top-down and bottom-up. J. Econ. Dyn. Control 33 (9), 16481661.

Brown, R., 1992. Managing the S curves of innovation. J. Consum. Mark. 9 (1),6172.

CCA (China Cement Association), 2011. Yearbook of China's Cement. China Archi-CO2 emissions mitigation for China's cement industry.In Scenario S1, the average annual growth rates of energy

consumption and CO2 emissions are 1.51% and 1.64% respectively.The relative energy consumption intensity and CO2 emissions in-tensity keep constant values as 0.089 tce/t cement and 0.825t CO2/t cement. Compared with the base year 2010, the energyconsumption and CO2 emissions in 2020 can be cut down abso-lutely under the two policies scenarios (S2 and S3).

In terms of the potential for energy savings and emissions re-5. Conclusion and policy implications

The cement industry is the main contributor to energy con-sumption and CO2 emissions in China's manufacturing industries.In this paper, the AIM/end-use model was used to simulate in-dustrial technology promotion and its effects on the potential forenergy savings and CO2 emissions reduction in China's cementindustry. Scenario analysis results indicate that policy measurestecture & Building Press, Beijing (in Chinese).

Morrow, W.R., et al., 2014. Assessment of energy efciency improvement and CO2

Z. Wen et al. / Energy Policy 77 (2015) 227237 237proach in China's cement sector: based on AIM/enduse model. China Popul.Resour. Environ. 22 (5), 1823 (in Chinese).

Chunark, P., et al., 2013. Impacts of CO2 reduction target and taxation on Thailand'spower system planning towards 2030. Energy Procedia 52, 8592.

Chunark, P., et al., 2014. Quantitative analysis of CO2 mitigation in Thai low carbonpower sector towards 2050. Energy Procedia 52, 7784.

CSI (Cement Sustainability Initiative), 2013. Media Coverage 2013. New data forcement industry shows reductions in CO2 emissions.

Du, B., et al., 2007. Key technology choices for industrial water conservation inChina based on an IWCPA model. Acta Scient. Circumstantiae 27 (10),17531760.

Farmer, K., Steinberger, K.W., 1999. Reducing CO2 emissions under scal re-trenchment: a multi-cohort CGE model for Austria. Environ. Resour. Econ. 13(3), 309340.

Fishborne, L.G., Abilock, H., 1981. MARKAL, a linear-programming model for energysystems analysis: technical description of the BNL version. Energy Res. 5,353357.

Gbel, K., et al., 2004. The design and building of a lifecycle-based process modelfor simulating environmental performance, product performance and cost incement manufacturing. J. Clean. Prod. 12 (1), 7793.

Hainoun, A., et al., 2006. Analysis of the syrian long-term energy and electricitydemand projection using the end-use methodology. Energy Policy 34 (14),19581970.

Hashimoto, S., et al., 2010. Realizing CO2 emission reduction through industrialsymbiosis: a cement production case study for Kawasaki. Resour. Conserv. Re-cycl. 54 (10), 704710.

Hibino, G., et al., 1996. Two-level mathematical programming for analyzing subsidyoptions to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, IIASAWorking Paper WP-96-129,Laxenburg, Austria.

IEA, WBCSD, 2009. Cement technology roadmap: carbon emission reductions up to2050. http://www.wbcsdcement.org.

IPCC 2006. 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories. Volume2: Energy. National Greenhouse Gas Inventories Programme. IGES, Japan.

IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), 2013. Climate Change 2013:The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth As-sessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change . Cam-bridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA,1535 pp.

ITIBMIC (Institute of Technical Information for Building Materials Industry of Chi-na), 2012. The directory for advanced and applicable technologies of energy-saving and emission reduciton in building materials industry (in Chinese).

Jiang, M.L., 2007. Energy consumption situation and energy-saving approach ofcement industry. Cement Guide New Epoch 5, 14 (in Chinese).

Jiang, X.Q., et al., 2012. Analysis on CO2 emission trend and emission reduction pathof China's cement industry in 2020. Energy China 34 (9), 1721 (36) (inChinese).

Kainuma, M., et al., 2000. The AIM/end-use model and its application to forecastJapanese carbon dioxide emissions. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 122 (2), 416425.

Kainuma, M., et al., 2003. Climate Policy Assessment: Asia-Pacic IntegratedModeling. Springer-Verlag, Tokyo.

Ke, J., et al., 2012. Potential energy savings and CO2 emissions reduction of China'scement industry. Energy Policy 45, 739751.

Lei, Y., et al., 2011. An inventory of primary air pollutants and CO2 emissions fromcement production in China, 19902020. Atmos. Environ. 45 (1), 147154.

Li, K., et al., 2005. Industrial life cycle and the extreme point of China' steel industry.Ind. Econ. Res. 4, 3843.

Liang, S., et al., 2013. Clustering economic sectors in China on a life cycle basis toachieve environmental sustainability. Front. Environ. Sci. Eng. 7 (1), 97108.

Lin, L., 2010. The status and advance of study on technology diffusion. Econ. Geogr.30 (8), 1015.

Lu, C., et al., 2010. The impacts of carbon tax and complementary policies on Chi-nese economy. Energy Policy 38 (11), 72787285.

Ma, A.Y., 2008. Comparison between Chinese and foreign energy-saving economicincentive policy. Sino-Global Energy 13, 814 (in Chinese).

Mao, Z.W., et al., 2010. Scenario analysis for CO2 emission reduction in Shandong'scement sector. Acta Scient. Circumstantiae 30 (5), 11071114.

Mao, Z.W., 2010. Carbon Emission Reduction Technology Optimization and PoliciesSimulation on China's Electricity Industry Based on Power Grid. School of En-vironment in Tsinghua University, Beijing.

Matsuoka, Y., et al., 1995. Scenario analysis of global warming using the Asian Pa-cic Integrated Model (AIM). Energy Policy 23 (4/5), 357371.

MIIT of PRC (Ministry of Industry and Information Technology of the Peoples Re-public of China), 2011a. Operation status of major industry sectors in 2010:material industry (in Chinese). http://www.ccement.com/news/Content/48009.html.

MIIT of PRC (Ministry of Industry and Information Technology of the Peoples Re-public of China), 2011b. The Twelfth Five-Year plan for cement industry (inChinese).

MIIT of PRC (Ministry of Industry and Information Technology of the Peoples Re-public of China), 2012. Research on evaluation on potential for energy-savingand emission reduction and analysis on technology approach of constructionmaterial industry (in Chinese).emission reduction potentials in India's cement and iron & steel industries. J.Clean. Prod. 65, 131141.

NBSC (National Bureau of Statistics of China). China Energy Statistical Yearbook,2011, China Statistics Press; Beijing.

NBSC (National Bureau of Statistics of China), 2013. China Statistical Yearbook.China Statistics Press, Beijing.

Napp, T.A., et al., 2014. A review of the technologies, economics and policy in-struments for decarbonising energy-intensive manufacturing industries. Re-new. Sustain. Energy Rev. 30, 616640.

Naqvi, F., Peter, M., 1996. A multiregional, multisectoral model of the Australianeconomy with an illustrative application. Aust. Econ. Papers 35 (66), 94113.

Promjiraprawat, K., et al., 2014. CO2 mitigation potential and marginal abatementcosts in Thai residential and building sectors. Energy Build. 80, 631639.

Rogers, M.E., 2003. Diffusion of Innovations. The Free Press, New York.SEI, 2006. User Guide, LEAP: Long Range Energy Alternative Planning System.

Stockholm Environment Institute, Boston.Selvakkumaran, S., et al., 2014a. Low carbon society scenario 2050 in Thai industrial

sector. Energy Convers. Manag. 85, 663674.Selvakkumaran, S., et al., 2014b. . An explorative analysis of CO2 emissions in Thai

industry sector under low carbon scenario towards 2050. Energy Procedia 52,260270.

Strachan, N., et al., 2009. The iterative contribution and relevance of modelling toUK energy policy. Energy Policy 37 (3), 850860.

Tong, H.F., et al., 2010. System dynamic scenarios analysis of CO2 emissions ofChina's cement industry. China Soft Sci. 3, 4050.

Tsinghua University, ITIBMIC (Institute of Technical Information for Building Ma-terials Industry of China), 2012. Research on mechanism and technical schemesof greenhouse gas emission reduction in China's cement industry (in Chinese).

Turton, H., 2008. ECLIPSE: an integrated energy-economy model for climate policyand scenario analysis. Energy 33 (12), 17541769.

UNFCCC, 2008. Module 4: Measures to mitigate climate change, resource guide forpreparing the national communications of non-annex I parties, Bonn, Germany.

rge-Vorsatz, D., Novikova, A., 2008. Potentials and costs of carbon dioxide miti-gation in the world's buildings. Energy Policy 36 (2), 642661.

Wang, C., et al., 2005. Impact assessment of CO2 mitigation on China economybased on a CGE model. J. Tsinghua Univ. (Sci. Technol.) 45 (12), 16211624 (inChinese).

Wang, S.B., et al., 2010. Technical approach of energy-saving and emission-reduc-tion in cement industry. Cement Technol. 2, 2123 (in Chinese).

Wang, Y.F., et al., 2014. Integrated assessment of CO2 reduction technologies inChina's cement industry. Int. J. Greenh. Gas Control 20, 2736.

Wen, Z.G., et al., 2014a. Estimates of the potential for energy conservation and CO2emissions mitigation based on Asian-Pacic Integrated Model (AIM): the caseof the iron and steel industry in China. J. Clean. Prod. 65 (15), 120130.

Wen, Z.G., et al., 2014b. Analysis of potential energy conservation and CO2 emis-sions reduction in China's non-ferrous metals industry from a technologyperspective. International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control. 8, 4556.

Wen, Z.G., et al., 2014c. Forecasting CO2 Mitigation and Policy Options for ChinasKey Sectors in 2010-2030. Energy & Environment 25 (3-4), 635659.

Worrell, E., et al., 2000. Potentials for energy efciency improvement in the UScement industry. Energy 25 (12), 11891214.

Wu, X., 2006. Calculation of carbon dioxide quantity in cement production and itsusing analysis. Environ. Prod. Sci. 32 (6), 1012.

Xiong, H.W., et al., 2004. Research on the impact of cement industry structureajustment to reduction of energy consumption. China Build. Mater. 8, 2327 (inChinese).

Xu, H.M., Wang, L.L., 2006. Research on the force mechanism of technological in-novation diffusion system. Stud. Sci. Sci. 24 (8), 291294.

Xu, J.-H., et al., 2012. Energy consumption and CO2 emissions in China's cementindustry: A perspective from LMDI decomposition analysis. Energy Policy 50,821832.

Xu, Y., Masui, T., 2009. Local air pollutant emission reduction and ancillary carbonbenets of SO2 control policies: application of AIM/CGE model to China. Eur. J.Oper. Res. 198 (1), 315325.

Yang, H.W., 2004. Quantitative analysis of impacts on China's climate change policyfrom co-benets of mitigation technologies by applying AIM/local China model.Energy Environ. Prot. 18, 14.

Yang, Y., 2010. Scenarios Analysis on Carbon Emissions and Energy Consumption inChina's Cement Industry Based on Logistic Growth Curve: Master's Thesis.Dalian University of Technology, Dalian (in Chinese).

Yuksek, O., et al., 2006. Analysis of the Syrian long-term energy and electricitydemand projection using the end-use methodology. Energy Policy 34 (14),19581970.

Zeng, X.M., 2006. Energy consumption status and energy saving potential in ce-ment industry. Chin. Cement 3, 1621 (in Chinese).

Zhou, N., et al., 2013. China's energy and emissions outlook to 2050: perspectivesfrom bottom-up energy end-use model. Energy Policy 53, 5162.Chen, M., et al., 2012. Evaluation of energy-saving and emission-reduction ap- Mikiko, K., et al., 2000. The AIM/end-use model and its application to forecastJapnese carbon dioxide emissions. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 122 (2), 416425.

Evaluation of energy saving potential in China's cement industry using the Asian-Pacific Integrated Model and the...IntroductionMethodsAIM/end-use modelSimulation flowTechnology selection frameOptimization algorithmConstruction of the model

Input dataProduction parameterEnergy parameterTechnical parameterPolicy parameter

Technological detailsScenario definitions

ResultsEnergy consumption and CO2 emissionsEnergy intensity and CO2 emission intensityPotential for reduction of energy consumption and CO2 emissionsPotential for reduction in energy consumptionPotential for CO2 emissions reduction

DiscussionConclusion and policy implicationsAcknowledgmentsReferences