|
|||||
|
|
| 能值与传统方法的能源足迹比较分析 | |
| 引用本文： | 曲艳伟,刘立波,沈玉志. 能值与传统方法的能源足迹比较分析[J]. 山西能源与节能, 2010, 0(3): 68-70 |
| 作者姓名： | 曲艳伟 刘立波 沈玉志 |
| 作者单位： | 1. 辽宁工程技术大学工商管理学院,辽宁,葫芦岛,125105 2. 大连理工大学城市学院,辽宁,大连,116600 3. 辽宁工程技术大学,辽宁,阜新,123000 |
| 摘 要： | 采用能值理论与生态足迹理论相结合的方法以及传统的能源足迹计方法,计算了中国1978年至2007年的能源足迹,从运算结果和方法上对两种计算方法进行了比较,指出,30a来,传统的能源足迹增长了3.38倍,能值的能源足迹增长3.46倍,总量上能值能源足迹是传统方法的1.77倍;原理上能值生态足迹在比传统生态足迹更能够反映出区域可持续发展的现状。提出,由于能值生态足迹还处于起步阶段,仍需进一步完善;二者均面临能源足迹指标单一化、政策意义不十分明确的问题。 |
| 关 键 词： | 生态足迹 能值分析 能源足迹 |
Comparative Analysis of Traditional Energy Footprint and Emergy Energy Footprint |
|
| QU Yan-wei,LIU Li-bo,SHEN Yu-zhi. Comparative Analysis of Traditional Energy Footprint and Emergy Energy Footprint[J]. Shanxi Energy and Conservation, 2010, 0(3): 68-70 | |
| Authors: | QU Yan-wei LIU Li-bo SHEN Yu-zhi |
| Affiliation: | 1. College of Business Administration,Liaoning Technical University,Huludao 125105,Liaoning,China;2. City Institute,Dalian University of Technology,Dalian 116600,Liaoning,China;3. Department of Teaching Affairs,Liaoning Technical University,Fuxin 123000,Liaoning,China) |
| Abstract: | The paper calculates the energy footprint of China in 1978～2007,combining emergy theory and the traditional method of the energy footprint and compares the two methods from the results and methods. For 30 years,the traditional energy footprint increased by 3.38 times,the emergy energy footprint by 3.46 times,the total energy footprint is 1.77 times that of traditional methods; In principles,energy ecological footprint are more able to reflect the status of regional sustainable development than the traditional energy footprint. However,the value of ecological footprint can also be improved in its infancy; both are facing the problem of single indicator and uncertainty policy. |
| Keywords: | ecological footprint emergy analysis energy footprint |
| 本文献已被 维普 万方数据 等数据库收录！ | |