选取国际上四大典型碳数据库——国际能源署 (IEA) 数据库、美国橡树岭国家实验室CO2信息分析中心 (CDIAC) 数据库、全球大气研究排放数据库 (EDGAR) 以及美国能源信息管理局 (EIA) 数据库, 对中国碳排放核算进行了参数级层面的对比分析.研究发现: (1) 整体来看, IEA和EDGAR的核算更深入;(2) 活动水平数据分类方式差异较大, 各数据库将煤基燃料分别分为8、4、8、5类, 油基燃料分为15、10、14、13类, 气体燃料分为4、1、4、2类;(3) 各类燃料碳排放因子选用原则不一, 有的选用所在机构的特有中国参数, 有的选用IPCC缺省因子.%Four typical international carbon databases International Energy Agency (IEA), Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center (CDIAC), The Emissions Database for Global Atmospheric Research (EDGAR) and Energy Information Administration (EIA) have been selected to carry out a comparison analysis of their carbon emissions accounting for China''s fossil fuels and cement production. The results show that:1) the accounting by IEA and EDGAR is more detailed;2) there is a large difference in activity data classification for the four carbon databases, which is 8, 4, 8, 5 for coal-based fuels, 15, 10, 14, 13 for oil-based fuels, and 4, 1, 4, 2 for gaseous fuels;3) the carbon emission factors are selected in different way, some use the institute''s own China-specific parameter, some use the default value from IPCC.
展开▼