ADGEOAdvances in GeosciencesADGEOAdv. Geosci.1680-7359Copernicus PublicationsGöttingen, Germany10.5194/adgeo-45-155-2018Potential climate change mitigation of Indian Construction Industry through
a shift in energy efficient technology by 2050Potential climate change mitigation of Indian Construction IndustryJajalPriyankajajal.priyanka@gmail.comMishraTruptiInterdisciplinary Programme in Climate Studies, Indian Institute of Technology Bombay, Mumbai-400076, IndiaShailesh J. Mehta School of Management, Indian Institute of Technology Bombay, Mumbai-400076, IndiaPriyanka Jajal (jajal.priyanka@gmail.com)21August20184515516230May201825July201830July2018This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. To view a copy of this licence, visit https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This article is available from https://adgeo.copernicus.org/articles/45/155/2018/adgeo-45-155-2018.htmlThe full text article is available as a PDF file from https://adgeo.copernicus.org/articles/45/155/2018/adgeo-45-155-2018.pdf
Climate change is a growing concern that is attracting international efforts.
India, as a developing country, has committed to reducing its emission
intensity of GDP up to 30 %–35 % by 2030. The emission intense
sectors would be targeted to achieve climate commitment. One of the emission
intense sector is construction raw material manufacturing that contributes
10 % share in the total emissions making it one of the potential
mitigation sector. The study examines emissions from the construction raw
materials namely, cement, steel, and brick manufacturing and presents two
emission scenarios up to 2050. Energy efficient scenario (S2) is compared
with a reference scenario (S1) developed based on a bottom-up approach. The
results indicate that a moderate energy efficiency improvements and
technological shifts lead to a decrease in emissions of 72 MT CO2
by 2030 and 137 MT CO2 by 2050. Further, the steel industry has
the highest reduction potential, as the current technologies are energy
inefficient. Similarly, the current dependency on fired bricks may be shifted
to cement setting blocks leading to emission reductions. Cement
manufacturing, on the other hand, shows limited scope for emission reduction
that may be achieved through energy efficiency improvements. Efforts towards
energy efficiency improvements in construction raw material manufacturing
would result in reductions beyond the existing commitment of the Paris
Agreement for India by 2030.
Introduction
Climate change and global warming are one of the pressing issues in today's
world. The Paris Agreement has been negotiated amongst countries to determine
individual commitment towards the climate change mitigation. India, which is
one of the developing countries, has played an important role in
negotiations. The country has committed to reducing the emission intensity of
GDP by 30 %–35 % in 2030 compared to 2005 levels (Government of
India, 2015). Intended Nationally determined Contributions (INDC) and other
national policies towards climate change mitigation commitment would drive
the efforts towards achieving the goals.
The construction industry is a major contributor to the economy (8 % of
total GDP, 2014) as well as GHG emissions (10 % of total emissions, 2010)
(Asian Development Bank, 2015; Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, 2015) in
India. Raw materials required for construction include cement, steel and
brick, which involve energy intensive production processes (Dutta and Mukherjee, 2010; Rajarathnam
et al., 2014). Even though the estimates of emissions from these processes
are not consistent with the literature, understanding future mitigation
opportunities requires attention (INCCA, 2010; Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, 2015).
Emissions from cement manufacturing in India have been studied using
bottom-up approach (Bhushan, 2009a; Dutta
and Mukherjee, 2010; Hasanbeigi et al., 2013; Sathaye et al., 2005) and
system dynamics approach (Anand et al., 2006). Majority of
the studies have looked at the energy requirements for cement production at
present and future, to determine energy and emission reduction potentials
(Bhushan, 2009a; Dutta and Mukherjee, 2010; Sathaye et
al., 2005). On the other hand, various emerging technologies and
improvements along with their associated costs have been assessed by Hasanbeigi et al. (2012) to understand
their role in the future industrial development. Cement and Steel
manufacturing have been addressed together using a bottom-up approach, where
energy efficiency improvements, CO2 emissions reductions and related
costs are considered (Morrow et al., 2014).
Similarly, steel industrial energy consumption has been addressed by Hidalgo
et al. (2006) and Bhushan (2009b) using a bottom-up approach. Contrary to
cement and steel studies, emission factor determination (Rajarathnam et al.,
2014) as well as process reporting (Maithel, 2013) has been studied for brick
manufacturing. Emissions from the brick industry have not been addressed in
the literature so far. Hence, this study estimates emissions from the
manufacturing of cement, steel, and brick for the purpose of construction, in
present (2015) and for the future (2050) in two scenarios, one reference
scenario and second moderate energy efficient scenario.
The first section has introduced importance of the construction sector for
the study along with an overview of the latest literature on cement and
steel emissions from the country. Next section delves into the existing
framework used for sectoral emission analysis and introduces the conceptual
framework used for this study. Further, the third section details out the
methodology of energy requirement and emission generation. For the purpose,
relevant assumptions are tabulated along with the logic behind scenario
development. Results and discussion section presents the energy use and
emissions derived using the methodology for both the scenarios. An elaborate
discussion is undertaken by comparing the results of the present study with
the literature to derive the conclusion. A brief policy suggestion is given
in the conclusion section.
Conceptual Framework
Emissions from construction industry have been addressed at two scales, one
at a single building or a complex level and second at the country level. The
literature identifies two approaches to estimate sectoral emission at a
country scale: top-down and bottom-up. The top-down approach considers a
country as an economy and divides its functions for a sector to estimate the
emissions from a demand and supply equilibrium (Antimiani et al.,
2015; Chen et al., 2016; Li and Jia, 2016; Montaud et al., 2017). Compound
General Equilibrium (CGE) is one of the models developed based on a top-down
approach where various components of the economy such as labour, market, and
consumer interact (Antimiani et al., 2015). Such
models help assess shifts in emissions as a result of a policy
implementation (Antimiani et al.,
2015; Chen et al., 2016; Li and Jia, 2016; Montaud et al., 2017). The
top-down approach does not incorporate details related to technologies and
their specific emissions making it unsuitable for the purpose of this study.
The other approach is bottom-up which requires technological details of a
single sector to be aggregated at the country level to estimate sectoral
emissions (Kumar and Madlener, 2016; Tapia-Ahumada et al., 2015; Wang et al.,
2014). LEAP, AIM, and MARKAL are some of the models that are based on the
principles of bottom-up approach. These models have structured data
requirement along with a specific set of assumptions to the given sector.
Hence, to overcome limitations of the available models under bottom-up
approach, case and objective specific models have been developed by various
authors in previous literature (He and Wang, 2017; Hidalgo et al., 2005;
Ozawa et al., 2002; Pardo et al., 2011; Rojas-Cardenas et al., 2017; Wang et
al., 2007; Worrell et al., 2001). The present study develops a specific model
based on a bottom-up approach specific for construction raw materials.
Production technologies for cement, steel and brick manufacturing
with their share (percentage) in India in 2015, energy factors
(GJ MT-1) and emission factors (tCO2 t-1).
The study develops a bottom-up model using technological bifurcation, energy
factors and emission factors for each of the raw materials (cement, steel,
and bricks) of the construction industry. A separate set of equations and
assumptions are applied to each raw material with the same framework which
is explained here along with the equations. Production of each material is
divided into a share of each technological production using their overall
share in the industry (Eq. 1). Once the individual production is
available, energy requirement (Eq. 2) and emission factors (Eq. 3) for each
technology are used to calculate total emissions. However, a different
approach needs to be applied for cement industry as emissions are caused by
two sources of the production: (i) calcinations process to produce clinker
and (ii) energy use throughout the production process. Hence, clinker
production is derived from the clinker share of each technology (Eq. 4) and
emissions generated during clinker production (Eq. 5). The energy use in
terms of thermal or electric is calculated from the total production (Eq. 2).
Pi,t=Ptotal,t×Si,t,Ei,t=Pi,t×EnFi,Emi,t=Pi,t×EFiCi,t=Pi,t×CSEmc,total,t=∑iCi,t×EFC+Ei,t×EFiEmtotal,t=∑iEmi,tEtotal,t=∑iEi,t
Where, Pi,t is the production coming from technology i at time t; Ptotal,t
is the total production at time t for cement, steel and brick industry;
Si,t is the share of technology i at time t for cement, steel and brick
manufacturing technologies; EnFi is energy factor for technology i
constant over time; Ei,t is energy required for production coming from
technology i at time t; EFi is emission factor for technology i constant
over the time period for all the raw materials; Emi,t is emissions from
the production of Pi at time t; CS share of clinker required for the
type of cement i; Ci,t Clinker production required for cement type i at
time t; EmC is emission factor of clinker production; Emc,total,t is
the total emissions from total cement production at time t; Emtotal,t
represents the total emissions from the total production of Ptotal at
time t for steel and brick; Etotal,t is the total energy required for
the production of Ptotal at time t for cement, steel, and
brick.
The technologies of production for cement, steel, and brick along with the
energy and emission factors are listed under Table 1. The share of clinker
required from each cement technology is indicated in the brackets. The
energy and emissions have been estimated for 2015 (present) using the
present share of technologies (given in Fig. 1b) where the current cement,
steel and brick productions are 238 MT, 99 MT and 250 billion respectively
(CMIE, 2017).
Energy efficiency and technological change assumptions for reference
scenario (S1) and moderate energy efficient scenario (S2).
(a) Thermal and electric energy efficiency changes from 2015 to 2050
for cement manufacturing. Technological changes from 2015 to 2050 under
(b) cement industry, (c) steel industry and
(d) brick industry.
Two scenarios are developed with the modified share of technology for each
raw material. The scenarios are called: reference scenario (S1) and moderate
energy efficient scenario (S2). Future productions of cement, steel, and
bricks are assumed to be constant for both the scenarios, where the
production growth rates are derived from the literature. During 2015 to 2030
the production grows at 7.7 %, 6 % and 6 % for cement, steel, and
bricks respectively (CMIE, 2017). In the long run, the demand
of materials is expected to decrease with stabilization in the population
and GDP growth. Hence, the growth of production is reduced to 5 %, 3 %
and 3 % for cement, steel, and bricks respectively from 2030 to 2050.
Reference scenario is developed based on the existing trends of technology
shifts and energy efficiency improvements. Cement production in the country
has been one of the cleanest industries as the energy requirements matches
the global standard (Worrell et al., 2007). Thus, a small
improvement in the efficiency is expected in the future compared to
reference scenario (Fig. 1a). Thermal and electric energy efficiency
changes assumed under this study are lower than that assumed under Bhushan (2009a); whereas the energy efficiency is in line with that assumed by Dutta
and Mukherjee (2010). Overall, changes in the technological distribution
are minor as indicated in Fig. 1b.
On the other hand, steel and brick production in India has been energy
inefficient, leading to higher emissions. Steel production technologies vary
considerably in terms of the energy requirement, where Electric Arc Furnace
(EAF) scrap based production is the most efficient. Scrap-based steel
production is challenged by limitation of the scrap supply, especially in
India. The long-term supply of recycled scrap is expected to increase with
increased recycling of steel scraps leading to the total share of 20 %
scrap-based steel production (Oda et al., 2012;
Shirodkar and Terkar, 2017). Dependency on coal-based EAF plants is also
expected to decrease with a slight increase in gas-based plants, which are
shown in Fig. 1c.
Brick manufacturing includes burning green bricks directly using coal or
other biofuels. Two types of burning take place one where separate batches
of bricks are burnt, and second continuous burning. Both the processes
require fuel for burning; however, the most efficient bricks are the ones,
which are made from setting of cement. As an effort to reduce emissions, the
existing inefficient brick kilns are converted to energy efficient kilns as
a compliance with the government order (Central Pollution Control
Board, 2013). The trend is, expected to continue in the reference scenario
where distribution of zig-zag and vertical shaft brick kiln (VSBK) is
expected to take over the share of clamps and Bull's Trench Kiln (BTK).
Non-fired bricks have not appeared in the Indian market until now yet the
reference scenario assumes to grow the share up to 20 % by 2050 as
non-fired bricks show low material requirements (shown in Fig. 1d).
Total emission estimation under Reference scenario (S1) and moderate
energy efficient scenario (S2) over study period of 2015 to 2050 in MT
CO2 with sectoral distribution.
The second scenario is called a moderate energy efficient scenario (S2). As
the name suggests, the scenario has been built to assess the effects of
moderate changes in energy efficiency on the energy demand and GHG emissions.
As shown in Fig. 1b, energy efficiency improves for cement production along
with electric energy efficiency. The technologies can be seen from Ordinary
Portland Cement (OPC) towards Portland Slag Cement (PSC) which requires only
45 % of clinker mix (Bhushan, 2009a). Scrap based manufacturing is
encouraged in the steel production under S2, as the scrap availability is
expected to increase up to 25 %. Similarly, brick production from
non-fired manufacturing is also expected to increase up to 25 %. The
assumptions are based on the reference and other scenarios developed by
Venkataraman et al. (2018). The modified scenario assumes a moderate change
between their aspirational and ambitious scenarios for cement, steel and
brick industry.
Results and discussion
The emissions from cement manufacturing at present (2015) are estimated to be
203 MT CO2 (Fig. 2); which is higher than the estimates given by
the government of 124 MT CO2eq. in 2010 (Ministry of
Environment, Forest and Climate Change, 2015). However, estimates by
Bhushan (2009a) are comparable to the present study emissions. Steel
production is high on energy demand, leading to emissions of
239 MT CO2. Again, the emissions are quite larger than the
estimated emissions of 96 MT CO2eq. in 2010 by the government
(Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, 2015) and in line with
the estimates of Bhushan (2009b). Lastly, brick emissions are estimated at
1.1 MT CO2eq. in the literature, while the present study
estimates are 106.8 MT CO2eq. Due to lack of estimates, brick
emissions cannot be compared with the literature.
Reference scenario estimates for cement production suggests that the
emissions would increase up to 504 and 1315 MT CO2 in 2030 and
2050 respectively (Fig. 2). The estimates are comparable to that of business
as usual (BAU) scenario by Bhushan (2009a). However, Dutta and
Mukherjee (2010) BAU estimates are higher than the present study S1 for 2030.
Moderate changes in the energy efficiency lead to reductions of 7 and
52 MT CO2 in 2030 and 2050 respectively under S2. These
reductions are 3.9 %; however, they are modest compared to the ones
estimated by Bhushan (2009a) and Dutta and Mukherjee (2010) (Table 2).
Additionally, the effort towards energy efficiency improvements lead to a
reduction of 3 and 5 GJ of thermal energy along with 1.2 and 2.5 kWh
electric energy in 2030 and 2050 respectively. The amount of coal saved per
year in 2030 and 2050 is calculated to be 167 and 393 kg respectively,
assuming the calorific value to be 18.353 MJ kg-1 of coal and heat
rate to be 83.68 MJ kWh-1 (Venkataraman et al., 2018).
The steel industry is estimated to emit 554 MT CO2 in 2030 and 930 MT CO2 in 2050 under reference scenario (Fig. 2). Estimates of 2030 for
Indian steel industry by Dutta and Mukherjee (2010) are much higher at 1071 MT CO2 under BAU and 803 MT CO2 under energy efficient scenario.
On the other hand, Bhushan (2009a) has estimates comparable to the present
study. The differences in results can be attributed to the energy efficiency
assumptions. The energy requirements under the present study are expected to
increase from 35 MTOE in 2015 to 84 MTOE in 2030 and 146 MTOE in 2050;
whereas, S2 leads to a reduction of CO2 up to 46 and 93 MT CO2 in 2030 and 2050 respectively. The energy saved under the S2
equates to coal saving of 7 MT in 2030 and 13.5 MT in 2050. The energy
savings are low at 9 %, which result in emission reductions of 18 % to
22 %. The estimates for steel industry are comparable to that under Bhushan (2009b) as 2030 estimates for the BAU scenario
is 668 MT CO2 along with 9 % reduction potential for low carbon (LC) scenario.
Comparison of emission estimates from present study for cement and
steel manufacturing in 2015 and 2030 with the literature.
SectorCement Steel Year2015203020152030Ministry of Environment Forest and Climate Change (2015) 124.58596Dutta and Mukherjee (2010) BAU9391071S2732803Bhushan (2009a, b) BAU182470208668S2142394209608Present Study Ref202.5507239554S2202.5497239509
Lastly, under the reference scenario emissions from brick industry is
expected to double by 2030 at 208 MT CO2 and increase to 302 MT CO2 by 2050 (Fig. 2). The changes in technologies of production
under S2 results in a reduction of 27 and 44 MT CO2 by
2030 and 2050 respectively. However, the energy requirement increases from
the reference scenario to S2 as the non-fired bricks would also require
energy to produce cement. It is clear that brick manufacturing may lead to
increased use of coal with a reduction in emissions.
Conclusion
India is committed towards the climate change mitigation under the Paris
Agreement, under which various initiatives are undertaken. The present study
is an effort to quantify emissions and emission reduction strategy of the raw
materials used for construction industry. For this, CO2 emissions
from cement, steel, and brick manufacturing are estimated. Further, emission
estimates are used to develop two scenarios: (i) a reference scenario (S1)
with an extension of the present policies and (ii) a moderate energy
efficient scenario (S2) where moderate changes in efficiencies and
technologies are assumed. The focus of the scenarios is to underline emission
reduction strategies and policy guidelines rather than estimating the exact
emissions in future.
The study adopts, a bottom-up approach using annual production information,
growth rates of production increase, technology distribution in present and
future, and energy factors along with emission factors for each technology.
The reductions under S2 are low for all the three manufacturing products.
However, the study helps identify future guidelines for policy formulations.
The cement industry is already at par with the world standards of efficiency
and hence the emissions. The scope for improvement is less; although, the
natural shifts in energy efficiency should not be neglected. Steel
production, as well as brick manufacturing, has plenty of scope for
improvement in energy efficiency, fuel switching, and technology changes. A
combination of two or all three efforts would result in a total reduction of
72 MT CO2 in 2030 and 137 MT CO2 in 2050, which is 5 % and 8 %
of the total emissions at present respectively. Extended and planned efforts
towards the construction industry may lead to higher emission reductions.
No data sets were used in this article.
PJ developed the study framework, computed the model
results and prepared the draft manuscripts. TM refined the model, verified
the findings and manuscripts and supervised the work.
The authors declare that they have no conflict of
interest.
This article is part of the special issue “European Geosciences
Union General Assembly 2018, EGU Division Energy, Resources & Environment
(ERE)”. It is a result of the EGU General Assembly 2018, Vienna, Austria,
8–13 April 2018.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to acknowledge the guidance and inputs received from
Chandra Venkataraman and Sameer Maithel as well as information
sharing. The paper would have been incomplete without kind support of Krishna Malakar and Mousami Prasad. Also, the authors would like to thank Department
of Science and Technology (DST) Government of India project no. 11DST078 and
Mid-Stage Financial support for TAP Students by Industrial Research and
Consultancy Centre (IRCC) of Indian Institute of Technology, Bombay under
project 12IRCC001 for financial support.
Edited by: Viktor Bruckman
Reviewed by: two anonymous referees
ReferencesAnand, S., Vrat, P., and Dahiya, R. P.: Application of a system dynamics
approach for assessment and mitigation of CO2 emissions from the
cement industry, J. Environ. Manage., 79, 383–398,
10.1016/j.jenvman.2005.08.007, 2006.Antimiani, A., Costantini, V., and Paglialunga, E.: The sensitivity of
climate-economy CGE models to energy-related elasticity parameters:
Implications for climate policy design, Econ. Model., 51, 38–52,
10.1016/j.econmod.2015.07.015, 2015.
Asian Development Bank: Key Indicators for Asia and the Pacific 2015: India,
The Bank, Manila, Philippines, 2015.
Bhushan, C.: Industry Index: Cement, Centre for Science and Environment, New
Delhi, India, 2009a.
Bhushan, C.: Industry Index: Steel, Centre for Science and Environment, New
Delhi, India, 2009b.
Central Pollution Control Board: Guidelines on brick manufacturing unit, New
Delhi, India, 2013.Chen, Z., Xue, J., Rose, A. Z., and Haynes, K. E.: The impact of high-speed
rail investment on economic and environmental change in China?: A dynamic CGE
analysis, Transport. Res. A-Pol., 92, 232–245,
10.1016/j.tra.2016.08.006, 2016.CMIE: CMIE Industry Outlook, Demand Supply Futur, available at:
https://industryoutlook.cmie.com/kommon/bin/sr.php?kall=wshowtab&icode=0101013001000000&tabno=0005
(last access: 24 May 2018), 2017.Dutta, M. and Mukherjee, S.: An outlook into energy consumption in large
scale industries in India?: The cases of steel, aluminium and cement, Energ.
Policy, 38, 7286–7298, 10.1016/j.enpol.2010.07.056, 2010.
Government of India: India's Intended Nationally Determined Contribution:
Working Towards Climate Justice, New Delhi, India, 2015.Hasanbeigi, A., Price, L., and Lin, E.: Emerging energy-efficiency and
CO2 emission-reduction technologies for cement and concrete
production: A technical review, Renew. Sust. Energ. Rev., 16, 6220–6238,
10.1016/j.rser.2012.07.019, 2012.Hasanbeigi, A., Morrow, W., Sathaye, J., Masanet, E., and Xu, T.: A bottom-up
model to estimate the energy ef fi ciency improvement and CO2
emission reduction potentials in the Chinese iron and steel industry, Energy,
50, 315–325, 10.1016/j.energy.2012.10.062, 2013.He, K. and Wang, L.: A review of energy use and energy-efficient technologies
for the iron and steel industry, Renew. Sust. Energ. Rev., 70, 1022–1039,
10.1016/j.rser.2016.12.007, 2017.Hidalgo, I., Szabo, L., Ciscar, J. C., and Soria, A.: Technological prospects
and CO2 emission trading analyses in the iron and steel industry?:
A global model, Energy, 30, 583–610, 10.1016/j.energy.2004.05.022,
2005.Hidalgo, I., Ciscar, J. C., and Soria, A.: CO2 emission trading
within the European Union and Annex B countries?: the cement industry case,
Energ. Policy, 34, 72–87, 10.1016/j.enpol.2004.06.003, 2006.
INCCA: India: Greenhouse Gas Emissions 2007, Ministry of Environment and
Climate Change, New Delhi, India, 2010.Kumar, S. and Madlener, R.: CO2 emission reduction potential
assessment using renewable energy in India Renewable Nuclear Hydro Gas
Thermal Biomass Small hydro Wind, Energy, 97, 273–282,
10.1016/j.energy.2015.12.131, 2016.Li, W. and Jia, Z.: The impact of emission trading scheme and the ratio of
free quota?: A dynamic recursive CGE model in China, Appl. Energ., 174,
1–14, 10.1016/j.apenergy.2016.04.086, 2016.
Maithel, S.: Evaluating Energy Conservation Potential of Brick Production in
India, SAARC Energy Centre, Islamabad, Pakistan, 2013.
Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change: India First Biennial
Update Report to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change,
New Delhi, India, 2015.Montaud, J., Pecastaing, N., and Tankari, M.: Potential socio-economic
implications of future climate change and variability for Nigerien
agriculture?: A countrywide dynamic CGE-Microsimulation analysis, Econ.
Model., 63, 128–142, 10.1016/j.econmod.2017.02.005, 2017.Morrow III, W. R., Hasanbeigi, A., Sathaye, J., and Xu, T.: Assessment of
energy ef fi ciency improvement and CO2 emission reduction
potentials in India's cement and iron & steel industries, J. Clean. Prod.,
65, 131–141, 10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.07.022, 2014.Oda, J., Akimoto, K., Tomoda, T., Nagashima, M., and Wada, K.: International
comparisons of energy efficiency in power, steel, and cement industries,
Energ. Policy, 44, 118–129, 10.1016/j.enpol.2012.01.024, 2012.Ozawa, L., Sheinbaum, C., Martin, N., Worrell, E., and Price, L.: Energy use
and CO2 emissions in Mexico's iron and steel industry, Energy, 27,
225–239, 2002.Pardo, N., Moya, J. A., and Mercier, A.: Prospective on the energy efficiency
and CO2 emissions in the EU cement industry, Energy, 36,
3244–3254, 10.1016/j.energy.2011.03.016, 2011.Rajarathnam, U., Athalye, V., Ragavan, S., Maithel, S., Lalchandani, D.,
Kumar, S., Baum, E., Weyant, C., and Bond, T.: Assessment of air pollutant
emissions from brick kilns, Atmos. Environ., 98, 549–553,
10.1016/j.atmosenv.2014.08.075, 2014.Rojas-Cardenas, J. C., Hasanbeigi, A., Sheinbaum-Pardo, C., and Price, L.:
Energy ef fi ciency in the Mexican iron and steel industry from an
international perspective, J. Clean. Prod., 158, 335–348,
10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.04.092, 2017.
Sathaye, J., Price, L., Can, S. de la R. du, and Fridley, D.: Assessment of
Energy Use and Energy Savings Potential in Selected Industrial Sectors in
India, Ernest Orlando Lawrence Berkeley Natl. Lab., LBNL-57293(July),
Berkeley, CA, USA, 2005.Shirodkar, N. and Terkar, R.: Stepped Recycling?: The Solution for E-waste
Management and Sustainable Manufacturing in India, Mater. Today-Proc., 4,
8911–8917, 10.1016/j.matpr.2017.07.242, 2017.Tapia-Ahumada, K., Octaviano, C., Rausch, S., and Pérez-Arriaga, I.:
Modeling intermittent renewable electricity technologies in general
equilibrium models, Econ. Model., 51, 242–262,
10.1016/j.econmod.2015.08.004, 2015.Venkataraman, C., Brauer, M., Tibrewal, K., Sadavarte, P., Ma, Q., Cohen, A.,
Chaliyakunnel, S., Frostad, J., Klimont, Z., Martin, R. V., Millet, D. B.,
Philip, S., Walker, K., and Wang, S.: Source influence on emission pathways
and ambient PM2.5 pollution over India (2015–2050), Atmos. Chem. Phys.,
18, 8017–8039, 10.5194/acp-18-8017-2018, 2018.Wang, K., Wang, C., Lu, X., and Chen, J.: Scenario analysis on CO2
emissions reduction potential in China's iron and steel industry, Energ.
Policy, 35, 2320–2335, 10.1016/j.enpol.2006.08.007, 2007.Wang, R., Tao, S., Shen, H., Huang, Y., Chen, H., Balkanski, Y., Boucher, O.,
Ciais, P., Shen, G., Li, W., Zhang, Y., Chen, Y., Lin, N., Su, S., Li, B.,
Liu, J., and Liu, W.: Trend in Global Black Carbon Emissions from 1960 to
2007, Environ. Sci. Technol., 48, 6780–6787, 10.1021/es5021422, 2014.
Worrell, E., Price, L., and Martin, N.: Energy efficiency and carbon dioxide
emissions reduction opportunities in the US iron and steel sector, Energy,
26, 513–536, 10.1016/S0360-5442(01)00017-2, 2001.
Worrell, E., Price, L., Neelis, M., Galitsky, C., and Nan, Z.: World Best
Practice Energy Intensity Values for Selected Industrial Sectors, Lawrence
Berkeley National Laboratory, LBNL-62806 Rev2, Berkeley, CA, USA, p. 51,
2007.