Preferencje help
Widoczny [Schowaj] Abstrakt
Liczba wyników
2019 | 28 | 4 |
Tytuł artykułu

Nuclear, renewables and low carbon growth: a comparative study on China, U.S., France and Japan

Warianty tytułu
Języki publikacji
Using the ARDL test and Granger approaches, this paper investigates long-term co-integration and causal relationships among nuclear, renewables, GDP and CO2 emissions in China, US, France and Japan. The findings reveal that the long-term coefficient of nuclear energy is smaller than renewable energy, indicating a relative advantage of nuclear power. However, the emission reduction effect of nuclear and renewables in China was not as much as compared to other nations. Moreover, causality from economic growth to nuclear or renewable energy existed in all countries, whereas no causality from nuclear energy to economic growth existed except in Japan. Therefore, giving priority to energy conservation and energy mix optimization is not likely to hurdle economic growth in China. However, greenness of the overall energy production process, augmentation of energy efficiency, technological progress in energy storage and internet, sustainable development of resource-society, and nuclear safety issues should be given priority in order to contribute to low-carbon growth in China.
Słowa kluczowe
Opis fizyczny
  • School of Economics and Management, University of Science and Technology Beijing, Beijing, China
  • School of Economics and Management, Dalian University of Technology, Dalian, China
  • School of Economics and Management, Dalian University of Technology, Dalian, China
  • School of Economics and Management, Dalian University of Technology, Dalian, China
  • 1. KAYGUSUZ K. Energy and environmental issues relating to greenhouse gas emissions for sustainable development in Turkey. Renewable & Sustainable Energy Reviews, 13 (1), 253, 2009.
  • 2. DONG F., LONG R., YU B., et al. How can China allocate CO2 reduction targets at the provincial level considering both equity and efficiency? Evidence from its Copenhagen Accord pledge. Resources, Conservation & Recycling, 130, 31, 2018.
  • 3. DONG F., LONG R., LI Z., et al. Analysis of carbon emission intensity, urbanization and energy mix: evidence from China. Natural Hazards, 82, 1375, 2016.
  • 4. DONG F., LONG R., BIAN Z., et al. Applying a Ruggiero three-stage super-efficiency DEA model to gauge regional carbon emission efficiency: evidence from China. Natural Hazards, 87 (3), 1, 2017.
  • 5. DONG F., YU B., HADACHIN T., DAI Y., et al. Drivers of carbon emission intensity change in China. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 129, 187, 2018.
  • 6. WANG X.D. Thailand: Clean Energy for Green Low-Carbon Growth, the World Bank Group, Washington, 2011.
  • 7. SCHEIDER M., FROGGATT A., et al. The World Nuclear Industry Status Report 2013, Mycle Schneider Consulting, London, 2013.
  • 8. LI R.J., ZHANG L., ZHAO L.D. China’s clean energy use, factor allocation structure and carbon Productivity growth based on production function with energy and human capital, Resource Science, 38, 645, 2016.
  • 9. EEA. Renewable energy in Europe 2016, Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg, 2016.
  • 10. KIVYIRO P., ARMINEN H. Carbon dioxide emissions, energy consumption, economic growth, and foreign direct investment: Causality analysis for Sub-Saharan Africa. Energy, 74, 595, 2014.
  • 11. KRAFT J., KRAFT A. Relationship between energy and GNP. Journal of Energy and Development, 3 (2), 401, 1978.
  • 12. AL-IRIANI M.A. Energy – GDP relationship revisited: an example from GCC countries using panel causality. Energy Policy, 34 (17), 3342, 2006.
  • 13. MEHRARA M. Energy consumption and economic growth: the case of oil exporting countries. Energy Policy, 35 (5), 2939, 2007.
  • 14. ALAM M.J., BEGUM I.A., BUYSSE J., et al. Energy consumption, carbon emissions and economic growth nexus in Bangladesh: cointegration and dynamic causality analysis. Energy Policy, 45, 217, 2012.
  • 15. MARQUES A.C., FUINHAS J.A. Is renewable energy effective in promoting growth? Energy Policy, 46, 434, 2012.
  • 16. CHANG T. Causal relationship between nuclear energy consumption and economic growth in G6 countries: Evidence from panel Granger causality test. Progress in Nuclear Energy, 77, 187, 2014.
  • 17. STERN D.I. A multivariate cointegration analysis of the role of energy in the US macroeconomy. Energy Economics, 22, 267, 2000.
  • 18. OH W., LEE K. Causal relationship between energy consumption and GDP: the case of Korea 1970-1999. Energy Economics, 26 (1),51, 2004.
  • 19. YUAN J., KANG J.-G., ZHAO C., et al. Energy consumption and economic growth: evidence from China at both aggregated and disaggregated levels. Energy Economics, 30, 3077, 2008.
  • 20. NARAYAN P.K., SMYTH R. Energy consumption and real GDP in G7 countries: new evidence from panel cointegration with structural breaks. Energy Economics, 30, 2331, 2008.
  • 21. APERGIS N., PAYNE J.E. Energy consumption and economic growth in Central America: evidence from a panel cointegration and error correction model. Energy Economics, 31, 211, 2009.
  • 22. MASIH A.M.M., MASIH R. On temporal causal relationship between energy consumption, real income and prices; some new evidence from Asian energy dependent nics based on a multivariate cointegration/vector error correction approach. Journal of Policy Model, 19, 417, 1997.
  • 23. PAUL S., BHATTACHARYA R.N. Causality between energy consumption and economic growth in India: a note on conflicting results. Energy Economics, 26 (6), 977, 2004.
  • 24. LEE C.C., CHANG C.P., CHEN P.F. Energy-income causality in OECD countries revisited: the key role of capital stock. Energy Economics, 30, 2359, 2008.
  • 25. CHENG B. An investigation of cointegration and causality between energy consumption and economic growth. Journal of Energy Development, 21, 73, 1995.
  • 26. JOBERT T., KARANFIL F. Sectoral energy consumption by source and economic growth in Turkey. Energy Policy, 35, 5447, 2007.
  • 27. OMRI A. An international literature survey on energyeconomic growth nexus: Evidence from country-specific studies. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 38 (9), 951, 2014.
  • 28. ARMEANU D., GEORGETA V., ŞTEFAN C. Does renewable energy drive sustainable economic growth? Multivariate panel data evidence for EU-28 countries. Energies, 10, 381, 2017.
  • 29. SARI R., EWING B.T., SOYTAS U. The relationship between disaggregate energy consumption and industrial production in the United States: an ARDL approach. Energy Economics, 30, 2302, 2008.
  • 30. SADORSKY P. Renewable energy consumption and income in emerging economies. Energy Policy, 37, 4021, 2009.
  • 31. MENYAH K., WOLDE-RUFAEL Y. CO2 emissions, nuclear energy, renewable energy and economic growth in the US. Energy Policy, 38 (6), 2911, 2010.
  • 32. BOWDEN N., PAYNE J.E. Sectoral analysis of the causal relationship between renewable and non – Renewable energy consumption and real output in the US. Energy Source Part B, 5 (4),400, 2010.
  • 33. WOLDE-RUFAEL Y. Nuclear energy consumption and economic growth in Taiwan. Energy Sources, Part B: Economics, Planning, and Policy, 7 (1), 21, 2012.
  • 34. YOO S.H., KU S.J. Causal relationship between nuclear energy consumption and economic growth: a multicountry analysis. Energy policy, 37 (5), 1905, 2009.
  • 35. WOLDE-RUFAEL Y. Bounds test approach to cointegration and causality between nuclear energy consumption and economic growth in India. Energy Policy, 38 (1), 52, 2010.
  • 36. MBAREK M.B., KHAIRALLAN R., FEKI R. Causality relationships between renewable energy, nuclear energy and economic growth in France. Environment Systems and Decisions, 35 (1), 133, 2015.
  • 37. 37. IWATA H., OKADA K., SAMRETH S. Empirical study on the environmental Kuznets curve for CO2 in France: The role of nuclear energy. Energy Policy, 38 (8), 4057, 2010.
  • 38. BAEK J., KIM H.S. Is economic growth good or bad for the environment? Empirical evidence from Korea. Energy Economics, 36, 744, 2013.
  • 39. APERGIS N., PAYNE J.E. A panel study of nuclear energy consumption and economic growth. Energy Economics, 32, 545, 2010.
  • 40. MEZ L. Nuclear and Renewables: Compatible or Contradicting? Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Energy and Environment, 1 (2), 218, 2012.
  • 41. PEARCE J.M. Thermodynamic limitations to nuclear energy deployment as a greenhouse gas mitigation technology. International Journal of Nuclear Governance, Economy and Ecology, 2 (1), 113, 2008.
  • 42. KENNY R., LAW C., PEARCE J.M. Towards real energy economics: Energy policy driven by life-cycle carbon emission. Energy Policy, 38 (4), 1969, 2010.
  • 43. MCNEIL B. The costs of introducing nuclear power to Australia. Journal of Australian Political Economy, 6 (59), 5, 2007.
  • 44. FOLLAND S., HOUGH R. Externalities of nuclear power plants: Further evidence. Journal of Regional Science, 40 (4), 735, 2000.
  • 45. REN21. Renewables 2016 Global Status Report, REN21 Secretariat, Paris, 2016.
  • 46. EIA. International Energy Statistics, (accessed on 10 Dec 2017)
  • 47. ENGLE R.F., GRANGER C.W.J. Cointegration and error correction representation: estimation and testing, Econometrica, 55, 251, 1987.
  • 48. JOHANSEN W., KRUGER S.F. Maximum likelihood estimation and inference on cointegration- with applications to the demand for money, Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 52, 169, 1990.
  • 49. PESARAN M.H., SHIN Y.,SMITH R.J. Bounds testing approaches to the analysis of level relationships, Journal of Applied Economics, 16, 289, 2001.
  • 50. LUKEPOHL H. Structural vector autoregressive analysis for cointegrated variables, Allgemeines Statistisches Archiv, 90, 75, 2006.
  • 51. NARAYAN P.K. The saving and investment nexus for China: evidence from cointegration tests, Applied Economics, 37, 1979, 2005.
  • 52. SHAHBAZ M. Economic growth, energy consumption, financial development, international trade and CO2 emissions in Indonesia, Journal of Renewable & Sustainable Energy, 25, 109, 2013.
  • 53. LI S. Research on calculation of new energy’s power generation efficiency and analysis on its driving factors, Recourse Science, 38, 321, 2016.
  • 54. WANG X.E., WANG H.N., XIA J., et al. Typical country’s coordinated development of the economy- society and energy-environment during industrialization, Resource Science, 38, 2001, 2016.
  • 55. INTERNATIONAL RENEWALBE ENERGY AGENCY. Renewable Energy Prospects: RE map 2030 analysis for United States of America, United Arab Emirates, Abu Dhabi, 2015.
Typ dokumentu
Identyfikator YADDA
JavaScript jest wyłączony w Twojej przeglądarce internetowej. Włącz go, a następnie odśwież stronę, aby móc w pełni z niej korzystać.