Employment impact assessment of carbon capture and storage (CCS) in China’s power sector based on input-output model

  • Yong Jiang
  • Yalin LeiEmail author
  • Xin Yan
  • Yongzhi Yang
Research Article


Carbon capture and storage (CCS) could be an effective measurement for carbon emission reduction in China. This paper summarizes the development of power sector in 2020, 2030, and 2050, and it classifies 18 scenarios including with and without CCS, respectively, in G1:low, G2:middle, and G3:high in 2020, 2030, and 2050. It adopts China’s input-output table (IO table) and analyzes the different mitigation strategies for power sector. In particular, this paper builds a new China’s input-output table based on aggregating the sectors in IO table and disaggregating the power sector into 11 different technologies which are coal-fire power, coal-fire power with CCS, natural gas power, natural gas power with CCS, hydropower, nuclear power, wind power, solar power, biomass power, geothermal power, and ocean power. Through input-output model, this paper estimates gross value added (GVA) and employment effects of different scenarios of different technologies in power sector in China. It finds that the differences of GVA and employment effects among different scenarios are large. In CCS scenarios, the coal-fire power with CCS contribute 1.48–1.63 × 1010 RMB in 2020, 1.09–1.55 × 1010 RMB in 2030, and 0.85–1.20 × 1010 RMB in 2050 for gross value added. Meanwhile, the employments of coal-fire power with CCS can add the jobs of 11,966–17,159 in 2020; 10,419–16,228 in 2030; and 8977–12,571 in 2050. CCS sector contributes the higher employment than in the renewable power sectors. Meanwhile, coal mining industry, equipment manufacturing industry, and metallic industry take main contribution to the employment of CCS sector.


Employment impact CCS China’s power sector Input-output model 


Funding information

This study was financially supported by the National Science and Technology Major Project under Grant No. 2016ZX05016005-003 and Beijing Propaganda Culture High-level Talent Training Subsidy Program under Grant No. 2017XCB031.


  1. Ashworth P, Wade S, Reiner D, Liang X (2015) Developments in public communications on CCS. IntJ Greenh Gas Con (40):449–458Google Scholar
  2. Azzolina NA, Nakles DV, Gorecki CD, Peck WD, Ayash SC, Melzer LS, Chatterjee S (2015) CO2 storage associated with CO2 enhanced oil recovery: a statistical analysis of historical operations. Int J Greenh Gas Con 37(37):384–397CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bon R (1986) Comparative stability analysis of demand-side and supply-side input-output models. Int J Forecast 2(2):231–235CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Chen ZA, Li Q, Liu LC, Zhang X, Kuang LP, Jia L, Liu GZ (2015) A large national survey of public perceptions of CCS technology in China. Appl Energy (158):366–377Google Scholar
  5. CMLTSEDSG (2011) Studies on China’s middle- and long-term strategic energy development (2030 and 2050): renewable energy. In: China’s Middle- and long-term Strategic Energy Development Study Group. Science Press, BeijingGoogle Scholar
  6. Cooney G, Littlefield J, Marriott J, Skone TJ (2015) Evaluating the climate benefits of CO2-enhanced oil recovery using life cycle analysis. Environ Sci Technol 49(12):7491–7500CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Davis H (1990) Regional economic impact analysis and project evaluation. University of British Columbia Press, Vancouver, BCGoogle Scholar
  8. Evans EJ, Li H, Yu WY, Mullen GM, Henkelman G, Mullins CB (2017) Mechanistic insights on ethanol dehydrogenation on Pd-Au model catalysts: a combined experimental and DFT study. Phys Chem Chem Phys 19(45):30578–30589CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Ferioli F, Schoots K, Zwaan BVD (2009) Use and limitations of learning curves for energy technology policy: a component-learning hypothesis. Energy Policy 37(37):2525–2535CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. GCCSI, Global CCS Institute (2018a) The global status of CCS: 2018. Accessed 25 Mar 2019
  11. GCCSI, Global CCS Institute (2018b) Large-scale CCS facilities. Accessed 25 Mar 2019
  12. Gerlagh R, van der Zwaan BCC (2004) A sensitivity analysis of timing and costs of greenhouse gas emission reductions. Clim. Change 65:39–71Google Scholar
  13. Gough C, Cunningham R, Mander S (2018) Understanding key elements in establishing a social license for CCS: an empirical approach. Int J Greenh Gas Con (68):16–25Google Scholar
  14. Gowdy JM (1992) Labour productivity and energy intensity in Australia 1974-87: an input-output analysis. Energy Econ 14(1):43–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Harkin T, Hoadley A, Hooper B (2012) Optimisation of power stations with carbon capture plants the trade-off between costs and net power. J. Clean. Prod. 34:98–109Google Scholar
  16. Hussain D, Dzombak DA, Jaramillo P, Lowry GV (2013) Comparative lifecycle inventory (LCI) of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions of enhanced oil recovery (EOR) methods using different CO2 sources. Int J Greenh Gas Con 16:129–144CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. IPCC, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2005) Special report on carbon dioxide capture and storage. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  18. IPCC, Intergovernmental Panel On Climate Change (2018) Special report on global warming of 1.5 °C (SR15). Accessed 25 Mar 2019
  19. Jaramillo P, Michaelgriffin W, Mccoy ST (2009) Life cycle inventory of CO2 in an enhanced oil recovery system. Environ Sci Technol (43):8027–8032. Jiang Y, Lei YL, Li L, Ge JP (2016) Mechanism of fiscal and taxation policies in the geothermal industry in China. Energies 9(9)Google Scholar
  20. Jiang Y, Lei YL, Yang YZ, Wang F (2018a) Life cycle CO2 emission estimation of CCS-EOR system using different CO2 sources. Pol J Environ Stud 27(6):1–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Jiang Y, Lei YL, Yang YZ (2018b) Wang F. Factors affecting pilot trading market of carbon emission in China. Pet Sci (2):1–9Google Scholar
  22. Jung JY, Huh C, Kang SG, Seo Y, Chang D (2013) CO2 transport strategy and its cost estimation for the offshore CCS in Korea. Appl Energy 111:1054–1060CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kerschner C, Hubacek K (2009) Assessing the suitability of input-output analysis for enhancing our understanding of potential economic effects of peak oil. Energy 34:284–290CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Koelbl BS, Wood R, van den Broek MA, Sanders MWJL, Faaij APC, van Vuuren DP (2015) Socio-economic impacts of future electricity generation scenarios in Europe: potential costs and benefits of using CO2 Capture and Storage (CCS). Int J Greenh Gas Con 42(42):471–484CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Laude A, Jonen C (2013) Biomass and CCS: the influence of technical change. Energy Policy 60:916–924CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Leontief W W (1936) Quantitative input-output relations in the economic system of the U.S. Rev Econ Stat 18(3):105–125.Google Scholar
  27. Li H, Henkelman G (2017) Dehydrogenation selectivity of ethanol on close-packed transition metal surfaces: a computational study of monometallic, Pd/Au, and Rh/Au catalysts. J Phys Chem C 121(49):27504–27510CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Li H, Zhang Z (2018) Mining the intrinsic trends of CO2 solubility in blended solutions. J CO2 Util (26):496–502.Google Scholar
  29. Li KW, Bian HY, Liu CW, Zhang DF, Yang YN (2015) Comparison of geothermal with solar and wind power generation systems. Renew Sust Energ Rev 42:1464–1474CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Li H, Zhang Z, Liu Z (2017) Application of artificial neural networks for catalysis: a review. Catalysts 7(10):306CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Li H, Evans EJ, Mullins CB, Henkelman G (2018) Ethanol decomposition on Pd-Au alloy catalysts. J Phys Chem C 122(38):22024–22032CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Lindner S, Julien Legault J, Guan DB (2012) Disaggregating input-output models with incomplete information. Econ Syst Res 24(4):329–347CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Lindner S, Julien Legault J, Guan DB (2013) Disaggregating the electricity sector of China’s input–output table for improved environmental life-cycle assessment. Econ Syst Res 25(3):300–320CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Llop M (2008) Economic impact of alternative water policy scenarios in the Spanish production system: an input-output analysis. Ecol Econ 68(1):288–294CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Mabon L, Kita J, Xue ZQ (2017) Challenges for social impact assessment in coastal regions: a case study of the Tomakomai CCS demonstration project. Mar Policy 83:243–251CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. McKinsey (2008) Carbon capture & storage: assessing the economics, from: McKinsey & Company, Inc, New York CCS_Assessing_the_Economics.pdf. Accessed 25 Mar 2019
  37. MIT (2007) The future of coal, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, from: Accessed 25 Mar 2019
  38. Norhasyima RS, Mahlia TMI (2018) Advances in CO2 utilization technology: a patent landscape review. J CO2 Util 26(26):323–335Google Scholar
  39. Odenberger M, Kjärstad J, Johnsson F (2008) Ramp-up of CO2 capture and storage within Europe. Int J Greenh Gas Con 2(4):417–438CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Renner M (2014) Carbon prices and CCS investment: a comparative study between the European Union and China. Energy Policy 75(2014):327–340CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Seigo SL, Dohle S, Siegrist M (2014) Public perception of carbon capture and storage (CCS): a review. Renew Sust Energ Rev 38(38):848–863CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Wise M, Dooley J (2009) The value of post-combustion carbon dioxide capture and storage technologies in a world with uncertain greenhouse gas emissions constraints. Int J Greenh Gas Con 3(1):39–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Wu RH, Chen CY (1990) On the application of input-output analysis to energy issues. Energy Econ 12(1):71–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Yan D, Lei YL, Li L (2017) Driving factor analysis of carbon emissions in China’s power sector for low-carbon economy. Math Probl Eng (11):1–10Google Scholar
  45. Zhang XH, Qi TY, Zhang XL (2015) The impact of climate policy on carbon capture and storage deployment in China. Accessed 25 Mar 2019
  46. Zhong ZQ, He LY, Wang Z (2017) Geographic sources and the structural decomposition of emissions embodied in trade by Chinese megacities: the case of Beijing, Tianjin, Shanghai, and Chongqing. J Clean Prod 158:59–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Zhu L, Fan Y (2011) A real options–based CCS investment evaluation model: case study of China’s power generation sector. Appl Energy 88:4320–4333CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Economics and ManagementChina University of GeosciencesBeijingChina
  2. 2.Key Laboratory of Carrying Capacity Assessment for Resources and Environment, Ministry of Natural ResourcesBeijingChina
  3. 3.Petrochina Research Institute of Petroleum Exploration & DevelopmentBeijingChina

Personalised recommendations