Analysis of National PM 2.5 (FPM and CPM) Emissions by Past, Current, and Future Energy Mix Scenarios in the Republic of Korea

Doo Sung Choi, Jong-Sang Youn, Im Hack Lee, Young-Kwon Park, Byung Jin Choi and Ki-Joon Jeon
Additional contact information
Doo Sung Choi: Department of Architectural Engineering, University of Chungwoon, Incheon 22100, Korea
Jong-Sang Youn: Department of Environmental Engineering, Inha University, Incheon 22212, Korea
Im Hack Lee: School of Environmental Engineering, University of Seoul, Seoul 02504, Korea
Young-Kwon Park: School of Environmental Engineering, University of Seoul, Seoul 02504, Korea
Byung Jin Choi: Jubix co., Gyeonggi-do 16419, Korea
Ki-Joon Jeon: Department of Environmental Engineering, Inha University, Incheon 22212, Korea

Sustainability, 2019, vol. 11, issue 16, 1-15

Abstract: The main purpose of this study was to analyze the Korean PM 2.5 emissions according to the past, present, and future energy mix scenarios from 1970 to 2035, with the aim of identifying a sustainable, future environmentally friendly energy mix scenario for Korea related to PM 2.5 emissions. To calculate the PM 2.5 emissions according to an energy mix plan, we assumed two scenarios: (1) Scenario 1 is based on an energy conversion scenario established by the Korean government’s 7th electric power demand supply program; and (2) Scenario 2 is enhancement of fuel cell usage. In Scenario 1, filterable PM 2.5 (FPM 2.5 ) emission was calculated as 61,158 ton/year, which includes contributions of anthracite (46.8%), petroleum (39.7%), natural gas (LNG) (10.0%), and LPG (0.1%). In Scenario 2, FPM 2.5 emission was calculated as 36,917 ton/year, which includes contributions of petroleum (47.8%), anthracite (40.3%), bituminous coal (10.1%), and LNG (1.7%). Thus, we concluded that the FPM 2.5 mitigation effect from fuel cell policy enforcement is about 38.13% higher than the Korean national energy conversion policy. PM 2.5 (FPM2.5 + condensable PM2.5 (CPM 2.5 )) emissions dramatically increased in both energy mix scenarios so that CPM 2.5 should be considered when estimating PM 2.5 emissions and PM 2.5 reduction.

Keywords: PM 2.5 emission; energy mix scenarios; particulate matter; emission inventory; FPM; CPM (search for similar items in EconPapers)
JEL-codes: O13 Q Q0 Q2 Q3 Q5 Q56 (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2019
References: View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (1)

Downloads: (external link)
https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/11/16/4289/pdf (application/pdf)
https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/11/16/4289/ (text/html)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:11:y:2019:i:16:p:4289-:d:255830

Access Statistics for this article

Sustainability is currently edited by Ms. Alexandra Wu

More articles in Sustainability from MDPI
Bibliographic data for series maintained by MDPI Indexing Manager ().