Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 86 references

Accounting carbon emissions from electricity generation: a review and comparison of emission factor-based methods

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that choosing among six emission-factor formulas can change Italian electricity CO2 totals by a factor of about 3.5, and that the higher-estimating methods 4 and 5 are the accurate ones.

desk verdict Useful and reproducible comparison, but the paper's headline cluster and accuracy result is an arithmetic artifact of mixing thermal and electrical units; worth a major revision, not acceptance. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.13663 v1 pith:QKASW457 submitted 2024-11-20 stat.AP

Marina Bertolini , Pierdomenico Duttilo , Francesco Lisi This is my paper · ORCID
classification stat.AP MSC 62P12
keywords carbonemissionaccountingfactorelectricitygenerationItalianmarketIPCCtierszonalanalysisCO2estimationclimatepolicy
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

Emission-factor accounting for direct CO2 from electricity generation looks routine, but the paper shows that the choice of formula can change the answer by a factor of about 3.5 on identical data. On hourly zonal generation from the Italian day-ahead market (2016-2023), six methods split into two clusters: methods 1-3 give annual North-zone emissions of about 15-16 million tCO2 in 2022, methods 4-5 give 56-58 million tCO2, and method 6 lies between. The authors argue that the upper cluster is the accurate one, because it lands within about 8 percent of plant-level Tier 3 estimates for 2018, while the lower cluster understates emissions by roughly 73 percent. If this is right, the same physical electricity output can be reported as very different carbon liabilities depending on the accounting convention, which matters for ETS compliance, ESG reporting, and national climate targets.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the IPCC emission-factor product formula, in the variants used by the six methods (Eqs. 2, 4, 7, 9, and 15). The critical differentiator is the carbon-to-CO2 mass ratio M = 44/12: Methods 4 and 5 multiply generation by this ratio, Methods 1-3 do not, and this single term accounts for the low-versus-high cluster split. Methods 2 and 5 additionally use ISPRA country-specific emission factors instead of IPCC defaults, and Method 6 applies a baseline-adjusted factor calibrated to 2019 country emissions. The activity data are hourly net electricity generation in MWh by source and market zone, so the paper's cluster structure follows directly from which factors enter the product.

What would settle it

Take a single natural-gas combined-cycle plant with known hourly net generation $G$ (MWh) and measured stack CO$_2$ $E$ (tCO$_2$). Compute what the paper's formulas predict: Method 1 gives $G \times 0.20$ tCO$_2$/MWh and Method 5 gives $G \times 0.20 \times 0.99 \times 44/12$. If $E$ is close to Method 5's value, the high cluster is accurate; if $E$ is instead close to $G \times 0.20 / \eta$ for a realistic thermal efficiency $\eta$ near 0.4-0.5, and far from both method values, the cluster split is an artifact of mixing fuel-energy and electrical-energy units.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Using the same ENTSO-E hourly net generation data and the same fuel parameter table, the paper compares six emission-factor methods and finds that the resulting CO2 estimates fall into two statistically separated clusters. Methods 1, 2, and 3 produce nearly identical low totals; methods 4 and 5 produce much higher totals; method 6 is in between. A Diebold-Mariano-type test shows that the mean monthly differences between clusters are far from zero, and for the North zone the low cluster understates Method 5 by about 3,500 tCO2 per month on average and by up to about 73 percent in annual totals. The paper treats the upper cluster as the better estimate because Methods 4 and 5 come within about 8 percent of the plant-level Tier 3 results of Beltrami et al. (2021a) for 2018, and it concludes that methods 4 and 5 'account more efficiently and accurately' the actual emissions, with zone-specific emission factors required in Sicily and Sardinia where derived gas and coal dominate generation.

Load-bearing premise

The comparison assumes the Table 3 emission factors (tCO$_2$/MWh) can be multiplied directly by hourly net electricity generation (MWh) with no plant-efficiency conversion, and that the $44/12$ factor in Eq. (9) is meant to multiply those already-CO$_2$-based factors.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A regulated generator in the North zone reporting under Methods 1-3 would disclose about 27 percent of the CO2 reported under Methods 4-5 for the same 2022 generation.
  • If Methods 4-5 are right, the low cluster understates regional electricity emissions by about 73 percent in peak years, changing the apparent progress toward national decarbonisation targets.
  • Sicily and Sardinia require zone-specific factors: the estimated average emission factor for Sardinia in 2023 is 0.998 tCO2/MWh under Method 4 but 0.727 under Method 5, so a single national factor cannot serve both.
  • Adding the oxidation-rate adjustment (Method 3) does not meaningfully change estimates, so the gap between clusters is not closed by refining combustion assumptions.
  • Method 6 provides a Tier 3-style estimate that is closer to the high cluster than to the low one, but still runs about 11 percent below Methods 4-5 for the North in 2022.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Editorial inference: The cluster split is essentially controlled by the single factor 44/12, so the qualitative two-cluster result is likely to replicate on any dataset where emission factors are expressed per MWh of fuel energy and generation is recorded in electrical MWh, not only in Italy.
  • Editorial inference: A natural next test is to compare Methods 1-5 against measured stack emissions for a set of Italian plants; the same arithmetic should either reproduce the 3.5-fold gap or expose it as a unit artifact.
  • Editorial inference: If the gap is instead a plant-efficiency correction in disguise, the practical recommendation to use Methods 4-5 could still be good policy, but the justification would shift from '44/12 is the carbon-to-CO2 mass ratio' to 'the tabulated factors are per MWh of fuel input, not per MWh of electricity output.'
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper reviews emission factor-based methods for estimating direct CO2 emissions from electricity generation, classifies them according to the IPCC Tier framework, and compares six methods on hourly zonal data from the Italian day-ahead market for 2016-2023. The empirical comparison reports that methods 1, 2, and 3 form a low cluster while methods 4, 5, and 6 form a high cluster, with annual differences of about 73% between clusters, and it argues that methods 4 and 5 account for actual emissions more accurately. The paper also examines zone-specific results, especially for Sicily and Sardinia, and draws policy implications about the need for standardized and regionally tailored emission factors.

Significance. If the empirical comparison were sound, the result that different emission-factor methods differ by a factor of about 3.5 would be practically important for carbon accounting under the EU ETS, for corporate reporting, and for policy design. The paper has strengths: it provides a systematic review of the literature, uses public ENTSO-E generation data, and documents the emission factors and equations transparently. The zonal analysis, particularly the emphasis on derived-gas emission factors in Sicily and Sardinia, is a useful contribution. However, the central empirical claim about two clusters and the relative accuracy of methods 4 and 5 is based on inconsistent unit handling in the activity data and emission factors. Because the headline quantitative findings rest on this inconsistency, the significance of the paper as written is much lower than the authors claim, and the corrected comparisons could lead to different conclusions.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 4, Table 3; Eqs. (2)-(4), (7), (9)] The activity data used in the empirical comparison are 'hourly net electricity generation data (in MWh)' from ENTSO-E, i.e., electrical MWh. The emission factors in Table 3, however, are converted from tCO2/TJ to tCO2/MWh using only the thermal conversion 1 TJ = 277.7778 MWh, so they express CO2 per MWh of fuel thermal energy, not per MWh of electrical output. Multiplying electrical generation by these thermal-energy factors omits the plant efficiency/heat rate (typically 0.35-0.5), which systematically depresses methods 1-3. This unit mismatch is the main source of the two-cluster split reported in Section 4.1 and Figure 3. A corrected comparison would need either fuel consumption in energy units (TJ or thermal MWh) as activity data, or emission factors adjusted for average plant efficiency. The authors should recompute Tables 4-5 and the cluster analysis with consistent units before any accuracy ranking can be supported.
  2. [Section 3, Eq. (9); Table 3; Section 4.1, Table 5] Methods 4 and 5 apply the molecular-weight ratio M = 44/12 in Eq. (9) on top of emission factors that are already expressed as tCO2/MWh in Table 3 (derived from tCO2/TJ values). The factor M is only needed when the emission factor is expressed in mass of carbon (tC) per unit energy; with a CO2-based emission factor, multiplying by M double-counts the carbon-to-CO2 conversion and inflates the estimates of methods 4 and 5 by a factor of about 3.67. This directly explains why methods 4 and 5 appear as a high cluster and why their AEF values in Table 5 exceed those of methods 1-3. The authors must either remove the factor M from methods 4 and 5 or use carbon-based emission factors throughout.
  3. [Section 4.1, penultimate paragraph; Eq. (13)] The comparison with Beltrami et al. (2021a) for 2018 is not a valid external validation of Method 5. The Tier 3 reference in Eq. (13) includes plant-level efficiency information (via the term lambda times g_{f,p}(G)), so it is not comparable to Method 5 unless Method 5 is recomputed with consistent units. The closeness of Method 5 to the Tier 3 estimate ('8% difference') is likely the result of two errors canceling: the omitted efficiency correction lowers the low-cluster methods, while the spurious M factor inflates methods 4-5. A meaningful accuracy comparison requires a unit-consistent recomputation and, ideally, out-of-sample checks across multiple zones and years rather than a single year-zone point.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 4.1, text after Table 5] The sentence 'the maximum level of CO2 emissions is around 57.5 millions of tCO2/MWh' contains a unit error: emissions are measured in tCO2, not tCO2/MWh.
  2. [Table 3, footnote] The conversion factor in the footnote reads '1 TJ is 277,7778 MWh'; the decimal separator should be a period, i.e., 277.7778 MWh, and the factor itself should be referred to as the MWh-equivalent of 1 TJ.
  3. [Section 2, Eq. (2)] The definition of G_{t,f} is ambiguous: it is first called 'the amount of fuel f combusted' and then described as 'the amount of electricity produced from the type of fuel f'. Because this ambiguity is directly related to the unit inconsistency in the empirical part, the two quantities should be defined separately and consistently.
  4. [Figure 5] The subplot labels such as 'Differences: Method 2-5' are confusing; it would be clearer to use a consistent order, e.g., 'Method 5 minus Method 2'.
  5. [Section 4.1] The sentence 'The average difference in estimated emission between method 5 ... and Method 2 ... is around 3500 tCO2' should specify whether this is a monthly average, a yearly average, or an average across the whole sample period.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the paper compares literature-defined emission-factor formulas on external market data and validates accuracy against an independent Tier 3 benchmark; no load-bearing step reduces to its own inputs or to a self-citation.

full rationale

The paper does not derive a novel formula from a fitted target. Each compared method (Eqs. 2, 4, 7, 9, 15) is an externally defined emission-factor formula applied to hourly net electricity generation from ENTSO-E and to IPCC/ISPRA emission factors. Method 6 is calibrated to a Terna/ISPRA 2019 baseline, an external anchor, not to the quantities being predicted. The accuracy ordering (methods 4 and 5 close to the 'actual' level) is supported by an explicit comparison with Beltrami et al. (2021a), an independent Tier 3 estimate for 2018 northern Italy, with the paper reporting an 8% gap; this is an external benchmark, not a self-fulfilling criterion. No self-citation is load-bearing: the authors do not rely on their own prior results to justify the approach. The paper itself flags data-availability limitations for the Tier 3 comparison, which lowers confidence but is not circularity. The main weakness — that Table 3 factors are converted from tCO2/TJ to tCO2/MWh with a thermal conversion while activity data are electrical MWh, and that Eq. (9) applies M=44/12 to factors already expressed as tCO2 — is a unit-consistency/correctness issue, not circularity: the cluster gap follows from the cited formulas, but the paper's interpretation of which cluster is accurate is checked against an external reference rather than defined into the result.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central analysis adds no free parameters of its own except the Method 6 baseline anchor; all emission factors, oxidation rates, and the 44/12 ratio are imported from prior work. The dominant assumptions are about units and physical applicability of the factors, and about the validity of the external benchmark used to rank the methods.

free parameters (1)
  • Method 6 baseline-year emissions E_2019 = Not stated numerically; sourced from Terna/ISPRA
    Eq. (15) rescales IPCC emission factors so that 2019 total emissions match an external baseline. The choice of 2019 as anchor is hand-selected and affects all Method 6 estimates, but the value comes from national statistics rather than being fit to the target years.
assumptions (5)
  • ad hoc to paper Emission factors in Table 3, expressed per MWh of fuel energy, can be multiplied by hourly electricity generation in MWh without a plant-efficiency or heat-rate correction.
    This enters at Section 4, Eqs. (2), (4), (7), (9), where G is hourly net electricity generation in MWh. It is the load-bearing assumption that creates the method clusters; the paper never justifies it for mixed-technology grids.
  • ad hoc to paper The 44/12 molecular-weight ratio in Eq. (9) should be applied on top of the CO2-based emission factors listed in Table 3.
    Table 3 labels both columns as CO2 emission factors (tCO2/TJ and tCO2/MWh). Eq. (9) multiplies them by M and O, which is appropriate only if the factors were carbon-based (tC per unit fuel). This is a load-bearing unit assumption.
  • domain assumption IPCC default and ISPRA country-specific emission factor values are accurate for the Italian fuel mix and unchanged over 2016-2023.
    Used throughout Section 4 with a single static value per fuel; no temporal or plant-level variation is modeled.
  • domain assumption ENTSO-E hourly generation data by zone and source are complete and correctly attributed.
    The empirical analysis treats this public dataset as ground truth for activity data; no validation or completeness discussion is provided.
  • domain assumption Beltrami et al. (2021a) plant-level estimates are a valid ground truth for judging method accuracy.
    The only external accuracy check in Section 4.1 relies on this Tier 3 model for one zone and one year, itself a modeled estimate using the same fuel-consumption curve family.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Accounting carbon emissions from electricity generation: a review and comparison of emission factor-based methods." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/QKASW457

@misc{pith2026241113663,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Accounting carbon emissions from electricity generation: a review and comparison of emission factor-based methods},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/QKASW457}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.13663}
}
read the original abstract

Accurate estimation of greenhouse gas (GHG) is essential to meet carbon neutrality targets, particularly through the calculation of direct CO2 emissions from electricity generation. This work reviews and compares emission factor-based methods for accounting direct carbon emissions from electricity generation. The emission factor approach is commonly worldwide used. Empirical comparisons are based on emission factors computed using data from the Italian electricity market. The analyses reveal significant differences in the CO2 estimates according to different methods. This, in turn, highlights the need to select an appropriate method for reliable emissions, which could support effective regulatory compliance and informed policy-making. As concerns, in particular, the market zones of the Italian electricity market, the results underscore the importance of tailoring emission factors to accurately capture regional fuel variations.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.13663 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Classification of the main carbon emissions accounting approaches in the electricity [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. IPCC Tier methodology - assessing CO2 estimates. This three-tier approach can also be applied to estimate CO2 emissions from electricity gen￾eration, where Tier 1 uses default emission factors for a basic estimate, Tier 2 improves accuracy with country-specific factors, and Tier 3 provides the most detailed estimates by incorporating the specific characteristics of thermal power plants. The different tiers will be i… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Monthly mean of CO2 estimates for the market zone North. 0 2500 5000 7500 10000 2016 2018 2020 2022 2024 Time t CO2 emissions Method 6 Method 5 Method 4 Method 3 Method 2 Method 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Rolling mean (wd=720) of CO2 estimates for the market zone North. Now we consider the issue of assessing the statistical significance of the mean difference (in tCO2 ) between couples of methods. Let be dt,i j = Et,i −Et,j the time series of the difference in the emiss…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Monthly differences between some methods for the North (tCO [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Monthly average zonal carbon emissions (tCO [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Zonal configuration of the Italian electricity market. Data refer to year 2023. Values of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_7.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

86 extracted references · 79 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Afionis, S., Sakai, M., Scott, K., Barrett, J., and Gouldson, A. (2017). Consumption-based carbon accounting: does it have a future? WIREs Climate Change , 8(1):e438

    2017

  2. [2]

    Ahmad, H., Yaqub, M., and Lee, S. H. (2024). Environmental, social, and governance related factors for business investment and sustainability: A scientometric review of global trends. Environment, Development and Sustainability , 26(2):2965--2987

    2024

  3. [3]

    Aliprandi, F., Stoppato, A., and Mirandola, A. (2016). Estimating co2 emissions reduction from renewable energy use in italy. Renewable Energy , 96:220--232

    2016

  4. [4]

    Ang, B., Zhou, P., and Tay, L. (2011). Potential for reducing global carbon emissions from electricity production-a benchmarking analysis. Energy Policy , 39(5):2482--2489

    2011

  5. [5]

    Beidari, M., Lin, S.-J., and Lewis, C. (2017). Decomposition analysis of co2 emissions from coal - sourced electricity production in south africa. Aerosol and Air Quality Research , 17(4):1043--1051

    2017

  6. [6]

    Beltrami, F., Fontini, F., Giulietti, M., and Grossi, L. (2021a). The zonal and seasonal co2 marginal emissions factors for the italian power market. Environmental and Resource Economics , 83

    2021

  7. [7]

    Beltrami, F., Fontini, F., and Grossi, L. (2021b). The value of carbon emission reduction induced by Renewable Energy Sources in the Italian power market . Ecological Economics , 189(C)

    work page 2021

  8. [8]

    PAS 2070:2013 Specification for the Assessment of Greenhouse Gas Emissions of a City-Direct Plus Supply Chain and Consumption-Based Methodologies

    British Standards Institution (2013). PAS 2070:2013 Specification for the Assessment of Greenhouse Gas Emissions of a City-Direct Plus Supply Chain and Consumption-Based Methodologies . The British Standards Institution, London

    work page 2013

Show all 86 references
  1. [9]

    Busch, S., Kasdorp, R., Koolen, D., Mercier, A., and Spooner, M. (2023). The development of renewable energy in the electricity market. European Economy Discussion Papers , 187

    2023

  2. [10]

    Carbon dioxide (co2) emissions

    Carbon Monitor (2024). Carbon dioxide (co2) emissions. https://carbonmonitor.org/ [Accessed: (July 03, 2024)]

    2024

  3. [11]

    Comodi, G., Bevilacqua, M., Caresana, F., Paciarotti, C., Pelagalli, L., and Venella, P. (2016). Life cycle assessment and energy-co2-economic payback analyses of renewable domestic hot water systems with unglazed and glazed solar thermal panels. Applied Energy , 164:944--955

    2016

  4. [12]

    and Fontini, F

    Creti, A. and Fontini, F. (2019). Economics of electricity: Markets, competition and rules . Cambridge University Press

    2019

  5. [13]

    Diebold, F. X. and Mariano, R. S. (1995). Comparing predictive accuracy. Journal of Business & Economic Statistics , 13(3):253--263

    1995

  6. [14]

    Eberle, A. L. and Heath, G. A. (2020). Estimating carbon dioxide emissions from electricity generation in the united states: How sectoral allocation may shift as the grid modernizes. Energy Policy , 140:111324

    2020

  7. [15]

    Emodi, N. V. and Boo, K.-J. (2015). Decomposition analysis of co2 emissions from electricity generation in nigeria. International Journal of Energy Economics and Policy , 5(2):565--573

    2015

  8. [16]

    Actual generation per production type

    ENTSO-E (2024). Actual generation per production type. https://transparency.entsoe.eu/content/static_content/Static [Accessed: (July 03, 2024)]

    2024

  9. [17]

    EU Emissions Trading System (EU ETS)

    European Commission (2024a). EU Emissions Trading System (EU ETS) . https://climate.ec.europa.eu/eu-action/eu-emissions-trading-system-eu-ets_en. Accessed: 2024-10-26

    2024

  10. [18]

    Innovation fund

    European Commission (2024b). Innovation fund. Accessed: 2024-06-14

    2024

  11. [19]

    Modernisation fund

    European Commission (2024c). Modernisation fund. Accessed: 2024-06-14

    2024

  12. [20]

    Carbon dioxide equivalent

    European Environment Agency (2024). Carbon dioxide equivalent. Accessed: 2024-06-14

    2024

  13. [21]

    Technical paper: Co2 emission factors for fuels

    European Topic Centre on Air and Climate Change (2003). Technical paper: Co2 emission factors for fuels. Technical Report ETCACC Technical Report 10, European Environment Agency

    2003

  14. [22]

    Directive 2003/87/ec

    European Union (2003). Directive 2003/87/ec. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX

    2003

  15. [23]

    Fan, J.-L., Hou, Y.-B., Wang, Q., Wang, C., and Wei, Y.-M. (2016). Exploring the characteristics of production-based and consumption-based carbon emissions of major economies: A multiple-dimension comparison. Applied Energy , 184:790--799

    2016

  16. [24]

    and Zheng, H

    Fan, X. and Zheng, H. (2009). Design cems for flue gas from thermal power plant. In 2009 Asia-Pacific Power and Energy Engineering Conference , pages 1--4

    2009

  17. [25]

    F., Oberdabernig, D

    Fern\' a ndez-Amador, O., Francois, J. F., Oberdabernig, D. A., and Tomberger, P. (2017). Carbon dioxide emissions and economic growth: An assessment based on production and consumption emission inventories. Ecological Economics , 135:269--279

    2017

  18. [26]

    and Mader, S

    Franzen, A. and Mader, S. (2018). Consumption-based versus production-based accounting of co2 emissions: Is there evidence for carbon leakage? Environmental Science & Policy , 84:34--40

    2018

  19. [27]

    S., and Friday, A

    Freitag, C., Berners-Lee, M., Widdicks, K., Knowles, B., Blair, G. S., and Friday, A. (2021). The real climate and transformative impact of ict: A critique of estimates, trends, and regulations. Patterns , 2(9):100340

    2021

  20. [28]

    Gao, H., Hu, M., He, S., and Liu, J. (2023). Green electricity trading driven low-carbon sharing for interconnected microgrids. Journal of Cleaner Production , 414:137618

    2023

  21. [29]

    W., Hammond, G

    Griffin, P. W., Hammond, G. P., and Norman, J. B. (2018). Industrial energy use and carbon emissions reduction in the chemicals sector: A uk perspective. Applied Energy , 227:587--602. Transformative Innovations for a Sustainable Future - Part III

    2018

  22. [30]

    Gu, B., Tan, X., Zeng, Y., and Mu, Z. (2015). Co2 emission reduction potential in china's electricity sector: Scenario analysis based on lmdi decomposition. Energy Procedia , 75:2436--2447. Clean, Efficient and Affordable Energy for a Sustainable Future: The 7th International ...

    2015

  23. [31]

    Z., Salman, H

    Hassan, Q., Algburi, S., Sameen, A. Z., Salman, H. M., and Jaszczur, M. (2023). A review of hybrid renewable energy systems: Solar and wind-powered solutions: Challenges, opportunities, and policy implications. Results in Engineering , 20:101621

    2023

  24. [32]

    Hiete, M., Berner, U., and Richter, O. (2001). Calculation of global carbon dioxide emissions: Review of emission factors and a new approach taking fuel quality into consideration. Global Biogeochemical Cycles , 15(1):169--181

    2001

  25. [33]

    Hu, K., Feng, X., Zhang, Q., Shao, P., Liu, Z., Xu, Y., Wang, S., Wang, Y., Wang, H., Di, L., and Xia, M. (2024). Review of satellite remote sensing of carbon dioxide inversion and assimilation. Remote Sensing , 16(18)

    2024

  26. [34]

    World co2 emissions from fuel combustion: 1971-2005

    IEA (2007). World co2 emissions from fuel combustion: 1971-2005. IEA, Paris

    2007

  27. [35]

    Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC): Masson-Delmotte, V., Zhai, P., Pirani, A., Connors, S., Péan, C., Berger, S., Caud, N., Chen, Y., Goldfarb, L., Gomis, M., Huang, M., Leitzell, K., Lonnoy, E., Matthews, J., Maycock, T., Waterfield, T., Yelekçi, O., Yu, R., and...

    2021

  28. [36]

    Carbon footprint meeting

    Interreg Euro-MED (2024). Carbon footprint meeting. Accessed: 2024-06-14

    2024

  29. [37]

    In: Eggleston, H.S., Buendia, L., Miwa, K., Ngara, T., Tanabe, K

    IPCC (2006). In: Eggleston, H.S., Buendia, L., Miwa, K., Ngara, T., Tanabe, K. (Eds.), 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories, vol. 2: Energy. IGES

    2006

  30. [38]

    Emission factors for the production and consumption of electricity in italy

    ISPRA (2024). Emission factors for the production and consumption of electricity in italy. https://emissioni.sina.isprambiente.it [Accessed: (June 29, 2024)]

    2024

  31. [39]

    Janet, R., Corbier, L., Bhatia, P., Schmitz, S., Gage, P., and Oren, K. (2004). The Greenhouse Gas Protocol: a Corporate Accounting and Reporting Standard, Revised Edition . World Business Council for Sustainable Development and the World Resources Institute

    2004

  32. [40]

    Kakaee, A.-H., Paykani, A., and Ghajar, M. (2014). The influence of fuel composition on the combustion and emission characteristics of natural gas fueled engines. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews , 38:64--78

    2014

  33. [41]

    Ke, P., Deng, Z., Zhu, B., Zheng, B., Wang, Y., Boucher, O., Arous, S., Zhou, C., Andrew, R., Dou, X., Sun, T., Song, X., Li, Z., Yan, F., Cui, D., Hu, Y., Huo, D., Chang, J.-P., Engelen, R., and Liu, Z. (2023). Carbon monitor europe near-real-time daily co2 emissions for 27 e...

    2023

  34. [42]

    Khalid, M. (2024). Smart grids and renewable energy systems: Perspectives and grid integration challenges. Energy Strategy Reviews , 51:101299

    2024

  35. [43]

    Lee, C. L. and Liang, J. (2024). The effect of carbon regulation initiatives on corporate esg performance in real estate sector: International evidence. Journal of Cleaner Production , 453:142188

    2024

  36. [44]

    M., Seo, Y.-S., and Choi, E

    Lee, H., Yi, S.-M., Holsen, T. M., Seo, Y.-S., and Choi, E. (2018). Estimation of co2 emissions from waste incinerators: Comparison of three methods. Waste Management , 73:247--255

    2018

  37. [45]

    and Quirion, P

    Leroutier, M. and Quirion, P. (2022). Air pollution and co2 from daily mobility: Who emits and why? evidence from paris. Energy Economics , 109:105941

    2022

  38. [46]

    Li, X., Qiao, Y., and Shi, L. (2017). The aggregate effect of air pollution regulation on co2 mitigation in china's manufacturing industry: an econometric analysis. Journal of Cleaner Production , 142:976--984. Special Volume on Improving natural resource management and human ...

    2017

  39. [47]

    Li, Y., Yang, X., Du, E., Liu, Y., Zhang, S., Yang, C., Zhang, N., and Liu, C. (2024). A review on carbon emission accounting approaches for the electricity power industry. Applied Energy , 359:122681

    2024

  40. [48]

    Liu, Z., Ciais, P., Deng, Z., Davis, S., Zheng, B., Wang, Y., Cui, D., Zhu, B., Dou, X., Ke, P., Sun, T., Guo, R., Zhong, H., Boucher, O., Bréon, F.-M., Lu, C., Guo, R., Xue, J., Boucher, E., and Chevallier, F. (2020). Carbon monitor, a near-real-time daily dataset of global c...

    2020

  41. [49]

    Liu, Z., Liang, S., Geng, Y., Xue, B., Xi, F., Pan, Y., Zhang, T., and Fujita, T. (2012). Features, trajectories and driving forces for energy-related ghg emissions from chinese mega cites: the case of beijing, tianjin, shanghai and chongqing. Energy , 37(1):245--254

    2012

  42. [50]

    Malla, S. (2009). Co2 emissions from electricity generation in seven asia-pacific and north american countries: A decomposition analysis. Energy Policy , 37(1):1--9

    2009

  43. [51]

    and Valero, V

    Marcantonini, C. and Valero, V. (2017). Renewable energy and co2 abatement in italy. Energy Policy , 106:600--613

    2017

  44. [52]

    Maurya, R. K. (2017). Characteristics and Control of Low Temperature Combustion Engines: Employing Gasoline, Ethanol and Methanol . Mechanical Engineering Series. Springer Cham, 1 edition

    2017

  45. [53]

    Meng, B., Liu, Y., Andrew, R., Zhou, M., Hubacek, K., Xue, J., Peters, G., and Gao, Y. (2018). More than half of china's co2 emissions are from micro, small and medium-sized enterprises. Applied Energy , 230:712--725

    2018

  46. [54]

    J., Novan, K., and Jenn, A

    Miller, G. J., Novan, K., and Jenn, A. (2022). Hourly accounting of carbon emissions from electricity consumption. Environmental Research Letters , 17(4):044073

    2022

  47. [55]

    What are carbon offsets? Accessed: 2024-06-14

    MIT Climate (2024). What are carbon offsets? Accessed: 2024-06-14

    2024

  48. [56]

    Moazzem, S., Rasul, M., and Khan, M. (2012). A review on technologies for reducing CO2 emission from coal fired power plants , volume 11. chapter

    2012

  49. [57]

    Mousavi, B., Lopez, N. S. A., Biona, J. B. M., Chiu, A. S., and Blesl, M. (2017). Driving forces of iran's co2 emissions from energy consumption: An lmdi decomposition approach. Applied Energy , 206:804--814

    2017

  50. [58]

    Rahn, A., Schuch, M., Wicke, K., Sprecher, B., Dransfeld, C., and Wende, G. (2024). Beyond flight operations: Assessing the environmental impact of aircraft maintenance through life cycle assessment. Journal of Cleaner Production , 453:142195

    2024

  51. [59]

    R., Zhou, N., Elliott, N., Dell, R., Heeren, N., Huckestein, B., Cresko, J., Miller, S

    Rissman, J., Bataille, C., Masanet, E., Aden, N., Morrow, W. R., Zhou, N., Elliott, N., Dell, R., Heeren, N., Huckestein, B., Cresko, J., Miller, S. A., Roy, J., Fennell, P., Cremmins, B., Koch Blank , T., Hone, D., Williams, E. D., de la Rue du Can , S., Sisson, B., Williams,...

    2020

  52. [60]

    Shan, Y., Guan, D., Meng, J., Liu, Z., Schroeder, H., Liu, J., and Mi, Z. (2018). Rapid growth of petroleum coke consumption and its related emissions in china. Applied Energy , 226:494--502

    2018

  53. [61]

    A., Ogbeifun, L., and Tiwari, A

    Shobande, O. A., Ogbeifun, L., and Tiwari, A. K. (2024). Extricating the impacts of emissions trading system and energy transition on carbon intensity. Applied Energy , 357:122461

    2024

  54. [62]

    M., Anandarajah, G., and Liyanage, M

    Shrestha, R. M., Anandarajah, G., and Liyanage, M. H. (2009). Factors affecting co2 emission from the power sector of selected countries in asia and the pacific. Energy Policy , 37(6):2375--2384. China Energy Efficiency

    2009

  55. [63]

    and Saikku, L

    Soimakallio, S. and Saikku, L. (2012). Co2 emissions attributed to annual average electricity consumption in oecd (the organisation for economic co-operation and development) countries. Energy , 38(1):13--20

    2012

  56. [64]

    K., Lopez, N

    Sumabat, A. K., Lopez, N. S., Yu, K. D., Hao, H., Li, R., Geng, Y., and Chiu, A. S. (2016). Decomposition analysis of philippine co2 emissions from fuel combustion and electricity generation. Applied Energy , 164:795--804

    2016

  57. [65]

    Production gross vs co2 emissions

    Terna (2024). Production gross vs co2 emissions. https://www.terna.it/it/sistema-elettrico/statistiche/evoluzione-mercato-elettrico/produzione-lorda-vs-emissioni-co2-combustibile [Accessed: (July 03, 2024)]

    2024

  58. [66]

    and Yang, Z.-L

    Tian, Z.-H. and Yang, Z.-L. (2016). Scenarios of carbon emissions from the power sector in guangdong province. Sustainability , 8(9)

    2016

  59. [67]

    H., Thomsen, S., and Kyaw, K

    Treepongkaruna, S., Au Yong, H. H., Thomsen, S., and Kyaw, K. (2024). Greenwashing, carbon emission, and esg. Business Strategy and the Environment , n/a(n/a):1--14

    2024

  60. [68]

    Goal 7: Affordable and clean energy

    United Nations (2023). Goal 7: Affordable and clean energy. Accessed: 2024-10-24

    2023

  61. [69]

    Paris agreement

    United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (2015). Paris agreement. https://unfccc.int/process-and-meetings/the-paris-agreement/the-paris-agreement

    2015

  62. [70]

    Kyoto protocol to the united nations framework convention on climate change

    United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (1997). Kyoto protocol to the united nations framework convention on climate change. https://unfccc.int/kyoto_protocol

    1997

  63. [71]

    Wang, H., Oguz, E., Jeong, B., and Zhou, P. (2019). Life cycle and economic assessment of a solar panel array applied to a short route ferry. Journal of Cleaner Production , 219:471--484

    2019

  64. [72]

    Wang, J., He, S., Qiu, Y., Liu, N., Li, Y., and Dong, Z. (2018). Investigating driving forces of aggregate carbon intensity of electricity generation in china. Energy Policy , 113:249--257

    2018

  65. [73]

    Wang, J., Song, C., and Yuan, R. (2021). Co2 emissions from electricity generation in china during 1997-2040: The roles of energy transition and thermal power generation efficiency. Science of The Total Environment , 773:145026

    2021

  66. [74]

    Wang, Q., ting Jiang, X., and Li, R. (2017). Comparative decoupling analysis of energy-related carbon emission from electric output of electricity sector in shandong province, china. Energy , 127:78--88

    2017

  67. [75]

    Wei, W., Zhang, P., Yao, M., Xue, M., Miao, J., Liu, B., and Wang, F. (2020). Multi-scope electricity-related carbon emissions accounting: A case study of shanghai. Journal of Cleaner Production , 252:119789

    2020

  68. [76]

    Wiedmann, T., Chen, G., Owen, A., Lenzen, M., Doust, M., Barrett, J., and Steele, K. (2021). Three-scope carbon emission inventories of global cities. Journal of Industrial Ecology , 25(3):735--750

    2021

  69. [77]

    O., Chen, G., and Barrett, J

    Wiedmann, T. O., Chen, G., and Barrett, J. (2016). The concept of city carbon maps: A case study of melbourne, australia. Journal of Industrial Ecology , 20(4):676--691

    2016

  70. [78]

    The greenhouse gas protocol: A corporate accounting and reporting standard

    World Business Council for Sustainable Development and World Resources Institute (2004). The greenhouse gas protocol: A corporate accounting and reporting standard. Accessed: 24 October 2024

    2004

  71. [79]

    Xia, Y., Zhao, Y., and Nielsen, C. P. (2016). Benefits of china's efforts in gaseous pollutant control indicated by the bottom-up emissions and satellite observations 2000-2014. Atmospheric Environment , 136:43--53

    2016

  72. [80]

    Yan, Q., Zhang, Q., and Zou, X. (2016). Decomposition analysis of carbon dioxide emissions in china's regional thermal electricity generation, 2000-2020. Energy , 112:788--794

    2016

  73. [81]

    and Lin, B

    Yang, L. and Lin, B. (2016). Carbon dioxide-emission in china's power industry: Evidence and policy implications. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews , 60:258--267

    2016

  74. [82]

    Zhang, L. (2024). Carbon footprint accounting for gas power plant carbon capture and storage system. In Proceedings of the 2023 9th International Conference on Advances in Energy Resources and Environment Engineering (ICAESEE 2023) , pages 217--225. Atlantis Press

    2024

  75. [83]

    Zhang, M., Liu, X., Wang, W., and Zhou, M. (2013). Decomposition analysis of co2 emissions from electricity generation in china. Energy Policy , 52:159--165. Special Section: Transition Pathways to a Low Carbon Economy

    2013

  76. [84]

    Zhao, X., Yin, H., and Zhao, Y. (2015). Impact of environmental regulations on the efficiency and co2 emissions of power plants in china. Applied Energy , 149:238--247

    2015

  77. [85]

    Zhao, Y., Li, H., Zhang, Z., Zhang, Y., Wang, S., and Liu, Y. (2017). Decomposition and scenario analysis of co2 emissions in china's power industry: based on lmdi method. Natural Hazards , 86

    2017

  78. [86]

    Zubair, M., Chen, S., Ma, Y., and Hu, X. (2023). A systematic review on carbon dioxide (co2) emission measurement methods under prisma guidelines: transportation sustainability and development programs. Sustainability , 15(6):4817

    2023

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.