环境卫生工程 ›› 2026, Vol. 34 ›› Issue (1): 17-27.doi: 10.19841/j.cnki.hjwsgc.2026.01.003

• 固体废物处理生命周期评价与碳足迹 • 上一篇    下一篇

统计学方法检验燃煤电厂碳排放数据可靠性

孔相植,严 密,宋玉彩,陈王若尘,徐爱民,郎 宁   

  1. 1. 浙江浙能技术研究院有限公司;2. 浙江工业大学 机械工程学院 ;3.浙江浙能富兴燃料有限公司
  • 出版日期:2026-02-28 发布日期:2026-02-28

Statistical Methods for Testing the Reliability of Carbon Emission Data in Coal-fired Power Plants

KONG Xiangzhi, YAN Mi, SONG Yucai, CHEN Wangruochen, XU Aimin, LANG Ning   

  1. 1. Zhejiang Zheneng Technology Research Institute Co. Ltd.; 2. School of Mechanical Engineering, Zhejiang University of Technology; 3. Zhejiang Zheneng Fuxing Fuel Co. Ltd.
  • Online:2026-02-28 Published:2026-02-28

摘要: “双碳”目标背景下,准确核算和报告碳排放数据是制定有效减排政策的关键。为验证我国燃煤电厂碳排放数据的可靠性,通过比较入厂端与入炉端的数据差异,并运用统计学方法进行量化分析,提出了一种验证质量平衡法测得的碳排放数据可靠性的方法,并以浙江省甲、乙两个电厂为案例进行可靠性检验。结果表明,尽管2022年和2023年电厂甲入厂煤与入炉煤数据的相关性(两年间含碳量、入厂/消耗量、碳排放的决定系数分别为0.76/0.80、0.81/0.95、0.82/0.96)显著优于电厂乙(-0.03/0.25、0.54/0.64、0.43/0.66),但这种差异是由两电厂燃煤入厂与入炉时间差大小不同所致。入厂、入炉时间差增加了判断数据测算误差的复杂性,然而,通过采用合适的统计学方法,可以以统一标准有效评估不同电厂碳排放数据的可靠性,最终甲、乙两电厂碳排放数据均被验证为可靠。

关键词: 燃煤电厂, 碳排放, 质量平衡法, 统计学方法

Abstract: In the context of the “dual carbon” goals, accurately accounting for and reporting carbon emission data is crucial for developing effective emission reduction policies. To verify the reliability of carbon emission data from coal-fired power plants in China, by comparing the data discrepancies between the incoming coal and the coal fed into the furnace, and applying statistical methods for quantitative analysis, a method was proposed to validate the reliability of carbon emission data obtained by the mass balance approach. The reliability of this method was tested through case studies of two power plants (Plant A and Plant B) in Zhejiang province. The results showed that although the correlation between the incoming and furnace-fed coal data in Plant A for 2022 and 2023 (the determination coefficients of carbon content, incoming/consumed quantities, and carbon emission were 0.76/0.80, 0.81/0.95, and 0.82/0.96, respectively) was significantly stronger than that of Plant B (-0.03/0.25, 0.54/0.64, and 0.43/0.66), this difference was due to the varying magnitudes of the time lags between coal entering the plant and entering the furnace at the two plants. This discrepancy increased the difficulty of assessing data estimation errors, but by applying appropriate statistical methods, the reliability of carbon emission data from different power plants could be effectively evaluated using a unified standard. And the carbon emission data from both Plant A and Plant B were verified as reliable.

Key words: coal-fired power plant, carbon emission, mass balance method, statistical methods

[1] 胡斯怡, 王 宁, 张 浩, 杨 涛, 蔡嘉瑞, 安钊辉, 龙吉生, SCHWARZBÖCK Therese, FELLNER Johann, 李晓东. 垃圾焚烧发电厂入炉垃圾碳源在线监测方法及其示范应用[J]. 环境卫生工程, 2026, 34(1): 1-9.
[2] 刘荣杰, 金 红, 肖丽祺, 尹寒冰, 张 蕾. 典型厨余垃圾资源化处理项目碳排放分析[J]. 环境卫生工程, 2025, 33(4): 28-37.
[3] 付 铠, 白 旭, 史佳雨, 钱鑫鑫, 刘 璐, 周亚倩, 王鹤立. 基于全流程的生活垃圾焚烧温室气体排放核算[J]. 环境卫生工程, 2025, 33(2): 12-18.
[4] 次瀚林, 方 宁, 郭亚丽, 黄嘉良, 梅晓洁, 陈 芳, 李 静. 基于生命周期碳排放和经济成本分析的城市多源有机固废处理处置方式选择[J]. 环境卫生工程, 2024, 32(6): 1-9.
[5] 周白玉, 任 怡, 杜春燕, 朱 浩, 曹立民, 郭旭辉, 陈立坚, 韩智勇. 生活垃圾处理处置过程碳排放特征与碳达峰管理策略——基于成都市垃圾和填埋气产生实测数据的比较[J]. 环境卫生工程, 2024, 32(6): 10-19.
[6] 李剑颖, 任晓灵, 王晓燕, 赖金丽. 餐厨废弃油脂制生物柴油全生命周期碳排放分析研究[J]. 环境卫生工程, 2024, 32(5): 48-54.
[7] 彭晓为, 唐玉婷, 钟日钢, 余昭胜, 林 延, 吴 浩. 碳减排约束下不同能源类型垃圾转运车适用性竞争力分析——以深圳市为例[J]. 环境卫生工程, 2024, 32(3): 1-8.
[8] 蒋 宇, 谭瑶瑶, 李 东, 邓 放, 陈 琼, 郑晓倩. 成都市城市管理领域温室气体排放特征及减排策略[J]. 环境卫生工程, 2024, 32(2): 85-92.
[9] 张 栋. 厨余垃圾三相有机固渣不同利用方式碳排放分析[J]. 环境卫生工程, 2024, 32(1): 104-109.
[10] 朱远超, 赵子旼, 张劲松. 厨余垃圾和农林废弃物好氧堆肥协同处理碳排放核算——以某镇处理设施为例[J]. 环境卫生工程, 2024, 32(1): 111-115.
[11] 毕珠洁, 邰 俊, 王 川. 上海生活垃圾处理碳排放现状与预测研究[J]. 环境卫生工程, 2023, 31(5): 1-8.
[12] 孙雨清, 钱寅飞, 储思琴. 苏州市垃圾分类对焚烧过程碳排放的影响[J]. 环境卫生工程, 2023, 31(1): 104-111.
Viewed
Full text


Abstract

Cited

  Shared   
  Discussed   
No Suggested Reading articles found!
版权所有 © 天津市城市管理研究中心
津ICP备2022007900号-1   津公网安备 12010302000952号   中央网信办违法和不良信息举报中心
地址:天津市河西区围堤道107号    邮政编码: 300201
电话: 022-28365069 传真: 022-28365080 E-mail: csglwyjs10@tj.gov.cn
本系统由北京玛格泰克科技发展有限公司设计开发