Research on the Economic Feasibility and Implementation Path of Carbon Reduction Technologies for Near-Zero Carbon Substations

Unofficial AI-generated summary based on the public title and abstract. Not an official translation.

🔬研究者:Provides a systematic framework for integrating life-cycle carbon accounting with cost-benefit analysis and carbon market dynamics, applicable to other infrastructure sectors.

🏢実務担当者:Offers a quantitative method for selecting cost-effective carbon reduction technologies in substations, useful for utility investment planning and carbon neutrality roadmaps.

🏛政策担当者:Highlights the importance of carbon pricing in making decarbonization economically viable, informing policy design for infrastructure sectors.

Addressing global climate change and China’s dual-carbon goals, advancing near-zero-carbon substations is imperative. However, existing studies often isolate carbon accounting, economic evaluation, and market mechanisms, particularly lacking analysis on the economic feasibility of multi-technology combinations. To fill this research gap, the primary objective of this paper is to establish a comprehensive systematic framework that integrates life-cycle emission accounting, life-cycle cost (LCC)–benefit evaluation, and carbon market dynamics. This framework is specifically designed to achieve two interrelated goals: (1) identification of the optimal multi-technology portfolio that balances high abatement rates with economic viability for a typical 110 kV substation; (2) determining the most economically feasible pathway toward life-cycle carbon neutrality under current carbon pricing. Based on life-cycle emission accounting, the operation stage is identified as the primary source. A technology library covering direct/indirect reductions and carbon sinks is built with LCC–benefit models. Four scenarios (S1–S4), following the “source control” to “smart management” logic, are designed to assess abatement rates, unit costs, and comprehensive performance. Introducing the carbon market mechanism, neutrality costs, and break-even points are evaluated. Results show S1 (clean air GIS + envelope optimization) achieves the best performance with a unit cost of 132.6 CNY/tCO2e and a 36.36% reduction rate. As complexity increases, marginal abatement costs rise sharply while economic efficiency declines. Under current carbon prices, the “S1 reduction + allowance purchase” strategy is the most economical path toward life-cycle neutrality. This study provides quantitative support for technology selection and neutrality pathway planning.

• crossref https://doi.org/10.3390/electronics15163542first seen 2026-08-11 05:32:10 · last seen 2026-08-13 05:55:21
• openalex https://doi.org/10.3390/electronics15163542first seen 2026-08-12 04:54:41