Applied Energy xxx (2015) xxx–xxx

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Applied Energy
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/apenergy

TIMES modelling of transport sector in China and USA: Comparisons

from a decarbonization perspective q
Hongjun Zhang, Wenying Chen ⇑, Weilong Huang
Research Center for Contemporary Management, Key Research Institute of Humanities and Social Sciences at Universities, Tsinghua University, Beijing 100084, China
Institute of Energy, Environment and Economy, Tsinghua University, Beijing 100084, China

h i g h l i g h t s

 China-TIMES and US-TIMES model with detailed transport descriptions are developed.
 Biofuel is the main carbon mitigation option in near-term.
 FCEVs will be developed earlier and faster in US than in China.
 The decarbonization of transport sector is less and later than other sectors.
 Decarbonizing the power sector deeply affects the transport sector.

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Transport sector significantly influences the decarbonization of the entire energy system. In this study,
Received 31 October 2014 carbon tax scenario analyses with application of the TIMES model are carried out for China and USA to
Received in revised form 28 August 2015 advance the understanding of the transport service demands, energy consumption, and CO2 emissions
Accepted 30 August 2015
from a comparison perspective. Model results suggest that liquid fuels will keep dominating the transport
Available online xxxx
energy consumption, while biofuels and electrification will facilitate the decarbonization of the transport
sector both in China and USA. However, substantial differences exist between the two countries regarding
Keywords:
the transport development pathways. FCEVs will be developed earlier and faster in USA and can fulfill
Transport sector
Decarbonization
10% of the road passenger services in 2050 in USA, while less than 2% in China in TAX20 scenario;
Bottom-up analysis Carbon tax will raise the total energy system cost by 24% in China and 8% in USA in 2050 in TAX50 sce-
Biofuel nario and the additional cost of electricity in USA will be lower than that in China. It’s also observed that
TIMES model the transport sector reacts to the carbon policy less and later than other sectors.
Ó 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

Transport sector plays an important role in the energy system,

Abbreviations: BEV, battery electric vehicle; CCS, carbon capture and storage;
CNG, compressed natural gas; E15, a blend of 15% of ethanol and 85% of gasoline (in
volume); ESD, energy service demand; ETSAP, Energy Technology System Analysis
Program; FCEV, fuel cell electric vehicle; FE, final energy; FFV, flex-fuel vehicle;
HEV, hybrid electric vehicle; IEA, International Energy Agency; LDV, light duty
vehicle; LNG, liquefied natural gas; LPG, liquefied petroleum gas.
q the energy consumption and CO2 emissions and air transport is
This article is based on a short proceedings paper in Energy Procedia Volume
161 (2014). It has been substantially modified and extended, and has been subject
to the normal peer review and revision process of the journal. This paper is included
in the Special Issue of ICAE2014 edited by Prof. J Yan, Prof. DJ Lee, Prof. SK Chou, and
Prof. U Desideri.
⇑ Corresponding author at: Institute of Energy, Environment and Economy,
Tsinghua University, Beijing 100084, China. Tel.: +86 10 62772756.
E-mail address: chenwy@tsinghua.edu.cn (W. Chen).
oil demand, energy security, and CO2 emissions and has drawn
increasing attention of authorities worldwide. As the largest
emerging country and the world’s most populous nation, China
has experienced a boost in transport turnover in the last three dec-
ades. Both freight and passenger turnover have increased by more
than ten times since 1980 (Fig. 1). Road transport has dominated
now gaining its popularity. This modal structure will confront
China with more challenge to slow down the energy consumption
growth speed because both road and air are relatively more energy
intensive than other transport modes. At the same time, vehicle
stock has risen rapidly at an annual growth rate of 14% in the last
three decades [1], but the vehicle ownership per capita was only

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2015.08.124
0306-2619/Ó 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Please cite this article in press as: Zhang H et al. TIMES modelling of transport sector in China and USA: Comparisons from a decarbonization perspective.
Appl Energy (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2015.08.124
2 H. Zhang et al. / Applied Energy xxx (2015) xxx–xxx

Fig. 1. Transport turnover, energy consumption, and CO2 emissions index (1980–2010) [1,4,5].

1/20 that of USA in 2009 [2], so this soaring trend is likely going to
continue, and thus will put more pressure on China’s transport
energy and environmental issues.
The United States is the largest economy nowadays and emitted
17.5% of the world’s total CO2 in 2012. USA’s transport sector con-
sumes 27.9% of the total final energy consumption and contributes
to 31.7% of the total CO2 emissions in 2011 [3]. As is the case in
China, USA’s road sector also consumes most of the transport
energy (87% of the total in 2010 [4]). In the past three decades,
the transport volume as well as the relevant energy consumption
had a fairly slow increase despite some fluctuations, which is quite
different from the sharp growth in China.
Transport activity volume is one of the key drivers of energy
consumption and carbon emissions, and it is influenced by several
factors, such as economy development, geographic characteristics,
and transport policy. Comparing the freight activity intensity of
GDP among several countries helps to better understand USA’s
and China’s freight transport from a wider point of view (Fig. 2).
China has a much higher freight intensity than other countries,
which indicates more goods will be transported in order to pro-
duce unit of GDP. This is partly owing to China’s economy
structure-large share of secondary industry and relatively small
share of tertiary industry. In addition, China has a large territory
coverage while its nature resource distribution is so uneven that
lots of freight volume is occupied to deliver resources. Delivering
coal, for example, took up more than 40% of China’s total rail
freight turnover in 2012 [1]. USA’s freight intensity is also in rela-
tively high level and has been decreasing along with the economy
development. As for passenger transport, the activity per capita in
most countries is observed to increase with the income rising until
it reaches a saturation value and then remain constant. China is
still in its early developing stage, so the per capita passenger
activity is quite low. USA, however, has a quite high per capita
passenger activity among the countries involved in this paper.
To summarize, USA and China are two key countries that
shouldn’t be underestimated in understanding and forecasting
the world’s energy and carbon emissions future from the transport
perspective. This study aims to further analyze the transport sector

Fig. 2. Freight activity intensity of GDP and inland passenger activity per capita in several countries [5,6].

Please cite this article in press as: Zhang H et al. TIMES modelling of transport sector in China and USA: Comparisons from a decarbonization perspective.
Appl Energy (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2015.08.124
 H. Zhang et al. / Applied Energy xxx (2015) xxx–xxx
and present transport development pathways in several scenarios
by modelling the two countries’ energy system.
2. Methodology
2.1. TIMES model
TIMES (an acronym for The Integrated MARKAL–EFOM System)
is a model generator for energy systems developed by ETSAP, IEA.
In this study, US-TIMES and China-TIMES are developed based on
the China MARKAL model from 2010 to 2050 with the interval of
five-year period [7–11] to provide a technology-rich basis for esti-
mating energy dynamics over a long-term, multi-period time hori-
zon. The models make technology choices by substitution to
achieve the inter-temporal energy system least cost. Both of the
models incorporate the whole energy system including energy
supply, conversion and transmission, and end-use demand sectors.
This paper focuses on the transport sector which is becoming more
and more important towards low carbon society for both USA and
China.
2.2. Model structure and transport sector description
Fig. 3 shows the brief reference energy system. Technologies of
energy extraction, energy conversion, and end-use are all consid-
ered. In order to better represent the heterogeneity and
real-world characteristics of the transport sector, a down-scaled
analysis was carried out to increase the resolution of transport
sub-modes and technologies in this study. The transport sector in
China-TIMES is described as is shown in Fig. 4.
Fig. 3. Brief reference energy system.
Please cite this article in press as: Zhang H et al. TIMES modelling of transport sector in China and USA: Comparisons from a decarbonization perspective.
Appl Energy (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2015.08.124
3
In every modes or sub-modes, several technologies (mainly
with different powertrain systems) compete with each other in
this model. Urban LDVs, for example, consist of diesel cars, gasoline
cars, electric cars, hybrid fuels, fuel cell cars, natural gas cars, and
LPG cars. As for US-TIMES, the model structure is similar except
for some differences: (1) international travel is excluded in US
model due to data limitation and reliability; (2) classification of
trucks and passenger cars varies because vehicle parameters such
as curb weight are so different between these two countries that
technology and cost data is collected in different forms.
2.3. Energy service demands projection
Transportation services demand, often measured in passenger
kilometer and ton kilometer, is the fundamental exogenous driver
of transport-related energy consumption and carbon emissions in
TIMES model. In this study, discrete choice model [12] was used
to project future travel demands, and demand for transportation
services is determined by income, population, and the weighted
average service cost of various transportation modes and
technologies. Higher general transport service price will lead to
lower market share, but those modes with higher price will not
totally disappear and the share of modes with lower price will
not increase sharply to dominate the market. While competition
among modes dose exist, all modes will have some market share.
2.4. Base year calibration
The data used in this study mostly came from authoritative
energy and transportation statistics. The energy balance data
for USA were based on the IEA extended energy balances [4],
4 H. Zhang et al. / Applied Energy xxx (2015) xxx–xxx

Fig. 4. Transport sector in China-TIMES.

reclassified and adjusted with the reference of other sources. The Table 2
base year energy balance data for China were derived from the Scenario description in this study.

China energy statistical yearbook 2011 [13], recalculated according Scenario Description
to the following principals: (1) 95% of the gasoline and 35% of REF The reference scenario
the diesel from industry and commerce, and all the gasoline and TAX10 Carbon tax starts from $10 in 2020 to $43 in 2050, annual increase
95% of the diesel from household were treated as transport con- rate is 5%
sumption; (2) all the washed coal, briquettes, coke, and heat from TAX20 Carbon tax starts from $20 in 2020 to $86 in 2050, annual increase
rate is 5%
transport sector were moved to commercial sector. On the basis of
TAX50 Carbon tax starts from $50 in 2020 to $216 in 2050, annual
energy balance data, calibration work was carried out to make sure increase rate is 5%
the model to accurately represent the real-world base year
characteristics.

3. Assumptions and scenarios

carbon tax will be imposed on CO2 emissions from the entire
energy system instead of the single transport sector. This assump-
3.1. Socioeconomic drivers
tion will especially have an impact on energy carriers such as bio-
fuels and hydrogen which have less or none end-of-pipe carbon
Population data for USA employed the medium-fertility projec-
emissions but do emit carbon during the previous production
tion from UNDP World Population Prospects: The 2012 Version [14].
process.
Population for China was predicted according to the current family
policy and relevant literature [15]. Base year GDP for China and
USA came from the World Bank database [6] and was assumed 3.3. Techno-economic assumptions
to grow with a decreasing growth rate. The annual growth rate,
to be specific, will be 7.44%, 6%, 4.5%, and 3% during 2010–2020, Assumptions for some key vehicle technologies for both China
2020–2030, 2030–2040, 2040–2050 respectively for China, and and US are shown in Table 3.
will range from 2.6% to 1.7% for USA. Table 1 shows the socioeco-
nomic data projections.
4. Results and discussions

3.2. Scenarios When analyzing the decarbonization of transport sector, it’s

useful to investigate the different levels along the energy and ser-
Four scenarios, one reference scenario and three carbon tax sce- vice flows. Final energy (FE) consumed by vehicles with different
narios, were designed to observe the reaction of both models to cli- technical levels (fuel economy, efficiency, etc.) and different fuel
mate policy, as is shown in Table 2. types (gasoline, diesel, hydrogen, etc.) is determined by the energy
In the reference scenario, the potential technical progress and service demands (ESD), and is provided through conversion of dif-
predictable policy have been considered. In carbon tax scenarios, ferent primary energy sources (oil, coal, etc.). Efforts can be made
Table 1 in each of these levels to improve energy efficiency or to reduce
Population and GDP projections. carbon emissions. In this study, carbon emissions from energy sup-
ply, energy conversion to end-use are all considered, while trans-
2010 2020 2030 2040 2050
port carbon emissions refer to the direct emissions, which
Population (million) USA 316 342 367 387 405
exclude the indirect emissions from power sector, in the following
China 1341 1423 1445 1441 1420
discussions unless noted. In this paper, results and discussions will
GDP (billion 2005$) USA 13,017 16,518 20,068 24,113 28,529
be presented below along the so-called ‘‘causality chain [16]”: ESD,
China 3838 7910 14,166 21,999 29,565
FE, and emissions.

Please cite this article in press as: Zhang H et al. TIMES modelling of transport sector in China and USA: Comparisons from a decarbonization perspective.
Appl Energy (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2015.08.124
 H. Zhang et al. / Applied Energy xxx (2015) xxx–xxx 5

Table 3
Techno-economic assumptions for some key vehicle technologies.

2010 2030 2050

EFF INV FOM EFF INV FOM EFF INV FOM
China Bussiness LDV-BEV 0.36 1119 34 0.36 582 17 0.36 540 16
Bussiness LDV-FCEV 0.64 2035 61 0.64 886 27 0.63 540 16
Bussiness LDV-HEV 0.90 780 23 0.87 577 17 0.84 522 16
Urban LDV-BEV 0.37 1119 34 0.36 582 17 0.35 540 16
Urban LDV-FCEV 0.65 2035 61 0.63 886 27 0.61 540 16
Urban LDV-HEV 0.93 780 23 0.87 577 17 0.83 522 16
Urban heavy bus-BEV 0.08 340 10 0.09 177 5 0.10 100 3
Urban heavy bus-FCEV 0.15 400 12 0.17 174 5 0.19 109 3
Urban heavy bus-HEV 0.23 136 4 0.26 100 3 0.30 91 3
USA Compact cars-BEV 0.49 47,024 1884 0.48 34,648 1884 0.48 32,641 1884
Compact cars-FCEV 0.84 156,905 1942 0.73 90,794 1942 0.71 35,270 1942
Compact cars-Gas 1.81 20,030 1971 1.65 20,030 1971 1.50 20,030 1971
Large cars-BEV 0.66 84,236 2372 0.65 62,330 2503 0.64 58,777 2372
Large cars-FCEV 1.11 254,388 2438 0.95 123,069 2503 0.94 52,203 2438
Large cars-Gas 2.41 37,834 2470 2.18 37,834 2372 2.00 37,834 2470
Bus-BEV 0.12 105,000 3150 0.11 74,500 2235 0.10 44,000 1320
Bus-Gas 0.61 39,157 1175 0.61 32,183 966 0.61 32,183 966

EFF = efficiency; INV = investment cost; FOM = fixed O&M cost. Units: PJ/Gpkm for EFF; $/kpkm for INV and FOM(China); $/vehicle for INV and FOM(USA).

4.1. Energy service demands
In this study, energy service demands are derived from the dis-
crete choice model. Fig. 5 illustrates the results of passenger trans-
port. The transport volume usually has positive correlation with
the socio-economic drivers. Therefore, it can be observed that
China will see a continuous rapid growth in travel demands while
USA’s growth will be moderate. Air transport demand will increase
the fastest among all modes in China as a result of the economy
development and people’s living standard improvement. Public
bus travel, meanwhile, will grow much more slowly, and the road
travel demands will gradually shift to light duty vehicles, espe-
cially private LDVs. Railway will still play an important role as a
relatively cheaper medium- and long-distance travel mode. As
for USA, quite different things occur regarding the passenger cars
because of its high motorization rate. USA’s car ownership will
keep above a very high level, leading to the dominant role of cars
in the passenger travel modes. Besides, USA’s passenger turnover
per capita will steadily increase whereas China’s growth will be
much sharper, but even in 2050, China will still have a lower per
capita passenger turnover than USA in 2010.
Like the passenger transport, the freight transport also exhibits
a substantial increase in China while grows smoothly in USA. As for
the freight modal split, both countries will mostly depend on
trucks to deliver goods, while the ratio of truck activity to rail
activity will change in different patterns. The truck-rail ratio will
decrease from 1.56 in 2010 to 1.20 in 2050 in China, as a result
of the competitive advantage of railway in energy intensity and
the decrease of truck load factor. In USA, however, the ratio was
1.47 in 2010, and then will increase slightly to 1.60 in 2050, indi-
cating the increasing dominance of truck sector, which is consis-
tent with the recent trends observed in several industrialized
countries [17].
4.2. Final energy consumption
For China, in the reference scenario, the transport FE consump-
tion will be almost quadruple, from 9.3EJ in 2010 to 36.4EJ in 2050
(Fig. 6). Almost all kinds of fuels will increase in terms of absolute
value, while their shares will change. The share of diesel will have a
significant decrease from 48.9% in 2010 to 18.6% in 2050, partly
owing to the freight modal shift to railway and the improving effi-
ciency. Gasoline will be still mostly relied on in transport sector,
with its share increasing from 30.2% in 2010 to 47.8% in 2050, as
a result of the sizeable growth in passenger travel demands. At
the same time, owing to the significant air travel demands, jet fuels
will account for more share of the total FE, from 7.3% in 2010 to
15.7% in 2050. As for biofuel, natural gas, electricity, and hydrogen,
all of which has either less emissions or more efficiency, they will
enter the scene and take up more shares in the future. Among
them, biofuels will be the most growing alternative transport
energy, with its share increasing from 0.5% in 2010 to 6.0% in 2050.
Not surprisingly, both the total transport energy consumption
and its structure will change towards decarbonization in carbon
tax scenarios. In 2050, transport FE will be reduced to 36.3, 33.6,
and 30.4EJ in TAX10, TAX20, and TAX50 respectively, benefiting
from the modal shift in travel activity, as well as more efficient
and newer powertrain technologies. The results reveal that the
conventional fuels (diesel, gasoline) will be less used in a carbon
constrained energy system, with their share decreasing from
66.4% to 66.0%, 55.1%, and 38.2% in the three carbon tax scenarios
respectively. Biofuels, mainly in forms of bioethanol (conventional
starch-based and advanced cellulose-based) and biodiesel, will
account for up to 22.5% of the total FE in 2050 in TAX50 scenario.
Noticeable increasing use of electricity and hydrogen can also be
observed obviously, with their shares slightly increasing between
REF and TAX10 while more sharply increasing in TAX20 and
TAX50. Those differences among scenarios can be explained by
the different application rate of new and renewable energy and
CCS in electricity generation and hydrogen production processes.
To be specific, electricity generated from technologies with CCS
will take up only 0.6% out of the total electricity generation in
REF, but will take up 17.5% in TAX50. In fact, China’s electricity is
mainly generated from coal now, so the electric cars are not as
low-carbon as they appear to be in the single transport sector from
the life cycle point of view [18]. And only when carbon constrain is
stringent enough will the power generation technologies with
renewables and CCS be widely applied, thus changing the power
generation structure and making it less carbon-intensive. With
the carbon tax considered, low-carbon electricity will conse-
quently have cost advantage over gasoline and diesel in transport
sector. A major indication is that the decarbonization of power sec-
tor has deep impact on the decarbonization of transport sector.
Another result worth noting is that the share of jet fuels is not
likely to be much changed across scenarios, indicating that the
strong demands for air travel will keep growing with the flourish

Please cite this article in press as: Zhang H et al. TIMES modelling of transport sector in China and USA: Comparisons from a decarbonization perspective.
Appl Energy (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2015.08.124
6 H. Zhang et al. / Applied Energy xxx (2015) xxx–xxx
Fig. 5. Passenger service demands of China and USA. Note: pipeline, international aviation, and navigation are excluded; LDV includes car and light truck.
Fig. 6. Transport final energy consumption and structure in China.
economy in China and that great obstacles still exist, preventing
more alternative fuels, such as bio-jet fuels, to be widely use in
China.
Besides, although the total transport FE consumption will not be
reduced across scenarios until 2035, the energy structure will be
nevertheless altered after 2015, even before the carbon tax is
imposed. One indication is that, when carbon is constrained, more
use of natural gas and biofuels will reduce the carbon emissions,
but will not necessarily reduce the FE consumption. While the
electric vehicles, BEVs, HEVs, and FCEVs, are more helpful as long
as they become cost-competitive.
For USA in REF, the total FE consumption will increase moder-
ately from 24.7EJ in 2010 to 30.5EJ in 2050 (Fig. 7), which is quite
distinct from China. As for the energy structure, diesel won’t
change a lot due to the more dominant role of trucking in freight,
offset by the improved fuel economy. However, there will be a
slight decrease in the share of gasoline because of more use of
E15, more FFVs, and wider use of CNG/LNG vehicles.
In carbon tax scenarios, the total FE consumption will begin to
change across scenarios after 2025, earlier than in China. In 2050,
the FE consumption will be 29.3, 27.1 and 21.7EJ in TAX10,
TAX20, and TAX50 respectively. Among all fuel types, diesel’s share
Please cite this article in press as: Zhang H et al. TIMES modelling of transport sector in China and USA: Comparisons from a decarbonization perspective.
Appl Energy (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2015.08.124
will decrease most because of the substitution of natural gas and
biofuels in trucks. Gasoline sees a decrease of its share from
55.4% in REF to 41.2% in TAX50 in 2050, mostly due to more elec-
tric vehicles. Indeed, gasoline will be reduced slower than diesel in
USA with the strengthened carbon constrain, and this is not
surprising because the increasing use of gasohol and E15 will
consume gasoline at the same time. As for natural gas, one interest-
ing finding is that natural gas will be more used in TAX10 due to its
cost competitive advantage over other alternative fuels, but less
used when carbon constrain is further strengthened and advanced
biofuels, electricity, and hydrogen will then take over.
From the above results and discussions, some comparisons of
the results between China-TIMES and US-TIMES are given as
follows.
In carbon tax scenarios, the consumption of gasoline, which is
mainly for passenger cars, will be alternated relatively easily in
China than in USA. One of the explanations is the motorization rate,
or car ownership, is much higher in USA, thus leading to a higher
cost of replacement. Besides, there are mandatory scrap policies
for commercial vehicles and some measures to accelerate car
retirement to promote high-efficiency cars in China, so the average
vehicle lifetime in China is assumed to be shorter than in USA.
Shorter vehicle lifetime means easier transition to other fuel types
in the model. Another explanation is the effect of using biofuels. In
2011, more than 88% of the gasoline sold was blended with ethanol
in USA [19], which means the share has almost reached the ‘‘blend
limit” now and thus more biofuels will simultaneously raise gaso-
line consumption until this effect is offset by the increased blend
ratio (e.g. E15) or more application of FFVs [20]. In China, mean-
while, bioethanol is much less employed in transport sector now,
consequently enlarging the capacity for biofuels to reduce gasoline
consumption.
Both in China and USA, there is one thing in common: liquid
fuels will keep dominating even with a very strict carbon constrain.
More than 74% of the transport FE demands will be fulfilled by liq-
uid fuels in both countries in 2050 in TAX50, not to mention other
scenarios. This result indicates the strong reliance of transport
sector on liquid fuels, and this is partly because the current
conventional powertrain systems are already very mature and
advanced. On the contrary, new powertrain systems will have lots
of obstacles to be tackle for them to be widely employed. Higher
cost of alternative vehicles will be the fundamental barrier. For
example, the investment cost of electric compact cars is more than
2.5 times as high as that of conventional ICE compact cars in USA in
2010, and even in 2050, electric cars will still have higher cost than
ICE cars according to our assumptions in this study. Moreover,
 H. Zhang et al. / Applied Energy xxx (2015) xxx–xxx
Fig. 7. Transport final energy consumption and structure in USA.
there are some barriers that are difficult to be properly modelled in
this study, such as EVs’ travel range, recharge rate and charge sta-
tion availability. Therefore, subsidy or other promotion policy
should be made to accelerate the penetration rate of alternative
vehicles.
Despite the dominance of liquids, the employment of non-
liquid fuels, especially electricity and hydrogen, will significantly
help to cope with the energy crisis and emission issues. Take China
for example, non-liquids will fulfill 3.4EJ more energy in TAX50
than in REF in 2050, while the total transport FE will be reduced
by 6.0EJ. A major indication is that, electrification of transport
sector, although limited by the preliminary construction of
infrastructure, such as hydrogen fueling and charging stations
[20], will nevertheless largely determine the extent to which the
future transport sector will be less carbon-intensive.
Penetration rate of biofuels, electricity, and hydrogen in road
passenger sector in TAX20 are illustrated in Fig. 8. Along with
the stricter carbon policy, alternative vehicles will be significantly
widely employed both in China and USA. Biofuels will play the
most important role in transport carbon mitigation by 2040 in
USA, accounting for 15% of the total road passenger service. After
Fig. 8. Penetration rate of biofuels, electricity, and hydrogen in road passenger
sector in TAX20.
Please cite this article in press as: Zhang H et al. TIMES modelling of transport sector in China and USA: Comparisons from a decarbonization perspective.
Appl Energy (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2015.08.124
7
2040, hydrogen fuel vehicles will be developed substantially and
will take up 10% of the total service in 2050. In China, meanwhile,
hydrogen won’t have sharp increase by 2050, with its share less
than 2% within the model horizon. The difference regarding hydro-
gen can be explained by the different technology improvement in
hydrogen producing and FCEV manufacturing processes. The
results indicate that biofuels will be an important mitigation
option in the near-term, and then the role of electricity and
hydrogen will be manifested in the mid- and long-term. However,
biofuels, despite its great mitigation contribution, will have more
restrains, such as concerns about land availability and food secu-
rity, and this restrain will be especially serious in China, where
the per capita land area is much lower than the world average
level.
4.3. Carbon emissions
Carbon emissions pathways are directly determined by the
energy structure. For China, the transport emissions will increase
substantially from 648 Mt in 2010 to 2434 Mt in 2050 in REF
(Fig. 9), and exhibit little change in TAX10. In TAX20 and TAX50,
however, emissions will first peak and then decrease, with the
reduction rate relative to REF being 12% and 24% respectively by
2050. Similar trends can be observed in USA, and the transport car-
bon emission will increase from 1648 Mt in 2010 to 1968 Mt in
2050 in REF. The reduction rate relative to REF in 2050 will be
10%, 25%, and 49% in TAX10, TAX20 and TAX50 respectively.
Differences exist between the two countries regarding the carbon
mitigation pathways. In all scenarios, China’s transport emissions
in 2050 will still be much higher than in 2010 because China’s
economy and travel demands will grow rapidly and technologies
in China are relatively backward. Meanwhile, USA is likely to have
less hindrance to reduce transport emissions. In TAX20 and TAX50,
USA’s transport emissions in 2050 will be less than in 2010.
Another difference is the start year of noticeable decarbonization,
which will be as late as 2035 for China, while as soon as the carbon
tax are imposed in 2020 for USA.
Although China’s transport carbon emissions will increase
rapidly and will gradually outnumber USA’s by 2050, the per capita
transport carbon emission in China will still much lower than that
in USA. In REF, China’s per capita transport emission is 0.48 tCO2 in
8 H. Zhang et al. / Applied Energy xxx (2015) xxx–xxx

Fig. 9. Transport carbon emissions and emissions per capita of China and USA.

Fig. 10. Cost increase rate relative to REF for diesel and electricity.

2010, only 1/10 of that in USA in 2010. In all the scenarios in this
study, USA’s per capita emission will decrease, and in TAX50, it will
be 2.42 tCO2 in 2050, almost halved compared with 2010. In China,
however, per capita emission will see a gradual increase most of
the time, and it will be 1.30 tCO2 in TAX50 in 2050, about half of
that in USA at the same time. There are several causes of China’s
lower per capita emission. First, China’s vehicle ownership is much
lower, resulting in a lower per capita transport turnover. Second,
there are more energy-intensive vehicles in USA as a result of
lower fuel price, higher income, and more demands for driving
comfort, thus the average carbon emission per unit of transport
turnover will be higher.
In carbon tax scenarios, the carbon emission will be reduced
because the taxation will raise the cost of fossil fuels. Therefore,
the total energy system cost will increase when carbon tax is
imposed, and different technologies will have different additional
costs based on how dependent they are on the fossil fuels. In this
study, China’s total energy system cost in 2050 will increase by
5%, 10% and 24% in TAX10, TAX20 and TAX50 respectively, relative
to REF. In USA, the figures are 2%, 4% and 8% respectively, smaller
than those in China. In order to better understand the effects of
carbon tax on transport fuels, diesel’s and electricity’s cost increase
rate relative to REF are compared, as is shown in Fig. 10. The ‘‘cost”
here means the supply cost, including all the costs in the supply
chain, such as oil extraction or import cost, investment and O&M
cost for power plants, and carbon tax. It can be observed that the
more the carbon tax are imposed, the more the additional cost will
be. In 2050, diesel cost will be almost doubled in TAX50 both in
China and in USA, and electricity cost will have a 70% increase in
China and a 42% increase in USA. The results also show that the
diesel’s additional cost will increase faster than electricity’s, and
this is because more and more low-carbon power generation tech-
nologies will be employed with the increasing carbon tax. For
example, the penetration rate of CCS in power plants will increase
from almost zero in 2010 to 17.5% in 2050 in China. Another
finding is that the additional cost of electricity in USA will be lower

Please cite this article in press as: Zhang H et al. TIMES modelling of transport sector in China and USA: Comparisons from a decarbonization perspective.
Appl Energy (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2015.08.124
 H. Zhang et al. / Applied Energy xxx (2015) xxx–xxx
Fig. 11. Total carbon emissions reduction rate relative to REF of end-use sectors.
than that in China mostly because of more advanced low-carbon
generation technologies.
4.4. Comparisons with non-transport sectors
To give a clear understanding of how differently the transport
sector will react to carbon policies from other end-use sectors,
the carbon reduction rates relative to REF of transport, industry,
and building sector are compared (Fig. 11). The carbon emissions
here include both the direct emissions from the individual sector
and the indirect emissions from the power generation. Three
points are worth making regarding the results. First, the reduction
rate in transport sector is generally lower than that in industry and
building sector, indicating that it will be more difficult for trans-
port sector to decarbonize. Second, carbon reduction in transport
sector lags behind the other two sectors, which means when car-
bon tax has taken effect and other sectors have already reacted,
transport sector is yet to be swifted to low carbon pathway. Third,
the carbon reduction lag in transport sector is more significant in
China than in USA, suggesting that China’s transport system has
more obstacles to evolve towards low-carbon development.
5. Conclusions
Decarbonizing the transport sector is quite fundamental to limit
global warming, and China and USA are two key countries to tackle
the transport energy and emissions challenges. Carbon tax scenar-
ios are designed and bottom-up analyses are carried out in this
study to model the future’s transport decarbonization characteris-
tics and options for China and USA. The results indicate that Chi-
na’s transport service demands, final energy consumption, and
the corresponding carbon emissions will increase rapidly with
the substantial economy growth, while USA will see a moderate
transport sector development.
It’s also observed that liquid fuels will keep dominating the
transport energy consumption partly due to the reliance on current
powertrain systems, and liquids’ share will be more than 74% both
in China and USA in all scenarios in this study. Biofuel is an impor-
tant alternative option to reduce the carbon emissions, especially
in the near-term, and will hopefully substitute no less than 20%
of conventional oil products both in China and USA by 2050. Yet,
the costs of cellulosic ethanol production have to be brought down
for it to be a viable transportation fuel [20], and concerns about
Please cite this article in press as: Zhang H et al. TIMES modelling of transport sector in China and USA: Comparisons from a decarbonization perspective.
Appl Energy (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2015.08.124
9
land availability and food security will constrain the development
of biofuels. In the long-term, electrification (BEVs, HEVs, and
FCEVs) will be truly hopeful to decarbonize the transport sector,
as long as low-carbon power generation and hydrogen producing
technologies become economic competitive, so the decarboniza-
tion of transport sector will largely rely on the decarbonization
of power sector.
There are also some differences regarding the development of
key technologies and the transport carbon mitigation characteris-
tics between China and USA. Biofuel is much less employed in
China’s transport sector now, thus enlarging the capacity for bio-
fuel to substitute oil consumption in the near-term. FCEVs will be
developed earlier and faster in USA and can fulfill 10% of the road
passenger services in 2050 in USA, while less than 2% in China in
TAX20. Carbon tax will raise the total energy system cost by 24%
in China and 8% in USA in 2050 in TAX50 and the additional cost
of electricity in USA will be lower than that in China.
To summarize, carbon policy can significantly help to facilitate
the decarbonization by various levels: shifting the modal shares,
increasing incentives for advanced technologies, and encouraging
use of low- and non-carbon fuels. In order to mitigate the transport
emissions, more attention should be paid to developing biofuels,
reducing the cost of low-carbon power generation and fuel cell
technologies, and subsidizing alternative vehicles.
Acknowledgements
This work is supported by the Ministry of Education Project of
Key Research Institute of Humanities and Social Sciences at
Universities (12JJD630002) and the Ministry of Science and
Technology of China (2012BAC20B01).
References
[1] NBSC. China statistical yearbook. Beijing: National Bureau of Statistics of
China; 2013.
[2] Wang Y, Teter J, Sperling D. China’s soaring vehicle population: even greater
than forecasted? Energy Policy 2011;39:3296–306.
[3] Davis SC, Diegel SW, Boundy RG. Transportation energy data book: edition 33
(online); 2013. <http://cta.ornl.gov/data/index.shtml> [accessed October
2014].
[4] IEA. Energy balances of OECD/non-OECD countries; 2013.
[5] OECD. OECD.Stat Extracts; 2014. <http://stats.oecd.org/> [accessed May 2014].
[6] World Bank. World Bank Open Data; 2014. <http://data.worldbank.org/>
[accessed May 2014].
10 H. Zhang et al. / Applied Energy xxx (2015) xxx–xxx
[7] Chen W. The costs of mitigating carbon emissions in China: findings from
China MARKAL-MACRO modeling. Energy Policy 2005;33:885–96.
[8] Chen W, Yin X, Ma D. A bottom-up analysis of China’s iron and steel industrial
energy consumption and CO2 emissions. Appl Energy 2014. 10.1016/j.
apenergy.2014.06.002.
[9] Chen W, Yin X, Zhang H. Towards low carbon development in China: a
comparison of national and global models. Climatic Change 2013:1–14. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10584-013-0937-7.
[10] Chen W, Li H, Wu Z. Western China energy development and west to east
energy transfer: application of the Western China sustainable energy
development model. Energy Policy 2010;38:7106–20.
[11] Chen W, Wu Z, He J, Gao P, Xu S. Carbon emission control strategies for China:
a comparative study with partial and general equilibrium versions of the China
MARKAL model. Energy 2007;32:59–72.
[12] Mishra GS, Teter J, Morrison GM, Yeh S, Kyle P, Kim SH. Transportation module
of global change assessment module (GCAM): model documentation version
1.0. 2013. Institute of Transportation Studies, University of California at Davis;
and Pacific Northwest National Laboratory. Report UCD-ITS-RR-13-05. June
2013.
Please cite this article in press as: Zhang H et al. TIMES modelling of transport sector in China and USA: Comparisons from a decarbonization perspective.
Appl Energy (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2015.08.124
[13] NBSC. China energy statistical yearbook. Beijing: National Bureau of Statistics
of China; 2012.
[14] UNDP. World population prospects: the 2012 version. <http://esa.un.org/
Unpd/Wpp/Unpp/panel_population.htm> [accessed June 2014].
[15] Zeng Y. Suggestions on ‘‘Generally Permit Two Children and Encourage Proper
Late Child-bearing” policy; 2012. China Center for Economic Research.
Working Paper Series. No. C2012004. [in Chinese].
[16] Pietzcker RC, Longden T, Chen W, Fu S, Kriegler E, Kyle P, et al. Long-term
transport energy demand and climate policy: alternative visions on transport
decarbonization in energy-economy models. Energy 2014;64:95–108.
[17] Eom J, Schipper L, Thompson L. We keep on truckin’: trends in freight energy
use and carbon emissions in 11 IEA countries. Energy Policy 2012;45:327–41.
[18] China Automotive Energy Research Center T.U.. China automotive energy
outlook 2012. Beijing: China Science Press; 2012.
[19] Cai H, Wang X. The reasons of US fuel ethanol production increase and its
impact on international maize market. J China Agric Univ (Soc Sci Ed)
2013;30:127–32.
[20] Andress D, Das S, Joseck F, Dean Nguyen T. Status of advanced light-duty
transportation technologies in the US. Energy Policy 2012;41:348–64.