電力是國家經濟發展的主要動力，亦是現代化生活的基礎。數十年來我國由於經濟持續成長，對電力的需求量亦逐年攀升。國內電力部門的CO2排放量於2009 年高達全國總排放量比例之58%，顯示電力部門為我國最主要的CO2排放源。在面對溫室氣體減量及能源供給有限的雙重挑戰下，臺灣電力部門需努力朝高效率、低污染及低成本發電發展，以滿足國家社會永續發展所需的能源需求。本研究先探討歷年來能源消費、電力消費及燃料結構之變動趨勢，並以因素分解法確認影響電力業CO2排放之關鍵因子。接著以投入產出生命週期評估法探討電力業在溫室效應及相關議題上對環境之直接與間接衝擊，最後，以火力電廠為例，利用資料包絡分析法評估電力部門之發電效率。研究成果可作為電力部門規劃邁向永續發展與因應後京都議定書之策略參考。結果摘要如下:
1. 由於電力是經濟及工業發展的主要驅動力，故歷年來台灣電力消費成長率高於其經濟成長率及能源消費成長率。目前，台灣電力供應仍大量仰賴火力發電，而煙煤是主要燃料種類，其使用比例超過55%。此外，LNG用於火力發電之燃料投入比例逐年上升，年平均成長率達12.8%。
2. 因素分解之結果顯示，經濟成長、火力發電比例與石化燃料密集度在1998至2008年間對電力部門CO2排放量皆為增量因素，其中以經濟成長的影響最顯著。此外，電力密集度與CO2排放係數則為主要減量因素。
3. IO-LCA分析結果顯示，電力部門直接二氧化碳排放量會導致溫室效應潛勢提高，而其他部門之間接溫室氣體排放量亦逐年上升中，若忽略其間接衝擊，將顯著低估電力部門之溫室效應潛勢。此外，研究結果亦顯示「人體健康」是2001、2004及2006年電力部門的主要環境損害；其次依序是「資源耗用」、「氣候變遷」及「生態品質」，而「溫室效應」、「非再生能源消費」、「非致癌物衝擊」、「吸入性無機物衝擊」及「陸域生態毒性衝擊」則為較顯著之中點類別指標。
4. 2004-2006年台灣火力電廠之營運未達最佳效率，而複循環電廠之營運效率高於汽力機及氣渦輪機電廠。此外，研究亦發現降低廠內用電可顯著地改善操作效率。最後，研究結果說明在進行效率評估時，燃料熱值是影響火力發電廠效率高低的關鍵因子。
5. 2001-2008年台灣多數火力電廠之聯合效率(發電及環境效率)未達最佳表現，改善發電廠管理程序、汙染預防控制及調整廠房規模皆能改善效率表現。結果亦顯示減少燃料耗用及二氧化碳排放能有效地減輕環境衝擊和提升效率；此外，火力發電廠之麥氏生產力指數在2001至2008年有增加趨勢，且由於火力電廠受限於電力調度原則而無法達滿載發電，故生產力指數之變動與「設備容量因數」相關。

Electricity is the foundation of national economic development and an essential element for daily modern life. Due to the rapid growth of economic development in Taiwan, the demand of electricity has increased rapidly. The CO2 emissions from fossil-fuel-generated electricity in 2009 account for 58% of total CO2 emissions in Taiwan. This indicates that the electricity sector is the most significant source of CO2 emissions in Taiwan. In the face of dual challenges posed by greenhouse gas reduction and limited energy supplies, Taiwan’s electricity sector should move toward high-efficiency, low-pollution and low-cost power generation to meet the energy required to sustain the society’s development. In this study, we analyze the trends of energy consumption, electricity consumption and fuel structure share. We also decompose changes of CO2 emissions and identify the major attributes of CO2 emissions. In addition, the greenhouse gases (GHGs) potential and major environmental impacts are evaluated by input-output life cycle assessment (IO-LCA). Moreover, the power generation efficiencies of thermal power plants are measured by data envelopment analysis (DEA) models. The major findings of this study are summarized as follows.
First, since electricity is an important driving force for economic and industrial development, the electricity consumption rate has been higher than the economic growth rate and the energy consumption rate for the past 20 years. Electricity generation in Taiwan still relies heavily on thermal power generation, and bituminous coal constituted 55% of the total fuel supply in 2009. The proportion of LNG consumption in thermal power generation has increased with an annual growth rate of 12.8%. Second, results from the decomposition analysis show that “economic growth”, “proportion of fossil fuel power generation” and “fossil fuel intensity” have the increase effects on CO2 emissions in 1998-2008, and “electricity intensity” and “CO2 emissions factor” declined as to their effects on CO2 emissions. In addition, “economic growth” is the most important driving force for the increase of CO2 emissions. Third, according to the results of IO-LCA, CO2 emissions from power generation have direct impacts on climate change. However, the proportions of indirect impacts from other sectors are increasing gradually to the point where there would be a huge underestimation of impact values if the related sectors are omitted from the calculations. Besides, “human health” was the major environmental damage in 2001, 2004 and 2006, followed by “resources”, “climate change” and “ecosystem quality”. Moreover, our results also show that “global warming effects”, “non-renewable energy consumption”, “non-carcinogens effects”, “respiratory inorganics effects”, and “terrestrial ecotoxicity effects” were significant midpoint level impact categories.
Finally, thermal power plants in Taiwan had no optimal operational performances during 2004–2006. The combined cycle power plants were found to be more efficient than steam turbine and gas turbine power plants. Besides, reduction in electricity use is the most effective method for improving the operation of the inefficient utilities. The “heating value of total fuels” is the most significant factor in efficiency evaluation of thermal power plants. The unified efficiencies (operational and environmental efficiency) of most thermal power plants were inefficient in 2001-2008. There are potential benefits in renovating the process management and pollution prevention control of inefficient plants, and resizing the power plants’ scales. Results also show that the reduction in fuel consumption and CO2 emissions are the most effective methods to lower the environmental impacts and improve the efficiency of the electricity sector. Besides, the Malmquist productivity indices of thermal power plants increased during 2001 to 2008. We find that the variation of the productivity index is related to the power plant’s capacity factor because the thermal power plants are limited by the power system dispatch, and can not operate at full load.

Alcántara, V., Del Río, P., Hernández, F., 2010. Structural analysis of electricity consumption by productive sectors-the Spanish case. Energy 35, 2088-2098.
Ang, B.W., Lee, S. Y., 1994. Decomposition of industrial energy consumption: some methodological and application issues. Energy Economics 16 (2), 83-92.
Ang, B.W., 2004. Decomposition analysis for policymaking in energy: which is the preferred method?. Energy Policy 32, 1131-1139.
Ang, B.W., 2006. Monitoring changes in economy-wide energy efficiency: From energy-GDP ratio to composite efficiency index. Energy Policy 34, 574-582.
Ang, B.W., Liu, N., 2007. Energy decomposition analysis: IEA model versus other methods. Energy Policy 35, 1426-1432.
Avkiran, N.K., 2007. Stability and integrity tests in data envelopment analysis. Socio-economic Planning Sciences 41, 224-234.
Banker R.D., Charnes, A., Cooper, W.W., 1984. Some models for estimating technical and scale inefficiencies in data envelopment analysis. Management Science 30, 1078-1092.
Barros, C.P., Peypoch N., 2007. The determinants of cost efficiency of hydroelectric generating plants: a random frontier approach. Energy Policy 35, 4463-4470.
Barros, C.P., 2008. Efficiency analysis of hydroelectric generating plants: A case study for Portugal. Energy Economics 30, 59-75.
Barros, C.P., Peypoch, N., 2008. Technical efficiency of thermoelectric power plants. Energy Economics 30, 3118-3127.
Bilec, M.M., Ries, R.J., Matthews, H.S., 2010. Life cycle assessment modeling of construction processes for buildings. Journal of Infrastructure Systems 16(3), 199-205. American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston, Virginia.
Bureau of Energy, 2010a. Taiwan Energy Balance Table—Year 2009. Bureau of Energy, Ministry of Economic Affairs, Taipei, Taiwan.
Bureau of Energy, 2010b. Energy Technology White Paper 2010. Bureau of Energy, Ministry of Economic Affairs, Taipei, Taiwan. (in Chinese)
Caves, D. W., Christensen, L. R., Diewer, W. W., 1982. Multilateral comparisons of output, input, and productivity using superlative index numbers. Economic Journal 92, 73-86.
Chao, C.W., Hung M.L., Ma, H.W., 2009. An analysis on environmental debts and loans of Taiwan. 5th International Conference on Industrial Ecology.
Chang, Y.F., Lewis, C., Lin, S.J., 2008. Comprehensive evaluation of industrial CO2 emission (1989-2004) in Taiwan by input-output structural decomposition. Energy Policy 36, 2471-2480.
Charnes, A., Cooper, W.W., Rhodes, E., 1978. Measuring the efficiency of decision making units. European Journal of Operational Research 2, 429–444.
Charnes, A., Cooper, W.W., Rhodes, E., 1979. Short communication: measuring efficiency of decision making units. European Journal of Operational Research 3, 339.
Chen, C.Y., Wu, R.H., 1994. Sources of change in industrial electricity use in the Taiwan economy, 1976-1986. Energy Economics 16 (2), 115-120.
Choi, K.H., Ang, B.W., 2002. Measuring thermal efficiency improvement in power generation: the Divisia decomposition approach. Energy 27, 447-455.
Committee on the Medical Effects of Air Pollutants (COMEAP), 2009. Long-term exposure to air pollution: Effect on mortality. Health Protection Agency, COMEAP, UK.
Cooper, W.W., Seiford, L.M., Tone, K., 2000. Data envelopment analysis: a comprehensive text with models, applications, references, and DEA-Solver software. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Norwell, Massachusetts.
Cooper, W.W., Seiford, L.M., Tone, K., 2006. Introduction to data envelopment analysis and its uses: with DEA-Solver software and references. Springer, New York.
Crawford, R.H., 2009. Life cycle energy and greenhouse emissions analysis of wind turbines and the effect of size on energy yield. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 13, 2653-2660.
Directorate-General of Budget, Accounting and Statistics, 2004. Taiwan inter-industry input–output linkage table compilation — Year 2001. Executive Yuan, Taipei, Taiwan (in Chinese).
Directorate-General of Budget, Accounting and Statistics, 2007. Taiwan inter-industry input–output linkage table compilation — Year 2004. Executive Yuan, Taipei, Taiwan (in Chinese).
Directorate-General of Budget, Accounting and Statistics, 2009. Taiwan inter-industry input–output linkage table compilation — Year 2006. Executive Yuan, Taipei, Taiwan (in Chinese).
Dyckhoff, H., 1994. Betriebliche Produktion. Springer Verlag, Berlin, P.65 (in German).
Dyckhoff, H., Allen, K., 2001. Measuring ecological efficiency with data envelopment analysis (DEA). European Journal of Operational Research 132, 312-325.
Emmanuel, T., 2001. Introduction to the theory and application of data envelopment analysis: a foundation text with integrated software. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Norwell, Massachusetts.
Energy statistical annual reports, 2010. Bureau of Energy, Taipei, Taiwan.
Environmental Protection Administration (EPA), 2010. Environmental Protection Administration, Executive Yuan, Taipei, Taiwan. http://www.epa.gov.tw/
Färe, R., Grosskopf, S., Norris, M., Zhang, Z., 1994. Productivity growth, technical progress, and efficiency change in industrialized countries. American Economic Review 84, 66-83.
Feroz, E.H., Raab, R.L., Ulleberg, G., et al., 2009. Global warming and environmental production efficiency ranking of the Kyoto Protocol nations. Journal of Environmental Management 90, 1178-1183.
Fleishman, R., Alexander, R., Bretschneider, S., et al., 2009. Does regulation stimulate productivity? The effect of air quality policies on the efficiency of US power plants. Energy Policy 37, 4574-4582.
Goedkoop M., Spriensma R., 2000. The eco-indicator 99: a damage oriented method for life cycle assessment, methodology report. 2nd ed. Amersfoort (NL): Pre’ Consultants.
Gonzalez, F.P., Suarez, P.R., 2003. Decomposing the variation of aggregate electricity intensity in Spanish industry. Energy 28, 171-184.
Greening, L.A., Ting, M., Davis, W.B., 1999. Decomposition of aggregate carbon intensity for freight: trends from 10 OECD countries for the period 1971-1993. Energy Economics 21, 331-361.
Guine’e, J.B., Gorre’e, M., Heijungs, R., Huppes, G., Kleijn, R., de Koning, A., van Oers, L., Suh, S., de Haes, U., 2002. Life cycle assessment: an operational guide to the ISO standards. Dordrecht (NL): Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Han, S.Y., Yoo, S.H., Kwak, S.J., 2004. The role of the four electric power sectors in the Korean national economy: an input-output analysis. Energy Policy 32, 1531-1543.
Hawdon, D., 2003. Efficiency, performance and regulation of the international gas industry — a bootstrap DEA approach. Energy Policy 31, 1167–1178.
Heijungs, R., Suh, S., 2002. The computational structure of life cycle assessment. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, The Netherlands
Heijungs, R., de Koning, A., Suh, S. and Huppes, G., 2006. Toward an information tool for integrated product policy: requirements for data and computation. Journal of Industrial Ecology 10(3), 147-158.
Hendrickson, C. T., Horvath, A., Joshi, S. and Lave, L. B., 1998. Economic input-output models for environmental life-cycle assessment. Environmental Science & Technology Policy Analysis 32(7), 184A- 191A.
Hondo, H., 2005. Life cycle GHG emission analysis of power generation systems: Japanese case. Energy 30, 2042-2056.
Hirschman, A. O., 1985. The Strategy of Economic Development. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Hughes, A., Yaisawarng, S., 2004. Sensitivity and dimensionality tests of DEA efficiency scores. European Journal of Operational Research 154, 410-422.
Humbert, S., Margni, M., Jolliet, O., 2005. Impact 2002+: User Guide. Draft for version 2.1. École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne. Industrial Ecology & Life Cycle System Group, GECOA, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology Lausanne (EPFL), Lausanne, Switzerland.
IPCC, 2006. IPCC 2006 guidelines for national greenhouse gas inventories. Institute for Global Environmental Strategies, Tokyo, Japan. http://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/public/2006gl/index.html.
Jamasb, T., Pollitt, M., 2003. International benchmarking and regulation: an application to European electricity distribution utilities. Energy Policy 31, 1609-1622.
Jolliet, O., Margni, M., Charles, R., Humbert, S., Payet, J., Rebitzer, G., Rosenbaum, R., 2003. IMPACT 2002+: a new life cycle impact assessment methodology. International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 8(6), 324-330.
Joshi, S., 1999. Product environmental life-cycle assessment using input-output techniques. Journal of Industrial Ecology 3(2-3), 95-120. http://dx.doi.org/10.1162/108819899569449.
Koellner, T., Suh, S., Weber, O., Moser, C., Scholz, R.W., 2007. Environmental impacts of conventional and sustainable investment funds compared using input-output life-cycle assessment. Journal of Industrial Ecology 11(3), 41-60.
Korhonen, P.J., Luptacik, M., 2004. Eco-efficiency of power plants: An extension of data envelopment analysis. European Journal of Operational Research 154, 437-446.
Kwak, S.J., Yoo, S.H., Chang, J.I., 2005. The role of the maritime industry in the Korean national economy: an input-output analysis. Marine Policy 29, 371-383.
Lam, P.L., Shiu, A., 2001. A data envelopment analysis of the efficiency of China’s thermal power generation. Utilities Policy 10, 75-83.
Lave, L. B., Cobras-Flores, E., Hendrickson, C. and McMichael, F., 1995. Using input–output analysis to estimate economy wide discharges. Environmental Science and Technology 29, 420-426.
Lee, C.F., Lin, S.J., 2001. Structural decomposition of CO2 emissions from Taiwan’s petrochemical industries. Energy Policy 29, 237-244.
Lenzen, M., 2002. A guide for compiling inventories in hybrid life-cycle assessments: some Australian results. Journal of Cleaner Porduction 10(6), 545-572. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0959-6526(02)00007-0.
Lenzen, M., Wachsmann, U., 2004. Wind turbines in Brazil and Germany: an example of geographical variability in life-cycle assessment. Applied Energy 77, 119-130.
Leontief, W., 1970. Environmental repercussions and the economic structure: an input–output approach. Review of Economics and Statistics 52, 262-271.
Leontief, W., 1986. Input–output economics, second ed. Oxford University Press, New York.
Lin, S.J., Chang, T.C., 1996. Decomposition of SO2, NOx and CO2 emissions from energy use of major economic sectors in Taiwan. The Energy Journal 17, 1-17.
Lin, S.J., Chang, Y.F., 1997. Linkage effects and environmental impacts from oil consumption industries in Taiwan. Journal of Environmental Management 49, 393-411.
Lin, S.J., Lu, I.J., Lewis, C., 2006. Identifying key factors and strategies for reducing industrial CO2 emissions from a non-Kyoto protocol member’s (Taiwan) perspective. Energy Policy 34, 1499-1507.
Liu, C.H., Lin, Sue J., Lewis, C., 2010. Evaluation of thermal power plant operational performance in Taiwan by data envelopment analysis. Energy Policy 38, 1049-1058.
Ma, H.W., Hung, M.L., Chao, C.W., Wang, C.C., 2009, Evaluation of environmental impact of different consumption patterns based on input-output LCA and uncertainty Analysis, 5th International Conference on Industrial Ecology.
Malla, S., 2009. CO2 emissions from electricity generation in seven Asia-Pacific and North America countries: A decomposition analysis. Energy Policy 37, 1-9.
Matthews, H. S., Small, M. J., 2000. Extending the boundaries of life-cycle assessment through environmental economic input-output models. Journal of Industrial Ecology 4(3), 7-10. http://dx.doi.org/10.1162/108819800300106357.
Mazzarino, M., 2000. The economics of the greenhouse effect: evaluating the climate change impact due to the transport sector in Italy. Energy Policy 28, 957-966.
Miller, R. E., Blair, P. D., 1985. Input-output analysis foundation and extensions. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.
Ministry of Economic Affairs, 2008. Sustainable Energy Policy Convention. Ministry of Economic Affairs, Taipei, Taiwan.
Moriguchi, Y., Kondo, Y. and Shimizu, H., 1993. Analyzing the life cycle impact of cars: the case of CO2. Industry and Environment 16(1), 42-45.
Nakano, M., Managi, S., 2008. Regulatory reforms and productivity: an empirical analysis of the Japanese electricity industry. Energy Policy 36, 201-209.
Nemoto, J., Goto, M., 2003. Measurement of dynamic efficiency in production: an application of data envelopment analysis to Japanese electric utilities. Journal of Productivity Analysis 19, 191-210.
Odeh, N.A., Cockerill, T.T., 2008. Life cycle GHG assessment of fossil fuel power plants with carbon capture and storage. Energy Policy 36, 367-380.
Oh, I., Wehrmeyer, W., Mulugetta, Y., 2010. Decomposition analysis and mitigation strategies of CO2 emissions from energy consumption in South Korea. Energy Policy 38, 364-377.
Önüt, S., Soner, S., 2007. Analysis of energy use and efficiency in Turkish manufacturing sector SMEs. Energy Conversion & Management 48, 384-394.
Papagiannaki, K., Diakoulaki, D., 2009. Decomposition analysis of CO2 emissions from passenger cars: The cases of Greece and Demark. Energy Policy 37, 3259-3267.
Park, S.U., Lesourd, J.B., 2000. The efficiency of conventional fuel power plants in South Korea: A comparison of parametric and non-parametric approaches. International Journal of Production Economics 63, 59-67.
Paul, S., Bhattacharya, R.N., 2004. CO2 emission from energy use in India: a decomposition analysis. Energy Policy 32, 585-593.
PRé Consultants, 2008. SimaPro 7 Database Manual Methods library, PRé Consultants B. V., The Netherlands.
Raab, R., Lichty, R., 2002. Identifying sub-areas that comprise a greater metropolitan area: the criterion of country relative efficiency. Journal of Regional Science 42, 579-594.
Ramanathan, R., 2003. An introduction to data envelopment analysis: a tool for performance measurement. Sage, New Delhi.
Sarica, K., Or, I. 2007. Efficiency assessment of Turkish power plants using data envelopment analysis. Energy 32, 1484-1499.
Shrestha, R,M., Timilsina, G.R., 1996. Factors affecting CO2 intensity of power sector in Asia: a Divisia decomposition analysis. Energy Economics 18, 283-293.
Sözen, A., Alp, İ., Özdemir, A., 2010. Assessment of operational and environmental performance of the thermal power plants in Turkey by using data envelopment analysis. Energy Policy 38, 6194-6203.
Steenhof, P.A., 2006. Decomposition of electricity demand in China’s industrial sector. Energy Economics 28, 370-384.
Steenhof, P.A., 2007. Decomposition for emission baseline setting in China’s electricity sector. Energy Policy 35, 280-294.
Sueyoshi, T., Sekitani, K., 2009. An Occurrence of Multiple Projections in DEA-based Measurement of Technical Efficiency: Theoretical Comparison among DEA Models from Desirable Properties. European Journal of Operational Research 196(2), 764-794.
Sueyoshi, T., Goto, M., 2010. Should the US Clean Air Act Include CO2 Emission Control? Examination by Data Envelopment Analysis. Energy Policy 38(10), 5902-5911.
Sueyoshi, T., Goto, M., Ueno, T., 2010. Performance analysis of US coal-fired power plants by measuring three DEA efficiencies. Energy Policy 38, 1675-1688.
Sueyoshi, T., Goto, M., 2011. DEA Approach for Unified Efficiency Measurement: Assessment of Japanese Fossil Fuel Power Generation. Energy Economics 33, 292-303.
Suh, S., Huppes, G., 2005. Methods for life cycle inventory of a product. Journal of Cleaner Production 13(7), 687-697.
Taiwan Power Company, 2009. 2001-2008 Statistics report of Taiwan power company. Taipei, Taiwan. (in Chinese)
Taiwan Power Company, 2010. 2009 Taiwan power company sustainability report. Taipei, Taiwan. (in Chinese)
Thakur, T., Deshmukh, S.G., Kaushik, S.C., 2006. Efficiency evaluation of the state owned electric utilities in India. Energy Policy 34, 2788-2804.
Tyagi, P., Yadav, S.P., Singh, S.P., 2009. Relative performance of academic departments using DEA with sensitivity analysis. Evaluation and Program Planning 32, 168-167.
Vaninsky, A., 2006. Efficiency of electric power generation in the United States: Analysis and forecast based on data envelopment analysis. Energy Economics 28, 326-338.
Varun, Bhat, I.K., Prakash, R., 2008. Life cycle analysis of run-of river small hydro power plants in India. The Open Renewable Energy Journal 1, 11-16.
Vencheh, A.H., Matin, R.K., Kajani, M.T., 2005. Undesirable factors in efficiency measurement. Applied Mathematics and Computation 163, 547-552.
Voorspolls, K.R., Brouwers, E.A., D’haeseleer, W.D., 2000. Energy content and indirect greenhouse gas emissions embedded in ‘emission-free’ power plants: results for the Low Countries. Applied Energy 67, 307-330.
Wang, J.H., Ngan, H.W., Engriwan, W., Lo, K.L., 2007. Performance based regulation of the electricity supply industry in Hong Kong: An empirical efficiency analysis approach. Energy Policy 35, 609-615.
Welch, E., Barnum, D., 2009. Joint environmental and cost efficiency analysis of electricity generation. Ecological Economics 68, 2336-2343.
Wiedmann, T., Scott, K., Lenzen, M., Feng, K., Barrett, J., 2010. Hybrid methods for incorporating changes in energy technologies in an input-output framework- the case of wind power in the UK. 18th international input-output conference, Sydney, Australia.
Wright, D., 1974. Energy budgets 3. Goods and services: an input–output analysis. Energy Policy 2, 307–315.
Yabe, N., 2004. An analysis of CO2 emissions of Japanese industries during the period between 1985 and 1995. Energy Policy 32, 595-610.
Yang, H., Pollitt, M., 2009. Incorporating both undesirable outputs and uncontrollable variables into DEA: the performance of Chinese coal-fired power plants. European Journal of Operational Research 197, 1095-1105.
Yang, C.C., 2009. Productive efficiency, environmental efficiency and their determinants in farrow-to-finish pig farming in Taiwan. Livestock Science 126, 195-205.
Yang, Y.H., Lin, S.J., Lewis, C., 2007. Life cycle assessment of fuel selection for power generation in Taiwan. Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association 57, 1387-1395.
Yoo, S.H., Yoo, T.H., 2009. The role of the nuclear power generation in the Korean national economy: An input-output analysis. Progress In Nuclear Energy 51, 86-92.
Yu, G., Sun, D., Zheng, Y., 2007. Health effects of exposure to natural arsenic in groundwater and coal in China: an overview of occurrence. Environmental Health Perspectives 115(4), 636-642.
Zha, D., Zhou, D., Zhou, P., 2010. Driving forces of residential CO2 emissions in urban and rural China: An index decomposition analysis. Energy Policy 38, 3377-3383.
Zhang, B., Bi, J., Fan, Z., Yuan, Z., Ge, J., 2008. Eco-efficiency of industrial system in China: A data envelopment analysis approach. Ecological Economics 68, 306-316.
Zhang, M., Li, H., Zhou, M., Mu, H., 2011. Decomposition analysis of energy consumption in Chinese transportation sector. Applied Energy 88, 2279-2285.
Zhou, P., Ang, B.W., Poh, K.L., 2008. A survey of data envelopment analysis in the energy and environmental studies. European Journal of Operational Research 189, 1-18.