Given emerging concerns about climate change, low-carbon energy transition is advocated and promoted. Non-energy use of fossil fuels accounted for 8.9% of the world’s total final energy consumption in 2015. Non-energy use intensity does not show an evident reduction, while energy intensity as fuel per dollar of gross domestic product has decreased thanks to energy transition efforts such as energy efficiency promotion and renewable energy expansion.
This study conducted an extensive review of the circular economy and energy transition frameworks, and found that the energy transition framework has a critical gap, so it cannot provide a foundation for investigating non-energy use. This study suggests that the energy transition discourse needs to be extended to incorporate the transition of non-energy use and the achievement of a closed loop of non-energy use, which is part of the circular economy framework. The coordinated circular economy–energy transition approach could bring in synergistic effects, such as promoting circular economy activities among industries, reducing energy demand, and attaining additional greenhouse gas mitigation potential.
WeissMNeelisMLZuidbergMCet al.
Applying bottom-up analysis to identify the system boundaries of non-energy use data in international energy statistics. Energy2008;
33: 1609–1622.
Pearce DW and Turner RK. Economics of natural resources and the environment. Baltimore: JHU Press, 1990.
14.
BouldingK.The economics of the coming spaceship earth. In: JarrettH (ed) Environmental quality in a growing economy: essays from the sixth RFF forum. 1st ed.
Baltimore, MD:
Johns Hopkins Press, 1966, pp. 3–14.
GengYFuJSarkisJet al.
Towards a national circular economy indicator system in China: an evaluation and critical analysis. J Clean Prod2012;
23: 216–224.
17.
HomrichASGalvãoGAbadiaLGet al.
The circular economy umbrella: trends and gaps on integrating pathways. J Clean Prod2018;
175: 525–543.
KirchherrJReikeDHekkertM.Conceptualizing the circular economy: an analysis of 114 definitions. Resour Conserv Recycl2017;
127: 221–232.
20.
KorhonenJNuurCFeldmannAet al.
Circular economy as an essentially contested concept. J Clean Prod2018;
175: 544–552.
21.
LiederMRashidA.Towards circular economy implementation: a comprehensive review in context of manufacturing industry. J Clean Prod2016;
115: 36–51.
22.
Prieto-SandovalVJacaCOrmazabalM.Towards a consensus on the circular economy. J Clean Prod2018;
179: 605–615.
23.
GengYDobersteinB.Developing the circular economy in China: challenges and opportunities for achieving leapfrog development. Int J Sustain Dev World Ecol2008;
15: 231–239.
24.
GeissdoerferMSavagetPBockenNMPet al.
The circular economy—a new sustainability paradigm?J Clean Prod2017;
1: 757–768.
25.
European Commission. Report on critical raw materials and the circular economy (part 1/3) [Internet]. Brussels, https://ec.europa.eu/docsroom/documents/27327 (2018, accessed 10 May 2018).
26.
PanS-YDuMAHuangI-Tet al.
Strategies on implementation of waste-to-energy (WTE) supply chain for circular economy system: a review. J Clean Prod2015;
108: 409–421.
27.
LiHBaoWXiuCet al.
Energy conservation and circular economy in China’s process industries. Energy2010;
35: 4273–4281.
28.
WaqasMAburiazaizaASMiandadRet al.
Development of biochar as fuel and catalyst in energy recovery technologies. J Clean Prod2018;
188: 477–488.
SmilV.Energy and civilization: a history.
Cambridge, MA:
The MIT Press, 2017, 568.
31.
SovacoolBK.How long will it take? Conceptualizing the temporal dynamics of energy transitions. Energy Res Soc Sci2016;
13: 202–215.
32.
GeelsFWSovacoolBKSchwanenTet al.
The socio-technical dynamics of low-carbon transitions. Joule2017;
1: 463–479.
33.
KimH. Economic and environmental implications of the recent energy transition on South Korea’s electricity sector. Energy Environ2018; 29(5): 752--768.
KlitkouABolwigSHansenTet al.
The role of lock-in mechanisms in transition processes: the case of energy for road transport. Environ Innov Soc Transit2015;
1: 22–37.
41.
NordensvärdJUrbanF.The stuttering energy transition in Germany: wind energy policy and feed-in tariff lock-in. Energy Policy2015;
82: 156–165.
42.
KirchherrJPiscicelliLBourRet al.
Barriers to the circular economy: evidence from the European Union (EU). Ecol Econ2018;
1: 264–272.
43.
SgouridisSCsalaD.A framework for defining sustainable energy transitions: principles, dynamics, and implications. Sustainability2014;
6: 2601–2622.
44.
CooperSJGGiesekamJHammondGPet al.
Thermodynamic insights and assessment of the circular economy. J Clean Prod2017;
162: 1356–1367.
MOTIE. The Government decided to resume the construction of Shin-Kori 5 and 6 and confirmed the energy transition (nuclear phase-out) roadmap [Internet], https://www.eiic.or.kr/issue/sub3_6_1_1?num=14&pageNum=3 (2017, accessed 4 April 2019).
47.
IPCC secretariat. Chapter outline of the working group III contribution to the IPCC sixth assessment report (AR6) [internet].
Geneva, Switzerland:
WMP and UNEP, http://www.ipcc.ch/meetings/session46/AR6_WGIII_outlines_P46.pdf (2017, accessed 25 August 2018).
48.
PatelMNeelisMGielenDet al.
Carbon dioxide emissions from non-energy use of fossil fuels: summary of key issues and conclusions from the country analyses. Resour Conserv Recycl2005;
45: 1195–1209.
49.
NeelisMLPatelMGielenDJet al.
Modelling CO2 emissions from non-energy use with the non-energy use emission accounting tables (NEAT) model. Resour Conserv Recycl2005;
45: 226–250.
MottaSLSantinoDAnconaPet al.
CO2 emission accounting for the non-energy use of fossil fuels in Italy: a comparison between NEAT model and the IPCC approaches. Resour Conserv Recycl2005;
45: 1310–1330.
52.
ParkH.Fossil fuel use and CO2 emissions in Korea: NEAT approach. Resour Conserv Recycl2005;
45: 295–309.
