Embodied Energy Flow Patterns of the Internal and External Industries of Manufacturing in China

Abstract

The Sino–US trade war has prompted China to re-examine the development of manufacturing, while the energy crisis restricts such development. Scientifically planning industrial energy allocation is important for supporting industrial transformation and the upgrading of manufacturing. The embodied energy flow in China’s manufacturing was investigated by reconstructing the energy flow network; taking a systems perspective, a fine-grained analysis of the emerging patterns and evolution of these flows in the internal and external manufacturing industries was performed, thus providing useful insights for energy planning. The results show that in the internal and external networks of Chinese manufacturing, most of the embodied energy convergence and transmission is concentrated in a few industries Moreover, it is clear that industries with stronger embodied energy convergence and conductivity are generally more likely to be associated with industries with weak convergence and conductivity. Preferential selection is an important mechanism for the generation of embodied energy flow paths. The choices of the embodied energy flow paths of various industries exhibit the preference that ‘the rich get richer,’ and newly generated flow paths are more likely to be chosen for connectivity to a path of strong convergence or conductivity. The embodied energy flow patterns of the internal network of manufacturing mainly include two-focus and multi-focus convergence patterns, while that of the external network of manufacturing is mainly a two-focus transmission pattern. Within in-edge networks, communities of high-end manufacturing have gathered most of the embodied energy, while in out-edge networks, communities of traditional manufacturing have been key in the transmission of embodied energy. The impacts of the internal and external network types, and of the in-edge and out-edge types on the stability of the embodied energy flow pattern are separate, and the embodied energy flow pattern is stable. Based on these findings, an ‘energy-related industrial cluster’ model is proposed here to aid in energy convergence and transmission, as well as to realize network cluster synergy.

Is Embodied Energy a Better Starting Point for Solving Energy Security Issues?—Based on an Overview of Embodied Energy-Related Research

“…Then, they stated that policy-making should consider not only key sectors but also key energy flow paths. Feng et al (2019) [65] analyzed the embodied energy flow patterns in the internal and external industries of China's manufacturing industry. They stated that China's energy supply policy should consider the embodied energy convergence and transmission between internal and external industries of the manufacturing industry, energy-related industrial clusters, and key industries.…”

“Grouping” or “Ride One’s Coattails”?—How Developing Countries along the Belt and Road Satisfy Themselves

“…By using trade and input-output data between countries, calculating the embodied energy flow between countries can clarify the actual energy dependence between countries [16,19]. Moreover, it can introduce the complex interdependence between various countries and industrial sectors from a global perspective [28]. It reflects the number of resources that a country or a specific department can obtain from the upstream countries and relevant departments of the upstream countries in the global value chain, thus reflecting its development status from the energy perspective.…”

Did Institutional Investors’ Behavior Affect U.S.-China Equity Market Sentiment? Evidence from the U.S.-China Trade Turbulence

“…From 6 July 2018, when the Trump administration officially imposed a 25% tariff on USD 34 billion worth of Chinese exports to the United States, the United States and China had official tariff turbulence for one year [2][3][4]. According to a report issued by the American Institute for Supply Management (ISM), the Purchasing Managers Index (PMI) fell from 58.7 in May 2018 to 47.8 in September 2019, hitting a low in June 2009 [5].…”

“…These firms are distributed in the New York Stock Exchange and Nasdaq Stock Market. (2) Definitions of all variables are listed in the Methodology section (3). The sample data cover the period May 2016 to September 2019.…”