| Srl | Item |
| 1 |
ID:
117319
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2013.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
We investigate the implementation of the principles of systems engineering in the U.S. Department of Energy's Fuel Cycle Technologies (FCT) Program to provide a framework for achieving its long-term mission of demonstrating and deploying sustainable nuclear fuel cycle options. A fuel cycle "screening" methodology is introduced that provides a systematic, objective, and traceable method for evaluating and categorizing nuclear fuel cycles according to their performance in meeting sustainability objectives. The goal of the systems engineering approach is to transparently define and justify the research and development (R&D) necessary to deploy sustainable fuel cycle technologies for a given set of national policy objectives. The approach provides a path for more efficient use of limited R&D resources and facilitates dialog among a variety of stakeholder groups interested in U.S. energy policy. Furthermore, the use of systems engineering principles will allow the FCT Program to more rapidly adapt to future policy changes, including any decisions based on recommendations of the Blue Ribbon Commission on America's Nuclear Future. Specifically, if the relative importance of policy objectives changes, the FCT Program will have a structured process to rapidly determine how this impacts potential fuel cycle performance and the prioritization of needed R&D for associated technologies.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 2 |
ID:
041278
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
London, Thomas Nelson and Sons Ltd., 1972.
|
| Description |
122p.Hbk
|
| Standard Number |
0177610174
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Copies: C:1/I:0,R:0,Q:0
Circulation
| Accession# | Call# | Current Location | Status | Policy | Location |
| 011061 | 658.409/COY 011061 | Main | On Shelf | General | |
|
|
|
|
| 3 |
ID:
065698
|
|
|
| 4 |
ID:
184057
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
This paper offers an economic model to assist public procurement officials to rank competing vendors when benefits cannot be monetized. An important defense application is ‘source selection’ – choosing the most cost-effective vendor to supply military equipment, facilities, services or supplies. The problem of ranking public investment alternatives when benefits cannot be monetized has spawned an extensive literature that underpins widely applied decision tools. The bulk of the literature, and most government-mandated decision tools, focus on the demand side of a public procurement. The ‘Economic Evaluation of Alternatives’ (EEoA) extends the analysis to the supply side. A unique feature of EEoA is to model vendor decisions in response to government funding projections. Given a parsimonious set of continuously differentiable evaluation criteria, EEoA provides a new tool to rank vendors. In other cases, it offers a valuable consistency check to guide government supplier decisions.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 5 |
ID:
127229
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2014.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
Solving the issue of environmental degradation due to the expansion of the World's energy demand requires a balanced approach. The aim of this paper is to comprehensively rank a large number of electricity generation technologies based on their compatibility with the sustainable development of the industry. The study is based on a set of 10 sustainability indicators which provide a life cycle analysis of the plants. The technologies are ranked using a weighted sum multi-attribute utility method. The indicator weights were established through a survey of 62 academics from the fields of energy and environmental science. Our results show that large hydroelectric projects are the most sustainable technology type, followed by small hydro, onshore wind and solar photovoltaic. We argue that political leaders should have a more structured and strategic approach in implementing sustainable energy policies and this type of research can provide arguments to support such decisions.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 6 |
ID:
065700
|
|
|