|
|
|
Sort Order |
|
|
|
Items / Page
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Srl | Item |
| 1 |
ID:
092790
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2009.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
Momentum has been building for an EU-wide approach to energy policy in which energy end-use efficiency is regarded as one of the main planks. Member States are already obliged to plan for the achievement of energy savings targets in respect of the period 2008-2016 and they now face additional economy-wide targets for 2020. Efficiency investments are widely regarded as capable of improving industrial competitiveness, security of energy supply and the abatement of greenhouse gas emissions. Nevertheless, the design of policy packages may involve trade-offs between these objectives. The challenge for energy modellers is to quantify future energy savings associated with combinations of efficiency measures. This paper draws on the international experience in energy modelling and tracks recent progress that has been made towards a harmonised European framework for verification of savings. It points to the significant development work that remains to be done, particularly to enable an increased reliance on bottom-up evaluation methods. One significant gap in our knowledge relates to the required adjustment of technical savings due to behavioural factors such as rebound effects. The paper uses one country (Ireland) as a case study to demonstrate how a framework is being developed to respond to these new requirements.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 2 |
ID:
121297
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2013.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
The Fukushima nuclear accident in March 2011 has increased social and political reluctance to embrace nuclear power in Japan (and elsewhere). The Japanese government has thus been considering four possible future energy mixes, including a nuclear-free pathway, and three others with 10%-35% nuclear supply coupled with a larger proportion of renewable energy and fossil fuels to replace nuclear. Here we use multi-criteria decision-making analysis (MCDMA) to assess the potential negative economic (levelised cost of electricity, and energy security), environmental (greenhouse-gas emissions, land transformation, water consumption, heated water discharge, air pollution, radioactive waste, and solid waste) and social (safety issues) impacts of the four proposed pathways to determine which scenario most holistically minimises adverse future outcomes. The nuclear-free pathway has the highest overall potential for adverse outcomes (score=2.49 out of 3), and the 35% nuclear power supply option yielding the lowest negative impact score (0.74) without weightings. Despite some sensitivity to the choice of criterion weights, our analyses demonstrate clearly that from an empirical perspective, a nuclear-free pathway for Japan is the worst option to pursue. We recommend that MCDMA methodology we used for Japan can be applied to other countries to evaluate future electricity generation scenarios.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 3 |
ID:
105793
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2011.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
In June 2010, the Japanese cabinet adopted a new Basic Energy Plan (BEP). This was the third such plan that the government has approved since the passage of the Basic Act on Energy Policy in 2002, and it represents the most significant statement of Japanese energy policy in more than four years, since the publication of the New National Energy Strategy (NNES) in 2006. Perhaps more than its predecessors, moreover, the new plan establishes a number of ambitious targets as well as more detailed measures for achieving those targets. Among the targets are a doubling of Japan's "energy independence ratio," a doubling of the percentage of electricity generated by renewable sources and nuclear power, and a 30 percent reduction in energy-related CO2 emissions, all by 2030. This paper explains the origins of the 2010 BEP and why it was adopted. It then describes the content of the plan and how it differs from the NNES. A third section analyzes the appropriateness of the new goals and targets contained in the BEP and their feasibility, finding that achievement of many of the targets was likely to be quite challenging even before the March 2011 earthquake, tsunami, and nuclear crisis.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|