|
|
|
Sort Order |
|
|
|
Items / Page
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Srl | Item |
| 1 |
ID:
092855
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2009.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
A comparison of two studies conducted ten years apart on energy accidents provides important insights into methodological issues and policy implications. Recommendations for further improvements in energy accident studies are developed including accounting for differences between average and incremental accident damages, testing for appropriate levels of aggregation of accidents, making references and databases publicly available, more precisely defining and reporting different types of economic damages, accounting for involuntary and voluntary risks, reporting normalized damages, raising broader public policy and planning implications and updating existing accident databases.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 2 |
ID:
150069
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
We investigate lower than expected capacity factors of Combined Heat and Power plants using a publicly available dataset of hourly performance for plants in the state of New York. Low utilization of a CHP indicates underperformance. We examine possible causes of this underperformance including economic arbitrage, poor maintenance and operational practices, oversizing of plants, and reliability and resiliency needs. Based on seasonal and weekday/weekend capacity factor averages, we find that there is not enough evidence to support the economic arbitrage cause. Out of 99 plants in the dataset, 64 plants have average capacity factor below 60%, indicating they are either oversized and/or poorly maintained. This suggests that the current practice of one-time fixed incentive ($/kW) favors investment in capacity with no incentive for utilization (unlike a production credit which incentivizes generation $/kW h). From a policy perspective, this paper recommends better pre-engineering assessment for correct sizing, as well as revision of incentives based on performance. Additional information should be collected so that a more accurate ongoing analysis of the societal benefits of CHP projects can be made. Lastly, the energy efficiency gap may be smaller than is commonly assumed and other options should be explored to meet energy efficiency goals.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 3 |
ID:
149993
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
Energy policy and research span multiple objectives, disciplines, methodologies, and data sets. This breadth of research results in conflicting analyses and proposals, which enable various parties to leverage these conflicts to further their vested interests. This paper explores these issues caused by differing research methodologies. It examines a recent proposal to search for common ground regarding contentious energy problems that emphasizes the use of different analytical frames as major sources of disagreement, and a case study regarding a dispute on how to conduct cost-benefit analyses of energy efficiency programs. Resolving differences among the research community and energy analysts requires a collaborative effort of painstaking research and debate. This paper articulates four policy implications. First, energy analysts should not be inexorably bound to their analytical frames. Second, analysts should not encroach on the role of policymakers by being asked to resolve questions that involve tradeoffs among fundamental values. Third, analysts have an important role helping to inform policymakers of the implications and limitations of various types of analyses of energy and environmental issues. Fourth, analysts need to develop a research program that is able to answer particular questions from multiple research frames in order to assess the robustness of their findings.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|