You need JavaScript to view this

Assessment of comparative and non-comparative factors in alternate energy system

Technical Report:

Abstract

The American University Institute for Risk Analysis (AURA) has undertaken a study for the European Economic Community to critically evaluate the methodologies for comparative risk analyses and costs and benefits of alternative energy systems used to generate electricity, principally nuclear, coal, and oil. Other energy systems and related industries with major hazards are also addressed where pertinent. This is particularly true for cases where electrical energy may be an inefficient form for end use as for transportation and space heating. Here, comparison on an end use basis by the most efficient method, electrical or otherwise, is required. The starting point and basis for this evaluation has been the array of existing studies of alternative energy systems already published. These studies, including those already undertaken by the Community, are over 50 in number. The purpose of this study is not to make a comparison of alternative energy systems, but to evaluate what is and what is not useful in existing studies, as well as to provide insight on how meaningful studies can be conducted. There has been considerable criticism and discussion about the conduct and validity of several studies, particularly the Inhaber study and the critiques of Holdren et al. While  More>>
Publication Date:
Jan 01, 1983
Product Type:
Technical Report
Report Number:
EUR-8844-EN
Reference Number:
FRG-84-06627; EDB-84-138668
Subject:
29 ENERGY PLANNING, POLICY AND ECONOMY; ENERGY SOURCES; COMPARATIVE EVALUATIONS; TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT; ENERGY SYSTEMS; COAL; DATA ACQUISITION; ELECTRIC POWER; ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS; NUCLEAR ENERGY; PETROLEUM; RISK ASSESSMENT; CARBONACEOUS MATERIALS; ENERGY; FOSSIL FUELS; FUELS; MATERIALS; POWER; 290100* - Energy Planning & Policy- Energy Analysis & Modeling; 299000 - Energy Planning & Policy- Unconventional Sources & Power Generation; 290400 - Energy Planning & Policy- Energy Resources
OSTI ID:
6685832
Country of Origin:
Luxembourg
Language:
English
Availability:
Commission of the European Communities, Luxembourg.
Submitting Site:
DE
Size:
Pages: 237
Announcement Date:

Technical Report:

Citation Formats

Rowe, W D, and Oterson, P. Assessment of comparative and non-comparative factors in alternate energy system. Luxembourg: N. p., 1983. Web.
Rowe, W D, & Oterson, P. Assessment of comparative and non-comparative factors in alternate energy system. Luxembourg.
Rowe, W D, and Oterson, P. 1983. "Assessment of comparative and non-comparative factors in alternate energy system." Luxembourg.
@misc{etde_6685832,
title = {Assessment of comparative and non-comparative factors in alternate energy system}
author = {Rowe, W D, and Oterson, P}
abstractNote = {The American University Institute for Risk Analysis (AURA) has undertaken a study for the European Economic Community to critically evaluate the methodologies for comparative risk analyses and costs and benefits of alternative energy systems used to generate electricity, principally nuclear, coal, and oil. Other energy systems and related industries with major hazards are also addressed where pertinent. This is particularly true for cases where electrical energy may be an inefficient form for end use as for transportation and space heating. Here, comparison on an end use basis by the most efficient method, electrical or otherwise, is required. The starting point and basis for this evaluation has been the array of existing studies of alternative energy systems already published. These studies, including those already undertaken by the Community, are over 50 in number. The purpose of this study is not to make a comparison of alternative energy systems, but to evaluate what is and what is not useful in existing studies, as well as to provide insight on how meaningful studies can be conducted. There has been considerable criticism and discussion about the conduct and validity of several studies, particularly the Inhaber study and the critiques of Holdren et al. While much of the critiques deal with methods and approaches, substantial criticism and discussion has focused on the motivations of the investigators and how the studies were applied. This latter set of issues is hardly a technological or methodological argument.}
place = {Luxembourg}
year = {1983}
month = {Jan}
}