Advertisement

Environmental Management

, Volume 3, Issue 6, pp 493–504 | Cite as

Efficiency of energy delivery systems: I. An economic and energy analysis

  • Charles Hall
  • Mitchell Lavine
  • Joanna Sloane
Research

Abstract

Energy-return-on-investment (ERI) analysis is a variation of more traditional cost-benefit analyses, a variation that is particularly important in times of diminishing fuel resources. We present a simple set of procedures for ERI analysis and apply those procedures to central New York State, where there is a proposal for a new 870 MWe coal-fired generating station. We compared the energy and dollar costs of building that facility with the costs of an alternative comprehensive regional program of insulation. The analysis showed that regional insulation was more efficient in conserving energy than the plant was in providing it by at least a factor of 4 in economic terms and by a factor of more than 15 when viewed as energy returned on energy invested.

Keywords

Waste Water Water Management Water Pollution Delivery System Environmental Management 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Literature cited

  1. Bullard, C. W. 1978. Energy and employment impacts of policy alternatives In energy analysis: A new public policy tool. M. Gilliland (Ed.),AAA Symp. 9. Westview Press, Colorado.Google Scholar
  2. Chapman, P. F., G. Leach, and M. Slesser. 1974. The energy cost of fuels.Energy Policy 2:231–43.Google Scholar
  3. Eckstein, O. 1958.Water resources development: The economics of project evaluation. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.Google Scholar
  4. Edison Electric Institute. 1977.All weather comfort guideline. EEI Publ. No. 76-35, New York.Google Scholar
  5. Evans, R. B. 1969. A proof that essergy is the only consistent measure of potential work (for work systems). Ph.D. Thesis. Dartmouth College, Hanover New Hampshire.Google Scholar
  6. Ford Foundation Energy Policy Project. 1974.A time to choose: America's energy future. Ballinger, Lexington Massachusetts. 511 pp.Google Scholar
  7. Gibbons, J., R. Carlsmith, M. Whiting, E. Goodson, C. Bullard, D. Chapman, C. Berg, N. Bradburn, P. Craig, J. Darmstadler, S. Rattien, L. Schipper, and R. Uhler. 1978. U. S. energy demand: Some low energy futures. Science 200:142–152.Google Scholar
  8. Gilliland, M. W. 1975. Energy analysis and public policy.Science 189:1051–1056.Google Scholar
  9. Hall, C. 1977. Models and the decision making process: The Hudson River power plant case. In C. Hall and J. Day (eds.) Ecosystem modelling in theory and practice. Wiley (Interscience), New York.Google Scholar
  10. Hall, C., R. Howarth, B. Moore, and C. Vorosmarty. 1978. Environmental impacts of industrial energy systems in the coastal zone.Annual Review of Energy 3:395–475.Google Scholar
  11. Huettner, D. A. 1976. Net energy analysis: An economic assessment.Science 192:101–104.Google Scholar
  12. Lovins, A. 1976. Energy strategy: The road not taken?Foreign Affairs 55:65–96.Google Scholar
  13. Mishan, E. J. 1971.Cost-benefit analysis: an introduction. Praeger, New York.Google Scholar
  14. NYSEG. 1974. Cayuga Station application to the New York State Board on electric generation siting and the environment for a certificate of environmental compatability and public need. Volume 1. Including exhibit A, need for a facility and testimony of B. M. Rider.Google Scholar
  15. NYSEG. 1977.1977 Annual Report, Dryden, New York.Google Scholar
  16. Odum, H. T., C. Kylstra, J. Alexander, N. Sipe, T. Lern, M. Brown, S. Brown, M. Kemp, M. Sell, W. Mitsch, E. DeBellevue, T. Ballentine, T. Fontain, S. Bayley, J. Zuccetto, M. Costanza, G. Gardner, T. Dolan, A. March, W. Boynton, M. Gilliland, and D. Young. 1976. “Net energy analysis of alternatives for the United States.” Hearing before the Subcommittee on Energy and Power of the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, House of Representatives, 94th Congress.In Part I, Middle- and Long-Term Energy Policies and Alternatives, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. pp. 253–302.Google Scholar
  17. Perry, A. M., W. D. Devine, Jr., A. E. Cameron, G. Marland, H. Plaza, D. B. Reister, N. L. Treat, and C. E. Whittle. 1977. Net energy analysis of five energy systems. Institute for energy analysis, Oak Ridge Associated Universities, Oak Ridge, Tennessee.Google Scholar
  18. Pilati, D. A., and R. P. Richard. 1975.Total energy requirements for nine electricity-generating systems. Center for Advanced Computation. University of Illinois, Urbana.Google Scholar
  19. Ross, M. H., and R. H. Williams. 1976. Energy efficiency: Our most underrated energy resource.Bulletin of At. Sci. 32(9):30–38.Google Scholar
  20. United Engineers. 1975. Cayuga Station, preliminary cost estimate. Boston, Massachusetts (xerox-3 pp.).Google Scholar
  21. U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Community Services Administration. 1975.A community planning guide to weatherization, CSA pamphlet no. 614306. U. S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag New York, Inc. 1979

Authors and Affiliations

  • Charles Hall
    • 1
  • Mitchell Lavine
    • 2
  • Joanna Sloane
    • 1
  1. 1.Section of Ecology and Systematics Langmuir LaboratoryCornell UniversityIthaca
  2. 2.Center for Environmental ResearchCornell UniversityIthaca

Personalised recommendations