A decomposition approach to multiregional environmental planning: A numerical study

  • O. Bahn
  • A. Haurie
  • S. Kypreos
  • J.-P. Vial
Part of the Economics, Energy and Environment book series (ECGY, volume 5)

Abstract

The aim of this paper is to present the first experiments in using a new mathematical programming decomposition technique for solving multi-regional energy-environment planning models. The paper shows that: (i) the approach can be efficiently implemented for coupling several large-scale energy models; and (ii) the consideration of several European countries together indicates the benefits to be gained from an harmonization of a possible C02 tax.

Keywords

Interior Point Method Decomposition Approach Master Program Interior Point Algorithm Paul Scherrer Institute 
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.

References

  1. Bahn, O., du Merle, O., Goffin, J.-L., and Vial, J.-P. (1995). “A Cutting Plane Method from Analytic Centers for Stochastic Mathematical Programming”, Programming 69, pp. 45–73.Google Scholar
  2. Bahn, O., Goffin, J.-L., Vial, J.-P., and du Merle, O. (1994). “Experimental Behavior of an Interior Point Cutting Plane Algorithm for Convex Programming: An Application to Geometric Programming”, Discrete Applied Mathematics 49, pp. 3–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Baumol, W.J. and Oates, W.E. (1971). “The Use of Standards and Prices for Protection of the Environment”, Swedish Journal of Economics 73 (1), pp. 42–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. CPLEX (1992). CPLEX User’s Guide, CPLEX Optimization Inc., Incline Village, NV.Google Scholar
  5. Dantzig, G.B. and Wolfe, P. (1960). “Decomposition Principle for Linear Programs”,Operations Research 8, pp. 101–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. de Ghellinck, G. and Vial, J.-P. (1986). “A Polynomial Newton Method for Linear Programming”, Algorithmica 1, pp. 425–453.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Dongarra, J.J., Moler, C.B., Bunch, J.R., and Stewart, G.W. (1979). UNPACK User′s Guide, SIAM, Philadelphia.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Fishbone, L.G. and Abilock, H. (1981), “MARKAL, a Linear-Programming Model for Energy Systems Analysis: Technical Description of the BNL Version”, International Journal of Energy Research 5, pp. 353–375.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Goffin, J.-L., Haurie, A., and Vial, J.-P. (1992). “Decomposition and Nondifferentiable Optimization with the Projective Algorithm”, Management Science 38, pp. 284–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Goffin, J.-L. and Vial, J.-P. (1989). “Cutting Planes and Column Generation Techniques with the Projective Algorithm”, Journal of Optimization Theory and Applications 65 (3), pp. 409–429.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Haurie, A., Loulou, R., and Savard, G. (1992). “A Two-Player Game Model of Power Cogen-eration in New England”, IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control 37 (9), pp. 1451–1456.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. IBM (1991). Optimization Subroutine Library, Guide and Reference, IBM Corporation, Kingston, NY.Google Scholar
  13. Karmarkar, N. (1984). “A New Polynomial Time Algorithm for Linear Programming”, Combinatorica 4 (4), pp. 373–395.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Kypreos, S. (1990). Energy Scenarios for Switzerland and Emission Control, Estimated with a Normative Model, Paul Scherrer Institute, Villigen, Switzerland, PSI-Bericht No 70.Google Scholar
  15. Loehman, E. and Whinston, A. (October 1974). “An Axiomatic Approach to Cost Allocation for Public Investment”, Public Finance Quaterly, pp. 315–328.Google Scholar
  16. Loulou, R., Savard, G., and Lavigne, D. (July 1992). “Decomposition of Multi-Player Linear Programs”, Proceedings of the Fifth International Symposium on Dynamic Games and Applications, Conches, Switzerland.Google Scholar
  17. Nesterov, Y. (1995). “Complexity Estimates of Some Cutting Plane Methods Based on the Analytic Barrier”, Mathematical Programming 69, pp. 149–176.Google Scholar
  18. Okken, P.A., Kram, T., Lako, P., Ybema, J.R., Gerbers, D. and Doorn, J.V. (January/May 1993). “Energy Systems Under C02 Constraints: An Integrated Assessment of Technology Options for Reducing C02 Emissions in the Netherlands Energy System up to 2040”, ECN-C-93-13.Google Scholar
  19. Schmeidler, D. (1969). “The Nucleolus of a Characteristic Function Game”, SIAM Journal of Applied Mathematics 17 (6), pp. 1163–1170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Shapley, L.S. (1953). “A Value for n-Person Games”, in H.W. Kuhn and A.W. Tucker (Eds.), Annals of Mathematical Studies, No. 28, Contributions to the Theory of Games, Vol. II, Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, pp. 307–317.Google Scholar
  21. Van Rensbergen, J., Van Regemorter, D., Debruyn, W., Wouters, G., and Proost, S. (June1993). “C02 emission reduction strategies in Belgium: an analysis with the MARKAL model”, VITO/CES report ENE.RA9309.Google Scholar
  22. Van Der Voort, E., Donni, E. and Thonet, C, Bois D’Enghien. E. Dechamps, C. and Guilmot, J.F. (1984). ENERGY SUPPLY Modelling Package EFOM-12C Mark I, Mathematical Description, CAB AY, Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1996

Authors and Affiliations

  • O. Bahn
    • 1
  • A. Haurie
    • 2
  • S. Kypreos
    • 1
  • J.-P. Vial
    • 2
  1. 1.Paul Scherrer InstituteVilligenSwitzerland
  2. 2.LogilabUniversity of GenevaSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations