Power from Perspective: Potential future United States energy portfolios
This paper presents United States energy portfolios for the year 2030, developed from seven different Perspectives. The Perspectives are characterized by different weights placed on fourteen defining values (e.g., cost, social acceptance). The portfolios were constructed to achieve three primary goals, energy independence, energy security, and greenhouse gas reductions. The portfolios are also evaluated over a comprehensive set of secondary criteria (e.g., economic growth, technical feasibility). It is found that very different portfolios based on very different defining values can achieve the three primary goals. Commonalities among the portfolios include reliance upon cellulosic ethanol, nuclear power, and energy efficiency to meet year 2030 energy demands. It is concluded that the US energy portfolio must be diverse and to achieve national energy goals will require an explicit statement of goals, a strong role for government, and coordinated action across society.
References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Sovacool, Benjamin K. & Cooper, Christopher, 2007. "Big Is Beautiful: The Case for Federal Leadership on a National Renewable Portfolio Standard," The Electricity Journal, Elsevier, vol. 20(4), pages 48-61, May.
- Benjamin Sovacool, 2008. "The problem with the “portfolio approach” in American energy policy," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 41(3), pages 245-261, September.
- Wiser, Ryan & Namovicz, Christopher & Gielecki, Mark & Smith, Robert, 2007. "The Experience with Renewable Portfolio Standards in the United States," The Electricity Journal, Elsevier, vol. 20(4), pages 8-20, May.
- Kilbourne, William E. & Beckmann, Suzanne C. & Thelen, Eva, 2002. "The role of the dominant social paradigm in environmental attitudes: a multinational examination," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 55(3), pages 193-204, March.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:enepol:v:37:y:2009:i:4:p:1432-1443. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Dana Niculescu)
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.
If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with this form.
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.