IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/teinso/v31y2009i3p232-243.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Technology assessment for clean energy technologies: The case of the Pacific Northwest

Author

Listed:
  • Daim, Tugrul
  • Yates, Diane
  • Peng, Yicheng
  • Jimenez, Bertha

Abstract

This study presents a technology assessment for clean power generation in the Pacific Northwest. Our goal is to incorporate clean production principles into the evaluation process for power alternatives. Two types of technologies are considered: one is for a renewable energy source (wind) and the other is for a traditional, fossil fuel based energy source (coal). The Analytical Hierarchy Process is used to assess the feasibility of both the wind energy and clean burning coal energy technologies. Criteria such as location, cost, feasibility, and availability are used for evaluations. For the wind energy, cost was determined to be the most important criterion when making a technology decision. For the SO2 emissions technology, the regenerative process was determined to be the best technology to scrub SO2 emissions from the air. Additionally, efforts towards renewable energy in Oregon should continue. Both federal and state governments offer tax credits that can help mitigate costs and facilitate the adoption of renewable energy options for power companies.

Suggested Citation

  • Daim, Tugrul & Yates, Diane & Peng, Yicheng & Jimenez, Bertha, 2009. "Technology assessment for clean energy technologies: The case of the Pacific Northwest," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 31(3), pages 232-243.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:teinso:v:31:y:2009:i:3:p:232-243
    DOI: 10.1016/j.techsoc.2009.03.009
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160791X09000256
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.techsoc.2009.03.009?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Wustenhagen, Rolf & Wolsink, Maarten & Burer, Mary Jean, 2007. "Social acceptance of renewable energy innovation: An introduction to the concept," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(5), pages 2683-2691, May.
    2. Grammelis, P. & Koukouzas, N. & Skodras, G. & Kakaras, E. & Tumanovsky, A. & Kotler, V., 2006. "Refurbishment priorities at the Russian coal-fired power sector for cleaner energy production--Case studies," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 34(17), pages 3124-3136, November.
    3. Gamboa, Gonzalo & Munda, Giuseppe, 2007. "The problem of windfarm location: A social multi-criteria evaluation framework," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(3), pages 1564-1583, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Maria Luisa Lode & Geert te Boveldt & Cathy Macharis & Thierry Coosemans, 2021. "Application of Multi-Actor Multi-Criteria Analysis for Transition Management in Energy Communities," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(4), pages 1-18, February.
    2. Maarten Wolsink, 2020. "Framing in Renewable Energy Policies: A Glossary," Energies, MDPI, vol. 13(11), pages 1-31, June.
    3. Fernandez-Jimenez, L. Alfredo & Mendoza-Villena, Montserrat & Zorzano-Santamaria, Pedro & Garcia-Garrido, Eduardo & Lara-Santillan, Pedro & Zorzano-Alba, Enrique & Falces, Alberto, 2015. "Site selection for new PV power plants based on their observability," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 78(C), pages 7-15.
    4. Burton, Jonathan & Hubacek, Klaus, 2007. "Is small beautiful? A multicriteria assessment of small-scale energy technology applications in local governments," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(12), pages 6402-6412, December.
    5. Rodrigo A. Estévez & Valeria Espinoza & Roberto D. Ponce Oliva & Felipe Vásquez-Lavín & Stefan Gelcich, 2021. "Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis for Renewable Energies: Research Trends, Gaps and the Challenge of Improving Participation," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(6), pages 1-13, March.
    6. Ribeiro, Fernando & Ferreira, Paula & Araújo, Madalena, 2011. "The inclusion of social aspects in power planning," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 15(9), pages 4361-4369.
    7. Heras-Saizarbitoria, Iñaki & Zamanillo, Ibon & Laskurain, Iker, 2013. "Social acceptance of ocean wave energy: A case study of an OWC shoreline plant," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 27(C), pages 515-524.
    8. Langer, Katharina & Decker, Thomas & Roosen, Jutta & Menrad, Klaus, 2016. "A qualitative analysis to understand the acceptance of wind energy in Bavaria," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 64(C), pages 248-259.
    9. Jie Ren & Jar-Der Luo & Ke Rong, 2020. "How Do Venture Capitals Build Up Syndication Ecosystems for Sustainable Development?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(11), pages 1-14, May.
    10. Koecklin, Manuel Tong & Longoria, Genaro & Fitiwi, Desta Z. & DeCarolis, Joseph F. & Curtis, John, 2021. "Public acceptance of renewable electricity generation and transmission network developments: Insights from Ireland," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 151(C).
    11. Lyhne, Ivar & Aaen, Sara Bjørn & Nielsen, Helle & Kørnøv, Lone & Larsen, Sanne Vammen, 2018. "Citizens’ self-mobilization, motivational factors, and the group of most engaged citizens: The case of a radioactive waste repository in Denmark," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 72(C), pages 433-442.
    12. Hogan, Jessica L. & Warren, Charles R. & Simpson, Michael & McCauley, Darren, 2022. "What makes local energy projects acceptable? Probing the connection between ownership structures and community acceptance," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 171(C).
    13. Taran Loper & Victoria L. Crittenden, 2017. "Energy Security: Shaping The Consumer Decision Making Process In Emerging Economies," Organizations and Markets in Emerging Economies, Faculty of Economics, Vilnius University, vol. 8(1).
    14. Baral, Nabin & Rabotyagov, Sergey, 2017. "How much are wood-based cellulosic biofuels worth in the Pacific Northwest? Ex-ante and ex-post analysis of local people's willingness to pay," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 83(C), pages 99-106.
    15. Ioannidis, Romanos & Koutsoyiannis, Demetris, 2020. "A review of land use, visibility and public perception of renewable energy in the context of landscape impact," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 276(C).
    16. Kaufmann, Nicholas & Carolus, Thomas & Starzmann, Ralf, 2019. "Turbines for modular tidal current energy converters," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 142(C), pages 451-460.
    17. P.W.J. de Bijl & Helanya Fourie, 2019. "The energy transition: Does ownership matter for realizing public interest objectives?," Working Papers 19-24, Utrecht School of Economics.
    18. Dugstad, Anders & Grimsrud, Kristine & Kipperberg, Gorm & Lindhjem, Henrik & Navrud, Ståle, 2020. "Acceptance of wind power development and exposure – Not-in-anybody's-backyard," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 147(C).
    19. Antoine Boche & Clément Foucher & Luiz Fernando Lavado Villa, 2022. "Understanding Microgrid Sustainability: A Systemic and Comprehensive Review," Energies, MDPI, vol. 15(8), pages 1-29, April.
    20. Vringer, Kees & Carabain, Christine L., 2020. "Measuring the legitimacy of energy transition policy in the Netherlands," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 138(C).

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:teinso:v:31:y:2009:i:3:p:232-243. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    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 CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc 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 RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.journals.elsevier.com/technology-in-society .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.