Energy in Transition, 1985-2010 Final Report of the Committee on Nuclear and Alternative Energy Systems (1980) / Chapter Skim
Currently Skimming:
11 Methods and Analysis of Study Projections
11 Methods and Analysis of Study Projections
Pages 529-612
The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.
From page 529... ...
For example, the Demand and Conservation Panel assumed an annual average growth rate for the gross national product (GNP) of 2 percent between 1975 and 2010, and defended this as their assessment of the most probable 529
|
From page 530... ...
. The MRG investigated the effect on GNP of various policies and levels of energy consumption, modifying supply and demand schedules Or such hypothetical possibilities as high or low discovery rates Or resources and Btu taxes (i.e., taxes per 13tu of primary energy input)
|
From page 531... ...
Little or no technological innovation was assumed, other than the application of well-known engineering principles. Having obtained a set of final energy demands for each form of energy, the Demand and Conservation Panel then estimated the primary fuel requirement needed for conversion to the final fuel form, taking into account conversion efficiency and transportation or transmission losses, as well as processing losses.
|
From page 532... ...
Based on the demand scenarios: integrations of the projections of demand from the demand scenarios and projections of supply from the supply scenarios A variant of each priceschedule scenario was projected for 3 percent annual average growth of GAP Modeling Resourced Estimates of the economic costs of limit Group ing or proscribing energy technologies in accordance with various policies.
|
From page 533... ...
The study scenarios do not employ exactly the same fuel mixes as the Demand and Conservation Panel's scenarios to fill the required end-use demands. This results in slightly different primary energy requirements because of the differences in assumed energy-conversion efficiencies Small differences, usually not more than 10 percent, may be observed between the primary energy inputs (total energy consumption)
|
From page 534... ...
ANALYSIS AND SCENARIOS WORK OF THE DEMAND AND CONSERVATION PANELS The work of the Demand and Conservation Panel relied primarily on assessments of the technological possibilities for moderating the consumption of energy in the transportation, buildings, and industrial sectors of the economy. The panel projected the extent to which these technological possibilities might be realized under various assumed sets of prices for energy at the point of use.
|
From page 535... ...
Work-Force Participation and Other Trends The panel assumed that the work force in the United States would grow in the direction indicated by prevailing trends: at a lower rate in the future than in the past, and in accordance with recently declining fertility rates and the consequent size of younger-age cohorts, which govern the rate of growth of the labor force. The panel also assumed that the participation of women in the work force would continue to grow.
|
From page 536... ...
The rate of economic growth selected by the panel prompted discussion within the committee and among other participants in the study. Most of the economists express reservations about its likelihood, feeling that a 2 percent average rate of growth would not be consistent with the assumption of full employment Others point to recent trends of declining growth in productivity and suggest that the growing investment in environmental protection and related areas of health and safety, as well as the shift of employment from the manufacturing to the service sector, will continue to reinforce the trend of declining growth in productivity.
|
From page 537... ...
1975-1980 980 1990 1990 2000 2000 2010 D/C Panel MrtG-Low 2.7 37 2.3 2.7 12 0.5 1.8 16 The Modeling Resource Group generated its high, low, and base-case projections for the growth of GNP by projecting the changes that might be expected in three determinants of potential GNP over the penod 19752010 Those leading to the lower rate of growth are the following.
|
From page 538... ...
. Source: Adapted from National Research Council, Alternative Enertj v Demand Futures to 2010, Committee on Nuclear and Alternative Energy Systems Demand and Conservation Panel (Yvashinttton~ D.C: National Academy of Scienetts, 1979)
|
From page 539... ...
(Table 11-34 gives the annual average GNP growth rates projected by CONAES and other energy studies.) CONAES did not attempt to select a "best" growth rate, but rather estimated the growth of energy consumption for both 2 percent and 3 percent growth rates in GNP from 1975 to 2010.
|
From page 540... ...
The energyprice/demand extrapolations employed by the panel are consistent with historical data for fuel-price demand elasticities and cross-elasticities, and with regional comparisons. Details are given in the report of the Demand and Conservation Panel s Scenario A, a simple variant of scenario A, tests the additional moderation in the growth of energy consumption that might result from some changes in the habits and purchases of consumers and from an accelerated shift in the economy from goods to services (for example, from goods produced to be used once and discarded to goods produced to endure with much more repair and maintenance)
|
From page 541... ...
a am a E . oils O m~ ID -:~00 ED 0 0 A v ~ b ~ ~ As ~ ~ .
|
From page 542... ...
a >q i, a _ of 0 O ~ ·C _ C o~ O ~ E ~, _ .c LL1 ~ ' =_ mC Cl ~ C E c ~ .= E =, _ ° to JO o _ ~ ~ or : U)
|
From page 543... ...
~o: ~o o - o ~ o o a ~ ~ ~ _ °u ~ X E ~ = _ ° S ~ ° ~: w ~ r~ & ~ ~ ~ rl ~ .= =~ ~ ~ -_ oo _ o ~ ~ m _ a U _, E ~ o ~ co ~ ~ ~' _ _ = ~ ~ = ~ _ a ~ .
|
From page 544... ...
The model is explained in the report of the Demand and Conservation Panel II The panel used this model to simulate the use of four fuels (gas, oil, electricity, and other) for eight functions (space heating, water heating, refrigeration, food freezing, cooking, air conditioning, lighting, and other)
|
From page 545... ...
The demand for energy, given fuel i, end-use k, and subsector or building type m, was represented simply as Qih.m Chum X Sih.m where Q is the energy demand, 5 the stock of energy-using capital, and U the rate of use. The stock of equipment was considered fixed over the short term, with only the rate of use changing in response to exogenous factors such as changes in fuel prices.
|
From page 546... ...
546 ENERGY IN TRANSITION, 1985-2010 desired stock estimate (based on population, per capita income, school-age population, etc.) , subtracting additions still standing from previous years.
|
From page 547... ...
Where load factors and efficiencies change, they change linearly during the 19752010 period. Industryi6 The analysis of energy consumption in the industrial sector concentrated on 14 industries that account for 80 percent of the energy consumed by industry: 9 energy-consuming industries (agriculture, aluminum, cement, chemicals, construction, food, glass, iron and steel, and paper)
|
From page 548... ...
On the advice of the Supply and Delivery Panel, the Demand and Conservation Panel assumed that solar energy would be economical for some low-temperature industrial applications if the prices of other sources rose appreciably. The panel assumed that the direct use of solar energy would replace that of natural gas to produce low-pressure steam and hot water for agriculture, food processing, and miscellaneous manufacturing processes, accounting for 0.2 quadrillion Btu (quad)
|
From page 550... ...
— 1 ~ U ~ ~ o lo En 0 E ou c ~ ~ E D r 0: + + t I 1 + + + 1 1 + + + 1 + 1 1 1 + + 1 1 + 1 1 E I E 9'~ Ott_ ° o o ~ U ~ ~ — 5~ ~ ~ = U _ U ~ ° :u~ E 3 ~ ~ ~ a ~ ~ a ~ ~ ,u ~ ~ ~ on g ~ ~ ~ ,0 _ ~ ~ =r + + + 1
|
From page 551... ...
+ ~ + + ~` + + ~ ~ rot _ + 1 ++ 1 to 2.
|
From page 552... ...
natural gas Shale oil Coal gasitication Coal liquefaction ReDned petroleum products Natural gas utilities Coal combined-eycie electricity Fossil fuel electric utilities Light hater reactors High temperature gas-cooled reactors Renewable energy utilities Energy ServRes End-Uses Ore-reduction feedstocks Chemical teedstocks Motive power Process heat Water heat Space heat Air conditioning Miscellaneous uses of electricity Produerio~ f Go As and Sent ice ~ Agriculture Mining Construction Food Paper Chemicals Glass products Stone and clay products Iron and steel Nonterrous metals intermediate goods Rail transport Bus transport Truck transport Water transport Air transport Wholesale and retail trades Other services Motor vehicles and equipment Consumer goods the base year)
|
From page 553... ...
geothermal, and solar The panel found it necessary to adopt some accounting conventions for this model. Total primary energy is defined as the total Btu content of the fossil fuels extracted plus the Btu equivalent of energy from hydroelectric, nuclear, solar, and geothermal sources (computed as the heat content of the coal it would take to generate the equivalent amount of electricity)
|
From page 554... ...
and distribution dlncludes all energy sources projected lor cicctricity generation coal.
|
From page 555... ...
dincludes all energy sources projected for electricity generation—coal, oil, gas, hydroelectric, nuclear, geothermal, and solar.
|
From page 556... ...
t Demand for energy at powt of consumption 'Convershm losses include those incurred in extraction, reMning, producunn'transmission, and distribution. '/B~cludes all energy sources projected for electricity generation coal, oil' gas.
|
From page 557... ...
could radically alter this projection. The penultimate line of Table 11-12 gives the percentage of total primary energy use claimed by electricity in each projection: a range of one quarter to one half (See also "Electncity" under "Implications of Study Results: Comparisons of Supply and Demand" in this chapter.)
|
From page 558... ...
This scenario relies heavily on sophisticated technologies to provide high-quality services and conserve exhaustible resources of energy and materials—solar energy, advanced engine designs, extensive telecommunications systems, and rationalized transportation networks. Energy consumption in the CLOP scenario totals 53 quads in 2010 a value surprisingly close to that projected by the Demand and Conservation Panel in scenario A
|
From page 559... ...
For example, the Demand and Conservation Panel assumed that under the conditions of their scenarios, sufficient capital would be available for investment in producing the energy 'See statelnent 11-5, by R
|
From page 560... ...
1 () FIGURE 11-4 Projeetions of total demand for primary energy in the United States to 2010 (quads)
|
From page 561... ...
Giving very high pnonty to the development of one source necessarily implies lower priority and less stimulus to the development of other sources 23 The Supply and Delivery Panel's resource groups reviewed available estimates of reserves and resources, as well as their producibility, and selected those that matched their consensus judgment. In addition, they considered the availability of the various energy supply technologies during the period to 2010 for each of the three sets of assumed conditions.
|
From page 562... ...
A schedule is set in motion for several solar electric central generating stations, and state and local governments are ordered to adopt as rapidly as possible technologies for converting municipal and agricultural wastes to useful energy. These installations might be financed in part from revenues received from taxing nonrenewable energy sources, a practice that would also help make the solar installations more competitive.
|
From page 563... ...
(7.9) Coal 16.4 32.5 75.0 100.0 Geothermal 0 2.2 7.8 19.9 Solar 0 3.3 13.1 28.8 Nuclear 2 7 12.0 27.5 42.5 Hydroelectric 2.4 4 t S O 5.0 Except for the business as-usual projections the entries in this table should not be added to obtain yearly totals: no more than a vety few energy sources or technologies could be simultaneously accorded the priorities implied by the enhanced supply or national-commitment scenarios bFor speck tic assumptions guiding selection of estimates under this set of conditions see Table 11 14.
|
From page 564... ...
e E ~ ~ 5 e 0 ~ .~ ~ O O b O u -~ ~ e ,., e ~° e~ e v u ~ E e , e 0 u e ~ v ~ ~ v 0 9 c ~ Te' ~ ° v ~ E c ° =9 -_ ~ e .o u M~ -~ u ° 0 _ c~ u c~ ° _ ~ ~ C , ~ · ~ 0 e u ~ u =, v ~ ~ O ° e e 9 0 e D ~ v: ~ _ ur E ~ 0 ~ ° ' c ~ ~ u U V ~ ~ e ~ U c~ c, u E C4 E c: C 5 rl U ~ fi ~ ~ v e ~ u 0 e u ~ ~ ' C D., C D O O D u e v c ~,, v D ~ .5 ~ C 9 C ~ = C ~ .5 O U _ -0 D _ — D —O U
|
From page 566... ...
IMPLICATIONS OF STUDY RESULTS: COMPARISONS OF SUPPLY AND DEMAND Attempts to draw on the understanding and data emerging from one another's work were important aspects of the work of the several panels and resource groups. In attempting to specify the mix of energy sources appropriate to their scenarios of demand, for example, the Demand and Conservation Panel consulted with members of the Supply and Delivery
|
From page 567... ...
Committee on Nuclear and Alternative Energy Systems, Supply and Delivery Panel (Washington. D C: National Academy of Sciences.
|
From page 568... ...
. THE STUDY 8CENARIOs27 To compare the projections of energy demand from the Demand and Conservation Panel with the projections of energy supplies from the Supply and Delivery Panel, a variant of the demand projections was prepared by scaling demand scenarios A, A, and C for 3 percent annual average growth of GNP, based on the comparison of demand scenarios B
|
From page 569... ...
For example, the scenarios of low demand were generally compared to business-as-usual scenarios of supply, unless the demand for a particular energy form was greater than business-as-usual supply projections could meet. Although the assignment of production levels from the Supply and Delivery Panel's scenarios to the Demand amd Conservation Panel's scenarios of demand was an exercise of judgment, there is actually less
|
From page 570... ...
. The Demand and Conservation Panel's projections of demand for electricity, on the other hand, show much more rapid growth in demand for electricity before 1990 than after (as indicated in chapter 2)
|
From page 571... ...
Electricity As noted earlier in this chapter, there is considerable uncertainty today in the projection of demand for electricity. If the demand for electricity in 2010 were to fall near the upper end of the range projected by the Demand and Conservation Panel, significantly larger installed nuclear capacity
|
From page 572... ...
would be required, and nuclear growth rates closer to those projected by the Supply and Delivery Panel would be shown by the scenarios. For example, the demand for electricity in scenario IV3 requires 71 quads of primary energy input, of which 30 quads (corresponding to 600 gigawatts (electric)
|
From page 573... ...
Enhanced supply (ES) —a well-balanced, comprehensive set of energy supply policies is enacted and aggressively pursued: decision making and regulatory actions are timely and coordmated: and prom~smg new technologies are appropriately supported, National commitment (NC)
|
From page 574... ...
(The projections used for the base Cases in this example are study scenarios that assume 3 percent annual average growth of GNP, as showlt in Table 11-25, rather than the scenarios of the Demand and Conservation Panel.) In scenario 1a, the primary demand for liquid
|
From page 575... ...
National commitment ( NC) —the same comprehensive set of energy policies is pursued as in the enhancedsupply case, but more aggressively in specific areas; adequate energy supplies are given the highest priority in allocating national resources; and calculated risks are taken in deploying promising new energy technologies before they are economically practicable.
|
From page 576... ...
Meeting this demand would require 6.4 quads of waste heat, or a total of 9.5 quads of primary energy equivalent Thus, the demand for 30.2 quads of primary electricity in 1990 in the buildings sector would rise to 39.7 quads. For this calculation, it was assumed that the switch to Electricity is
|
From page 577... ...
3 7 10 ES 71 99 TOTAU, liquid fuels 33 35 47 TOTAL, gaseous fuels 20 18 22 TOTAL, electricity 20 39 52 140 The Supply and Delivery Panel based its estimates of energy source availability on sets of assumptions about regulatory policies and public attitudes, which were judged more likely to determine availabhlir7 than cost or price. These assumptions are as follows: Business as usual (nAu)
|
From page 578... ...
—the same comprehensive set of energy policies is pursued as in the enhanced supply case, but more aggressively in specific areas; adequate energy supplies are given the highest priority in allocating national resources; and calculated risks are taken in deploying promising new energy technologies before they are economically practicable. includes losses in production and distribution.
|
From page 579... ...
50 _ 1 9 75 1 990 YEAR (b) / /3 -~3 1 990 Yl AR 2010 FIGURE 11-5 Projections of total primary energy oonsumption to 2010 for CONAES study Trios (quads)
|
From page 580... ...
_1113 a 2 ~ :' ~ I —-—1113 :__ 113 Cx 3 1975 1990 2010 1975 1990 2010 1975 1990 2010 (b) YEAR YEAR YEAR FIGURE 11-6 Co~AI g study scenario projections of total primary energy consumption for liquid amd gaseous fuels and electricity from 1975 to 2010 (quads)
|
From page 581... ...
Methods and Analysis of Study Pty~jtu lions TABLE 11-25 Demand for Electricity and Fluid Fuels in Study Scenarios if Half the Demand for Fluid Fuels to Supply Buildin Heat is Replaced with Electrical Resistance Heat G'ner5cenario ating Annual Annual Capac Change in Change in id in Consumption Demand tor Demand tor 2010 in 1975 Electricity 1990 Electricity 2010 (giga (quads) (percent)
|
From page 582... ...
One may also question the rapid price increase assumed by the Demand and Conservation Panel for natural gas. While rapid increases in the near term may be anticipated with deregulation, there is some question whether gas should be expected to command as large a premium as assumed (even in the high-price scenarios)
|
From page 583... ...
If electricity prices increase considerably less than assumed in the Demand and Conservation Panel's scenarios, all these projections may underestimate the substitution of electricity for other fuels. Liquid and Gaseous Fuels The supply mixes of liquid and gaseous fuels for the study scenarios are shown in Table 11-28.
|
From page 584... ...
584 ENERGY IN TRANSITION, 1985-2010 TABLE 11-27 Primary Fuel Mix for Electricity, by Study Scenario (quads per year) u Study Scenario and Energy Source 1 975 1990 2010 12 Oil 3 2 1 Gas 3 0 0 Coal 9 11 5 Nuclear 2 8 6 Hydro 3 4 4 Geothermal 0 0 0 Solar 0 0 1 TOTAL 20 25 17 112 Oil 3 2 1 Gas 3 0 0 Coal 9 17 13 Nuclear 2 8 7 Hydro 3 4 4 Geothermal 0 0 2 Solar 0 0 1 TOTAL 20 31 29 1112 Oil 3 2 2 Gas 3 0 0 Coal 9 15 16 Nuclear 2 11 13 Hydro 3 4 4 Geothermal 0 1 1 Solar 0 0 1 TOTAL 20 33 37 1113 Oil 3 3 3 Gas 3 0 0 Coal 9 19 20 Nuclear 2 11 18 Hydro 3 4 4 Geothermal 0 1 3 Solar 0 0 1 TOTAL 20 38 48 IV3 Oil 3 S 3 Gas 3 0 0 Coal 4 23 29 Nuclear 2 12 30 Hydro 3 4 4 Geothermal 0 1 4 Solar 0 0 1 roTAr 20 45 71 °Some totals may not add due to rounding.
|
From page 585... ...
. The study scenarios show solar energy contributing only a small fraction to total energy consumed, with the exception of scenario 12 (about 13 percent of primary energy)
|
From page 586... ...
586 ENERGY IN TRANSITION, 1985-2010 TABLE 11-28 Liquid and Gaseous Fuel Supply Mix, by Study Scenario (quads per year) Annual Productions Study Scenario and Energy Source 1975 1990 2010 12 Domestic oil 20 18 11 Imported oil 13 5 12 Synthetic oil 0 0 0 Shale oil 0 0 0 TOTAL liquids 33 23 23 Domestic natural gas 19 13 8 Impo ted natural gas 1 0 0 Synthetic gas 0 0 0 TOTAL gases 20 13 8 112 Domestic oil 20 18 11 Imported oil 13 5 10 Synthetic oil 0 0 4 Shale oil 0 0 1 TOTAL liquids 33 23 26 Domestic natural gas 19 13 10 Imported natural gas 1 0 3 Synthetic gas 0 0 0 TOTAL gases 20 13 13 1112 Domestic oil 20 20 16 Imported oil 13 9 7 Synthetic oil 0 0 8 Shale oil 0 0 1 TOTAL liquids 33 29 32 Domestic natural gas 19 14 14 Imported natural gas 1 0 2 Synthetic gas 0 0 0 TOTAL gases 20 14 16 1113 Domestic oil 20 21 18 Imported oil 13 16 14 Synthetic oil 0 1 13 Shale oil 0 0 2 TOTAL liquids 33 38 47
|
From page 587... ...
Its low rate of growth in energy consumption results from high energy prices (a fourfold increase) and low GNP growth (2 percent annually)
|
From page 588... ...
TOTAL, delivered energy and 51.3 (12.7) losses TOTAL, primary energy use 64.0 Assumed 2 percent average annual gross national product grohth' and energy prices at 4 times 1975 prices in real dollars.
|
From page 589... ...
Other energy studies are for the year 2000, while those of CONAES are for the year 2010. A uniform basis for comparison is the column "Annual Average Rate of Growth, Energy Consumption.'')
|
From page 590... ...
71.3 (30.7) 102.2 reassumed 2 percent average annual gross national product growth, and energy prices at 4 times 1975 prices in real dollars.
|
From page 591... ...
losses TOTAL, primary energy use 140.3 aAssumed 2 percent average annual gross national product growth. and energy prices at 4 times 1975 prices in real dollars.
|
From page 592... ...
TOTAL, delivered energy and 129.2 (59.9) losses TOTAL, primary energy use 188.1 'Assumed 2 percent average annual gross national product growth, and energy prices at 4 times 1975 prices in real dollars.
|
From page 593... ...
. WORK OF THE MODELING RESOURCE GROUP The Modeling Resource Group of the Synthesis Panel sought to compare the economic benefits and costs of various energy technologies that might be applied to meet the nation's demand for energy over the next three decades 30 in consultation with the Risk and impact Panel, the group found that the estimation of risks to life and health presented by various energy technologies is itself uncertain, and for some technologies, unknown.
|
From page 594... ...
, with assumed (a) 2 percent GNP growth and fb)
|
From page 595... ...
3 percent GliP growth Working with six large models of the domestic economy and the demand for energy, the Modeling Resource Group formalized the terms of its task as estimating the effects for outcome variables of changing certain policy variables and realization variables (as illustrated in Figure 11-10)
|
From page 598... ...
Ford Foundations 1975-2000 Histoncal 265 3 02 3 4 186 7 Technical Ox 265 2.41 1 9 124 0 Zero energy 265 2.92 1 1 100 0 growth Edison Electnc 1975-2000 Institute High 286 4.2 3 8 179 Moderate 265 3 7 3 2 155 Low 251 2 3 1 6 105 Exxon' 1977 1990 _ d 3 6 2 3 108 Bureau of Minese 1974-2000 264 3 7 3.1 163 4 EralJ 1975-2000 Baselines 281 3.4 3 37 159 High electricity 281 3.4 4 21 196 1 Conservation 281 3.4 2.97 145 6 Five times prices 281 3 4 1 98 114 3 cornices 1975-2010 12 279 2.0 -0 29 64 112 279 2 0 0.45 83 1112 279 2 0 1.04 102 IVI 279 2.0 1.95 140 13 279 3 0 0 52 85 113 279 3 0 1.38 115 1113 279 3 0 1 95 140 IV3 279 3 0 2 82 183 resource: Ford Foundation, Energy Policy Project, A Time to Future (Cambridge, Mass.: Ballinger Publishing Co, 1974) 55OUrce: Edison Electnc institute, Economic Growth in the Future, Committee on Economic Growth, Pricing and Energy Use (New York: Edison Electric institute, 1976)
|
From page 599... ...
to energy use, or also the other way, in the sense that direct interventions to curtail energy use would in turn have a negative effect on GNP, especially at low levels of energy availability. Accordingly, GNP growth was classified as a realization variable, assumed to be determined over the long term by a combination of three factors largely independent of energy policy decisions: (1)
|
From page 600... ...
Committee on Nuclear and Alternative Energy Systems, Synthesis Panel. Modeling Resource Group (Washington, D.C.: National Academy of Sciences, 1978)
|
From page 601... ...
Changes in energy inputs to the economy influence the pattern of capital investment over tame and thus have an additional feedback effect on GNP. Reductions in energy consumption lead to changes in the rate of return on capital that alter rates of saving, investment, and the use of capital.
|
From page 602... ...
The test of the validity of this gross puce elasticity would be how well the simple aggregate model, with a single primary energy, can be made to simulate the behavior of a more complex model with many fuels and many economic sectors. Estimates of the Feedback from Energy Consumption to Real Income Three of the models employed by the Modeling Resource Group (DESOM, ETA, and Nordhaus)
|
From page 603... ...
The Modeling Resource Group assumed that the long-term effects of gradual and foreseeable restrictions on the supply of energy could be estimated if the percentage of total capital and labor put to work is independent of energy supply restrictions. Under that assumption, Table 11-36 can be read as discounted sums of precisely the year-by-year implications ffir real income of restricted energy supplies (without crediting the gains for the environment or public health)
|
From page 604... ...
for 2010 projected by scenario" to the "total energy consumption (in primary energy equivalents) for 2010 projected by the base case." The ratio on the vertical axis is the "discounted sum of yearby-year levels of GNP minus the discounted sum of year-by-year losses in income given by scenario to the discounted sum of year-by-year levels of GNP projected by MRG." The Modeling Resource Group concluded that the feedback effect from restrictions on energy supplies to GNP is small Apart from two points, the feedback effect is at most 2 percent of GNP, even with energy supplies restricted to 50 percent of their levels in the base case..
|
From page 605... ...
Source: National Research Council, Supporting Paper 2 Energy Morteling for an Uncertain Future CommUttee on Nuclear and Alternative Energy Systems, Synthesis Panel, Modeling Resource Group (Washington, D C National Academy of Sciences, 1978)
|
From page 606... ...
Source: Adapted from National Research Council, Supporting Paper2Energy Mode/ingfor an U'uertrin Future, Committee on Nuclear and Alternative Energv Systems. Synthesis Panel, Modeling Resource Group (Washington, D.C: National Academy of Sciences, 1978)
|
From page 607... ...
90 -' c .o ~c c ~c kL] ~ C ~ i: ~ ~c o-~= E :^ _oooo Z ~ S C~ ~ ~ =._ ~ 0 ~ ~ o: o~ o c' E ~ 0 = ~ o c~ _ C P~ — ~ o E o o ~ _Z ~ E ~ Z_ oo o _ Oo o 1 1 1 ~ o~ Z ~o A , E ~ E o~ 3- ~' ~ ~ ~ o o 2 ,; oc Z .c a ~ c 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ E _ ~ ~ .t o o E e ~ ~ y ° ~ o Z =-" ° °= E o E ° ° ~ ~ v, v ~ ~ ~ e o.
|
From page 608... ...
The Demand and Conservation Panel's results were computed from a model based on prices of net delivered energy, while those of the Modeling Resource Group were computed on the basis of the price elasticity of demand for primary energy. As the pnce of primary energy nses, it constitutes an increasing proportion of the price of secondary energy.
|
From page 609... ...
NOTES 1. National Research Coumcil, Supporting Paper 2 Energy Modeling for an Uncertain Future, Committee on Nuclear and Alternative Energy Systems, Synthesis Panel, Modeling Resource Group (Wwshmgton, D.C.: National Academy of Sciences, 1978)
|
From page 610... ...
24. National Research Council, Supporting Paper 6 Domestic Potential of Solar and Other Renewable Energy Sources Committee on Nuclear amd Alternative Enera Systems, Supply amd Delivery Panel, Solar Resource Group (Washington, D.C.: National Academy of Scienons, 1979)
|
From page 611... ...
35. Demand for aggregate energy, measured in primary energy equivalents.
|
Key Terms
This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
More
information on Chapter Skim is available.