Facebook LinkedIn Instagram Twitter
Shop
Search
Begin New Search
Proceed to Checkout

Search Results for All:
(Showing results 1 to 10 of 66)

Next 10 >>


Energy Efficiency Versus Human Lives

Irwin M. Stelzer

Year: 1980
Volume: Volume 1
Number: Number 4
DOI: 10.5547/ISSN0195-6574-EJ-Vol1-No4-6
View Abstract

Abstract:
The controversy over the cost of government regulation has led to an even more fundamental policy dispute. Those concerned about the cost of rules concerning safety, environment, health and so on (which are regularly spun out by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, the Environmental Protection Agency, and their kin) generally seek to test the costs of these regulations against their benefits. Will the proposed rule, they ask, reduce the incidence of some disease or hazard sufficiently to be "worth" doing? Will the benefits to society, measured in dollar value of saved lives and lowered health and other costs, at least equal the costs of implementing the rule? Needless to say, the debate over how to measure many of the variables, especially the value of human life, is often heated.But those arguments are trivial compared with disputes between advocates of applying some cost-benefit test and those morally repelled by the procedure. Arguing that human lives and health cannot be valued in dollars, these groups most prominently, the Naderites-contend that better highway safety, cleaner air and water, safer working environments, and the like are absolute goods.



Will President Reagan's Energy Policy Lead Households to Conserve?

Eric S. Brown

Year: 1982
Volume: Volume 3
Number: Number 1
DOI: 10.5547/ISSN0195-6574-EJ-Vol3-No1-5
View Abstract

Abstract:
When energy was cheap and easily available, consumers' paid little attention to their energy use and bills, so after the supply disruptions of the1970s, they were poorly equipped to deal with the changes they faced in energy prices and availability. During the 1970s, the federal government undertook various programs of education and assistance, including dissemination of printed information, establishment of energy standards for federally financed homes, and tax credits for use of alternative energy sources.









Notes - Risk Analysis of Alternative Energy Sources

Daniel R. Kazmer

Year: 1982
Volume: Volume 3
Number: Number 1
DOI: 10.5547/ISSN0195-6574-EJ-Vol3-No1-11
No Abstract



Reply to "Risk Analysis of Alternative Energy Sources"

Miller B. Spangler

Year: 1982
Volume: Volume 3
Number: Number 1
DOI: 10.5547/ISSN0195-6574-EJ-Vol3-No1-12
No Abstract



Wood Energy Bibliography

n/a

Year: 1982
Volume: Volume 3
Number: Number 1
DOI: 10.5547/ISSN0195-6574-EJ-Vol3-No1-13
No Abstract





Notes - Comment on "Economic Implications of Mandated Efficiency..."

Stanley M. Besen and Leland L. Johnson

Year: 1982
Volume: Volume 3
Number: Number 1
DOI: 10.5547/ISSN0195-6574-EJ-Vol3-No1-9
No Abstract



Energy Efficiency and Productive Efficiency: Some Thoughts Based on American Experience

Sam H. Schurr

Year: 1982
Volume: Volume 3
Number: Number 3
DOI: 10.5547/ISSN0195-6574-EJ-Vol3-No3-1
View Abstract

Abstract:
I am greatly honored to be the first recipient of the IAEE awards for contributions to the literature of energy economics and for service to the profession, and I want to express my deep apprecia-tion to the membership of the Association. The awards citation was very generous. Its reference to my early work in energy economics as having made fundamental contributions to the literature makes me less apologetic than might otherwise be the case for using this occasion to revisit (and partially update) some research that was first written up in a book published more than 20 years ago. Those findings, it seems to me, carry lessons for understanding problems that confrontus today, perhaps even more so now than in the comparatively tran-quil U.S, energy setting of the mid-1950s, when my colleagues and I were originally doing the research.



Will Mandatory Conservation Promote Energy Efficiency in the Selection of Household Appliance Stocks?

Jeffrey A. Dubin

Year: 1986
Volume: Volume 7
Number: Number 1
DOI: 10.5547/ISSN0195-6574-EJ-Vol7-No1-7
View Abstract

Abstract:
This paper estimates a nested logit model for space heat and water heat choice using data from the National Interim Energy Consumption Survey (NIECS) by the Department of Energy in 1978. (See Dubin, 1983) for references to the data set and a detailed discussion of procedures used to prepare the data for economic analysis.) The use of micro-level disaggregated survey data to estimate discrete choice models of heating, ventilating, and air-conditioning (HVAC) systems has been very recent, but one can find a few related models in Dubin and McFadden (1984), Brownstone (1980), Goett (1979), Hausman (1979), and McFadden, Puig, and Kirschner (1977). One of the virtues of the structure developed here is that it has been embedded successfully in a larger micro-simulation system (the Residential End-Use Energy Policy System (REEPS)) for purposes of policy forecasting (Goett [1979]).



The Behavior of the Market for Energy Efficiency in Residential Appliances Including Heating and Cooling Equipment

Henry Ruderman, Mark D. Levine, and James E. McMahon

Year: 1987
Volume: Volume 8
Number: Number 1
DOI: 10.5547/ISSN0195-6574-EJ-Vol8-No1-7
View Abstract

Abstract:
Our paper provides a quantitative analysis of market behavior for the purchase of energy efficiency in residential appliances and heating and cooling equipment. Accurate forecasts of residential energy use require quantitative assessments of market decisions about energy efficiency. The results of our investigation of market behavior can lead to a better understanding of the barriers to investment in energy conservation. Understanding market behavior over time is a prerequisite to an evaluation of the need for and the importance of policies to promote energy efficiency.



Separating the Changing Composition of U.S. Manufacturing Production from Energy Efficiency Improvements: A Divisia Index Approach

G. Boyd, J. F. McDonald, M. Ross, and D. A. Hansont

Year: 1987
Volume: Volume 8
Number: Number 2
DOI: 10.5547/ISSN0195-6574-EJ-Vol8-No2-6
View Abstract

Abstract:
The demand for energy is normally broken down into five sectors: industry, utilities, the residential sector, the commercial sector, and transportation. Industry is the most heterogeneous of these with manufacturing accounting for about 80 percent of total industrial energy demand. Manufacturing is itself a very heterogeneous collection of production activities. As defined by the Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) method of the U.S. Department of Commerce, there were 448 manufacturing sectors in 1972.



Responses to Energy Efficiency Regulations

Frederick C. Bold

Year: 1987
Volume: Volume 8
Number: Number 2
DOI: 10.5547/ISSN0195-6574-EJ-Vol8-No2-8
View Abstract

Abstract:
Despite all the thunder and commotion surrounding energy usage and regulation, there is little comprehensive and systematic theoretical analysis of some of the most common forms of energy usage regulation. These regulations can take a variety of forms such as quantity rationing, price controls, tax incentives, building codes, and efficiency standards. With respect to legislated efficiency standards, some progress is made in a series of articles appearing in The Energy Journal concerned with the effect of compulsory efficiency improvements on energy consumption. The first is J. Daniel Khazzoom's "Economic Implications of Mandated Efficiency in Standards for Household Appliances." This article is followed by comments and extensions by Michael Einhorn, by Stanley M. Besen with Leland J. Johnson, and by a response to Besen and Johnson by Khazzoom and Sanford Miller. A second article by Einhorn deals with the differences in the Khazzoom and Besen-Johnson approaches.



Energy Saving Resulting from the Adoption of More Efficient Appliances

J. Daniel Khazzoom

Year: 1987
Volume: Volume 8
Number: Number 4
DOI: 10.5547/ISSN0195-6574-EJ-Vol8-No4-8
View Abstract

Abstract:
In last November's IAEE meetings, Amory Lovins reported estimatesof energy saving that will result from the adoption of more efficient appliances. This note addresses three questions related to the subject.1. The realism of Lovins' estimate of energy saving.2. The way these estimates fare when juxtaposed against the price elasticity of demand used by Lovins.3. The light my recent empirical results shed on the magnitude of energy saving we can realistically expect.In the process, the note touches on the polar opposite policies that Lovins has been advocating.



Energy Savings from More Efficient Appliances: A Rejoinder

J. Daniel Khazzoom

Year: 1989
Volume: Volume 10
Number: Number 1
DOI: 10.5547/ISSN0195-6574-EJ-Vol10-No1-14
View Abstract

Abstract:
In his article (Lovins, 1988) responding to my Note (Khazzoom, 1987), Amory Lovins makes a series of allegations. I find they contain precious little substance. Space limitations preclude a response to each one of Lovins' points, but I will address some of the specifics. The following overall observations convey perhaps in a nutshell some of the difficulties with the article that emerge from the discussion of the specifics below: (i) The article makes statements about facts, which are not supported by the evidence; (ii) The article holds contradictory positions and makes inconsistent statements, with little or no effort at probing into their implications; (iii) A depressing aspect of the article that the serious reader has to contend with is the lack of command of the basics of economics the article reveals. There is rattling with economic terminology and there are grand-sounding statements about economics, but it is not clear the author knows quite what they all mean. I turn to these below. But I would like to clarify the procedure 1 will be following. Lovins' article is substantially made up of quotes from the unpublished work by the National Resources Defense Council. In preparing the present rejoinder, I have made the assumption that since Lovins used the quotes to elaborate on points that he made (often in two lines or less), the statements he quoted say what he would have said, had he written the elaboration in his own words. I hope this clarification will spare any future counterarguments that Lovins did not make these statements, but only quoted them.



CO2 Emission Limits: An Economic Cost Analysis for the USA

Alan S. Manne and Richard G. Richels

Year: 1990
Volume: Volume 11
Number: Number 2
DOI: 10.5547/ISSN0195-6574-EJ-Vol11-No2-3
View Abstract

Abstract:
This paper provides a cost-benefit analysis of controlling or decreasing C02 emissions. It uses an analytical framework, called Global 2100, which is designed to evaluated C02 energy economy interactions and estimate the cost of a carbon emissions limit. It analyzes three demand parameters (potential GNP growth, elasticity of price induced substitution between capital-labour and energy, and the rate of autonomous energy efficiency improvements) which are crucial to the debate over energy and environmental futures. The paper discusses various energy sources which are either presently in use or will possibly be in use in the future, and analyzes their impact on cost-benefit analyses. Finally, the paper analyzes the results of carbon constraints and suggests that there is need for more research and development on the subject.




Next 10 >>

Begin New Search
Proceed to Checkout

 





function toggleAbstract(id) { alert(id); }