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

Search Results for All:
(Showing results 1 to 10 of 51)

Next 10 >>


Coal Policy and Energy Economics

Richard L. Gordon

Year: 1980
Volume: Volume 1
Number: Number 1
DOI: 10.5547/ISSN0195-6574-EJ-Vol1-No1-8
View Abstract

Abstract:
With the flurry of legislation in 1977 further inhibiting coal consumption and production, it became apparent to many observers that coal had joined oil, gas, and nuclear energy as a tightly regulated industry. Since by now this observation has been widely dissemi-nated, it seems most appropriate here only to summarize the nature of the barriers and their obvious implications. Then emphasis can be placed on the perspectives that economic analyses can provide for evaluating the issues.



Coal Liquefaction

George R. Hill

Year: 1980
Volume: Volume 1
Number: Number 1
DOI: 10.5547/ISSN0195-6574-EJ-Vol1-No1-9
View Abstract

Abstract:
The relative quantities of coal, petroleum (plus natural gas liquids), and natural gas proved and currently available in the United States are 18 X 1015 British thermal units (Btu), 3.7 X 1015 Btu, and 2.5 X 1015 Btu, respectively. The relative total recoverable resources are 134 X 1015 Btu for coal, 11.2 X 1015 Btu for petro-leum, and 9.5 X 1015 Btu for natural gas (Parent, 1979). Since coal represents roughly 86 percent of the total U.S. resource, one would expect its use to approximate that percentage of the energy input in the United States. But actually, the percentage of coal in the fossil energy input is only 21 percent. Petroleum and natural gas consumption accounts for nearly 75 percent. Almost half (48 percent) of the fossil energy used in the United States consists of petroleum and its products. Since some 45 percent of this petro-leum must now be imported, it is essential that our primary re-source, coal, be used in increasing amounts. This paper presents



Comments on Coal Liquefaction

L.E. Swabb, Jr.

Year: 1980
Volume: Volume 1
Number: Number 1
DOI: 10.5547/ISSN0195-6574-EJ-Vol1-No1-10
View Abstract

Abstract:
Dr. Hill has given an excellent, comprehensive review of the various coal liquefaction development programs that are now in progress. In view of the limited time, I would like to comment on just one subject-the economics of coal liquefaction and the impact of the economic basis on product cost. This would appear appro-priate to the interests of this audience, as well as an important consideration when evaluating costs quoted by various sources.My comments are based on a commercial plant study design for the Exxon Donor Solvent (EDS) process made in 1975-1976 and published in an EDS project report in January 1978. This study design is now being updated, and the new coal liquids costs are probably going to change. However, the old data will serve toillustrate the point I wish to make.



Sources of Deep Coal Mine Productivity Change, 1962-1975

Joe G. Baker

Year: 1981
Volume: Volume 2
Number: Number 2
DOI: 10.5547/ISSN0195-6574-EJ-Vol2-No2-5
View Abstract

Abstract:
The purpose of this article is to investigate the causes of labor productivity decline in bituminous deep mines during the 1970s. Prior to 1970, coal mining was a leading industry in productivity growth: average deep mine labor productivity increased from 5.8 tons per miner per shift in 1950 to 15.6 tons per miner per shift in 1969. Since 1969, average labor productivity has fallen every year to a 1977 level of 8.7 tons per miner per shift.



Air Quality Implications of a Nuclear Moratorium: An Alternative Analysis

Anthony Bopp, Verne Loose

Year: 1981
Volume: Volume 2
Number: Number 3
DOI: 10.5547/ISSN0195-6574-EJ-Vol2-No3-4
View Abstract

Abstract:
The role of nuclear power in the nation's energy future is and probably will continue to be one of the principal energy policy issues in the United States. Relatively inexpensive coal reserves and escalating costs of light water reactors have eroded a once-large cost advantage enjoyed by nuclear technologies. While the relative cost advantage of nuclear over coal electric power has become a subject of debate, other less concrete issues have surfaced and often overshadow economic arguments. Antinuclear "forces" generally view the technology as the essence of what they consider wrong with modern technological society. Pronuclear "forces" counter that much fear associated with nuclear power derives from the newness of the technology and that the air quality and possible economic gains associated with nuclear power make it the preferable choice for future electricity generation.



Stability of Appalachian Coal Shipments under Policy Variation

Chin Wei Yang

Year: 1981
Volume: Volume 2
Number: Number 3
DOI: 10.5547/ISSN0195-6574-EJ-Vol2-No3-8
View Abstract

Abstract:
This article investigates the critical issue of how Appalachian coal supply flows vary in response to changes in national coal markets and policies, with emphasis on the relative stability of traditional flows. The approach taken to analyze this stability involves the use of a quadratic programming (QP) transportation model (see Takayama and Judge, 1971), along with a nonparametric statistical procedure (see Gibbons 1976, and Cooper, 1971). This approach is deemed appropriate for several reasons. First, the QP formulation permits the mechanism of price adjustment to become endogenous. Second, the mathematical property of the base-shifting flows under random shocks is almost intractable, confirming the validity of combining the statistical and mathematical programming approaches. Third, coal characteristics that differ among regions, such as sulfur and ash content and degree of washability, permit a comparison of the "relative" positions (rankingof dominance) of 13 major coal trade flows in the Appalachian area.



Estimation of Energy Demand: The Developing Countries

Joy Dunkerley

Year: 1982
Volume: Volume 3
Number: Number 2
DOI: 10.5547/ISSN0195-6574-EJ-Vol3-No2-5
View Abstract

Abstract:
The estimation of energy demand, including conservation possibilities, is now widely recognized as a topic of major importance in both industrial and developing countries. Recent rises in oil prices and the possibility of both long- and short-term supply disruptions or shortages have focused the attention of energy planners throughout the world on how much energy might be consumed in the future, and to what extent energy consumption is sensitive to different kinds of conservation measures.



Sources of Productivity Decline in U.S. Coal Mining, 1972-1977

William J. Kruvant, Carlisle E. Moody, Jr., and Patrick L. Valentine

Year: 1982
Volume: Volume 3
Number: Number 3
DOI: 10.5547/ISSN0195-6574-EJ-Vol3-No3-4
View Abstract

Abstract:
In this paper we estimate production functions for surface and underground coal mines. These production functions are then used to estimate individual mine productivity, to explain productivity differentials across mines, and to assess the importance of several assumed sources of productivity decline in this industry. For readers not familiar with coal-mining operations, we first present a summary discussion of coal-mining technology.



A Technology Choice for Model Electricity Generation

Ralph L. Keeney

Year: 1983
Volume: Volume 4
Number: Special Issue
DOI: 10.5547/ISSN0195-6574-EJ-Vol4-NoSI-2
No Abstract



The United States' Role in the International Thermal Coal Market

D. Alec Sargent

Year: 1983
Volume: Volume 4
Number: Number 1
DOI: 10.5547/ISSN0195-6574-EJ-Vol4-No1-5
View Abstract

Abstract:
Recent studies have projected a huge buildup in international thermal coal trade, including a major role for U.S. exports (World Coal Study, 1980; International Energy Agency, 1978; Department of Energy, 1979). Given high-priced and insecure oil supplies, opposition to nuclear power, and the high cost of domestic coal supplies in Western Europe and the Far East, there is little doubt that international thermal coal trade will increase substantially. However, the role of the United States is highly uncertain.




Next 10 >>

Begin New Search
Proceed to Checkout

 





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