Missing the spark: An investigation into the low adoption paradox of combined heat and power technologies

Energy Policy

Volumn 34, Issue 17, 2006, Pages 3153-3164

  Mueller, Steffen ^a  

^a 1120 Science and Engineering Offices   (United States)

Author keywords

CHP; Distributed generation; Technology adoption

Indexed keywords

ENERGY CONSERVATION; ENERGY RESOURCES; MATHEMATICAL MODELS; REGULATORY COMPLIANCE;

COMBINED HEAT TECHNOLOGY; DISTRIBUTED GENERATION; ENERGY ENGINEERING; LOGIT MODEL; POWER TECHNOLOGY; REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS; TECHNOLOGY ADOPTION;

ENERGY POLICY;

COMBINED HEAT AND POWER; FIRM OWNERSHIP; PROFITABILITY; TECHNOLOGY ADOPTION;

CHANDIPURA VIRUS;

EID: 33746955186     PISSN: 03014215     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.enpol.2005.06.016     Document Type: Article

References (29)

1. Association of State Energy Research and Technology Transfer Institutions (ASSERTI), 2003. Program Overview. Collaborative National Program for the Development and Performance Testing of Distributed Power Technologies with Emphasis on Combined Heat and Power Technologies. www.asertti.org
2. Brown, E., et al., 2002. State Opportunities for Action: Review of States' Combined Heat and Power Activities. American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy, Washington, DC, White Paper Series.
3. Campbell D.T. The informant in quantitative research. American Journal of Sociology 60 (1955) 339-342
4. Downes, B., 2004. Evaluation of thermal and economic feasibility analysis software. Masters Thesis, University of Illinois at Chicago.
5. Energetics, Inc. and American Council for and Energy Efficient Economy, 2000. Lake Michigan Regional CHP Roadmap Workshop November 10-11, 1999, Chicago Illinois. Workshop Report, February 23.
6. Freedman S. Output-based standards: a means to promote innovative technologies. Cogeneration and On-Site Power Production 4 2 (2003) 47-52
7. Garson, D., 2004. Statnotes PA765: Logistic Regression. North Caroline State University, Raleigh, NC. www2.chass.ncsu.edu/garson/pa765
8. Grohnheit, P.E., 1999. Energy Policy Responses to the Climate Change Challenge: The Consistency of European CHP, Renewables and Energy Efficiency Policies, RISO National Laboratory, Denmark.
9. Illinois CHP/BCHP Permitting Guidebook, 2003. Volume A: Roadmapping the Permitting Process, Midwest CHP Application Center, www.chpcentermw.org
10. Iowa Department of Natural Resources, 2003. Streamlining CHP Permitting: Steering Committee Recommendations. Review Draft, July 18.
11. IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), TAR 2001. WG III, Chapter 5.
12. Jaffe A.B., and Stavins R.N. The energy paradox and the diffusion of conservation technology. Resource and Energy Economics 16 (1994) 91-122
13. Joskow P.L., and Rose N.L. The effects of technological change, experience, and environmental regulation on the construction of coal-burning generating units. Rand Journal of Economics 16 1 (1985) 1-27
14. Kennedy P. A Guide to Econometrics (1998), The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA
15. Laitner, J. (Skip), et al., 1999. Federal strategies to increase the implementation of combined heat and power technologies in the United States. In: Proceedings of the 1999 ACEEE Summer Study on Energy Efficiency in Industry. American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy, Washington, DC.
16. Lovins, A.B., et al., 2002. Small is profitable. The Hidden Economic Benefits of Making Electrical Resources the Right Size. Rocky Mountain Institute, August.
17. Mansfield E. Industrial Research and Technological Innovation. An Econometric Analysis (1968), W.W. Norton & Company, Inc., New York
18. Midwest CHP Application Center, 2002. BCHP Baseline Analysis for the Illinois Market. www.chpcentermw.org
19. Midwest CHP Application Center, 2003. Searchable Database of CHP Installations.www.chpcentermw.org
20. Minnesota Department of Commerce, 2003. Report on Distributed Generation Technical Standards and Tariffs. Docket No. E999/CI-01-1023, February 3, 2003.
21. National Renewable Energy Laboratory, 2000. Making connections. Case Studies of Interconnection Barriers and their Impact on Distributed Power Projects. NREL/SR-200-28053.
22. Onsite Energy Corporation, 2000. The Market and Technical Potential for Combined Heat and Power in the Commercial/Institutional Sector. Onsite Sycom Energy Corporation.
23. Oster S.M., and Quigley J.M. Regulatory barriers to the diffusion of innovation. Some evidence from building codes. The Bell Journal of Economics 57 (1982) 311-319
24. Rivers, N., et al., 2003. Confronting the challenge of hybrid modeling: using discrete choice models to inform the behavioural parameters of a hybrid model. In: Proceedings of the 2003 ACEEE Summer Study on Energy Efficiency in Industry. American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy, Washington, DC.
25. Rose N., and Joskow P. The diffusion of new technologies: Evidence from the electric utility industry. Rand Journal of Economics 21 3 (1990) 354-373
26. Shama A. Energy conservation in US buildings. Solving the high potential/low adoption paradox from a behavioral perspective. Energy Policy June (1983) 148-167
27. Simon H. Rational decision making in business organizations. The American Economic Review 69 4 (1979) 493-513
28. Valenti, G., 2001. An assessment of combined heat and power for medium-sized commercial applications. Masters Thesis, University of Illinois at Chicago.
29. Weiss A.M. The effects of expectations on technology adoption: some empirical evidence. The Journal of Industrial Economics XLII (1994) 341-360