Assessing renewable energy portfolio futures with multiple perspectives: The case of the northwest US

Technology in Society

Volumn 32, Issue 4, 2010, Pages 255-263

  Daim, Tugrul ^a   Cowan, Kelly ^a  

^a Portland State University   (United States)

Author keywords

Goal programming; Multiple perspectives; Northwest US; Renewable Energy; Scenarios; Technology assessment

Indexed keywords

GOAL PROGRAMMING; MULTIPLE PERSPECTIVES; NORTHWEST US; RENEWABLE ENERGIES; SCENARIOS; TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT;

ENERGY POLICY; RATING; TECHNOLOGY;

RENEWABLE ENERGY RESOURCES;

ASSESSMENT METHOD; ENERGY RESOURCE; RENEWABLE RESOURCE; TECHNOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENT;

OREGON; UNITED STATES;

EID: 78649871266     PISSN: 0160791X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.techsoc.2010.10.001     Document Type: Article

References (37)

1. Renewing our energy future 1995, U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, Washington, D.C.
2. Linstone H.A. Decision making for technology executives using multiple perspectives to improved performance 1999, Artech House, Boston.
3. Daim T.U., Schweinfort W., Kayakutlu G. Technology assessment of two energy portfolios using a hierarchical decision model. International Journal of Energy Sector Management 2010, 4:24-43.
4. Tran T.A., Daim T. A taxonomic review of methods and tools applied in technology assessment. Technological Forecasting and Social Change 2008, 75:1396-1405.
5. Shehabuddeen N., Probert D., Phaal R. From theory to practice: challenges in operationalising a technology selection framework. Technovation 2006, 26:324-335.
6. Phillips J.G., Heidrick T.R., Potter I.J. Technology futures analysis methodologies for sustainable energy technologies 2005, Portland State University, Portland, OR, United states, pp. 155-165.
7. Harell G., Third N., Daim T. Is nuclear energy an alternative: a case of technology assessment in Oregon. International Journal of Nuclear Governance Economy and Ecology 2010, 3:150-179.
8. Daim T., Intarode N. Assessment & acquisition of green technology: case of a Thai Building Material Company. Energy for Sustainable Development 2009, 13:280-286.
9. Daim T., Yates D., Peng Y., Jimenez B. Technology assessment for clean energy technologies: the case of the Pacific Northwest. Technology in Society 2009, 31:232-243.
10. Cowan K.R., Daim T. Comparative technological road-mapping for renewable energy. Technology in Society 2009, 31:333-341.
11. Awerbuch S. How wind and other renewables really affect generating cost: a portfolio risk approach. In: 6th Inter-parliamentary meeting: renewable energy and energy efficiency. Edinburgh, UK; 2005.
12. Lund P. Market penetration rates of new energy technologies. Energy Policy 2006, 34:3317-3326.
13. Palm E., Hansson S.O. The case for ethical technology assessment (eTA). Technological Forecasting and Social Change 2006, 73:543-558.
14. Davies P. Green at any price? 2007, Fedgazette, p. 9.
15. Rydh C.J., Sandén B.A. Energy analysis of batteries in photovoltaic systems. Part I: performance and energy requirements. Energy Conversion and Management 2005, 46:1957-1979.
16. Climate change and the future of U.S. and EU energy policy 2007, The German Marshall Fund of the United States.
17. Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) & other incentives: harmonization opportunities in Canada. Climate Change Solutions 2005, 29.
18. Fact sheet: mandatory renewable energy target overview 2006, Australian Government: Office of the Renewable Energy Regulator.
19. Wiser R., Namovicz C., Gielecki M., Smith R. The experience with Renewable Portfolio Standards in the United States. Electricity Journal 2007, 20:8-20.
20. Jenkins J., Bauman J., Bissonette J. Renewable Energy Standard 2007, Powering Oregon's Future.
21. Ringland G. Scenario planning: managing for the future 1998, Wiley, Chichester, New York.
22. Tangler J., Smith B., Kelley N., Jager D. Measured and predicted rotor performance for the SERI advanced wind turbine blades 1992, United States, 7 pp.
23. Wind power & hydropower technologies program 2005, U.S. Department of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy.
24. Hayes C. Green building and the big picture 2007, Green + Solar Building Oregon, p. 12.
25. Hydropower - Frequently asked questions 2005, International Energy Agency.
26. Koberstein P. Trojan: PGE's nuclear gamble 2005, Willamette Week, Portland.
27. esources 1992, G.P.O.: Supt. of Docs., Washington: U.S.
28. Rowlands I.H., Parker P., Scott D. Consumer perceptions of "green power" Journal of Consumer Marketing 2002, 19:112-129.
29. Daim T, Kayakutlu G, Cowan K. Developing Oregon's renewable energy portfolio using fuzzy goal programming model. Computers and Industrial Engineering (in press).
30. BPA supports wind power for the Pacific Northwest BPA (Bonneville Power Administration). 2009.
31. Lee S.K., Yoon Y.J., Kim J.W. A study on making a long-term improvement in the national energy efficiency and GHG control plans by the AHP approach. Energy Policy 2007, 35:2862-2868.
32. Lee S.K., Mogi G., Kim J.W., Gim B.J. A fuzzy analytic hierarchy process approach for assessing national competitiveness in the hydrogen technology sector. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 2008, 33:6840-6848.
33. Lee S.K., Mogi G., Kim J.W. The competitiveness of Korea as a developer of hydrogen energy technology: the AHP approach. Energy Policy 2008, 36:1284-1291.
34. Chatzimouratidis A.I., Pilavachi P.A. Objective and subjective evaluation of power plants and their non-radioactive emissions using the analytic hierarchy process. Energy Policy 2007, 35:4027-4038.
35. Chatzimouratidis A.I., Pilavachi P.A. Multicriteria evaluation of power plants impact on the living standard using the analytic hierarchy process. Energy Policy 2008, 36:1074.
36. Wang B., Kocaoglu D.F., Daim T.U., Yang J. A decision model for energy resource selection in China. Energy Policy 2010, 38:7130-7141.
37. Cowan K, Daim T, Anderson T. Exploring the impacts of technology development and adoption for sustainable hydroelectric power and storage technologies in the Pacific Northwest United States Energy (in press).