Energy benefit-cost

The issues of faciUtating options such as energy storage and transmission may prove to be important to the success of wind energy technology. Cost-effective storage coupled to wind systems would yield capacity credit benefits. In addition, because sites are often isolated, the value of wind energy would benefit from transmission/distribution access. 

For optimum efficiency of usage, steam should be employed at its highest energy level, consistent with each particular application need. And, as noted above, additional fuel costs to supply steam at higher rather than lower pressures are small compared with the delivered energy benefits. Ultimately, therefore, higher pressures produce overall financial savings and maximize efficiencies. 

Gyftopoulos, E.P. and Widmer, T.F., "Benefit-Cost of Energy Conservation", Thermodynamics Second Law Analysis, A.C.S. Symposium Series, 122, 131-142, 1980. 

More than half of the world primary energy consumption is used as hot water, steam and space heat. Unlike fossil energy carriers, nuclear power is almost exclusively used for commercial electricity production. Clearly nuclear heat production could play a major and important role in the non-electric sector. Nuclear growth depends on the future public perception of the comparative benefits, cost, and risks of alternatives. Based on the comparative evaluation of tangible risks to public health, safety, and environment, nuclear power appears to be a better choice than fossil fuels. 

IRENA. Cost analysis of biomass for power generation. Renewable energy technologies cost and benefit analysis series. Volume 1 Power sector. Issue 1/5 Biomass Power Gener 2012. [cited 2014 Sep 12]. Available finm http //costing.irena.org/media/2793/re technologies cost analysis-biomass.pdf. 

EC (2003). ROad Safety and Environmental Benefit-cost and cost-effectiveness analyses for Use in Decision-making (ROSEBUD). European Commission Contract GTC2/2000/33020. Thematic Network funded by the European Commission, Directorate General for Energy and Transport. EU 5th framework programme. 

Coa.1 Reserves. As indicated in Table 2, coal is more abundant than oil and gas worldwide. Moreover, the U.S. has more coal than other nations U.S. reserves amount to about 270 biUion metric tons, equivalent to about 11 x 10 MJ (1 x 10 ° BTU = 6600 quads), a large number compared to the total transportation energy use of about 3.5 x lO " MJ (21 quads) per year (11). Methanol produced from U.S. coal would obviously provide better energy security benefits than methanol produced from imported natural gas. At present however, the costs of producing methanol from coal are far higher than the costs of producing methanol from natural gas. 

Alcohol Production. Studies to assess the costs of alcohol fuels and to compare the costs to those of conventional fuels contain significant uncertainties. In general, the low cost estimates iadicate that methanol produced on a large scale from low cost natural gas could compete with gasoline when oil prices are around 140/L ( 27/bbl). This comparison does not give methanol any credits for environmental or energy diversification benefits. Ethanol does not become competitive until petroleum prices are much higher. 

These cost comparisons do not assign any credit to methanol for environmental improvements or energy security. Energy security benefits could be large if methanol were produced from domestic coal. 

Office of Pohcy, Planning, and Analysis, Assessment of Costs and Benefits ofElexible and Alternative Euel Use in the U.S. Transportation Sector, Technical Report 3 (Methanol Production and Transportation Costs) Pub. DOE/P/E—0093, U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, D.C., Nov. 

---