Sharon J.W. Klein

The incompatibility of benefit–cost analysis with sustainability science

Participants in sustainability science, as an emerging discipline, have not yet developed fully a coherent ontology, epistemology, ideology, or methodology. There is clearer agreement on the ideology of sustainability science, agreement that can be used to consider the compatibility of that ideology with methodologies brought to bear in interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary research teams. Benefit–cost analysis, one such methodology from the neoclassical economics tradition, is often used in the context of sustainability science. As currently formulated and practiced, benefit–cost analysis is incompatible with the ideology of sustainability science and should not be used to evaluate proposed solutions to sustainability problems. Other methods from economics are more appropriate for use in sustainability science.

Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis of Concentrated Solar Power with Thermal Energy Storage and Dry Cooling

Decisions about energy backup and cooling options for parabolic trough (PT) concentrated solar power have technical, economic, and environmental implications. Although PT development has increased rapidly in recent years, energy policies do not address backup or cooling option requirements, and very few studies directly compare the diverse implications of these options. This is the first study to compare the annual capacity factor, levelized cost of energy (LCOE), water consumption, land use, and life cycle greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions of PT with different backup options (minimal backup (MB), thermal energy storage (TES), and fossil fuel backup (FF)) and different cooling options (wet (WC) and dry (DC). Multicriteria decision analysis was used with five preference scenarios to identify the highest-scoring energy backup-cooling combination for each preference scenario. MB-WC had the highest score in the Economic and Climate Change-Economy scenarios, while FF-DC and FF-WC had the highest scores in the Equal and Availability scenarios, respectively. TES-DC had the highest score for the Environmental scenario. DC was ranked 1-3 in all preference scenarios. Direct comparisons between GHG emissions and LCOE and between GHG emissions and land use suggest a preference for TES if backup is require for PT plants to compete with baseload generators.

Will Offshore Energy Face “Fair Winds and Following Seas”?: Understanding the Factors Influencing Offshore Wind Acceptance

Most offshore energy studies have focused on measuring or explaining people’s perceptions of, and reactions to, specific installations. However, there are two different types of acceptance: one surrounds the siting of projects while the other surrounds a more general acceptance of offshore energy. Understanding what drives this second type of acceptance is important as governments have implemented new financial incentives and policies to support renewable energy development; however, citizens and government officials may be increasingly opposed to some of these support mechanisms. Our paper fills a void in the literature by using regression approaches to better understand how people’s evaluations of the benefits and costs of offshore wind impact their level of general acceptance for offshore wind, while controlling for other factors (e.g., demographics). This analysis should help policy makers, and individuals attempting to educate the general public about renewable energy, to better understand the important factors influencing people’s support or opposition to offshore wind energy initiatives.

United States Community Energy

The wide range of environmental consequences associated with our current energy system necessitates solutions to reduce emissions, water quality impacts, and habitat destruction while also providing reliable, safe, and cost-effective energy. U. S. climate change policy gridlock has prevented the type of top-down legislation needed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and encourage wide-scale development of fossil fuel alternatives. Despite a lack of climate change legislation, renewable energy and energy efficiency costs have decreased to a point that these technologies are now not only environmentally sustainable but also economically cost-effective (due in part to federal renewable energy tax incentives and state-based renewable energy policies).

Woody Biomass Supply, Economics, and Biofuel Policy: Maine and Northeastern Forests

The amount of woody biomass available for biofuel production depends on tree growth rate, harvesting techniques, harvest cost, government policies, and established traditions within the industry. Comparing estimates of biomass availability across studies is difficult because of different methodologies for estimating biomass supply, compounded by inconsistent and often unspecified assumptions. Studies differ in their definition of biomass (i.e., tree size, parts of tree) and consideration of ecological and economic factors (i.e., harvest productivity and costs, competing demand, compliance with existing regulations). In particular, existing restrictions on bio-mass harvesting for biofuels under the Federal Renewable Fuel Standard often are not included. Additionally, because most biomass availability studies ignore current biomass uses, an overestimation of available bio-mass for future uses results. Presented are new estimates for the amount of economically available biomass in Maine, taking into consideration both economic (integrated harvesting for pulp and precommercial thinning) and ecological factors. It is found that biomass availability varies greatly, depending on the relative location of the biorefinery, biomass harvesting site, and existing wood consumers (e.g., pulp mill). Indeed, harvesting and transporting woody biomass without an existing use for the high-value forest products (saw logs and pulp) probably makes woody biomass for energy production uneconomical. This finding is contrary to some existing studies and suggests that economic consideration needs greater emphasis in estimating biomass availability for biofuels.