! The Energy Journal

Energy Journal Issue

The Energy Journal
Volume 9, Number 2

IAEE Members and subscribers to The Energy Journal: Please log in to access the full text article or receive discounted pricing for this article.

View Cart  

Spinning Wheels: A Review Article

T. Randall Curlee and Arthur W. Wright

DOI: 10.5547/ISSN0195-6574-EJ-Vol9-No2-1
View Abstract

In March 1987, the U.S. Department of Energy published a report entitled Energy Security. This was a comprehensive presentation of the American government's view of both the world energy situation and the policies it advocates. Because of the importance of this report, The Energy Journal commissioned a series of studies to critically analyze key aspects of the report and extend the discussion. In this issue, we offer the first set of these studies. Our July issue will present three papers on the value of an oil import fee (or tariff). Notes, comments, and letters to the editor on this topic are strongly encouraged.Special FeatureSpinning Wheels: A Review ArticleT. Randall Curlee and Arthur W. WrightEnergy Security Revisited: A Report to the President of the United States (U.S. Department of Energy, March 1987) is a hefty book-240 pages of text, five appendices (several based on macroeconometric simulations), and fourteen pages of references (but no index). Parts of the book are quite good and constitute a major improvement over what passed for studies of energy security in the 1960s and 1970s. Unfortunately, most of the book's heft is wheel spinning: a lot of energy is expended, but we do not get very far. Greater understanding of energy security could have been accomplished in far fewer pages.

A Critical Analysis of the DOE Report

S. Fred Singer

DOI: 10.5547/ISSN0195-6574-EJ-Vol9-No2-2
View Abstract

The DOE Report, Energy Security, responds to White House con-cern about the decline of domestic oil production and the rise of oil imports. The Report (1987) has three purposes: to present data; to make projections; and to analyze policy alternatives. It is intended to provide a basis for making rational policy choices, but it does not make specific recommendations.My analysis here is intended as a critique of the report so that policy decision making can be improved. My analysis deals mainly with the oil sector; the report itself is more comprehensive. I provide specific recommendations relating mainly to producer and consumer tax policy, import fees, and the Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR) although the report covers a wider range of topics, including federal leasing policy.

Should GNP Impacts Preclude Oil Tariffs?

Hillard G. Huntington

DOI: 10.5547/ISSN0195-6574-EJ-Vol9-No2-3
View Abstract

The oil security issue has been pushed once again to the forefront of energy policy deliberations. While a number of different policy options are being considered and discussed, none has generated as much heated debate as the imposition of an oil import tariff in the United States (see Broadman and Hogan, 1986; U.S. Department of Energy, 1987.)

Energy Implications of the Advances in Superconductivity Technology

Bruce C. Netschert

DOI: 10.5547/ISSN0195-6574-EJ-Vol9-No2-4
View Abstract

The word "breakthrough" is much abused, but in describing the events of the early months of 1987 in the field of superconductivity it is wholly appropriate. Well-publicized (and in some instances sensationalized) by the general press, the essential elements of the story are well known to the lay public even if not well understood. The phenomenon of superconductivity, previously producible only at temperatures close to absolute zero,' was shown to be producible at much higher temperatures, and there have been tantalizing experimental hints of its producibility at room temperature.

Improving Long-Term Investment Decisions under Uncertainty: Applications for the Swedish Energy Sector

Per Anders Bergendahl, Lars Brigelius, and Peter Rosen

DOI: 10.5547/ISSN0195-6574-EJ-Vol9-No2-5
View Abstract

The oil price shocks in the 1970s illuminated the vulnerability of modern economies when all planning assumes everything to be going on just as usual. How is it then possible to insure against events such as oil price shocks? What will it cost and what will be the return? These are the central issues in this paper.

Regional Economic and Energy Prospects in the Developing Countries: Application of the PREDESS Model

Bertrand Lepinoy

DOI: 10.5547/ISSN0195-6574-EJ-Vol9-No2-6
View Abstract

The PREDESS model (Previsions Regionales de l'Economie et de la Demande d'Energie par Source et par Secteur) analyzes the economies of the developing countries by region and sector. It integrates the dissymmetry of the world economy into the productive process, with the industrialized countries acting as the traditional driving force. An energy model, also constructed by region and sector, is linked to the world economic model. It includes both commercial and traditional energy sources and stresses their development and substitution possibilities. The model pays special attention to the problems of traditional energy sources (such as deforestation) and analyzes the consequences of replacing traditional with commercial sources.

The Adjustment of U.S. Oil Demand to the Price Increases of the 1970s

Dermot Gately and Peter Rappoport

DOI: 10.5547/ISSN0195-6574-EJ-Vol9-No2-7
View Abstract

Since the 1979-80 oil price doubling, U.S. oil consumption has declined by about 20 percent, in part because of price-induced conservation. This has caused self-congratulatory euphoria, especially in the first few months of 1986, when both the oil price and OPEC were collapsing. We argue here that the euphoria could well be short-lived. U.S. oil consumption will resume its growth and, within five to ten years, could be higher than ever. Combining these results with the consensus projection of declining domestic production, the outlook for rapidly growing dependence on imported oil is disturbing. Plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose.

Declining Energy Intensity in the U.S. Manufacturing Sector

Claire P. Doblin

DOI: 10.5547/ISSN0195-6574-EJ-Vol9-No2-8
View Abstract

Since the first oil price shock of 1973 -74, there has been considerable reduction in total energy use per unit of total output. This development has many names: increasing energy conservation, demand elasticity, increasing energy productivity, or, conversely, decreasing energy intensity.

Nonresponse in Residential Energy Surveys: Systematic Patterns and Implications for End-Use Models

Paul M. Ong, Suzanne Holt, Lisa A. Skumatz, and Richard S. Barnes

DOI: 10.5547/ISSN0195-6574-EJ-Vol9-No2-9
View Abstract

Surveys-one of the most widely used tools for collecting information relevant to studying residential energy consumption-are both a boon and a bane to researchers. The data can be used to calculate appliance and insulation saturations and, when combined with billing information, used to model household demand for energy. Unfortunately, most of these surveys, commonly known as residential appliance saturation surveys, have an inherent problem associated with incomplete responses. This particularly applies to questions regarding energy-related characteristics of the housing units, such as whether or not the units are insulated.

Energy Saving from the Adoption of More Efficient Appliances: Another View

Amory B. Lovins

DOI: 10.5547/ISSN0195-6574-EJ-Vol9-No2-10
View Abstract

In our October 1987 issue (pp. 85-89), we published a Comment by J. Daniel Khazzoom on a paper given by Amory Lovins at the November 1986 North American Conference of the IAEE. The subject, certain aspects of energy savings from the use of more efficient appliances, has important research and policy implications. Dr. Lovins's reply (plus a follow-up note by three staff members of the University of California's Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory) appears below. Professor Khazzoom's rejoinder will appear in a subsequent issue. I encourage additional comments and letters from our readers.CommentsEnergy Saving Resulting from the Adoption of More Efficient Appliances: Another ViewAmory B. LovinsJ. Daniel Khazzoom's objection (1987) to my November 1986 IAEE presentation' is wrong in at least a dozen distinct respects. Its errors are variously noted, by, among others, Goldstein & Watson (1986), the follow-up by Henly et al. (see p. 156) to this note, and (contrary to Khazzoom's claim that I ignored rebound effects) myself (e.g. 1985). Khazzoom's 1987 article simply reasserts his position without offering a convincing response.


© 2024 International Association for Energy Economics | Privacy Policy | Return Policy