IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/energy/v28y2003i13p1345-1357.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Social assessment of waste energy utilization scenarios

Author

Listed:
  • Renn, Ortwin

Abstract

The Center of Technology Assessment in Stuttgart (Germany) constructed four energy scenarios for the year 2005 and 2020 referring to the German State of Baden-Württemberg. All these scenarios are based on the promise of the German government to reduce Carbon dioxide emissions by 25% in the year 2005, and there is a commitment of a 45% reduction for the year 2020. These reduction goals can be reached only if energy conservation measures and waste energy utilization are part of the energy policy structure. This paper describes a group evaluation process of these scenarios. Major stakeholder groups such as the unions, the energy industry, public utilities and others, were asked to develop criteria for evaluating these scenarios and they use these criteria to perform a multi-attribute evaluation process. Although the scenarios with a large amount of waste heat utilization received favorable ratings by almost all groups, their chance of being implemented was regarded as rather unrealistic.

Suggested Citation

  • Renn, Ortwin, 2003. "Social assessment of waste energy utilization scenarios," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 28(13), pages 1345-1357.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:energy:v:28:y:2003:i:13:p:1345-1357
    DOI: 10.1016/S0360-5442(03)00113-0
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0360544203001130
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/S0360-5442(03)00113-0?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Ralph L. Keeney, 1988. "Structuring Objectives for Problems of Public Interest," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 36(3), pages 396-405, June.
    2. Keeney, Ralph L. & Renn, Ortwin & von Winterfeldt, Detlof, 1987. "Structuring West Germany's energy objectives," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 15(4), pages 352-362, August.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Höfer, Tim & von Nitzsch, Rüdiger & Madlener, Reinhard, 2019. "Using Value-Focused Thinking and Multi-Criteria Group Decision-Making to Evaluate Energy Transition Alternatives," FCN Working Papers 4/2019, E.ON Energy Research Center, Future Energy Consumer Needs and Behavior (FCN).
    2. Wang, Q. & Poh, K.L., 2014. "A survey of integrated decision analysis in energy and environmental modeling," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 77(C), pages 691-702.
    3. Dombi, Mihály & Kuti, István & Balogh, Péter, 2014. "Sustainability assessment of renewable power and heat generation technologies," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 67(C), pages 264-271.
    4. Wang, Jiang-Jiang & Jing, You-Yin & Zhang, Chun-Fa & Zhao, Jun-Hong, 2009. "Review on multi-criteria decision analysis aid in sustainable energy decision-making," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 13(9), pages 2263-2278, December.
    5. Mark Philbrick, 2010. "An Anticipatory Governance Approach to Carbon Nanotubes," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 30(11), pages 1708-1722, November.
    6. Zhou, P. & Ang, B.W. & Poh, K.L., 2006. "Decision analysis in energy and environmental modeling: An update," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 31(14), pages 2604-2622.
    7. Kowalski, Katharina & Stagl, Sigrid & Madlener, Reinhard & Omann, Ines, 2009. "Sustainable energy futures: Methodological challenges in combining scenarios and participatory multi-criteria analysis," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 197(3), pages 1063-1074, September.
    8. Szántó, Richárd, 2012. "Több szempontú részvételi döntések a fenntarthatósági értékelésekben. A legnépszerűbb módszerek összehasonlítása [Participatory multi-criteria decision analysis. A comparison of methodologies]," Közgazdasági Szemle (Economic Review - monthly of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences), Közgazdasági Szemle Alapítvány (Economic Review Foundation), vol. 0(12), pages 1336-1355.
    9. Dias, Rubens A. & Mattos, Cristiano R. & P. Balestieri, Jose A., 2006. "The limits of human development and the use of energy and natural resources," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 34(9), pages 1026-1031, June.
    10. Parajuli, Ranjan & Dalgaard, Tommy & Jørgensen, Uffe & Adamsen, Anders Peter S. & Knudsen, Marie Trydeman & Birkved, Morten & Gylling, Morten & Schjørring, Jan Kofod, 2015. "Biorefining in the prevailing energy and materials crisis: a review of sustainable pathways for biorefinery value chains and sustainability assessment methodologies," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 43(C), pages 244-263.
    11. Kayakutlu, Gulgun & Daim, Tugrul & Kunt, Meltem & Altay, Ayca & Suharto, Yulianto, 2017. "Scenarios for regional waste management," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 74(C), pages 1323-1335.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. William N. Caballero & Ethan Gharst & David Banks & Jeffery D. Weir, 2023. "Multipolar Security Cooperation Planning: A Multiobjective, Adversarial-Risk-Analysis Approach," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 20(1), pages 16-39, March.
    2. Ashley B. C. Goode & Erin Rivenbark & Jessica A. Gilbert & Conor P. McGowan, 2023. "Prioritization of Species Status Assessments for Decision Support," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 20(4), pages 311-325, December.
    3. Robin L. Dillon & Genevieve Lester & Richard S. John & Catherine H. Tinsley, 2012. "Differentiating Conflicts in Beliefs Versus Value Tradeoffs in the Domestic Intelligence Policy Debate," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 32(4), pages 713-728, April.
    4. Ralph L. Keeney & Timothy L. McDaniels, 1999. "Identifying and Structuring Values to Guide Integrated Resource Planning at BC Gas," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 47(5), pages 651-662, October.
    5. McDaniels, Timothy L. & Roessler, Craig, 1998. "Multiattribute elicitation of wilderness preservation benefits: a constructive approach," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 27(3), pages 299-312, December.
    6. Robin Gregory & Ralph Keeney & Detlof von Winterfeldt, 1992. "Adapting the environmental impact statement process to inform decision makers," Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 11(1), pages 58-75.
    7. Ormerod, Richard J. & Ulrich, Werner, 2013. "Operational research and ethics: A literature review," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 228(2), pages 291-307.
    8. Moreno-Jimenez, J. M. & Aguaron-Joven, J. & Escobar-Urmeneta, M. T. & Turon-Lanuza, A., 1999. "Multicriteria procedural rationality on SISDEMA," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 119(2), pages 388-403, December.
    9. Tim H¨ofer & Rüdiger von Nitzsch & Reinhard Madlener, 2020. "Using Value-Focused Thinking and Multicriteria Decision Making to Evaluate Energy Transition Alternatives," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 17(4), pages 330-355, December.
    10. Badami, Madhav G., 2004. "Environmental policy-making in a difficult context: motorized two-wheeled vehicle emissions in India," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 32(16), pages 1861-1877, November.
    11. Tianjun Feng & L. Robin Keller, 2006. "A Multiple-Objective Decision Analysis for Terrorism Protection: Potassium Iodide Distribution in Nuclear Incidents," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 3(2), pages 76-93, June.
    12. Joas, Fabian & Pahle, Michael & Flachsland, Christian & Joas, Amani, 2016. "Which goals are driving the Energiewende? Making sense of the German Energy Transformation," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 95(C), pages 42-51.
    13. Joseph, Remy-Robert & Chan, Peter & Hiroux, Michael & Weil, Georges, 2007. "Decision-support with preference constraints," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 177(3), pages 1469-1494, March.
    14. Braunschweig, Thomas & Janssen, Willem & Rieder, Peter, 2001. "Identifying criteria for public agricultural research decisions," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 30(5), pages 725-734, May.
    15. Richard M. Anderson & Robert Clemen, 2013. "Toward an Improved Methodology to Construct and Reconcile Decision Analytic Preference Judgments," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 10(2), pages 121-134, June.
    16. Jay Simon & Eva Regnier & Laura Whitney, 2014. "A Value-Focused Approach to Energy Transformation in the United States Department of Defense," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 11(2), pages 117-132, June.
    17. Madlener, Reinhard & Stagl, Sigrid, 2005. "Sustainability-guided promotion of renewable electricity generation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 53(2), pages 147-167, April.
    18. L. Robin Keller & Craig W. Kirkwood & Nancy S. Jones, 2010. "Assessing stakeholder evaluation concerns: An application to the Central Arizona water resources system," Systems Engineering, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 13(1), pages 58-71, March.
    19. Cherp, Aleh & Vinichenko, Vadim & Jewell, Jessica & Suzuki, Masahiro & Antal, Miklós, 2017. "Comparing electricity transitions: A historical analysis of nuclear, wind and solar power in Germany and Japan," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 101(C), pages 612-628.
    20. Kaya, Tolga & Kahraman, Cengiz, 2010. "Multicriteria renewable energy planning using an integrated fuzzy VIKOR & AHP methodology: The case of Istanbul," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 35(6), pages 2517-2527.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:energy:v:28:y:2003:i:13:p:1345-1357. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.journals.elsevier.com/energy .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.