Suchergebnisse

Discusses part of a project conducted by the authors into the logistics planning and management and costs of supplying biomass fuels to biomass‐fired power stations in the UK. Defines biomass fuels and the reasons for the growth in interest in their use for electricity generation. The activities and parties involved in the biomass fuel supply chain are discussed together with the management of the chain in order to achieve smooth and consistent flow of biomass fuel to power stations. Explains the approach used to modelling the delivered costs of biomass fuels for four types of biomass fuel included in the project: forest fuel, short rotation coppice, straw and miscanthus. Comments are given on the environmental impacts of the fuel supply chains. The results indicate that straw supply systems are capable of producing the lowest delivered costs of the four fuels studied. Short rotation coppice and miscanthus, two new energy crops, are likely to have the highest delivered costs at present. This is due to the cost of growing these fuels and the financial incentives required by farmers to persuade them to grow these crops. Logistics costs (i.e. transport, storage and handling) are shown to represent a significant proportion of total delivered cost in biomass supply. Careful supply chain planning and logistics management will be of central importance to the success of the biomass industry.

NPS NRP Executive Summary ; Fuel distribution and its availability is key to maintain force posture during all phases of a conflict. Given the great power competition (GPC) increasing between the U.S., China, and Russia, and a shift to distributed maritime operations, it is important to assess the cost benefit of changing the fuel distribution to a single fuel type. The Naval Postgraduate School (NPS) proposes to conduct a cost benefit analysis (CBA) of switching entirely or partially to JP-5 fuel as opposed to the current multiple fuel types used on ships aircrafts and vehicles. Specifically, this research addresses these main questions: If the Navy adopted a policy allowing a 50% JP-5 and 50% F-76 mixture to be issued to surface vessels in lieu of F-76, what would be the cost benefit? Would this policy improve historical turnover rates of the Department of Defense's JP-5 inventory? What infrastructure investments are necessary to adopt a single-type Naval fuel? We use past list purchase cost and standard sales prices for JP-5 and F-76 as our primary data sources to calculate potential savings from shifting to the SFC. Regression analysis is used to calculate the estimated purchase costs and sales costs for fuel under the current two-fuel concept. The predicted consumption figures for a single fuel concept (SFC) were used to predict the total fuel cost of JP-5 for future years as a single fuel in the fleet. We find significant cost savings by switching to a single fuel concept instead of a fuel policy mixture of using 50% JP-5 and 50% F-76. If the purchase and sales prices of JP-5 remain the same upon implementation of the SFC, there is potential for substantial savings for the government. ; N4 - Fleet Readiness & Logistics ; This research is supported by funding from the Naval Postgraduate School, Naval Research Program (PE 0605853N/2098). https://nps.edu/nrp ; Chief of Naval Operations (CNO) ; Approved for public release. Distribution is unlimited.

Much prior research into consumer automotive and fuel purchase behaviors and fuel economy has been shaped by the normative assumptions of economics. Among these assumptions are that consumers should pay attention to costs of fuel and that they are aware of their options to save on fuel over long periods of time, i.e., the life of a vehicle or at least their period of ownership. For example, researchers have analyzed in some depth consumer choices for more fuel economical vehicles in the 1980s and more recently consumer choices in Europe for more expensive diesel vehicles with lower fuel costs than their gasoline competitors. Some of this research investigates whether automobile buyers have varying future values for money invested today in higher fuel economy, i.e., consumers' discount rates. More recently, in the context of the political battle over new CAFE standards, both automobile manufacturers and energy researchers have asked consumers questions about their willingness to pay more for higher fuel economy and consumers' payback periods for these investments. Both payback periods and net present value calculations require good knowledge of one's own vehicle and annual fuel expenses, forecasts of future prices, and a sophisticated series of calculations. The new arena of debate and research on consumer response to better fuel economy technology is CO2 reduction strategies generally, and regulations to reduce CO2 emissions from transportation in California specifically.The research we report here is designed to help researchers and policy makers to ground future work in the reality of how consumers think and behave relative to fuel economy and efficiency, both on a daily basis and when they purchase motor vehicles. We recruited what we call an "illustrative" sample; fifty-seven households from ten "lifestyle sectors"—for example hybrid vehicle buyers, financial analysts, and off-road vehicle enthusiasts—that we guessed might have differing information and habits around the issue of fuel economy. We conducted a semi-structured, 2-hour interview, which included these four parts: household vehicle histories, purchase narratives, prospecting of future choices, and knowledge and daily behavior around fuel use and purchases.Our strongest finding was that for the most part, our households do not pay much attention to fuel cost over time or in their household budgets, unless they are severely constrained economically. Consumers do pay attention to the price of a tank of fuel and the unit price of fuel on the given day they buy fuel. But this "knowledge" is ephemeral; it is rapidly forgotten over the next few days. Fuel consumption instrumentation on most vehicles is limited and drivers seldom pay attention; the exception is hybrid vehicles and their drivers.One effect of limited knowledge is that when consumers buy a vehicle, they do not have the basic building blocks of knowledge to make an economically rational decision. When offered a choice to pay more for better fuel economy, most households were unable to estimate potential savings, particularly over periods of time greater than one month. In the absence of such calculations, many households were overly optimistic about potential fuel savings, wanting and thinking they could recover an investment of several thousand dollars in a couple of years.Of importance to regulators, we find that good fuel economy is widely considered an attribute of cheap cars; many of our households expressed greater regard for fuel efficiency, a term free from a cheap image and more closely associated to ideas of resource conservation, advanced engineering, and high technology and quality.In the last part of the report we identify five styles of decision making relative to fuel economy, including a more detailed discussion of the decision-making in a small sample of eight hybrid vehicle buyers.In closing, and as this is the first stage in a longer research project, we offer some preliminary conclusions and two hypotheses to steer more quantitative research. Our findings suggest that current strategies of drawing attention to annual fuel cost savings could disappoint buyers, and instead education efforts might focus on fuel efficiency and technical advances. Our interviewees ignore fuel economy for additional reasons; it is only one feature of an expensive, complex good which has many implications for lifestyle and image goals. Our research suggests that consumers might value fuel economy more highly if it were more like shiny paint or a bold body style—an attribute with some emotional punch.

Much prior research into consumer automotive and fuel purchase behaviors and fuel economy has been shaped by the normative assumptions of economics. Among these assumptions are that consumers should pay attention to costs of fuel and that they are aware of their options to save on fuel over long periods of time, i.e., the life of a vehicle or at least their period of ownership. For example, researchers have analyzed in some depth consumer choices for more fuel economical vehicles in the 1980s and more recently consumer choices in Europe for more expensive diesel vehicles with lower fuel costs than their gasoline competitors. Some of this research investigates whether automobile buyers have varying future values for money invested today in higher fuel economy, i.e., consumers' discount rates. More recently, in the context of the political battle over new CAFE standards, both automobile manufacturers and energy researchers have asked consumers questions about their willingness to pay more for higher fuel economy and consumers' payback periods for these investments. Both payback periods and net present value calculations require good knowledge of one's own vehicle and annual fuel expenses, forecasts of future prices, and a sophisticated series of calculations. The new arena of debate and research on consumer response to better fuel economy technology is CO2 reduction strategies generally, and regulations to reduce CO2 emissions from transportation in California specifically. The research we report here is designed to help researchers and policy makers to ground future work in the reality of how consumers think and behave relative to fuel economy and efficiency, both on a daily basis and when they purchase motor vehicles. We recruited what we call an "illustrative" sample; fifty-seven households from ten "lifestyle sectors"—for example hybrid vehicle buyers, financial analysts, and off-road vehicle enthusiasts—that we guessed might have differing information and habits around the issue of fuel economy. We conducted a semi-structured, 2-hour interview, which included these four parts: household vehicle histories, purchase narratives, prospecting of future choices, and knowledge and daily behavior around fuel use and purchases. Our strongest finding was that for the most part, our households do not pay much attention to fuel cost over time or in their household budgets, unless they are severely constrained economically. Consumers do pay attention to the price of a tank of fuel and the unit price of fuel on the given day they buy fuel. But this "knowledge" is ephemeral; it is rapidly forgotten over the next few days. Fuel consumption instrumentation on most vehicles is limited and drivers seldom pay attention; the exception is hybrid vehicles and their drivers. One effect of limited knowledge is that when consumers buy a vehicle, they do not have the basic building blocks of knowledge to make an economically rational decision. When offered a choice to pay more for better fuel economy, most households were unable to estimate potential savings, particularly over periods of time greater than one month. In the absence of such calculations, many households were overly optimistic about potential fuel savings, wanting and thinking they could recover an investment of several thousand dollars in a couple of years. Of importance to regulators, we find that good fuel economy is widely considered an attribute of cheap cars; many of our households expressed greater regard for fuel efficiency, a term free from a cheap image and more closely associated to ideas of resource conservation, advanced engineering, and high technology and quality. In the last part of the report we identify five styles of decision making relative to fuel economy, including a more detailed discussion of the decision-making in a small sample of eight hybrid vehicle buyers. In closing, and as this is the first stage in a longer research project, we offer some preliminary conclusions and two hypotheses to steer more quantitative research. Our findings suggest that current strategies of drawing attention to annual fuel cost savings could disappoint buyers, and instead education efforts might focus on fuel efficiency and technical advances. Our interviewees ignore fuel economy for additional reasons; it is only one feature of an expensive, complex good which has many implications for lifestyle and image goals. Our research suggests that consumers might value fuel economy more highly if it were more like shiny paint or a bold body style—an attribute with some emotional punch.

A major portion of new electric generating capacity will be nuclear powered. The change to nuclear power will require large outlays of capital not required with conventional fuels to finance nuclear fuel inventories. Nuclear fuel financing requirements are unique because nuclear fuel is not consumed in the same manner as conventional fuels. Financing has not been a problem to date because nuclear fuel can be obtained only through lease from the Atomic Energy Commission. This arrangement will be terminated by June 30, 1973 and from that date on all nuclear fuel must be privately owned. Electric utilities have shown an interest in continuing leasing arrangements with the government's role as lessor being assumed by private suppliers. Leasing and other financing alternatives available to the utilities are compared using the Minimum Revenue Requirements Discipline. It is shown that the alternatives for leasing nuclear fuel produce higher revenue requirements than does ownership by the utility. A financing plan is proposed that can be tailored to the specific requirements of the utility. Legal and accounting uncertainties that presently surround the financing of nuclear fuel are presented to show how these intangible factors may have a greater influence on the decision to lease than the long-range economic advantage of fuel ownership.

THE PAPER PRESENTS A COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS OF THE 1981-84 FUEL ECONOMY STANDARD MANDATED IN 1977 BY THE US DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION. THE ANALYSIS IS BASED ON THE AGENCY'S UNDERLYING ASSUMPTIONS AND ON DATA CONTAINED IN ITS BACKGROUND DOCUMENTS, AND IT INDICATES THAT THE STANDARD WAS BARELY COST-BENEFICIAL.

As energy consumption has risen steadily over the past century, so too have emissions, contributing to climate change. Energy consumption is a necessary aspect of economic growth - it is an input into the production of goods and services, the creation of capital stock, and for the development of technological progress. As electricity is a requirement in all households and industries, the price paid for electricity directly affects the monetary and fiscal structure of nations. While climate change; and overconsumption of fossil fuels are not optimal outcomes, the approach governments and policy makers should take to address these issues is not clear cut. The market will not reach sustainable levels of emissions output and fossil fuel consumption without intervention, yet such intervention must be politically and administratively feasible. Thus, any policy alternatives based on reducing emissions output and fossil fuel consumption must be considered within the context of wider policy issues such as competitiveness and consumer welfare. This thesis examines various energy policies under the three objectives of sustainable cost, emissions reduction and security of supply, discussed in the context of the Irish electricity market. In order to examine electricity market costs, this dissertation examines if inappropriate bidding behaviour by generators in the Irish electricity marked is a driver of high Irish electricity prices. The research finds that generators are bidding appropriately, with generators bidding the spot price of their inputs correctly in the regression model, and this behaviour remaining constant over the course of the day and varying levels of demand. ; TARA (Trinity?s Access to Research Archive) has a robust takedown policy. Please contact us if you have any concerns: rssadmin@tcd.ie

In FY06, The Department of Defense (DoD) military grade jet fuel expenditures eclipsed $6.6 billion dollars. In a search for more cost effective options, the Office of the Secretary of Defense Comptroller recently expressed interest in the quantity of commercial Jet A fuel that the United States Transportation Command uses in lieu of military grade JP-8. In accordance with AFSO 21 and LEAN concepts, this research examines the technical feasibility and opportunity for cost avoidance of a conversion from JP-8 to Jet A at six Northwestern United States military installations. The technical feasibility analysis examines the chemical likeness of JP-8 and Jet A and identifies any aircraft or equipment that may impede a complete conversion. Accordingly, the opportunity for cost avoidance is considered through an analysis of military and commercial grade jet fuel influenced by West Coast refinery prices. The results show no technical barriers to a complete conversion, but there is no opportunity for cost avoidance.

The marginal value of increased automobile fuel economy is estimated using a hedonic model of 2001 model year automobiles sold in the United States. This value is then compared to the average expected lifetime fuel savings attributable to increased fuel economy. Results indicate that automobile buyers fully internalize fuel cost savings attributable to improved fuel economy at low discount rates, and may partially internalize other perceived benefits of improved fuel economy such as reduction in global warming or fossil fuel dependence.

Vehicle fuel economy has become the object of intense government regulation in the last two decades. In 1975, Congress legislated Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards for all new cars produced after the 1978 model year. Today, Corporate Average Fuel Economy regulations are being criticized as overly strict in an era of falling gasoline prices. This study provides an assessment of the costs and benefits of the controversial CAFE program and empirically analyzes its effects. The author concludes that the increase in fleet fuel economies, across the line, is approximately what one should have expected given the rise in real gasoline prices since 1968. Moreover, the main determinant of automobile fuel economy is the pump price of gasoline. The author finds that a higher federal gasoline tax would be a much more efficient approach to energy conservation and energy security. Empirical and historical evidence supports the hypotheses.