A new model in the energy policy planning

A new model in the energy policy planning

Mathematics North-Holland and Computers in Simulation 125 XXV (1983) 125- 134 A NEW MODEL IN THE ENERGY POLICY PLANNING A.H. GHOLAMNEZHAD Energy ...

804KB Sizes 0 Downloads 78 Views

Mathematics North-Holland

and Computers

in Simulation

125

XXV (1983) 125- 134

A NEW MODEL IN THE ENERGY POLICY PLANNING A.H. GHOLAMNEZHAD Energy Management

Program, Eastern Illinois University,

Charleston, IL 61920. U.S.A.

In this paper the application of the Analytic Hierarchy Process in Energy policy planning is introduced. The application of the process to energy policy formulation is explained in greater detail. A desired scenario for the United States’ energy future is defined, desired strategies for the attainment of the scenario are formulated. constraints binding each strategy is defined,and policies which would resolve these constraints are formulated and assigned priorities.

1. Introduction Policy planning is a complex dynamic process which is always associated with uncertainties and unknown factors. Energy policy formulation involves consideration of many interrelated and interacting factors of technological, economic, environmental, social and political nature. Even if a desired policy is formulated its implementation could be extremely difficult because of the conflicting objectives of the actors involved: the policymakers, the implementers, and the interest groups. Such a complex field calls for innovative techniques of planning which permit explicit consideration of these factors. A newly developed method which provides a framework within which one can consider such a diversity of factors and analyze their complex joint interactions and impacts is called the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP), developed in the early 1970’s by Thomas L. Saaty. The AHP is a mathematically based modeling tool which allows an analyst to derive priorities for a set of alternatives by simple pairwise comparisons. The setting of priorities involves the solution of an eigenvalue problem in the inverse matrix of pairwise comparisons. The factors are grouped on different levels, forming a chain or hierarchy whereby the lower-level elements can be compared in pairwise matrices with respect to the next level, and so on. A process of weighting yields the overall priorities for any level, but in particular for 0378-4754/83/$03.00

0 1983 Elsevier Science Publishers

those in the lowest level. For a detailed description of the AHP, see Saaty [4]. The AHP has been applied successfully in a variety of complex energy problems such as conflict resolution in the international oil market [l], prediction of international oil prices [5], planning a desired energy mix for the United States for the year 2000 [2], and rationing energy to industries [71-

2. Energy policy planning process Energy policy equally important

planning process includes three and interdependent parts: policy

Implementation

Fig. 1. The policymaking

B.V. (North-Holland)

process

126

A. H. Gholamnerhad

evaluation, mentation,

policy formulation, and policy as shown in Fig. 1.

/ New model tn the energy policy planning

imple-

Stage I: Energy policy evaluation process The first stage in the energy policy planning process is the evaluation of current policies in order to determine their effectiveness in meeting national and/or regional objectives. This process becomes necessary when there are ‘changes’ in the energy markets which may have adverse impacts on national (regional) objectives or provide new opportunities. In conducting a policy evaluation we ask the question: given the ‘changes’ and current energy policies what are the most likely energy futures for the nation (region)? We summarize the policy evaluation process as follows: (1) Define national (regional) objectives and determine their relative importance; (2) Identify both internal and external ‘changes’ affecting national (regional) objectives and prioritize these changes according to their impacts on each objectives; (3) Define current energy policies and evaluate their relative importance according to their effectiveness in coping with these changes; (4) Define possible alternative energy futures (scenarios) for the nation (region) and determine relative likelihood of each scenario based on

‘changes’ and current policies. The evaluation process enables effectiveness of current policies in tional (regional) objectives and the formulation of new policies. Figure this process.

us to assess achieving naneed for the 2 summarizes

Stage II: Energy policy formulation process The aim of this process is to design effective energy policies which would provide a means for achieving the desired scenario(s). The policy formulation process can be summarized as follows: (1) Define the desired future(s) (desired scenarios). (2) Determine the planning periods and prioritize the time periods according to their urgency and importance in achieving the desired scenario(s). (3) Define desired strategies and prioritize these strategies according to their effectiveness in reach-

c;7 Constraints

Objectives

[

9

Policies

V Changes

policies compatible with the current ones?

V Current Energy Policies

Go to Stage III

Projected Scenarios

Fig. 2. Energy policy evaluation

process.

Fig. 3. Energy

policy formulation.

No.

A. H. Gholamnerhad / New model in the energy policy plannrng

ing the desired scenario during each time period. If the strategies are too broad, define substrategies and determine their priorities. (4) Identify and define the “constraints’ on each strategy or substrategy and determine relative weights of the constraints. (5) Formulate desired policies and prioritize these policies according to their effectiveness in overcoming the constraints to reach the desired scenario via the strategic routes. (6) If the desired policies are far from the target, modify the desired scenarios and repeat the process until acceptable policies are attained. Policy formulation ends when the policymakers agree on the priorities and urgency of the formulated policies and make a decision for their implementation. Figure 3 summarizes this process. Stage III: Energy policy implementation One of the most difficult tasks of a policymaker is the implementation of policies which have been formulated. Successful policy implementation requires (1) a good knowledge of the key actors involved and their positions with respect to policies, (2) clear communications of ‘messages’ among these actors, (3) adequate resources (financial, personnel, etc.), and (4) an efficient implementing organization. To develop implementation strategies we do the following: (1) Consider policies formulated in Stage II with their priorities. (2) Identify the key actors and determine their relative power and influence in the implementation of policies. (3) Define and prioritize the objectives/policies of each actor. (4) Formulate strategies for the implementation of policies and prioritize these strategies according to their effectiveness in influencing the actors to implement the policies. (5) If the policies could not be implemented, return to Stage II and revise the priorities of policies or formulate new policies and repeat the Stage III process. Figure 4 summarizes this process. In order to demonstrate the application of the

Can the desired

I

127

No

.

Yes

Fig. 4. Energy policy implementation.

AHP to energy policy planning, its application to energy policy formulation (Stage II) is described below.

3. An application of the Analytic Hierarchy Process to energy policy formulation: The United States transition to alternative energy sources The United States is the largest producer and consumer of energy, also the largest oil consumer and oil importer in the world. In 1980, its oil demand was more than 25% of the world total, some 35% of which was imported. In the next two decades, the world energy equilibrium depends heavily upon U.S. energy policies. Although some industrialized countries have shown no substantial increase or even a small decrease in their oil consumption in recent years, in developing countries, particularly the oil-exporting countries, demand for oil is expected to increase significantly due to industrialization and development.

128

A. H. Gholamnezhad

Table 1 Details of the energy policy formulation Desired scenarro: Transition to Alternative

Energy

/ New model in the energy policy planning

The United States’ energy mix of 78 quadrillon BTU (quads) in 1980 consisted of 46% oil, 26% natural gas, 20% coal, 4% nuclear energy, 4% hydroelectric power and a very small amount of geothermal power and electricity from wood and waste. These figures indicate that the major energy policy problem facing the United States’ decision makers is, in large part, finding a means of encouraging development of energy sources alternative to oil and natural gas. Figure 5 is the hierarchical representation of the energy policy formulation model (details can be found in Table 1).

model

Sources

Planning Periods: r, = 1982-1987 T, = 1987-1992 T3 = 1992-1997 T4 = 1997-2002 Strategies: S,: S,: s,: s,: s,: se: S,:

Increase Increase Increase Increase Increase Increase Increase

use of use of direct use of use of energy use of

coal nuclear energy use of solar energy ‘fluid hydrocarbons’ alcohol fuels conservation other alternative sources

3.1. Future energy strategies

Substrategies: S, _ , : Increase direct use of coal S,_,: Produce synthetic oil from coal S,_,: Produce synthetic gas from coal S,_,: Expand generating capacity of conventional reactors Develop commercial breeder reactors s,_,: .S_,: Develop nuclear fusion technology Increase use of solar heating S,_,: S,_,: Increase use of solar cooling Increase use of passive solar energy S 3-3: S,_,: Develop commercial solar thermal power generating plants S,_,: Increase use of solar cells S,_ , : Produce oil from shale S,_ 2: Produce oil from tar sands .S_,: Increase production of ethanol .S_,: Increase production of methanol Increase efficiency in the use of energy SC-,: S,_ *: Discourage overconsumption of energy S,_ , : Increase hydroelectric generating capacity S,_,: Increase use of geothermal energy S,_,: Increase use of wind energy S,_,: Develop ocean thermal energy conversion technology Increase

S,_,: Constraints: c, : c,: C,: C,: c,: c,: C,: cs: Note:

use of peat energy

Lead times Technological Bottlenecks Inadequate infrastructure Manpower requirements Health, safety, and environmental Financial and economic problems Social problems Institutional barriers

For desired policies”.

policies

problems

see article section entitled

129

“Desired

S,. Increase use of coal. Coal is the most abundant domestic energy source in the United States. ‘Proved’ coal reserves, which are estimated as high as 4 trillion tons, is the largest in the world (about 30% of the world total) and even with a significant increase in the production of coal, it will be adequate to supply U.S. coal needs well beyond the twenty-first century. Coal can be used in many different forms such as desulfurized coal for electricity generation; liquefied coal to substitute oil, gasified coal to produce methane or even to use coal to produce hydrogen which can be burnt cleanly. S,. Increase use of nuclear energy. The United States also has the largest uranium resources (about 25% of the world total). Nuclear strategies include expanded use of conventional reactors such as Light Water Reactors (LWR) which are very inefficient (current Light Water Reactors use only 0.6% of the energy potential of uranium as mined). Other nuclear strategies are the development of commercial breeder reactors and nuclear fusion technology. A breeder reaction which, in addition to producing energy, procudes more usable nuclear fuel than it consumes, is about 60 times more efficient than conventional reactors in making use of the energy stored in uranium. A nuclear fusion reactor which would utilize the energy released when lighter elements combine to form heavier elements, could be a promising source of energy in the next century. This energy source is based on a cheap and almost inexhaustible fuel that comes from the seawater.

130

A. H. Gholamnezhad

/ New model in the energy polrcy planning

S,: Increase direct use of solar energy. This strategy includes ‘active’ and ‘passive’ use of solar energy for heating and cooling, use of solar energy to produce steam to generate electricity, and solar photovoltaics. The chief advantage of solar energy is its existence as an inexhaustible source of energy which creates no serious radiation or pollution. There are large areas in the United States which receive adequate sunlight to use solar energy directly for heating and cooling buildings and for generating power and the technology for such purposes has been largely developed. S,: Increase use of fluid hydrocarbons. Fluid hydrocarbons include oil shale and tar sands. Oil shale is a sedimentary rock that contains enough hydrocarbon to yield 10 gallons or more oil per ton when properly processed. Deposits of oil shale in the U.S. are estimated as high as 2 trillion barrels of oil equivalent. Tar sands contain high viscosity hydrocarbons which are generally solids or semisolids at ordinary temperatures. There are large reserves of tar sands in the U.S., particularly in the western region. S,: Increase use of alcohol fuels. Alcohol fuel strategy includes increased production of ethanol and methanol. Ethanol can be produced from the fermentation of any feedstock which contains carbohydrates such as wheat, corn, sugar cane, potatoes, sorghum, and waste food. Methanol can be produced from wood, cornstalks, paper waste, or any cellulose fiber. Alcohol can be used directly from combustion in the automobile engine or in a 10% blend with gasoline (gasohol). S,: Increase energy conservation. ‘Energy conservation’ is defined here as reduction in demand for energy through technological and procedural changes without affecting productivity and ‘quality of life’. S,: Increase use of other alternative sources. Other energy alternatives includes hydropower, geothermal energy, wind energy, Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion (OTEC), and peat energy. Future contributions of these sources to the U.S. energy mix will not be as significant as other sources mentioned above.

3.2. Analysis of the results The results of the analysis are summarized in Tables 2 through 5. The judgments on the pairwise comparison matrices are made by the author based on his lengthy involvement in the energy field as well as extensive research on the U.S. energy policy. (a) Time periods. Table 2 shows the priorities of four selected time periods T, (0.554) T, (0.289) T-(0.106), and T4 (0.051). Among these time periods, T, (1982- 1987) has the highest weight. This is the most crucial period in the transition to alternative energy sources. It is the period in which transitional policies must be formulated and decisions made on how fast the transition must take place. (b) Desired strategies. Table 2 also indicates that among the seven selected strategies, energy conservation (S, = 0.456) has the highest priority. Energy conservation is the most urgent and effective way to reduce use of energy, particularly oil. There are great opportunities in the U.S. for increased efficiency in power generation, in transportation, in industrial processes and in the building industries. A study by a group of researchers at Harvard, Titled “The Energy Future”, has argued that by reducing waste, energy consumption in the U.S. could be almost halved without changing the American standard of living [8]. The second most important strategy shown in Table 2 is increasing use of coil (S, = 0.258). Without any doubt coal is “the key transitional

Table 2 Priorities Strategies

s, S, s3

S‘l S, s, S,

of time periods

and strategies Composite weights

Time periods T,

T,

=3

T4

0.554

0.289

0.106

0.05

0.275 0.086 0.039 0.041 0.09 1 0.447 0.02 1

0.267 0.038 0.054 0.054 0.085 0.472 0.030

0.339 0.084 0.084 0.084 0.035 0.339 0.035

0.381 0.111 0.173 0.066 0.03 1 0.173 0.066

1 0.258 0.045 0.053 0.059 0.102 0.456 0.027

131

A.H. Gholamnerhad / New model in the energy pohcy planning

(c) Constraints. We must realize that the transition to alternative energy sources will not be easy. Some alternatives require huge capacital investments and others pose severe environmental dangers. For example, coal is an abundant resource. But coal is a dirty fuel. Coal mining harms the environment, run-off may pollute water, deep mining is dangerous for workers, restoring stripmined land is slow and costly, release of carbon dioxide could induce unacceptable climatic changes, and even at current levels of coal burning, acid rain is a serious problem. Although advanced technology may resolve these problems, it will also increase costs of energy from coal. Nuclear energy is very capital intensive and time consuming to build. Expanded use of nuclear power requires the resolution of the problem of waste management and nuclear proliferation. Also, the technology for breeder reactors and particularly fusion energy is still in its development stage.

element in U.S. energy supply over the next 20 years” [9]. The third most important strategy is the increased use of alcohol fuels (S, = 0.102). Alcohol fuels will play an important role in the energy transition mainly during the first period. Longterm food supply problems in the world would discourage the use of land in the U.S. for production of alcohol fuels. Besides “to produce a 10% blend of ‘gasohol’ nationwide, 40% of the grain harvest would have to be used” [IO]. Other strategies such as increased use of fluid hydrocarbons (S, = 0.059), increased direct use of solar energy (S, = 0.053) and increased use of nuclear energy (S, = 0.045) are of relatively equal importance, while other energy sources such as hydro, geothermal, OTEC, wind, etc. (S, = 0.027), will not make very significant contributions to the U.S. energy mix. Table 3 shows relative importance of substrategies. Table 3 Priorities

of strategies

Substrategies

S I-1 S I-Z S,-, S 2-I S,-, S 2-3 S 3-I S,-, S 3-3 S 3-4 S 3-5 S 4-1 S&Z S s-1 Ss-* S 6-1 S 6-2 ST-, Sl-, S 7-3 S,-, S,-,

and corresponding

substrategies

Strategies

Composite weights

S,

S*

S,

S,

Ss

S,

S,

0.258

0.045

0.053

0.059

0.102

0.456

0.27

0.637 0.105 0.258 0.687 0.244 0.069 0.362 0.076 0.039 0.161 0.362 0.750 0.250 0.667 0.333 0.750 0.250 0.264 0.495 0.041 0.026 0.173

0.182 0.030 0.074 0.050 0.018 0.005 0.020 0.004 0.002 0.009 0.020 0.038 0.013 0.054 0.027 0.321 0.107 0.007 0.014 0.001 0.001 0.005

132

Table 4 Priorities of substrategies Constraints

Substrategies Sl-,

SI-*

s 1-3

s 2-I

S 2-2

s2L3

S 3-1

S 3-2

S 3-3

S 3-4

S 3-5

0.182

0.030

0.074

0.050

0.018

0.005

0.020

0.004

0.002

0.009

0.020 0.09 1

C,

0.169

0.134

0.136

0.037

0.094

0.066

0.218

0.105

0.750

0.143

C,

0.042

0.065

0.069

0.107

0.459

0.785

0.067

0.258

0

0.429

0.455

c3

0.042

0.033

0.022

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

Cd

0.022

0.020

0.022

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

C,

0.473

0.433

0.413

0.203

0.034

0

0

0

0

0

0

C6

0.084

0.249

0.269

0.025

0.207

0.149

0.715

0.637

0.250

0.429

0.455

C,

0

0

0

0.426

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

c8

0.169

0.065

0.068

0.203

0.207

0

0

0

0

0

0

S 4-1

S4-2

S5-1

S 5-2

S6-1

S6-2

S7-,

S 7-

0.038

0.013

0.054

0.027

0.321

0.107

0.007

0.014

Cl

0.096

0.096

0.072

0.072

0.08 1

0.08 1

0.637

0.143

0.143

0.105

0.282

0.112

C,

0.047

0.045

0

0

0.731

0

0

0.429

0.497

0.637

0

0.292

c3

0.024

0.024

0

0

0

0.188

0

0

0.042

0

0.583

0.035

Cd

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0.006 0.161

2

S 7-3

s7-

0.001

0.00

ST-5

4

Composite

1

0.005

weights

c5

0.399

0.398

0

0

0

0

0

0

0.042

0

0.067

C6

0.198

0.196

0.649

0.649

0.188

0

0.258

0.429

0.276

0.258

0.067

0.210

C,

0.191

0.196

0.279

0.279

0

0.731

0

0

0

0

0

0.132

Cs

0.045

0.045

0

0

0

0

0.105

0

0

0

0

0.055

Solar energy has high costs, it is difficult to store and transmit, it is intermittent in nature, it uses a great deal of scarce materials and for the most part, the technology needs further development. In my judgment, as is reflected in Table 4, the most important problem of transition is technological bottlenecks (C, = 0.292). Improvement of technology is needed for increasing efficiency in the use of energy, for the expanded use of coal, for the development of nuclear energy, particularly breeder reactors and fusion, and for the use of solar energy to produce electricity. Financial and economic constraints ranked second (C, = 0.2 10). High capital costs for the development of alternative energy sources and their relatively high costs compared to oil and natural gas is one of the main constants to their development. Health, safety, and

environmental problems ranked third (C, = 0.16 1). This constraint includes water pollution, air pollution, radiation, land disruption, and accidents which occur during the production, distribution, and utilization of energy. Also, social problems (C, = 0.132) should be of major concern for the development of alternatives, particularly for coal and nuclear energy. Undesirable social impacts could result from opening up new coal mines, building nuclear power plants, and removing tar sand or oil shale deposits to recover oil. The next important constraint is lead times (C, = 0.112). Long lead times are required for the development of advanced energy technologies and for exploration, development and utilization of energy resources. Also, for construction of power plants for production and installation of more

A. H. Gholamnezhad

/ New model in the energy policy planning

_ improving the efficiency of energy-using equipment and better ways of reducing wasteful use of energy; _ improving solar technologies for heating and cooling buildings. P2 (0.269): Provide a more favorable climate for energy investments and reduce uncertainties in government policies. With reasonable, stable, and consistent government policies, the U.S. Government must stimulate further investments in alternative energy sources. Uncertainties in government policies is one of the main constraints on new investments in alternative energy sources. The following are some of the recommendations: _ improve the availability of capital to the investors; - provide loan guarantees and price guaranties for alternative resources; _ provide loans with low interest rates for renewable resources which require large capital; _ provide financial incentives to allow conservation technologies to become more economically attractive; - provide loan guarantees for private organizations and state and local governments; _ provide incentives for commercialization of new energy technologies. P, (0.139): Allow domestic oil and natural gas prices to rise gradually to their replacement costs.

efficient equipment, for insulating buildings and for increasing automobile efficiency. For example, changing most industrial equipment takes 20 to 30 years, changing over a stock of cars requires at least one decade, and the lead times for building a nuclear power plant is between 10 to 14 years. Other constraints such as institutional barriers (C, = O.OSS), inadequate infrastructure (C, = 0.035) and manpower requirements (C, = 0.006) are of lesser importance. (d) Desired policies. According to priority, desired policies for the transition to energy sources alternative to oil and natural gas are discussed below: P4 (0.334): Subsidize research and development in the areas of new sources of energy, improving energy efficiency, improving pollution control devices, etc. The following is a list of some of the more urgent research and development areas: ~ coal gasification and liquefaction, _ extraction of oil from shale and tar sands, _ energy storage such as batteries, _ improving the efficiency of electric generators such as Magnetohydrodynamic Turbine (MHD), cogeneration, etc.; _ exploring proper methods of disposal of highly radioactive or very long-lived wastes; - development of breeder technology in order to replace the conventional reactors gradually;

Table 5 Priorities

of constraints

133

and policies -

Policies

p, PZ p3 p4 p5 5 p,

PS 4 PIO

Composite weights

Constraints

0.112

0.292

0.336 0.169 0.069 0.169 0.069 0.069 0.032 0.069 0.018 0

0

0.333 0 0.666 0 0 0 0 0 0

0.035

0.006

0.161

0.210

0

0

0.300 0.052 0 0 0.595 0 0 0.052 0

0.333 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.666

0.250 0 0 0.750 0 0 0 0 0 0

0.290 0.583 0.085 0 0 0 0 0.042 0 0

0.132

0.055

0

0

0

0.333 0.666 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0

0.258 0 0.105 0.637 0

0.139 0.269 0.064 0.334 0.008 0.063 0.004 0.030 0.088 0.004

134

A. H. Gholamnerhad

/ New model in the energy policy planning

Low oil and gas prices inhibit efficient use of these resources and discourage the development of alternative energy sources. P9 (0.088): Encourage urban planning aimed at the development of communities combining residential, work, and recreational activities to a greater extent than is done at present. This policy will, in the long run, reduce oil consumption in the transportation sector by reducing intracity traveling and will reduce energy consumption in the residential and commercial sectors through more efficient housing. P3 (0.064): Improve existing policy constraints such as inconsistent environmental controls and siting and legal restrictions in order to encourage replacement of oil and natural gas in industry and electric generation by coal and other abundant resources. P6 (0.063): Improve and expand the infrastructure in order to meet the requirements for expanded use of alternative fuels such as coal, oil shale, tar sands, etc. and for public transportation. P8 (0.030): Encourage private conservation efforts through adequate loans, tax credits, and other appropriate means. P, (0.004): Develop effective energy efficiency standards for major home appliances, such as refrigerators, air conditioners, heaters, etc. P,, (0.04): Provide incentives for training needed specialists in energy such as energy engineers, energy managers, miners, etc. P5 (0.008): Develop mandatory efficiency standards for new automobiles. Table 5 shows priorities of desired policies for each constraint and their overall priorities.

(2) A direct and effective way to incorporate data and judgments of experts into the model; (3) The speed and simplicity with which problems can be structured and analyzed; (4) The flexibility of the method in making revisions and providing a framework for debate, and for identifying the areas of agreement and also those where conflicts occur; (5) The ease with which the process can be implemented without incurring large costs and using elaborate facilities and other resources. (6) A procedure aimed at generating creative solutions; and finally (7) The results of the analysis/synthesis can be presented in a short, but logical document.

References [l] A.H. Gholamnezhad,

[2]

[3]

[4] [5] [6] [7]

(81

4. Conclusions The Analytic Hierarchy Process is a valuable tool in energy policy planning. The major advantages of this method over most conventional methods of planning are as follows: (1) The richness the method provides for representing a large number of factors of different natures, social, technical or political;

(91

[lo]

Critical choices for OPEC members and the United States, J. Conflict Resolutron 6 (1981) 115-143. A.H. Gholamnezhad and T.L. Saaty. A desired energy mix for the United States in the year 2000: An Analytic Hierarchy Approach, Internat. J. Policy Anal. Information Systems 6 (1) (1982) forthcoming. Resources for the Future, Energ), in America’s Future, The Choices Before Us (The John Hopkins University Press. Baltimore and London, 1972). T.L. Saaty, The Analytic Hierarchy Process (IMcGraw-Hill. New York. 1980). T.L. Saaty, and A.H. Gholamnezhad. Oil prices: 1985 and 1990, J. Energ), Systems and Policy 5 (4) (198 1) 303-3 IS. T.L. Saaty and A.H. Gholamnezhad, Energy policy planning: A proposal (198 1) unpublished. T.L. Saaty and S. Mariano Reynaldo, Rationing energy to industries: Priorities and input-ouptut dependence. J. Energy Systems and Policy 3 (1979) 85% I1 1. R. Stobaugh and D. Yergin (Editors), The Energy Future: Managing and Mismanaging the Transition (Random House, New York, 1979). U.S. Department of Energy. Office of Policy. Planning and Analysis, Energy Projections to the Year 2000. A supplement to the National Energy Policy Plan Required by Title VIII of the U.S. Department of Energy Organization Act (Public Law 95-91) July 1981, Government Printing Office, Washington, DC. U.S. Joint Economic Committee, U.S. Congress. Pursuing Energy Supply Optlons: Cost Effective R&D Strategies (Government Printing Office, Washington. DC. 1981).