Upload
kaitlyn-newton
View
215
Download
1
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
© S.R.Connors–AGREA/LFEE/MIT ([email protected]) 12 Feb 2007 – pg. 1
MIT Laboratory forEnergy and the Environment
Scenario-BasedScenario-BasedMulti-AttributeMulti-Attribute
Tradeoff Analysis:Tradeoff Analysis:Vermont Public ServiceVermont Public Service
Board PresentationBoard Presentation
Stephen R. ConnorsAnalysis Group for Regional Energy Analysis
MIT Laboratory for Energy and the EnvironmentOne Amherst St. Room E40-465
Cambridge, MA 02139-4307, USAemail: [email protected]
© S.R.Connors–AGREA/LFEE/MIT ([email protected]) 12 Feb 2007 – pg. 2
Multi-Attribute Tradeoffs
•MIT “Framework”– Originated in the late 1980s (IRP) // Not a “model”
› Designed as Extensive/Inclusive Approach forMulti-Stakeholder/Controversy-LadenDecision Environments
› Multi-Attribute ≠ Multi-Objective• Calculate every imaginable attribute (automatically)• Few “Decision Attributes”/Numerous
“Performance Attributes”
› Used in Two Modes:• Exploratory/Learning Mode [Joint Fact-Finding,
Rough Consensus on Long-Term “Vision”]
• Decision/Negotiated Settlement Mode [Chooseamong superior portfolios of option]
© S.R.Connors–AGREA/LFEE/MIT ([email protected]) 12 Feb 2007 – pg. 3
Whose Attributes?
•The “Usual Suspects”•The Black Sheep Attributes
› Rates vs. Bills vs. Revenues• Price/Rate Volatility
› Costs vs. Investments• Continuous vs. “Lumpy” Expenditures
› Three E’s: Efficiency, Equity, Employment
•The “Incalculable”› Those Darn “Externalities”› Indirect Economic Impacts› Those Pesky Markets
© S.R.Connors–AGREA/LFEE/MIT ([email protected]) 12 Feb 2007 – pg. 4
“Markets Are Our Friends”
Competition - Boston Style
Who’s in Charge?
© S.R.Connors–AGREA/LFEE/MIT ([email protected]) 12 Feb 2007 – pg. 5
You Want to Predict This?
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
$/MWh
© S.R.Connors–AGREA/LFEE/MIT ([email protected]) 12 Feb 2007 – pg. 6
• AGREA NIMBYs» NUMBY
Not Under My Backyard• Originally for pipelines• Equally good for
carbon sequestration
» NIMONot In My Ocean
• Ocean Disposal of CO2
» NOMH (‘gnome’)Not On My
Horizon• Originally conceived for
offshore wind• Equally good for
onshore-ridge wind
… And, the “Ability to Site”
• Common NIMBYs» NIMBY
Not in My Backyard
» NOTE / NOPENot Over
There EitherNot On
Planet Earth
» BANANABuild
Absolutely Nothing
Anywhere Near
Anybody
© S.R.Connors–AGREA/LFEE/MIT ([email protected]) 12 Feb 2007 – pg. 7
Direct Stakeholder Input
•A Structured Dialogue...Stakeholder Advisory Group
Energy ServiceCompanies
Generators
GridOperators
Aggregators
Regulators
LocalCommunities
Large IndustrySmall
Consumers EnvironmentalAdvocates
The Analysis Team
Communication among Constituencies inthe “Open Decision Environment”
Discussion of Issues,
Uncertainties, Options and
TradeoffResults
Study Scope and Scenario
Ranges
Results and Tradeoffs
© S.R.Connors–AGREA/LFEE/MIT ([email protected]) 12 Feb 2007 – pg. 8
Tradeoff Analysis (1)
• Scenario-Based Multi-AttributeTradeoff Analysis is a scenarioplanning approach developed tofacilitate dialogue and learningamong multi-stakeholder audiences.
»Large Number of Activities/Options(Multi-Option Strategies)
»Large Number of Uncertainties(Multiple Futures, Scientific Uncertainty)
»Large Number of Goal States/Attributes(Multiple Stakeholders, Conflicting Goals)
© S.R.Connors–AGREA/LFEE/MIT ([email protected]) 12 Feb 2007 – pg. 9
WorseBetterLow
High
"Costs"
(Program,Direct, Social)
"Environmental Performance"(SO2, NOx, TSP, CO 2, etc.)
Tradeoff Analysis (3)
•“Crafting” Scenarios toHelp Guide Policymakers
A multi-option strategy for a
given future is a scenario
© S.R.Connors–AGREA/LFEE/MIT ([email protected]) 12 Feb 2007 – pg. 10
Tradeoff Analysis (2)
•“Features”»Identifies “Good” and “Bad” Strategies»Identifies Competing/Complementary
Sets of Options»Recognizes Different “Deployment
Schedules” of Different Options»Use to Identify “Robust/Flexible”
versus “Optimal” Strategies»Helps Facilitate Stakeholder Dialogues
© S.R.Connors–AGREA/LFEE/MIT ([email protected]) 12 Feb 2007 – pg. 11
Shandong Province
• Population≈ 90
Million• Area ≈ Size
of Florida• Installed
Capacity (‘00)≈ 18.5
GW(mostly
coal)
© S.R.Connors–AGREA/LFEE/MIT ([email protected]) 12 Feb 2007 – pg. 12
Shandong Strategies
• Strategy Components (1008 strategies)»Existing Generation
› Additional Unit Retirements (2)› FGD Retrofits (2)› Use of “Prepared” Coals (3)
»New Generation› Baseload Technology Mix (7)› Extra-Regional Generation (2)
»End-Use Options› Peak Load Management (2)› Improved End-Use Efficiency (EUE) (3)
(Note: The first option in any option-set is bydefinition the “reference option.”)
Old“Clean”
Generation
New“Clean”
Generation
Old“Dirty”
Generation
New“Dirty”
Generation
Old“Dirty”Demand
New“Dirty”Demand
New“Clean”Demand
Old“Clean”Demand
© S.R.Connors–AGREA/LFEE/MIT ([email protected]) 12 Feb 2007 – pg. 13
Demand-SidePeak Load Mgt. (L) ++ - - - ≈
End-Use Efficiency (M,G) +++* ++ + +++ +++
New GenerationConv. Coal (C) ++ ≈ ≈ - –
AFBC (F) - ≈ - + –IGCC (L) + + + + –
Nat. Gas (M) + –* –* –* –Nuclear (N) + + + + +
Nuclear & Gas (D) + - - ≈ ++Nuclear, Gas, IGCC (T) - + + ++ +
Gas-by-Wire (A) – ≈ ≈ + +
PV Cost SO2 PM10 NOx CO2Existing Generation
Retirements (D) - ++ +++ + -FGD Retrofits (U) - + ≈ ≈ ≈
Prepared Coal (X,P) ≈ ++ +++ ≈ ≈
Tradeoff Analysis Results
© S.R.Connors–AGREA/LFEE/MIT ([email protected]) 12 Feb 2007 – pg. 14
Electric Service Costs Cumulative Stack EmissionsScenario PV Inf. Adj. Ave. Sulfur Partic. Nitrogen Carbon
Name (r=10) (r≈0) Bill Dioxide PM-10 Oxides DioxideScenario TRCn TRCi TRUSa SO2t PM10t NOxt CO2t
BOC-CONPAS-FIB 601.0 1415.1 0.373 12.89 4.69 11.05 3393.0BOX-CONPAM-FIB 570.7 1327.3 0.354 11.00 4.16 10.22 3071.2DOX-CONLAG-FIB 548.6 1267.9 0.340 10.85 3.06 9.73 2690.4BOX-LONLAM-FIB 568.1 1320.8 0.352 11.69 4.39 10.14 3044.5DOX-MONLAM-FIB 569.6 1331.7 0.353 13.22 3.23 11.18 3017.6BOC-NONLAS-FIB 597.0 1404.7 0.371 13.24 4.50 10.32 2943.7BOX-NONLAM-FIB 568.4 1321.2 0.352 11.16 3.93 9.55 2629.6BOX-NONLAG-FIB 552.6 1279.4 0.342 10.45 3.72 8.52 2243.3DOX-TONLAG-FIB 553.7 1284.5 0.343 8.76 2.73 7.74 2285.8DUX-DONLAG-FIB 552.7 1282.7 0.343 9.47 2.88 8.70 2272.1
(NPV-1999¥B) (1999¥B) (¥/kWh)
Percent Change from BOC-CONPAS-FIBBOX-CONPAM-FIB -5.0 -6.2 -5.2 -14.6 -11.3 -7.5 -9.5DOX-CONLAG-FIB -8.7 -10.4 -8.9 -15.8 -34.7 -11.9 -20.7BOX-LONLAM-FIB -5.5 -6.7 -5.6 -9.3 -6.3 -8.3 -10.3DOX-MONLAM-FIB -5.2 -5.9 -5.3 2.5 -31.1 1.2 -11.1BOC-NONLAS-FIB -0.7 -0.7 -0.7 2.7 -4.0 -6.5 -13.2BOX-NONLAM-FIB -5.4 -6.6 -5.6 -13.4 -16.3 -13.6 -22.5BOX-NONLAG-FIB -8.1 -9.6 -8.2 -18.9 -20.7 -22.9 -33.9DOX-TONLAG-FIB -7.9 -9.2 -8.0 -32.0 -41.9 -29.9 -32.6DUX-DONLAG-FIB -8.0 -9.4 -8.2 -26.5 -38.6 -21.3 -33.0
(Million Tonnes)
So, What Does It Cost?
© S.R.Connors–AGREA/LFEE/MIT ([email protected]) 12 Feb 2007 – pg. 15
• For the Strategy with Prepared Coal in Existing Units,Existing Unit Retirements and FGD Retrofits, Aggressive(20%) End-Use Efficiency, Peak Load Managementand New Conventional Coal, Nuclear and Natural GasGeneration
Ann. SO2 & PM10 Emissions
QuickTime™ and aGraphics decompressorare needed to see this picture.
2000 2004 2008 2012 2016 2020 20240
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
Small Large New
QuickTime™ and aGraphics decompressorare needed to see this picture.
2000 2004 2008 2012 2016 2020 20240
50
100
150
200
250
300
Small Large New
<- Sulfur Reductions from Fuel Switch(from Reference Strategy) <- PM Reductions from Fuel Switch
Reductions from Fuel Switch, End-Use Efficiency & New Generation Choice ->
Reductions from Fuel Switch, End-Use Efficiency & New Generation Choice ->
Reference Future
© S.R.Connors–AGREA/LFEE/MIT ([email protected]) 12 Feb 2007 – pg. 16
Key Results (Shandong)
• Significant cost-effective opportunities existfor reducing power plant criteria pollutants(SO2, PM, NOx), and reducing increasesof greenhouse gas emissions (CO2).
• The best performing strategies were acombination of the following options:
» Use of prepared coal to reduce PM and SO2
» Select retirement or emissions retrofits ofexisting generation
» Implementation of peak load management andend-use efficiency programs
» Addition of non-carbon emitting generation technologies
» Do not forget the fuel supply infrastructure and markets
© S.R.Connors–AGREA/LFEE/MIT ([email protected]) 12 Feb 2007 – pg. 17
QuickTime™ and aGraphics decompressorare needed to see this picture.
u
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
ww
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
ww
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
ww
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
ww
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
ww
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
ww
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
ww
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
ww
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
ww
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
ww
w
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
ww
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
ww
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
ww
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
ww
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
ww
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
ww
w
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
68.0
70.0
72.0
74.0
76.0
78.0
2000 2200 2400 2600 2800 3000 3200 3400 3600
Cumulative Smokestack CO2 Emissions(Million Tonnes, 2000-2024)
No EUEor LM
LM
ModerateEUE
ModerateEUE & LM
AggressiveEUE
AggressiveEUE & LM
Reference Future
<- with Nuclear | without Nuclear ->
EUE = End-Use EfficiencyLM = Peak Load Mgt.
Demand-Side and CO2
© S.R.Connors–AGREA/LFEE/MIT ([email protected]) 12 Feb 2007 – pg. 18
QuickTime™ and aGraphics decompressorare needed to see this picture.
u
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
68.0
70.0
72.0
74.0
76.0
78.0
2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0
Reference Future
Cumulative Smokestack Particulate Emissions (PM10)(Million Tonnes, 2000-2024)
<- Coal Switch & Retire/Switch All/Switch Only Existing/Only Retire/No Changes ->
ReferenceStrategy
Existing Units and PM10
© S.R.Connors–AGREA/LFEE/MIT ([email protected]) 12 Feb 2007 – pg. 19
What’s Required?
• Develop an “infrastructuremanagement” perspective.What is the resulting “vision?”
• Explore options in greater detail• Develop “in-depth” knowledge of
energy consumption patterns andrenewable energy resources
• Identify and implement “essential” robust options, and develop“promising” future flexible
options.
© S.R.Connors–AGREA/LFEE/MIT ([email protected]) 12 Feb 2007 – pg. 20
Now Looking at Tougher Options
• Technology Development,Deployment and Use
• Renewable Resources…› Non-dispatchable› Variable across multiple time scales› Temporal dynamics interact with other important
dynamics (markets, consumer behavior)
• Decentralized Decisions› Choice and use of distributed generation› Energy efficiency options that use information
technology to reduced demand (smart loads)› Influenced by Market Prices and other Situational Aspects
• Example: Wind Resource Dynamics
© S.R.Connors–AGREA/LFEE/MIT ([email protected]) 12 Feb 2007 – pg. 21
Wind in Space and Time
Source: Mass Renewable Energy Trust TrueWind Solutions
ElectricityDemand
Generationfrom Wind
© S.R.Connors–AGREA/LFEE/MIT ([email protected]) 12 Feb 2007 – pg. 22
Logan
Hotel
Buzzards BayBoston
Nantucket
Seasonal & Daily Variability• Generation Summed by Month and Hour-of-Day (2004)
© S.R.Connors–AGREA/LFEE/MIT ([email protected]) 12 Feb 2007 – pg. 23
One Site for Many Years…
• Nantucket (Sleigh Ride?)
© S.R.Connors–AGREA/LFEE/MIT ([email protected]) 12 Feb 2007 – pg. 24
Operating Modes and“Resource” Portfolios
• Renewable Resource Variability› Wind and Sun (Magnitude and Timing)
› Rainfall (Hydropower, Biomass)
• Fuel Markets› Fuel Prices/Price Differentials (esp. Natural Gas)› Infrastructure Investments (Pipelines/Storage/LNG)
• Conventional Generation› Nuclear Availability, Hydro Potential› Power Market Structure (Capacity Markets, Bid Rules)
› Power Grid Operations (Reliability/Contingency Practices)
• Energy Demands› Demand Growth – Relative to Supply Growth› Heating Degree Days/Cooling Degree Days
© S.R.Connors–AGREA/LFEE/MIT ([email protected]) 12 Feb 2007 – pg. 25
WorseBetterLow
High
"Costs"
(Program,Direct, Social)
"Environmental Performance"(SO2, NOx, TSP, CO 2, etc.)
Identifying Robust Strategies
•A Robust Strategy has Robustand Flexible Options
Commonalities and Differences
© S.R.Connors–AGREA/LFEE/MIT ([email protected]) 12 Feb 2007 – pg. 26
Closing Observations/Questions
•At Which Stage Are You?» Short/Medium-Term in the
Context of a Long-TermPlan/Vision/Whatever
» Are All the Major Factors BeenIncluded/Considered?
» Have the Major Organizational/Institutional Factors BeenOverlooked? (Brains and Bodies)
© S.R.Connors–AGREA/LFEE/MIT ([email protected]) 12 Feb 2007 – pg. 27
Have We Had It Too Easy?
• We need to develop the information, tools,implementable visions, and the policies andpeople to realize them.