Sign In

Login

Password

Forgot Password ? Sign Up

Coût actualisé de l'énergie (French Wikipedia)

Analysis of information sources in references of the Wikipedia article "Coût actualisé de l'énergie" in French language version.

refsWebsite
Global rank French rank
2eia.gov
2,290th place
1,884th place
2ademe.fr
low place
604th place
1iea.org
2,532nd place
1,106th place
1doi.org
2nd place
3rd place
1handle.net
102nd place
779th place
1epia.org
low place
low place
1globalccsinstitute.com
low place
low place
1ourworldindata.org
2,263rd place
5,876th place
1mit.edu
415th place
809th place
1rmi.org
low place
low place
1webcitation.org
24th place
237th place
1pik-potsdam.de
low place
low place
1sciencedirect.com
149th place
80th place

ademe.fr

ademe.fr

librairie.ademe.fr

doi.org

dx.doi.org

  • (en) K. Branker, M. Pathak et J. M. Pearce, « A Review of Solar Photovoltaic Levelized Cost of Electricity », Renewable & Sustainable Energy Reviews, no 15,‎ , p. 4470-4482 (DOI 10.1016/j.rser.2011.07.104, lire en ligne Accès libre).

eia.gov

epia.org

globalccsinstitute.com

handle.net

hdl.handle.net

  • (en) K. Branker, M. Pathak et J. M. Pearce, « A Review of Solar Photovoltaic Levelized Cost of Electricity », Renewable & Sustainable Energy Reviews, no 15,‎ , p. 4470-4482 (DOI 10.1016/j.rser.2011.07.104, lire en ligne Accès libre).

iea.org

mit.edu

economics.mit.edu

ourworldindata.org

pik-potsdam.de

rmi.org

blog.rmi.org

  • (en) Peter Bronski, « You Down With LCOE? Maybe You, But Not Me:Leaving behind the limitations of levelized cost of energy for a better energy metric » [archive du ], sur RMI Outlet, Rocky Mountain Institute (RMI), (consulté le ) : « Desirable shifts in how we as a nation and as individual consumers—whether a residential home or commercial real estate property—manage, produce, and consume electricity can actually make LCOE numbers look worse, not better. This is particularly true when considering the influence of energy efficiency ... If you’re planning a new, big central power plant, you want to get the best value (i.e., lowest LCOE) possible. For the cost of any given power-generating asset, that comes through maximizing the number of kWh it cranks out over its economic lifetime, which runs exactly counter to the highly cost-effective energy efficiency that has been a driving force behind the country’s flat and even declining electricity demand. On the flip side, planning new big, central power plants without taking continued energy efficiency gains (of which there’s no shortage of opportunity—the February 2014 UNEP Finance Initiative report Commercial Real Estate: Unlocking the energy efficiency retrofit investment opportunity identified a $231–$300 billion annual market by 2020) into account risks overestimating the number of kWh we’d need from them and thus lowballing their LCOE ... If I’m a homeowner or business considering purchasing rooftop solar outright, do I care more about the per-unit value (LCOE) or my total out of pocket (lifetime system cost)? ... The per-unit value is less important than the thing considered as a whole ... LCOE, for example, fails to take into account the time of day during which an asset can produce power, where it can be installed on the grid, and its carbon intensity, among many other variables. That’s why, in addition to [levelized avoided cost of energy (LACE)], utilities and other electricity system stakeholders ... have used benefit/cost calculations and/or an asset’s capacity value or contribution to peak on a system or circuit level. »

sciencedirect.com

webcitation.org

  • (en) Peter Bronski, « You Down With LCOE? Maybe You, But Not Me:Leaving behind the limitations of levelized cost of energy for a better energy metric » [archive du ], sur RMI Outlet, Rocky Mountain Institute (RMI), (consulté le ) : « Desirable shifts in how we as a nation and as individual consumers—whether a residential home or commercial real estate property—manage, produce, and consume electricity can actually make LCOE numbers look worse, not better. This is particularly true when considering the influence of energy efficiency ... If you’re planning a new, big central power plant, you want to get the best value (i.e., lowest LCOE) possible. For the cost of any given power-generating asset, that comes through maximizing the number of kWh it cranks out over its economic lifetime, which runs exactly counter to the highly cost-effective energy efficiency that has been a driving force behind the country’s flat and even declining electricity demand. On the flip side, planning new big, central power plants without taking continued energy efficiency gains (of which there’s no shortage of opportunity—the February 2014 UNEP Finance Initiative report Commercial Real Estate: Unlocking the energy efficiency retrofit investment opportunity identified a $231–$300 billion annual market by 2020) into account risks overestimating the number of kWh we’d need from them and thus lowballing their LCOE ... If I’m a homeowner or business considering purchasing rooftop solar outright, do I care more about the per-unit value (LCOE) or my total out of pocket (lifetime system cost)? ... The per-unit value is less important than the thing considered as a whole ... LCOE, for example, fails to take into account the time of day during which an asset can produce power, where it can be installed on the grid, and its carbon intensity, among many other variables. That’s why, in addition to [levelized avoided cost of energy (LACE)], utilities and other electricity system stakeholders ... have used benefit/cost calculations and/or an asset’s capacity value or contribution to peak on a system or circuit level. »