• Journal of Energy Engineering
• /
• v.17 no.2
• /
• pp.54-66
• /
• 2008

After the Kyoto Protocol has been ratified in Feb. 16 2005, the developed countries which is involved in Annex-1 have tried to mitigate GHG to the reduction objective. To accomplish this objective, EU developed EU-ETS, CDM project, and so on. Korea has faced pressure to be a member of Annex-1, because Korea and Mexico are only non-Annex-1 countries in the OECD nations. In this study, we simulated power plant expansion plan and calculated $CO_2$ emission with changing Carbon Tax. Especially, we focused on the competitiveness of IGCC and carbon capture technology. In our result, even though carbon tax rise, nuclear power plant does not always increase, it increase up to minimum load. LNG combined cycle power plants substitute the coal fired power plants. If there are many alternatives like IGCC, these substitute a coal fired power plant and we can reduce more $CO_2$ and save mitigation cost.

• Korean Journal of Construction Engineering and Management
• /
• v.24 no.6
• /
• pp.74-80
• /
• 2023

This study examines the characteristics of architectural review opinions as unstructured data, focusing on the most challenging risk for developers of small and medium-sized apartment projects in response to the increasing number of single-person households in Korea. Using multidimensional analysis methods, the study analyzes the review opinions of 25 projects in B City. Correspondence analysis and MDS (Multidimensional Scale) analysis show that, consistent with prior research, the keywords related to 'structure' and 'planning' dominate architectural review opinions in B City. While the MDS model's stress is very poor at 34.4%, correspondence analysis reveals that this is due to the characteristics of unstructured data in architectural reviews. In addition, the non-structured data analyzed in this study, such as architectural review opinions, exhibited a probability distribution with low kurtosis and high skewness, as they involved various combinations and occurrences of data depending on the discretion of the review committee members and the specific formats of different local governments. This often led to the emergence of keywords that differed significantly from commonly mentioned terms. Although the study has some limitations, it provides a foundation for future detailed analysis by identifying the characteristics of architectural review opinions as unstructured data.

• Journal of Environmental Policy
• /
• v.7 no.4
• /
• pp.105-134
• /
• 2008

Local opposition and protest constitute single greatest hurdle to the siting of locally unwanted land uses(LULUs), especially siting of high-level radioactive disposal not only throughout Korea but also throughout the industrialized world. It can be attributed mainly to the NIMBYism, equity problem, and lack of participation. These problems are arisen from rational planning process which emphasizes instrumental rationality. But planning is a value-laden political activity, in which substantive rationality is central. To achieve this goals, we need a sound planning process for siting LULUs, which should improve the ability of citizens to influence the decisions that affects them. By a sound planning process, we mean one that is open to citizen input and contains accurate and complete information. In other word, the public is also part of the goal setting process and, as the information and analyses developed by the planners are evaluated by the public, strategies for solutions can be developed through consensus-building. This method is called as a co-operative siting process, and must be structured in order to arrive at publicly acceptable decisions. The followings are decided by consensus-building method. 1. Negotiation will be held? 2. What is the benefits and risks of negotiation? 3. What are solutions when collisions between national interests and local ones come into? 4. What are the agendas? 5. What is the community' role in site selection? 6. Are there incentives to negotiation. 7. Who are the parties to the negotiation? 8. Who will represent the community? 9. What groundwork of negotiation is set up? 10. How do we assure that the community access to information and expert? 11. What happens if negotiation is failed? 12. Is it necessary to trust each other in negotiations? 13. Is a mediator needed in negotiations?