Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Expert views - and disagreements - about the potential of energy technology R&D

  • Published:
Climatic Change Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Mitigating climate change will require innovation in energy technologies. Policy makers are faced with the question of how to promote this innovation, and whether to focus on a few technologies or to spread their bets. We present results on the extent to which public R&D might shape the future cost of energy technologies by 2030. We bring together three major expert elicitation efforts carried out by researchers at UMass Amherst, Harvard, and FEEM, covering nuclear, solar, Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS), bioelectricity, and biofuels. The results show experts believe that there will be cost reductions resulting from R&D and report median cost reductions around 20 % for most of the technologies at the R&D budgets considered. Although the improvements associated to solar and CCS R&D show some promise, the lack of consensus across studies, and the larger magnitude of the R&D investment involved in these technologies, calls for caution when defining what technologies would benefit the most from additional public R&D. In order to make R&D funding decisions to meet particular goals, such as mitigating climate change or improving energy security, or to estimate the social returns to R&D, policy makers need to combine the information provided in this study on cost reduction potentials with an analysis of the macroeconomic implications of these technological changes. We conclude with recommendations for future directions on energy expert elicitations.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Link to U.S. nuclear elicitation survey: https://erd3.cloudapp.net/nuclear_energy Username: erd3 Password: laura Link to E.U. nuclear elicitation survey: https://erd3.cloudapp.net/icarus Username: icarus Password: laura.

References

  • Abdulla A, Azevedo I, Morgan MG (2013) Expert assessments of the cost of light water small modular reactor. PNAS 110(39):686–9691

    Google Scholar 

  • Anadon LD, Bosetti V, Bunn M, Catenacci M, Lee A (2012) Expert judgments about rd&d and the future of nuclear energy. Environ Sci Technol 46(11):497–504

    Google Scholar 

  • Anadon LD, Nemet G, Verdolini E (2013) The future costs of nuclear power using multiple expert elicitations: effects of rd&d and elicitation design. Environ Res Lett 8:034.020

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anadon LD, Chan G, Lee A (2014) Transforming U.S. energy innovation, chap. Expanding and better targeting U.S. Investment in energy innovation: an analytical approach. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Baker E, Keisler J (2011) Cellulosic biofuels expert views on prospects for advancement. Energy 36:595–605

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baker E, Solak S (2014) Management of energy technology for sustainability: how to fund energy technology research and development. Prod Oper Manag 23:348–365

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baker E, Chon H, Keisler JM (2008) Advanced nuclear power: combining economic analysis with expert elicitations to inform climate policy

  • Baker E, Chon H, Keisler J (2009) Advanced solar r&d: combining economic analysis with expert elicitations to inform climate policy. Energy Econ 31:S37–S49

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baker E, Chon H, Keisler J (2009) Carbon capture and storage: combining economic analysis with expert elicitations to inform climate policy. Clim Chang 96:379–408

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baker E, Bosetti V, Anadon LD, Henrion M, Reis LA (2015) Future costs of key low-carbon energy technologies: harmonization and aggregation of energy technology expert elicitation data. Energy Policy 80:219–232

  • Bolger F, Rowe G (2014) The aggregation of expert judgment: do good things come to those who weight? Risk Anal

  • Bosetti V, Catenacci M, Fiorese G, Verdolini E (2012) The future prospect of pv and csp solar technologies: an expert elicitation survey. Energy Policy 49:308–317

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chan G, Anadon LD, Chan M, Lee A (2011) Expert elicitation of cost, performance, and rd&d budgets for coal power with ccs. Energy Procedia:2685–2692

  • Chung T, Patio-Echeverri D, Johnson TL (2011) Expert assessments of retrofitting coal-fired power plants with carbon dioxide capture technologies. Energy Policy 39:5609–5620

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clarke L, Baker E (2011) Workshop report: Rd&d portfolio analysis tools and methodologies. Tech. rep. http://www.globalchange.umd.edu/publications/656/

  • Cooke RM (2015) Messaging climate change uncertainty. Nat Clim Chang 5(8–10)

  • Cooke RM, Goossens LHJ (2008) Tu delft expert judgment data base. special issue on expert judgment. Reliab Eng Syst Safe 93:657–674

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Curtright A, Morgan M, Keith D (2008) Expert assessment of future photovoltaic technology. Environ Sci Technol 42:9031–9038

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fiorese G, Catenacci M, Verdolini E, Bosetti V (2013) Advanced biofuels: future perspectives from an expert elicitation survey. Energy Policy 56:293–311

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fiorese G, Catenacci M, Bosetti V, Verdolini E (2014) The power of biomass: experts disclose the potential for success of bioenergy technologies. Energy Policy 65:94–114

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gallagher KS, Anadon LD (2014) DOE budget authority for energy research, development, & demonstration database. Tech. rep., Energy Technology Innovation Policy research group, Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, Harvard Kennedy School. http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/publication/25702/

  • Goulder LH, Schneider Stephen H (1999) Induced technological change and the attractiveness of co2 emissions abatement. Resour Energy Econ 21:211–253

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hall BH (2007) Measuring the returns to r&d: the depreciation problem nber working paper no. w13473. Tech. rep. National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Henrion M, Granger Morgan M (1990) Uncertainty: a guide to dealing with uncertainty in quantitative risk and policy analysis. Cambridge University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoffert MI, Caldeira K, Benford G, Criswell DR, Green C, Herzog H, Jain AK, Kheshgi HS, Lackner KS, Lewis JS, Lightfoot HD, Manheimer W, Mankins JC, Mauel ME, Perkins LJ, Schlesinger ME, Volk T, Wigley TML (2002) Advanced technology paths to global climate stability: energy for a greenhouse planet. Science 298:981–987

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • IPCC (2011) Special report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change on renewable energy sources and climate change mitigation. Tech. rep. Cambridge University Press

  • IRENA (2015) Renewable power generation costs in 2014 international renewable energy agency

  • Jaffe AB, Newell RG, Stavins RN (2005) A tale of two market failures: technology and environmental policy. Ecol Econ 54:164–174

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jamasb T (2007) Technical change theory and learning curves: patterns of progress in energy technologies. Energy J 28(3):51–71

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jenni K, Baker E, Nemet G (2013) Expert elicitations of energy penalties for carbon capture. Int J Greenh Gas Control 12:136–145

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jones CI (1995) R & d-based models of economic growth. J Polit Econ 103:759–784

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klaassen G, Miketa A, Larsen K, Sundqvist T (2005) The impact of r&d on innovation for wind energy in Denmark, Germany and the United Kingdom. Ecol Econ 54(2–3):227–240

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Elmar K, Blanford GJ, Weyant JP, Volker K, Clarke L, Edmonds J, Fawcett A, Gunnar L, Riahi K, Richels R, Steven KR, Tavoni M, Vuuren DP (2014) The role of technology for achieving climate policy objectives: overview of the emf 27 study on global technology and climate policy strategies. Clim Chang:1–15

  • Nemet GF, Anadon LD, Verdolini E (2016) Quantifying the effects of expert selection and elicitation design on experts confidence in their judgments about future energy technologies. Risk Anal. Forthcoming

  • NRC (2007) Prospective evaluation of applied energy research and development at doe (phase two). Tech. rep. NRC

  • Popp D, Newell R (2012) Where does energy r&d come from? Examining crowding out from energy r&d. Energy Econ 34(4):980–991

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Qiu Y, Anadon LD (2012) The price of wind power in china during its expansion: Technology adoption, learning-by-doing, economies of scale, and manufacturing localization. Energy Econ 34(3):772–785

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rao A, Rubin E, Keith D, Morgan M (2006) Evaluation of potential cost reductions from improved amine-based co2 capture systems. Energy Policy 34:3765–3772

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rogelj J, McCollum LD, ONeill BC, Riahi K (2013) 2020 emissions levels required to limit warming to below 2c. Nat Clim Chang 3:405–12

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tversky A, Kahneman D (1974) 1974 judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science 185(4157):1124–1131

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • USEPA (2011) Expert elicitation task force, white paper. Tech. rep., U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

  • Usher W, Strachan N (2013) An expert elicitation of climate, energy and economic uncertainties. Energy Policy 61:811–821

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Verdolini E, Anadon LD, Lu J, Nemet G (2015) The effects of expert selection, elicitation design and r&d assumptions on experts’ estimates of the future costs of photovoltaics. Energy Policy 80:233–243. Submitted

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zickfeld K, Morgan M, Frame D, Keith D (2010) Expert judgments about transient climate response to alternative future trajectories of radiative forcing. Proc Natl Acad Sci 107(28):12,451–12,456

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zubaryeva A, Thiel C (2013) Analyzing potential lead markets for hydrogen fuel cell vehicles in europe: expert views and spatial perspective. Int J Hydrog Energy 38:5878–15,886

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zubaryeva A., Thiel C, Barbone E, Mercier A (2012) Assessing factors for the identification of potential lead markets for electrified vehicles in europe: expert opinion elicitation. Technol Forecast Soc Chang 79:1622–1637

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank Max Henrion for his help creating the aggregate distributions for each study and the combined distributions across studies using Analytica and Gabriel Chan (CCS) and Stephen Elliott (solar) for contributions in data processing at Harvard. The authors are also grateful to four anonymous referees for their constructive input. Anadon acknowledges funding from the Science, Technology, and Public Policy program at the Harvard Kennedy School and grants from the Doris Duke Charitable Foundation and BP to the Energy Technology Innovation Policy research group. Baker’s research was partially supported by NSF under award number SES-0745161. Bosetti acknowledges funding from the European Research Council under the European Community’s Seventh Framework Programme (FP7/2007-2013) / ERC grant agreement n ∘ 240895 - project ICARUS “Innovation for Climate Change Mitigation: a Study of energy R&D, its Uncertain Effectiveness and Spillovers”; and under the European Community’s Programme “Ideas” - Call identifier: ERC-2013-StG / ERC grant agreement n ∘ 336703–project RISICO “RISk and uncertainty in developing and Implementing Climate change pOlicies.”

Author information

Author notes

    Authors and Affiliations

    1. Department of Mechanical and Industrial Engineering, University of Massachusetts Amherst, Amherst, MA, USA

      Erin Baker

    2. Harvard Kennedy School, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA, USA

      Laura Diaz Anadon

    3. Department of Economics, Bocconi University, Milano, Italy

      Valentina Bosetti

    4. Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei, Milano, Italy

      Valentina Bosetti & Lara Aleluia Reis

    5. Centro Euro-Mediterraneo sui Cambiamenti Climatici, Lecce, Italy

      Valentina Bosetti & Lara Aleluia Reis

    6. Department of Science, Technology, Engineering & Public Policy, University College London, London, UK

      Laura Diaz Anadon

    Authors
    1. Laura Diaz Anadon
      View author publications

      You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

    2. Erin Baker
      View author publications

      You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

    3. Valentina Bosetti
      View author publications

      You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

    4. Lara Aleluia Reis
      View author publications

      You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

    Corresponding author

    Correspondence to Erin Baker.

    Additional information

    Laura Diaz Anadon, Erin Baker and Valentina Bosetti contributed equally.

    Electronic supplementary material

    Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

    (PDF 7.68 MB)

    Rights and permissions

    Reprints and permissions

    About this article

    Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

    Cite this article

    Anadon, L.D., Baker, E., Bosetti, V. et al. Expert views - and disagreements - about the potential of energy technology R&D. Climatic Change 136, 677–691 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-016-1626-0

    Download citation

    • Received:

    • Accepted:

    • Published:

    • Issue Date:

    • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-016-1626-0

    Keywords

    Search

    Navigation