IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/appene/v340y2023ics0306261923003999.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Hindcasting to inform the development of bottom-up electricity system models: The cases of endogenous demand and technology learning

Author

Listed:
  • Wen, Xin
  • Jaxa-Rozen, Marc
  • Trutnevyte, Evelina

Abstract

Bottom-up, technology-rich electricity system models are commonly used to generate scenarios for policy support at a national or global level. In literature, previous hindcasting studies (also called retrospective modeling or ex-post modeling) evaluated existing models rather than sought to inform model development from the beginning. In this study, we present a hindcasting exercise with D-EXPANSE model for national electricity systems in 31 European countries over the 1990–2019 period. We develop several model versions with or without elastic electricity demand and with or without endogenous technology learning, and use hindcasting to choose the most accurate configuration of the bottom-up model. The hindcasting results show that a model with endogenous elastic demand can capture well the real-world evolution of electricity demand, if elasticity factor is chosen well and if the countries did not undergo severe structural changes. Endogenous technology learning, however, increases the uptake of new emerging technologies in cost-optimal scenarios, but still cannot fully capture the real-world dynamics and at times even introduces further inaccuracies.

Suggested Citation

  • Wen, Xin & Jaxa-Rozen, Marc & Trutnevyte, Evelina, 2023. "Hindcasting to inform the development of bottom-up electricity system models: The cases of endogenous demand and technology learning," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 340(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:appene:v:340:y:2023:i:c:s0306261923003999
    DOI: 10.1016/j.apenergy.2023.121035
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0306261923003999
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.apenergy.2023.121035?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Labandeira, Xavier & Labeaga, José M. & López-Otero, Xiral, 2017. "A meta-analysis on the price elasticity of energy demand," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 102(C), pages 549-568.
    2. Michael Grubb & Paul Drummond & Alexandra Poncia & Will Mcdowall & David Popp & Sascha Samadi & Cristina Penasco & Kenneth Gillingham & Sjak Smulders & Matthieu Glachant & Gavin Hassall & Emi Mizuno &, 2021. "Induced innovation in energy technologies and systems: a review of evidence and potential implications for CO 2 mitigation," Post-Print hal-03189044, HAL.
    3. Ibenholt, Karin, 2002. "Explaining learning curves for wind power," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 30(13), pages 1181-1189, October.
    4. Hayward, Jennifer A. & Graham, Paul W., 2013. "A global and local endogenous experience curve model for projecting future uptake and cost of electricity generation technologies," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 40(C), pages 537-548.
    5. Farmer, J. Doyne & Lafond, François, 2016. "How predictable is technological progress?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(3), pages 647-665.
    6. Fujimori, Shinichiro & Dai, Hancheng & Masui, Toshihiko & Matsuoka, Yuzuru, 2016. "Global energy model hindcasting," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 114(C), pages 293-301.
    7. Criqui, P. & Mima, S. & Menanteau, P. & Kitous, A., 2015. "Mitigation strategies and energy technology learning: An assessment with the POLES model," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 90(PA), pages 119-136.
    8. Richard Loulou & Maryse Labriet, 2008. "ETSAP-TIAM: the TIMES integrated assessment model Part I: Model structure," Computational Management Science, Springer, vol. 5(1), pages 7-40, February.
    9. DeCarolis, Joseph & Daly, Hannah & Dodds, Paul & Keppo, Ilkka & Li, Francis & McDowall, Will & Pye, Steve & Strachan, Neil & Trutnevyte, Evelina & Usher, Will & Winning, Matthew & Yeh, Sonia & Zeyring, 2017. "Formalizing best practice for energy system optimization modelling," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 194(C), pages 184-198.
    10. Nic Rivers & Mark Jaccard, 2005. "Combining Top-Down and Bottom-Up Approaches to Energy-Economy Modeling Using Discrete Choice Methods," The Energy Journal, International Association for Energy Economics, vol. 0(Number 1), pages 83-106.
    11. Rout, Ullash K. & Fahl, Ulrich & Remme, Uwe & Blesl, Markus & Voß, Alfred, 2009. "Endogenous implementation of technology gap in energy optimization models--a systematic analysis within TIMES G5 model," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(7), pages 2814-2830, July.
    12. Grubler, Arnulf, 2010. "The costs of the French nuclear scale-up: A case of negative learning by doing," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(9), pages 5174-5188, September.
    13. Zeyringer, Marianne & Fais, Birgit & Keppo, Ilkka & Price, James, 2018. "The potential of marine energy technologies in the UK – Evaluation from a systems perspective," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 115(C), pages 1281-1293.
    14. K. J. Arrow, 1971. "The Economic Implications of Learning by Doing," Palgrave Macmillan Books, in: F. H. Hahn (ed.), Readings in the Theory of Growth, chapter 11, pages 131-149, Palgrave Macmillan.
    15. Richard Loulou, 2008. "ETSAP-TIAM: the TIMES integrated assessment model. part II: mathematical formulation," Computational Management Science, Springer, vol. 5(1), pages 41-66, February.
    16. Mai, Trieu & Bistline, John & Sun, Yinong & Cole, Wesley & Marcy, Cara & Namovicz, Chris & Young, David, 2018. "The role of input assumptions and model structures in projections of variable renewable energy: A multi-model perspective of the U.S. electricity system," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 76(C), pages 313-324.
    17. Wen, Xin & Jaxa-Rozen, Marc & Trutnevyte, Evelina, 2022. "Accuracy indicators for evaluating retrospective performance of energy system models," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 325(C).
    18. Samadi, Sascha, 2018. "The experience curve theory and its application in the field of electricity generation technologies – A literature review," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 82(P3), pages 2346-2364.
    19. Jonathan Kohler, Michael Grubb, David Popp and Ottmar Edenhofer, 2006. "The Transition to Endogenous Technical Change in Climate-Economy Models: A Technical Overview to the Innovation Modeling Comparison Project," The Energy Journal, International Association for Energy Economics, vol. 0(Special I), pages 17-56.
    20. Burgess, Matthew G. & Ritchie, Justin & Shapland, John & Pielke, Roger Jr, 2020. "IPCC baseline scenarios over-project CO2 emissions and economic growth," SocArXiv ahsxw, Center for Open Science.
    21. Glotin, David & Bourgeois, Cyril & Giraudet, Louis-Gaëtan & Quirion, Philippe, 2019. "Prediction is difficult, even when it's about the past: A hindcast experiment using Res-IRF, an integrated energy-economy model," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 84(S1).
    22. McDonald, Alan & Schrattenholzer, Leo, 2001. "Learning rates for energy technologies," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 29(4), pages 255-261, March.
    23. Friedemann Polzin & Mark Sanders & Bjarne Steffen & Florian Egli & Tobias S. Schmidt & Panagiotis Karkatsoulis & Panagiotis Fragkos & Leonidas Paroussos, 2021. "The effect of differentiating costs of capital by country and technology on the European energy transition," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 167(1), pages 1-21, July.
    24. Jamasb, T. & Köhler, J., 2007. "Learning Curves For Energy Technology and Policy Analysis: A Critical Assessment," Cambridge Working Papers in Economics 0752, Faculty of Economics, University of Cambridge.
    25. Gils, Hans Christian & Gardian, Hedda & Kittel, Martin & Schill, Wolf-Peter & Murmann, Alexander & Launer, Jann & Gaumnitz, Felix & van Ouwerkerk, Jonas & Mikurda, Jennifer & Torralba-Díaz, Laura, 2022. "Model-related outcome differences in power system models with sector coupling—Quantification and drivers," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 159(C).
    26. Charlie Wilson & Céline Guivarch & Elmar Kriegler & Bas Ruijven & Detlef P. Vuuren & Volker Krey & Valeria Jana Schwanitz & Erica L. Thompson, 2021. "Evaluating process-based integrated assessment models of climate change mitigation," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 166(1), pages 1-22, May.
    27. Sabine Messner, 1997. "Endogenized technological learning in an energy systems model," Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Springer, vol. 7(3), pages 291-313.
    28. Ajay Gambhir & Richard Green & Michael Grubb & Philip Heptonstall & Charlie Wilson & Robert Gross, 2021. "How Are Future Energy Technology Costs Estimated? Can We Do Better?," International Review of Environmental and Resource Economics, now publishers, vol. 15(4), pages 271-318, December.
    29. Trutnevyte, Evelina, 2016. "Does cost optimization approximate the real-world energy transition?," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 106(C), pages 182-193.
    30. Aleh Cherp & Vadim Vinichenko & Jale Tosun & Joel A. Gordon & Jessica Jewell, 2021. "National growth dynamics of wind and solar power compared to the growth required for global climate targets," Nature Energy, Nature, vol. 6(7), pages 742-754, July.
    31. Gillingham, Kenneth & Newell, Richard G. & Pizer, William A., 2008. "Modeling endogenous technological change for climate policy analysis," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 30(6), pages 2734-2753, November.
    32. Lohwasser, Richard & Madlener, Reinhard, 2013. "Relating R&D and investment policies to CCS market diffusion through two-factor learning," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 52(C), pages 439-452.
    33. Misconel, S. & Leisen, R. & Mikurda, J. & Zimmermann, F. & Fraunholz, C. & Fichtner, W. & Möst, D. & Weber, C., 2022. "Systematic comparison of high-resolution electricity system modeling approaches focusing on investment, dispatch and generation adequacy," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 153(C).
    34. Groissböck, Markus & Pickl, Matthias J., 2016. "An analysis of the power market in Saudi Arabia: Retrospective cost and environmental optimization," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 165(C), pages 548-558.
    35. Li, Francis G.N. & Trutnevyte, Evelina & Strachan, Neil, 2015. "A review of socio-technical energy transition (STET) models," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 100(C), pages 290-305.
    36. Gilbert, Alexander Q. & Sovacool, Benjamin K., 2016. "Looking the wrong way: Bias, renewable electricity, and energy modelling in the United States," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 94(C), pages 533-541.
    37. Trutnevyte, Evelina & McDowall, Will & Tomei, Julia & Keppo, Ilkka, 2016. "Energy scenario choices: Insights from a retrospective review of UK energy futures," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 55(C), pages 326-337.
    38. Bentzen, J. & Linderoth, H., 2001. "Has the accuracy of energy demand projections in the OECD countries improved since the 1970s?," Papers 01-5, Aarhus School of Business - Department of Economics.
    39. Manzoor, Davood & Aryanpur, Vahid, 2017. "Power sector development in Iran: A retrospective optimization approach," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 140(P1), pages 330-339.
    40. Priesmann, Jan & Nolting, Lars & Praktiknjo, Aaron, 2019. "Are complex energy system models more accurate? An intra-model comparison of power system optimization models," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 255(C).
    41. William D. Nordhaus, 2014. "The Perils of the Learning Model for Modeling Endogenous Technological Change," The Energy Journal, International Association for Energy Economics, vol. 0(Number 1).
    42. Rubin, Edward S. & Azevedo, Inês M.L. & Jaramillo, Paulina & Yeh, Sonia, 2015. "A review of learning rates for electricity supply technologies," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 86(C), pages 198-218.
    43. Nikolaos Kouvaritakis & Antonio Soria & Stephane Isoard, 2000. "Modelling energy technology dynamics: methodology for adaptive expectations models with learning by doing and learning by searching," International Journal of Global Energy Issues, Inderscience Enterprises Ltd, vol. 14(1/2/3/4), pages 104-115.
    44. Winebrake, James J. & Sakva, Denys, 2006. "An evaluation of errors in US energy forecasts: 1982-2003," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 34(18), pages 3475-3483, December.
    45. Felix Creutzig & Peter Agoston & Jan Christoph Goldschmidt & Gunnar Luderer & Gregory Nemet & Robert C. Pietzcker, 2017. "The underestimated potential of solar energy to mitigate climate change," Nature Energy, Nature, vol. 2(9), pages 1-9, September.
    46. Jing Meng & Rupert Way & Elena Verdolini & Laura Diaz Anadon, 2021. "Comparing expert elicitation and model-based probabilistic technology cost forecasts for the energy transition," Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, vol. 118(27), pages 1917165118-, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Wen, Xin & Jaxa-Rozen, Marc & Trutnevyte, Evelina, 2022. "Accuracy indicators for evaluating retrospective performance of energy system models," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 325(C).
    2. Rubin, Edward S. & Azevedo, Inês M.L. & Jaramillo, Paulina & Yeh, Sonia, 2015. "A review of learning rates for electricity supply technologies," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 86(C), pages 198-218.
    3. Castrejon-Campos, Omar & Aye, Lu & Hui, Felix Kin Peng, 2022. "Effects of learning curve models on onshore wind and solar PV cost developments in the USA," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 160(C).
    4. Heuberger, Clara F. & Rubin, Edward S. & Staffell, Iain & Shah, Nilay & Mac Dowell, Niall, 2017. "Power capacity expansion planning considering endogenous technology cost learning," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 204(C), pages 831-845.
    5. Castrejon-Campos, Omar & Aye, Lu & Hui, Felix Kin Peng & Vaz-Serra, Paulo, 2022. "Economic and environmental impacts of public investment in clean energy RD&D," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 168(C).
    6. Samadi, Sascha, 2018. "The experience curve theory and its application in the field of electricity generation technologies – A literature review," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 82(P3), pages 2346-2364.
    7. DeCarolis, Joseph & Daly, Hannah & Dodds, Paul & Keppo, Ilkka & Li, Francis & McDowall, Will & Pye, Steve & Strachan, Neil & Trutnevyte, Evelina & Usher, Will & Winning, Matthew & Yeh, Sonia & Zeyring, 2017. "Formalizing best practice for energy system optimization modelling," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 194(C), pages 184-198.
    8. Santhakumar, Srinivasan & Meerman, Hans & Faaij, André, 2021. "Improving the analytical framework for quantifying technological progress in energy technologies," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 145(C).
    9. Lohwasser, Richard & Madlener, Reinhard, 2013. "Relating R&D and investment policies to CCS market diffusion through two-factor learning," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 52(C), pages 439-452.
    10. Reinhard Haas & Marlene Sayer & Amela Ajanovic & Hans Auer, 2023. "Technological learning: Lessons learned on energy technologies," Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Energy and Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 12(2), March.
    11. Berntsen, Philip B. & Trutnevyte, Evelina, 2017. "Ensuring diversity of national energy scenarios: Bottom-up energy system model with Modeling to Generate Alternatives," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 126(C), pages 886-898.
    12. Lindman, Åsa & Söderholm, Patrik, 2012. "Wind power learning rates: A conceptual review and meta-analysis," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 34(3), pages 754-761.
    13. Mathias Mier & Jacqueline Adelowo & Valeriya Azarova, 2022. "Endogenous Technological Change in Power Markets," ifo Working Paper Series 373, ifo Institute - Leibniz Institute for Economic Research at the University of Munich.
    14. Karali, Nihan & Park, Won Young & McNeil, Michael, 2017. "Modeling technological change and its impact on energy savings in the U.S. iron and steel sector," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 202(C), pages 447-458.
    15. Elia, A. & Kamidelivand, M. & Rogan, F. & Ó Gallachóir, B., 2021. "Impacts of innovation on renewable energy technology cost reductions," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 138(C).
    16. Xexakis, Georgios & Hansmann, Ralph & Volken, Sandra P. & Trutnevyte, Evelina, 2020. "Models on the wrong track: Model-based electricity supply scenarios in Switzerland are not aligned with the perspectives of energy experts and the public," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 134(C).
    17. Yeh, Sonia & Rubin, Edward S., 2012. "A review of uncertainties in technology experience curves," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 34(3), pages 762-771.
    18. Williams, Eric & Hittinger, Eric & Carvalho, Rexon & Williams, Ryan, 2017. "Wind power costs expected to decrease due to technological progress," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 106(C), pages 427-435.
    19. Dosi, Giovanni & Grazzi, Marco & Mathew, Nanditha, 2017. "The cost-quantity relations and the diverse patterns of “learning by doing”: Evidence from India," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 46(10), pages 1873-1886.
    20. Mauleón, Ignacio, 2019. "Optimizing individual renewable energies roadmaps: Criteria, methods, and end targets," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 253(C), pages 1-1.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:appene:v:340:y:2023:i:c:s0306261923003999. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/405891/description#description .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.