IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/eneeco/v33y2011i4p634-643.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Energy R&D portfolio analysis based on climate change mitigation

Author

Listed:
  • Pugh, Graham
  • Clarke, Leon
  • Marlay, Robert
  • Kyle, Page
  • Wise, Marshall
  • McJeon, Haewon
  • Chan, Gabriel

Abstract

The diverse nature and uncertain potential of the energy technologies that are or may be available to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions pose a challenge to policymakers trying to invest public funds in an optimal R&D portfolio. This paper discusses two analytical approaches to this challenge used to inform funding decisions related to the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) applied energy R&D portfolio. The two approaches are distinguished by the constraints under which they were conducted: the need to provide an end-to-end portfolio analysis as input to internal DOE budgeting processes, but with limited time and subject to institutional constraints regarding important issues such as expert judgment. Because of these constraints, neither approach should be viewed as an attempt to push forward the state of the art in portfolio analysis in the abstract. Instead, they are an attempt to use more stylized, heuristic methods that can provide first-order insights in the DOE institutional context. Both approaches make use of advanced technology scenarios implemented in an integrated assessment modeling framework and then apply expert judgment regarding the likelihood of achieving associated R&D and commercialization goals. The approaches differ in the granularity of the scenarios used and in the definition of the benefits of technological advance: in one approach the benefits are defined as the cumulative emission reduction attributable to a particular technology; in the other approach benefits are defined as the cumulative cost reduction. In both approaches a return on investment (ROI) criterion is established based on benefits divided by federal R&D investment. The ROI is then used to build a first-order approximation of an optimal applied energy R&D investment portfolio. Although these methodologies have been used to inform an actual budget request, the results reflect only one input among many used in budget formulation. The results are therefore not representative of an official U.S. government or DOE funding recommendation but should instead be considered illustrative of the way in which methodologies such as these could be applied.

Suggested Citation

  • Pugh, Graham & Clarke, Leon & Marlay, Robert & Kyle, Page & Wise, Marshall & McJeon, Haewon & Chan, Gabriel, 2011. "Energy R&D portfolio analysis based on climate change mitigation," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 33(4), pages 634-643, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:eneeco:v:33:y:2011:i:4:p:634-643
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0140988310001957
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    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. McJeon, Haewon C. & Clarke, Leon & Kyle, Page & Wise, Marshall & Hackbarth, Andrew & Bryant, Benjamin P. & Lempert, Robert J., 2011. "Technology interactions among low-carbon energy technologies: What can we learn from a large number of scenarios?," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 33(4), pages 619-631, July.
    2. Pizer, William A. & Popp, David, 2008. "Endogenizing technological change: Matching empirical evidence to modeling needs," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 30(6), pages 2754-2770, November.
    3. Son H. Kim, Jae Edmonds, Josh Lurz, Steven J. Smith, and Marshall Wise, 2006. "The objECTS Framework for integrated Assessment: Hybrid Modeling of Transportation," The Energy Journal, International Association for Energy Economics, vol. 0(Special I), pages 63-92.
    4. Clarke, Leon & Weyant, John & Edmonds, Jae, 2008. "On the sources of technological change: What do the models assume," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 30(2), pages 409-424, March.
    5. Richels, Richard G. & Blanford, Geoffrey J., 2008. "The value of technological advance in decarbonizing the U.S. economy," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 30(6), pages 2930-2946, November.
    6. Baker, Erin & Clarke, Leon & Shittu, Ekundayo, 2008. "Technical change and the marginal cost of abatement," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 30(6), pages 2799-2816, November.
    7. Clarke, Leon & Weyant, John & Birky, Alicia, 2006. "On the sources of technological change: Assessing the evidence," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 28(5-6), pages 579-595, November.
    8. 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.
    9. Nemet, Gregory F., 2006. "Beyond the learning curve: factors influencing cost reductions in photovoltaics," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 34(17), pages 3218-3232, November.
    10. Nemet, Gregory F., 2009. "Demand-pull, technology-push, and government-led incentives for non-incremental technical change," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(5), pages 700-709, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Olaleye, Olaitan & Baker, Erin, 2015. "Large scale scenario analysis of future low carbon energy options," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 49(C), pages 203-216.
    2. Mort Webster & Karen Fisher-Vanden & David Popp & Nidhi Santen, 2017. "Should We Give Up after Solyndra? Optimal Technology R&D Portfolios under Uncertainty," Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, University of Chicago Press, vol. 4(S1), pages 123-151.
    3. Brown, Marilyn A. & Gumerman, Etan & Sun, Xiaojing & Sercy, Kenneth & Kim, Gyungwon, 2012. "Myths and facts about electricity in the U.S. South," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 40(C), pages 231-241.
    4. Gunnar Luderer & Volker Krey & Katherine Calvin & James Merrick & Silvana Mima & Robert Pietzcker & Jasper van Vliet & Kenichi Wada, 2014. "The role of renewable energy in climate stabilization: results from the EMF27 scenarios," Post-Print halshs-00961843, HAL.
    5. McJeon, Haewon C. & Clarke, Leon & Kyle, Page & Wise, Marshall & Hackbarth, Andrew & Bryant, Benjamin P. & Lempert, Robert J., 2011. "Technology interactions among low-carbon energy technologies: What can we learn from a large number of scenarios?," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 33(4), pages 619-631, July.
    6. Nidhi R. Santen & Mort D. Webster & David Popp & Ignacio Pérez-Arriaga, 2017. "Inter-temporal R&D and capital investment portfolios for the electricity industrys low carbon future," The Energy Journal, International Association for Energy Economics, vol. 0(Number 6).
    7. Rob Aalbers & Victoria Shestalova & Viktoria Kocsis, 2012. "Innovation policy for directing technical change in the power sector," CPB Discussion Paper 223, CPB Netherlands Bureau for Economic Policy Analysis.
    8. Aalbers, Rob & Shestalova, Victoria & Kocsis, Viktória, 2013. "Innovation policy for directing technical change in the power sector," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 63(C), pages 1240-1250.
    9. Milford, James & Henrion, Max & Hunter, Chad & Newes, Emily & Hughes, Caroline & Baldwin, Samuel F., 2022. "Energy sector portfolio analysis with uncertainty," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 306(PA).
    10. Diaz Anadon, Laura & Bosetti, Valentina & Chan, Gabriel & Nemet, Gregory & Verdolini, Elena, 2014. "Energy Technology Expert Elicitations for Policy: Workshops, Modeling, and Meta-analysis," Working Paper Series rwp14-054, Harvard University, John F. Kennedy School of Government.
    11. Jasper Vliet & Andries Hof & Angelica Mendoza Beltran & Maarten Berg & Sebastiaan Deetman & Michel Elzen & Paul Lucas & Detlef Vuuren, 2014. "The impact of technology availability on the timing and costs of emission reductions for achieving long-term climate targets," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 123(3), pages 559-569, April.
    12. Forouli, Aikaterini & Doukas, Haris & Nikas, Alexandros & Sampedro, Jon & Van de Ven, Dirk-Jan, 2019. "Identifying optimal technological portfolios for European power generation towards climate change mitigation: A robust portfolio analysis approach," Utilities Policy, Elsevier, vol. 57(C), pages 33-42.
    13. Ashina, Shuichi & Fujino, Junichi & Masui, Toshihiko & Ehara, Tomoki & Hibino, Go, 2012. "A roadmap towards a low-carbon society in Japan using backcasting methodology: Feasible pathways for achieving an 80% reduction in CO2 emissions by 2050," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(C), pages 584-598.
    14. Kurth, Margaret & Keisler, Jeffrey M. & Bates, Matthew E. & Bridges, Todd S. & Summers, Jeffrey & Linkov, Igor, 2017. "A portfolio decision analysis approach to support energy research and development resource allocation," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 105(C), pages 128-135.
    15. Nidhi R. Santen & Mort D. Webster & David Popp & Ignacio Pérez-Arriaga, 2014. "Inter-temporal R&D and Capital Investment Portfolios for the Electricity Industry's Low Carbon Future," CESifo Working Paper Series 5139, CESifo.
    16. Gunnar Luderer & Volker Krey & Katherine Calvin & James Merrick & Silvana Mima & Robert Pietzcker & Jasper Vliet & Kenichi Wada, 2014. "The role of renewable energy in climate stabilization: results from the EMF27 scenarios," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 123(3), pages 427-441, April.
    17. Haris Doukas & Alexandros Nikas & Mikel González-Eguino & Iñaki Arto & Annela Anger-Kraavi, 2018. "From Integrated to Integrative: Delivering on the Paris Agreement," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(7), pages 1-10, July.
    18. Nidhi R. Santen & Mort D. Webster & David Popp & Ignacio Pérez-Arriaga, 2014. "Inter-temporal R&D and Capital Investment Portfolios for the Electricity Industry’s Low Carbon Future," NBER Working Papers 20783, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    19. Sang Jin Choi & Dong Gu Choi & Paul Friley & Hyunkeong Kim & Sang Yong Park, 2017. "Quantitative Analysis on the Energy and Environmental Impact of the Korean National Energy R&D Roadmap a Using Bottom-Up Energy System Model," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(4), pages 1-20, March.

    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. Iyer, Gokul C. & Clarke, Leon E. & Edmonds, James A. & Hultman, Nathan E., 2016. "Do national-level policies to promote low-carbon technology deployment pay off for the investor countries?," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 98(C), pages 400-411.
    2. Schauf, Magnus & Schwenen, Sebastian, 2021. "Mills of progress grind slowly? Estimating learning rates for onshore wind energy," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 104(C).
    3. Kuik, Onno & Brander, Luke & Tol, Richard S.J., 2009. "Marginal abatement costs of greenhouse gas emissions: A meta-analysis," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(4), pages 1395-1403, April.
    4. 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.
    5. Iyer, Gokul & Hultman, Nathan & Fetter, Steve & Kim, Son H., 2014. "Implications of small modular reactors for climate change mitigation," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 45(C), pages 144-154.
    6. Blyth, William & Bunn, Derek & Kettunen, Janne & Wilson, Tom, 2009. "Policy interactions, risk and price formation in carbon markets," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(12), pages 5192-5207, December.
    7. Iyer, Gokul C. & Clarke, Leon E. & Edmonds, James A. & Hultman, Nathan E. & McJeon, Haewon C., 2015. "Long-term payoffs of near-term low-carbon deployment policies," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 86(C), pages 493-505.
    8. 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.
    9. Yeh, Sonia & Rubin, Edward S., 2012. "A review of uncertainties in technology experience curves," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 34(3), pages 762-771.
    10. del Río, Pablo, 2012. "The dynamic efficiency of feed-in tariffs: The impact of different design elements," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(C), pages 139-151.
    11. Turnbull, D. & Glaser, A. & Goldston, R.J., 2015. "Investigating the value of fusion energy using the Global Change Assessment Model," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 51(C), pages 346-353.
    12. Bibas, Ruben & Méjean, Aurélie & Hamdi-Cherif, Meriem, 2015. "Energy efficiency policies and the timing of action: An assessment of climate mitigation costs," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 90(PA), pages 137-152.
    13. Kristoffer Palage & Robert Lundmark & Patrik Söderholm, 2019. "The innovation effects of renewable energy policies and their interaction: the case of solar photovoltaics," Environmental Economics and Policy Studies, Springer;Society for Environmental Economics and Policy Studies - SEEPS, vol. 21(2), pages 217-254, April.
    14. Baker, Erin & Shittu, Ekundayo, 2008. "Uncertainty and endogenous technical change in climate policy models," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 30(6), pages 2817-2828, November.
    15. Elia, A. & Taylor, M. & Ó Gallachóir, B. & Rogan, F., 2020. "Wind turbine cost reduction: A detailed bottom-up analysis of innovation drivers," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 147(C).
    16. Derek Lemoine & Sabine Fuss & Jana Szolgayova & Michael Obersteiner & Daniel Kammen, 2012. "The influence of negative emission technologies and technology policies on the optimal climate mitigation portfolio," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 113(2), pages 141-162, July.
    17. Bossink, Bart, 2020. "Learning strategies in sustainable energy demonstration projects: What organizations learn from sustainable energy demonstrations," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 131(C).
    18. Albrecht, Johan & Laleman, Ruben & Vulsteke, Elien, 2015. "Balancing demand-pull and supply-push measures to support renewable electricity in Europe," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 49(C), pages 267-277.
    19. C. Wilson & A. Grubler & N. Bauer & V. Krey & K. Riahi, 2013. "Future capacity growth of energy technologies: are scenarios consistent with historical evidence?," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 118(2), pages 381-395, May.
    20. Barron, Robert & McJeon, Haewon, 2015. "The differential impact of low-carbon technologies on climate change mitigation cost under a range of socioeconomic and climate policy scenarios," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 80(C), pages 264-274.

    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:eneeco:v:33:y:2011:i:4:p:634-643. 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/locate/eneco .

    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.