IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/nas/journl/v118y2021pe1917165118.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Comparing expert elicitation and model-based probabilistic technology cost forecasts for the energy transition

Author

Listed:
  • Jing Meng

    (The Bartlett School of Sustainable Construction, University College London, London WC1E 7HB, United Kingdom; Cambridge Centre for Environment, Energy and Natural Resource Governance, Department of Land Economy, University of Cambridge, Cambridge CB3 9EP, United Kingdom)

  • Rupert Way

    (Institute for New Economic Thinking at the Oxford Martin School, University of Oxford, Oxford OX1 3UQ, United Kingdom; Smith School of Enterprise and the Environment, University of Oxford, Oxford OX1 3QY, United Kingdom)

  • Elena Verdolini

    (Department of Law, University of Brescia, 25121 Brescia, Italy; RFF-CMCC European Institute of Economics and the Environment, Euro-Mediterranean Center on Climate Change, 73100 Lecce, Italy)

  • Laura Diaz Anadon

    (Cambridge Centre for Environment, Energy and Natural Resource Governance, Department of Land Economy, University of Cambridge, Cambridge CB3 9EP, United Kingdom; Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, Harvard Kennedy School, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA 02138)

Abstract

We conduct a systematic comparison of technology cost forecasts produced by expert elicitation methods and model-based methods. Our focus is on energy technologies due to their importance for energy and climate policy. We assess the performance of several forecasting methods by generating probabilistic technology cost forecasts rooted at various years in the past and then comparing these with observed costs in 2019. We do this for six technologies for which both observed and elicited data are available. The model-based methods use either deployment (Wright’s law) or time (Moore’s law) to forecast costs. We show that, overall, model-based forecasting methods outperformed elicitation methods. Their 2019 cost forecast ranges contained the observed values much more often than elicitations, and their forecast medians were closer to observed costs. However, all methods underestimated technological progress in almost all technologies, likely as a result of structural change across the energy sector due to widespread policies and social and market forces. We also produce forecasts of 2030 costs using the two types of methods for 10 energy technologies. We find that elicitations generally yield narrower uncertainty ranges than model-based methods. Model-based 2030 forecasts are lower for more modular technologies and higher for less modular ones. Future research should focus on further method development and validation to better reflect structural changes in the market and correlations across technologies.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
  • Handle: RePEc:nas:journl:v:118:y:2021:p:e1917165118
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.pnas.org/content/118/27/e1917165118.full
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Doblinger, Claudia & Surana, Kavita & Li, Deyu & Hultman, Nathan & Anadón, Laura Díaz, 2022. "How do global manufacturing shifts affect long-term clean energy innovation? A study of wind energy suppliers," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(7).
    2. Moglianesi, Andrea & Keppo, Ilkka & Lerede, Daniele & Savoldi, Laura, 2023. "Role of technology learning in the decarbonization of the iron and steel sector: An energy system approach using a global-scale optimization model," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 274(C).
    3. Santhakumar, Srinivasan & Smart, Gavin & Noonan, Miriam & Meerman, Hans & Faaij, André, 2022. "Technological progress observed for fixed-bottom offshore wind in the EU and UK," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 182(C).
    4. Hernandez-Negron, Christian G. & Baker, Erin & Goldstein, Anna P., 2023. "A hypothesis for experience curves of related technologies with an application to wind energy," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 184(C).
    5. Han, Sun & Zhenghao, Meng & Meilin, Li & Xiaohui, Yang & Xiaoxue, Wang, 2023. "Global supply sustainability assessment of critical metals for clean energy technology," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 85(PB).
    6. Mr. Tobias Adrian & Mr. Patrick Bolton & Alissa M. Kleinnijenhuis, 2022. "The Great Carbon Arbitrage," IMF Working Papers 2022/107, International Monetary Fund.
    7. 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).
    8. Wen, Xin & Jaxa-Rozen, Marc & Trutnevyte, Evelina, 2022. "Accuracy indicators for evaluating retrospective performance of energy system models," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 325(C).
    9. Danlu Xu & Zhoubin Liu & Jiahui Zhu & Qin Fang & Rui Shan, 2023. "Linking Cost Decline and Demand Surge in the Hydrogen Market: A Case Study in China," Energies, MDPI, vol. 16(12), pages 1-13, June.
    10. Adrian Odenweller & Falko Ueckerdt & Gregory F. Nemet & Miha Jensterle & Gunnar Luderer, 2022. "Probabilistic feasibility space of scaling up green hydrogen supply," Nature Energy, Nature, vol. 7(9), pages 854-865, September.

    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:nas:journl:v:118:y:2021:p:e1917165118. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Eric Cain (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.pnas.org/ .

    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.