IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/cam/camdae/1682.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Improving Decision Making for Public R&D Investment in Energy: Utilizing Expert Elicitation in Parametric Models

Author

Listed:
  • Chan, G.
  • Anadon, L-D.

Abstract

Effective decision making to allocate public funds for energy technology research, development, and demonstration (R&D) requires considering alternative investment opportunities that can have large but highly uncertain returns and a multitude of positive or negative interactions. This paper proposes and implements a method to support R&D decisions that propagates uncertainty through an economic model to estimate the benefits of an R&D portfolio, accounting for innovation spillovers and technology substitution and complementarity. The proposed method improves on the existing literature by: (a) using estimates of the impact of R&D investments from one of the most comprehensive sets of expert elicitations on this topic to date; (b) using a detailed energy-economic model to estimate evaluation metrics relevant to an energy R&D portfolio: e.g., system benefits, technology diffusion, and uncertainty around outcomes; and (c) using a novel sampling and optimization strategy to calculate optimal R&D portfolios. This design is used to estimate an optimal energy R&D portfolio that maximizes the net economic benefits under an R&D budget constraint. Results parameterized based on expert elicitations conducted in 2009-2011 in the United States provide indicative results that show: (1) an expert-recommended portfolio in 2030, relative to the BAU portfolio, can reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 46 million tonnes, increase economic surplus by $29 billion, and increase renewable energy generation by 39 TWh; (2) uncertainty around the estimates of R&D benefits is large and overall uncertainty increases with greater investment levels; (3) a 10-fold expansion from 2012 levels in the annual R&D budget for utility-scale energy storage, bioenergy, advanced vehicles, fossil energy, nuclear energy, and solar photovoltaic technologies can be justified by returns to economic surplus; (4) the greatest returns to public R&D investment are in energy storage and solar photovoltaics; and (5) the current allocation of energy R&D funds is very different from optimal portfolios. Taken together, these results demonstrate the utility of applying new methods to improve the cost-effectiveness and environmental performance in a deliberative approach to energy R&D portfolio decision making.

Suggested Citation

  • Chan, G. & Anadon, L-D., 2016. "Improving Decision Making for Public R&D Investment in Energy: Utilizing Expert Elicitation in Parametric Models," Cambridge Working Papers in Economics 1682, Faculty of Economics, University of Cambridge.
    • Handle: RePEc:cam:camdae:1682
    Note: lda24
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.econ.cam.ac.uk/research-files/repec/cam/pdf/cwpe1682.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Laura Diaz Anadon & Gregory Nemet & Elena Verdolini, 2013. "The Future Costs of Nuclear Power Using Multiple Expert Elicitations: Effects of RD&D and Elicitation Design," Working Papers 2013.85, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei.
    2. Kenneth Arrow, 1962. "Economic Welfare and the Allocation of Resources for Invention," NBER Chapters, in: The Rate and Direction of Inventive Activity: Economic and Social Factors, pages 609-626, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    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. 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).
    2. Cameron Hepburn & Jacquelyn Pless & David Popp, 2018. "Policy Brief—Encouraging Innovation that Protects Environmental Systems: Five Policy Proposals," Review of Environmental Economics and Policy, Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 12(1), pages 154-169.

    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. 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.
    2. Sakakibara, Mariko, 1997. "Evaluating government-sponsored R&D consortia in Japan: who benefits and how?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 26(4-5), pages 447-473, December.
    3. Gersbach, Hans & Schneider, Maik & Schneller, Olivier, 2010. "Optimal Mix of Applied and Basic Research, Distance to Frontier, and Openness," CEPR Discussion Papers 7795, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    4. Dirk Czarnitzki & Hanna Hottenrott & Susanne Thorwarth, 2011. "Industrial research versus development investment: the implications of financial constraints," Cambridge Journal of Economics, Cambridge Political Economy Society, vol. 35(3), pages 527-544.
    5. Ali-Yrkkö, Jyrki, 2004. "Impact of Public R&D Financing on Private R&D - Does Financial Constraint Matter?," Discussion Papers 943, The Research Institute of the Finnish Economy.
    6. Jarle Moen, 2005. "Is Mobility of Technical Personnel a Source of R&D Spillovers?," Journal of Labor Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 23(1), pages 81-114, January.
    7. Hans K. Hvide & Benjamin F. Jones, 2018. "University Innovation and the Professor's Privilege," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 108(7), pages 1860-1898, July.
    8. Persson, Bo, 2008. "The Development of a New Swedish Innovation Policy A Historical Institutional Approach," Papers in Innovation Studies 2008/2, Lund University, CIRCLE - Centre for Innovation Research.
    9. Aiello, Francesco & Albanese, Giuseppe & Piselli, Paolo, 2019. "Good value for public money? The case of R&D policy," Journal of Policy Modeling, Elsevier, vol. 41(6), pages 1057-1076.
    10. Inglesi-Lotz, Roula, 2017. "Social rate of return to R&D on various energy technologies: Where should we invest more? A study of G7 countries," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 101(C), pages 521-525.
    11. Thomas Bolli & Martin Woerter, 2013. "Technological Diversification and Innovation Performance," KOF Working papers 13-336, KOF Swiss Economic Institute, ETH Zurich.
    12. Kim, Jongwook & Mahoney, Joseph T., 2008. "A Strategic Theory of the Firm as a Nexus of Incomplete Contracts: A Property Rights Approach," Working Papers 08-0108, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, College of Business.
    13. Daniel P. Gross & Bhaven N. Sampat, 2021. "The Economics of Crisis Innovation Policy: A Historical Perspective," AEA Papers and Proceedings, American Economic Association, vol. 111, pages 346-350, May.
    14. Barge-Gil, Andrés & López, Alberto, 2014. "R&D determinants: Accounting for the differences between research and development," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(9), pages 1634-1648.
    15. Pal, Rupayan, 2010. "Technology adoption in a differentiated duopoly: Cournot versus Bertrand," Research in Economics, Elsevier, vol. 64(2), pages 128-136, June.
    16. Serhat Burmaoglu & Ozcan Saritas, 2019. "An evolutionary analysis of the innovation policy domain: Is there a paradigm shift?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 118(3), pages 823-847, March.
    17. Bakari, Sayef, 2021. "Do researchers affect economic growth?," MPRA Paper 108788, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    18. Polemis, Michael & Tselekounis, Markos, 2019. "Does deregulation drive innovation intensity? Lessons learned from the OECD telecommunications sector," MPRA Paper 92770, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    19. Bronwyn Hall & Alessandro Maffioli, 2008. "Evaluating the impact of technology development funds in emerging economies: evidence from Latin America," The European Journal of Development Research, Taylor and Francis Journals, vol. 20(2), pages 172-198.
    20. Kumar, Nagesh & Saqib, Mohammed, 1996. "Firm size, opportunities for adaptation and in-house R & D activity in developing countries: the case of Indian manufacturing," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 25(5), pages 713-722, August.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    decision-making under uncertainty; research policy; public R&D; energy R&D; energy technology;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • O32 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - Management of Technological Innovation and R&D
    • O38 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - Government Policy
    • G11 - Financial Economics - - General Financial Markets - - - Portfolio Choice; Investment Decisions
    • Q48 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Energy - - - Government Policy
    • D81 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty - - - Criteria for Decision-Making under Risk and Uncertainty

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:cam:camdae:1682. 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: Jake Dyer (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.econ.cam.ac.uk/ .

    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.