Innovation in the energy sector
AbstractThis study analyses the diffusion of renewable energy (RE) technologies. It analyses the transition dynamics as the sector broadens its energy mix and changes its capital stock. This shift is found to be desirable from an environmental, geopolitical and economic perspective. Yet, it greatly increases the technical and industrial complexity, and is not Pareto-efficient. We focus on wind and solar power, and discuss their promoted deployment against the energy policy principles of the EU. Put drastically, the promotion of ‘sustainability’ undermined ‘competitive’ mechanisms. This has potentially adverse effects on the ‘security of supply’ due to the market design that seeks to keep prices low. RE outperforms conventional facilities. Emergency capacities, however, are also exiting, especially in Germany. If markets are seen as one, there seems to be a threshold of wind and solar power that the current back-up system can incorporate without risking the security of supply. The policy relevant crux lies in conflicting mechanisms: the top-down promotion and planning policies undermine the bottom-up market selection. Then again, without interventions the market does not provide the socially desired outcomes. If tensions aggravate further, the implementation of the new technology base is likely to stall. In addition, the generous promotion resulted in the fast deployment of RE, which may have shortened the ‘formative phase’ of the diffusion process. A longer formative phase would have created more learning effects and fostered more incremental innovations. In addition, costs of subsidies are allocated differently across countries. Mechanisms that allocate costs to the public budget have greater acceptance rates than budget neutral ones that assign costs to consumers. The latter affect households asymmetrically across income classes. Also ownership structures changed; a large number of actors now constitute the energy sector. Citizens increasingly appeared as producers and investors, which stimulated the social acceptance of RE, and in some cases unlocked initially unfavourable vested interests.
Download InfoIf you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
Bibliographic InfoPaper provided by WWWforEurope in its series WWWforEurope Working Papers series with number 31.
Date of creation: Jul 2013
Date of revision:
Publication status: published
Contact details of provider:
Postal: WWWforEurope Project Office Austrian Institute of Economic Research Arsenal Objekt 20 A-1030 Vienna
Find related papers by JEL classification:
- O31 - Economic Development, Technological Change, and Growth - - Technological Change; Research and Development; Intellectual Property Rights - - - Innovation and Invention: Processes and Incentives
- O33 - Economic Development, Technological Change, and Growth - - Technological Change; Research and Development; Intellectual Property Rights - - - Technological Change: Choices and Consequences; Diffusion Processes
- P48 - Economic Systems - - Other Economic Systems - - - Political Economy; Legal Institutions; Property Rights; Natural Resources; Energy; Environment; Regional Studies
- Q48 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Energy - - - Government Policy
- Q58 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics - - - Environmental Economics: Government Policy
This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:
- NEP-ALL-2013-08-05 (All new papers)
- NEP-CSE-2013-08-05 (Economics of Strategic Management)
- NEP-ENE-2013-08-05 (Energy Economics)
- NEP-INO-2013-08-05 (Innovation)
- NEP-REG-2013-08-05 (Regulation)
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Oz Shy, 2011.
"A Short Survey of Network Economics,"
Review of Industrial Organization,
Springer, vol. 38(2), pages 119-149, March.
- Katz, Michael L & Shapiro, Carl, 1985. "Network Externalities, Competition, and Compatibility," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 75(3), pages 424-40, June.
- Faye Steiner, 2001. "Regulation, industry structure and performance in the electricity supply industry," OECD Economic Studies, OECD Publishing, vol. 2001(1), pages 143-182.
- Daron Acemoglu & Philippe Aghion & Leonardo Bursztyn & David Hemous, 2010.
"The Environment and Directed Technical Change,"
2010.93, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei.
- Acemoglu, Daron & Aghion, Philippe & Bursztyn, Leonardo & Hemous, David, 2011. "The Environment and Directed Technical Change," CEPR Discussion Papers 8660, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
- Acemoglu, Daron & Aghion, Philippe & Bursztyn, Leonardo & Hemous, David, 2010. "The Environment and Directed Technical Change," Seminar Papers 762, Stockholm University, Institute for International Economic Studies.
- Daron Acemoglu & Philippe Aghion & Leonardo Bursztyn & David Hemous, 2009. "The Environment and Directed Technical Change," NBER Working Papers 15451, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
- Arthur, W Brian, 1989. "Competing Technologies, Increasing Returns, and Lock-In by Historical Events," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 99(394), pages 116-31, March.
- Malerba, Franco, 2002. "Sectoral systems of innovation and production," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 31(2), pages 247-264, February.
- Branker, K. & Pathak, M.J.M. & Pearce, J.M., 2011. "A review of solar photovoltaic levelized cost of electricity," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 15(9), pages 4470-4482.
- Angela Köppl & Karl Steininger, 2012. "The climate challenge for the energy system," Empirica, Springer, vol. 39(2), pages 157-163, May.
- Kerr, Suzi & Newell, Richard, 2001.
"Policy-Induced Technology Adoption: Evidence from the U.S. Lead Phasedown,"
dp-01-14, Resources For the Future.
- Suzi Kerr & Richard G. Newell, 2003. "Policy-Induced Technology Adoption: Evidence from the U.S. Lead Phasedown," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 51(3), pages 317-343, 09.
- Menanteau, Philippe & Lefebvre, Herve, 2000. "Competing technologies and the diffusion of innovations: the emergence of energy-efficient lamps in the residential sector," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 29(3), pages 375-389, March.
- 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.
- de Nooij, Michiel & Baarsma, Barbara & Bloemhof, Gabriël & Slootweg, Han & Dijk, Harold, 2010. "Development and application of a cost-benefit framework for energy reliability: Using probabilistic methods in network planning and regulation to enhance social welfare: The N-1 rule," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 32(6), pages 1277-1282, November.
- Battaglini, Antonella & Komendantova, Nadejda & Brtnik, Patricia & Patt, Anthony, 2012. "Perception of barriers for expansion of electricity grids in the European Union," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(C), pages 254-259.
- Espey, James A. & Espey, Molly, 2004. "Turning on the Lights: A Meta-Analysis of Residential Electricity Demand Elasticities," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Southern Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 36(01), April.
- Luc Soete, 2007. "From Industrial to Innovation Policy," Journal of Industry, Competition and Trade, Springer, vol. 7(3), pages 273-284, December.
- David I. Stern & Cutler J. Cleveland, 2004. "Energy and Economic Growth," Rensselaer Working Papers in Economics 0410, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Department of Economics.
- Roessner, J. David, 1984. "Commercializing solar technology: The government role," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 13(4), pages 235-246, August.
- Pollitt, Michael, 2009.
"Evaluating the evidence on electricity reform: Lessons for the South East Europe (SEE) market,"
Elsevier, vol. 17(1), pages 13-23, March.
- Pollitt, M., 2007. "Evaluating the evidence on electricity reform: Lessons for the South East Europe (SEE) market," Cambridge Working Papers in Economics 0756, Faculty of Economics, University of Cambridge.
- Antal, Miklós & Hukkinen, Janne I., 2010. "The art of the cognitive war to save the planet," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(5), pages 937-943, March.
- 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.
- Miklós Antal & Ardjan Gazheli & Jeroen van den Bergh, 2012. "Behavioral Foundations of Sustainability Transitions," WWWforEurope Working Papers series 3, WWWforEurope.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: ().
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.