IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ecolec/v68y2009i4p1195-1212.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Testing for the presence of some features of increasing returns to adoption factors in energy system dynamics: An analysis via the learning curve approach

Author

Listed:
  • Kahouli-Brahmi, Sondes

Abstract

The purpose of this paper is to explain the sources of energy system lock-in. It presents a comparative analysis of the respective contributions of some features of increasing returns to adoption factors, i.e. learning-by-doing, learning-by-searching and returns to scale effects in explaining the technological change dynamics in the energy system. The paper is technically based on a critical analysis of the learning curve approach. Econometric estimation of learning and scale effects inherent to seven energy technologies were performed by the use of several learning curve specifications. These specifications permit to deal with some crucial issues related to the learning curve estimation which are associated with the problem of omitted variable bias, the endogeneity effects and the choice of learning indicators. Results show that dynamic economies from learning effects coupled with static economies from scale effects are responsible for the lock-in phenomena of the energy system. They also show that the magnitude of such effects is correlated with the technology life cycle (maturity). In particular, results point out that, 1) the emerging technologies exhibit low learning rates associated with diseconomies of scale which are argued to be symptomatic of the outset of the deployment of new technologies characterized by diffusion barriers and high level of uncertainty, 2) the evolving technologies present rather high learning rates meaning that they respond quickly to capacity expansion and R&D activities development, 3) conventional mature technologies display low learning rates but increasing returns to scale implying that they are characterized by a limited additional diffusion prospects.

Suggested Citation

  • Kahouli-Brahmi, Sondes, 2009. "Testing for the presence of some features of increasing returns to adoption factors in energy system dynamics: An analysis via the learning curve approach," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(4), pages 1195-1212, February.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:ecolec:v:68:y:2009:i:4:p:1195-1212
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921-8009(08)00386-8
    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. Kahouli-Brahmi, Sondes, 2008. "Technological learning in energy-environment-economy modelling: A survey," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(1), pages 138-162, January.
    2. Nikolaos Kouvaritakis & Antonio Soria & Stephane Isoard & Claude Thonet, 2000. "Endogenous learning in world post-Kyoto scenarios: application of the POLES model under adaptive expectations," International Journal of Global Energy Issues, Inderscience Enterprises Ltd, vol. 14(1/2/3/4), pages 222-248.
    3. McDonald, Alan & Schrattenholzer, Leo, 2001. "Learning rates for energy technologies," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 29(4), pages 255-261, March.
    4. Dosi, Giovanni, 1993. "Technological paradigms and technological trajectories : A suggested interpretation of the determinants and directions of technical change," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 22(2), pages 102-103, April.
    5. Dickey, David A & Fuller, Wayne A, 1981. "Likelihood Ratio Statistics for Autoregressive Time Series with a Unit Root," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 49(4), pages 1057-1072, June.
    6. Goldemberg, Jose, 1996. "The evolution of ethanol costs in Brazil," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 24(12), pages 1127-1128, December.
    7. Breusch, T S, 1978. "Testing for Autocorrelation in Dynamic Linear Models," Australian Economic Papers, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 17(31), pages 334-355, December.
    8. Kobos, Peter H. & Erickson, Jon D. & Drennen, Thomas E., 2006. "Technological learning and renewable energy costs: implications for US renewable energy policy," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 34(13), pages 1645-1658, September.
    9. Mackay, R.M & Probert, S.D, 1998. "Likely market-penetrations of renewable-energy technologies," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 59(1), pages 1-38, January.
    10. Junginger, M. & Faaij, A. & Turkenburg, W. C., 2005. "Global experience curves for wind farms," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 33(2), pages 133-150, January.
    11. Sue Wing, Ian, 2006. "Representing induced technological change in models for climate policy analysis," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 28(5-6), pages 539-562, November.
    12. Neij, L, 1999. "Cost dynamics of wind power," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 24(5), pages 375-389.
    13. Hausman, Jerry, 2015. "Specification tests in econometrics," Applied Econometrics, Publishing House "SINERGIA PRESS", vol. 38(2), pages 112-134.
    14. Papineau, Maya, 2006. "An economic perspective on experience curves and dynamic economies in renewable energy technologies," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 34(4), pages 422-432, March.
    15. Isoard, Stephane & Soria, Antonio, 2001. "Technical change dynamics: evidence from the emerging renewable energy technologies," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 23(6), pages 619-636, November.
    16. Junginger, Martin & de Visser, Erika & Hjort-Gregersen, Kurt & Koornneef, Joris & Raven, Rob & Faaij, Andre & Turkenburg, Wim, 2006. "Technological learning in bioenergy systems," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 34(18), pages 4024-4041, December.
    17. Klaassen, Ger & Miketa, Asami & Larsen, Katarina & Sundqvist, Thomas, 2005. "The impact of R&D on innovation for wind energy in Denmark, Germany and the United Kingdom," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 54(2-3), pages 227-240, August.
    18. C. Harmon, 2000. "Experience Curves of Photovoltaic Technology," Working Papers ir00014, International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis.
    19. Grubler, Arnulf & Messner, Sabine, 1998. "Technological change and the timing of mitigation measures," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 20(5-6), pages 495-512, December.
    20. Patrik Söderholm & Ger Klaassen, 2007. "Wind Power in Europe: A Simultaneous Innovation–Diffusion Model," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 36(2), pages 163-190, February.
    21. Brian Arthur, W. & Ermoliev, Yu. M. & Kaniovski, Yu. M., 1987. "Path-dependent processes and the emergence of macro-structure," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 30(3), pages 294-303, June.
    22. Neij, Lena, 1997. "Use of experience curves to analyse the prospects for diffusion and adoption of renewable energy technology," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 25(13), pages 1099-1107, November.
    23. Söderholm, Patrik & Sundqvist, Thomas, 2007. "Empirical challenges in the use of learning curves for assessing the economic prospects of renewable energy technologies," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 32(15), pages 2559-2578.
    24. 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.
    25. Zvi Griliches, 1967. "Production Functions in Manufacturing: Some Preliminary Results," NBER Chapters,in: The Theory and Empirical Analysis of Production, pages 275-340 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. Lehmann, Paul, 2013. "Supplementing an emissions tax by a feed-in tariff for renewable electricity to address learning spillovers," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 61(C), pages 635-641.
    2. Lehmann, Paul & Gawel, Erik, 2013. "Why should support schemes for renewable electricity complement the EU emissions trading scheme?," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 52(C), pages 597-607.
    3. repec:gam:jeners:v:10:y:2017:i:12:p:2131-:d:122976 is not listed on IDEAS
    4. Mauleón, Ignacio, 2016. "Photovoltaic learning rate estimation: Issues and implications," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 65(C), pages 507-524.
    5. Lindman, Åsa & Söderholm, Patrik, 2012. "Wind power learning rates: A conceptual review and meta-analysis," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 34(3), pages 754-761.
    6. Kahouli, Sondès, 2011. "Effects of technological learning and uranium price on nuclear cost: Preliminary insights from a multiple factors learning curve and uranium market modeling," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 33(5), pages 840-852, September.
    7. Zhang, Da & Chai, Qimin & Zhang, Xiliang & He, Jiankun & Yue, Li & Dong, Xiufen & Wu, Shu, 2012. "Economical assessment of large-scale photovoltaic power development in China," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 40(1), pages 370-375.
    8. Díaz, Guzmán & Moreno, Blanca & Coto, José & Gómez-Aleixandre, Javier, 2015. "Valuation of wind power distributed generation by using Longstaff–Schwartz option pricing method," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 145(C), pages 223-233.
    9. Grafström, Jonas & Lindman, Åsa, 2017. "Invention, innovation and diffusion in the European wind power sector," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 114(C), pages 179-191.
    10. repec:eco:journ2:2018-02-2 is not listed on IDEAS
    11. Witajewski-Baltvilks, Jan & Verdolini, Elena & Tavoni, Massimo, 2015. "Bending the learning curve," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 52(S1), pages 86-99.
    12. Yao, Xilong & Liu, Yang & Qu, Shiyou, 2015. "When will wind energy achieve grid parity in China? – Connecting technological learning and climate finance," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 160(C), pages 697-704.
    13. repec:eee:tefoso:v:128:y:2018:i:c:p:104-117 is not listed on IDEAS
    14. Lafond, François & Bailey, Aimee Gotway & Bakker, Jan David & Rebois, Dylan & Zadourian, Rubina & McSharry, Patrick & Farmer, J. Doyne, 2018. "How well do experience curves predict technological progress? A method for making distributional forecasts," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 128(C), pages 104-117.
    15. Yu, C.F. & van Sark, W.G.J.H.M. & Alsema, E.A., 2011. "Unraveling the photovoltaic technology learning curve by incorporation of input price changes and scale effects," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 15(1), pages 324-337, January.
    16. Bointner, Raphael, 2014. "Innovation in the energy sector: Lessons learnt from R&D expenditures and patents in selected IEA countries," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 733-747.
    17. repec:gam:jsusta:v:9:y:2017:i:9:p:1549-:d:110864 is not listed on IDEAS
    18. repec:eee:enepol:v:113:y:2018:i:c:p:430-438 is not listed on IDEAS
    19. Raphael Bointner & Simon Pezzutto & Wolfram Sparber, 2016. "Scenarios of public energy research and development expenditures: financing energy innovation in Europe," Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Energy and Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 5(4), pages 470-488, July.
    20. repec:gam:jeners:v:11:y:2018:i:4:p:874-:d:140231 is not listed on IDEAS
    21. Dong, Changgui & Wiser, Ryan, 2013. "The impact of city-level permitting processes on residential photovoltaic installation prices and development times: An empirical analysis of solar systems in California cities," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 63(C), pages 531-542.
    22. 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.

    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:ecolec:v:68:y:2009:i:4:p:1195-1212. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Dana Niculescu). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/ecolecon .

    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 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.

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.