IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/eneeco/v33y2011i4p619-631.html

Technology interactions among low-carbon energy technologies: What can we learn from a large number of scenarios?

Author

Listed:
  • McJeon, Haewon C.
  • Clarke, Leon
  • Kyle, Page
  • Wise, Marshall
  • Hackbarth, Andrew
  • Bryant, Benjamin P.
  • Lempert, Robert J.

Abstract

Advanced low-carbon energy technologies can substantially reduce the cost of stabilizing atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations. Understanding the interactions between these technologies and their impact on the costs of stabilization can help inform energy policy decisions. Many previous studies have addressed this challenge by exploring a small number of representative scenarios that represent particular combinations of future technology developments. This paper uses a combinatorial approach in which scenarios are created for all combinations of the technology development assumptions that underlie a smaller, representative set of scenarios. We estimate stabilization costs for 768 runs of the Global Change Assessment Model (GCAM), based on 384 different combinations of assumptions about the future performance of technologies and two stabilization goals. Graphical depiction of the distribution of stabilization costs provides first-order insights about the full data set and individual technologies. We apply a formal scenario discovery method to obtain more nuanced insights about the combinations of technology assumptions most strongly associated with high-cost outcomes. Many of the fundamental insights from traditional representative scenario analysis still hold under this comprehensive combinatorial analysis. For example, the importance of carbon capture and storage (CCS) and the substitution effect among supply technologies are consistently demonstrated. The results also provide more clarity regarding insights not easily demonstrated through representative scenario analysis. For example, they show more clearly how certain supply technologies can provide a hedge against high stabilization costs, and that aggregate end-use efficiency improvements deliver relatively consistent stabilization cost reductions. Furthermore, the results indicate that a lack of CCS options combined with lower technological advances in the buildings sector or the transportation sector is the most powerful predictor of high-cost scenarios.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:eneeco:v:33:y:2011:i:4:p:619-631
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0140988310001866
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to

    for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Baker, Erin & Chon, Haewon & Keisler, Jeffrey, 2009. "Advanced solar R&D: Combining economic analysis with expert elicitations to inform climate policy," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 31(Supplemen), pages 37-49.
    2. Scott, Michael J. & Sands, Ronald D. & Edmonds, Jae & Liebetrau, Albert M. & Engel, David W., 1999. "Uncertainty in integrated assessment models: modeling with MiniCAM 1.0," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 27(14), pages 855-879, December.
    3. Edmonds, Jae & Clarke, John & Dooley, James & Kim, Son H. & Smith, Steven J., 2004. "Stabilization of CO2 in a B2 world: insights on the roles of carbon capture and disposal, hydrogen, and transportation technologies," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 26(4), pages 517-537, July.
    4. Blanford, Geoffrey J., 2009. "R&D investment strategy for climate change," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 31(Supplemen), pages 27-36.
    5. Richard G. Richels & Thomas F. Rutherford & Geoffrey J. Blanford & Leon Clarke, 2007. "Managing the transition to climate stabilization," Climate Policy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 7(5), pages 409-428, September.
    6. Steve Bankes, 1993. "Exploratory Modeling for Policy Analysis," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 41(3), pages 435-449, June.
    7. Ottmar Edenhofer & Brigitte Knopf & Terry Barker & Lavinia Baumstark & Elie Bellevrat & Bertrand Chateau & Patrick Criqui & Morna Isaac & Alban Kitous & Socrates Kypreos & Marian Leimbach & Kai Lessma, 2010. "The Economics of Low Stabilization: Model Comparison of Mitigation Strategies and Costs," The Energy Journal, , vol. 31(1_suppl), pages 11-48, June.
    8. 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.
    9. repec:aen:journl:2010se1-low-stabilization-a02 is not listed on IDEAS
    10. Gritsevskyi, Andrii & Nakicenovi, Nebojsa, 2000. "Modeling uncertainty of induced technological change," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 28(13), pages 907-921, November.
    11. Robert J. Lempert & David G. Groves & Steven W. Popper & Steve C. Bankes, 2006. "A General, Analytic Method for Generating Robust Strategies and Narrative Scenarios," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 52(4), pages 514-528, April.
    12. repec:aen:journl:1987v08-03-a01 is not listed on IDEAS
    13. repec:aen:journl:2006se_jaccard-a04 is not listed on IDEAS
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. 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.
    2. 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.
    3. Olaleye, Olaitan & Baker, Erin, 2015. "Large scale scenario analysis of future low carbon energy options," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 49(C), pages 203-216.
    4. Iyer, Gokul & Hultman, Nathan & Eom, Jiyong & McJeon, Haewon & Patel, Pralit & Clarke, Leon, 2015. "Diffusion of low-carbon technologies and the feasibility of long-term climate targets," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 90(PA), pages 103-118.
    5. Baker, Erin & Bosetti, Valentina & Salo, Ahti, "undated". "Finding Common Ground when Experts Disagree: Belief Dominance over Portfolios of Alternatives," MITP: Mitigation, Innovation and Transformation Pathways 243147, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei (FEEM).
    6. 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.
    7. Lempert Robert J., 2014. "Embedding (some) benefit-cost concepts into decision support processes with deep uncertainty," Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis, De Gruyter, vol. 5(3), pages 487-514, December.
    8. Diaz Anadon, Laura & Chan, Gabe & Bosetti, Valentina & Nemet, Gregory & Verdolini, Elena, "undated". "Energy Technology Expert Elicitations for Policy: Workshops, Modeling, and Meta-analysis," Climate Change and Sustainable Development 188381, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei (FEEM).
    9. Erik Pruyt & Jan H. Kwakkel, 2014. "Radicalization under deep uncertainty: a multi-model exploration of activism, extremism, and terrorism," System Dynamics Review, System Dynamics Society, vol. 30(1-2), pages 1-28, January.
    10. Erin Baker & Olaitan Olaleye & Lara Aleluia Reis, 2015. "Decision Frameworks and the Investment in R&D," Working Papers 2015.42, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei.
    11. Hamarat, Caner & Kwakkel, Jan H. & Pruyt, Erik, 2013. "Adaptive Robust Design under deep uncertainty," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 80(3), pages 408-418.
    12. Bistline, John E., 2016. "Energy technology R&D portfolio management: Modeling uncertain returns and market diffusion," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 183(C), pages 1181-1196.
    13. Hidayatno, Akhmad & Jafino, Bramka Arga & Setiawan, Andri D. & Purwanto, Widodo Wahyu, 2020. "When and why does transition fail? A model-based identification of adoption barriers and policy vulnerabilities for transition to natural gas vehicles," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 138(C).
    14. Luciano Raso & Jan Kwakkel & Jos Timmermans, 2019. "Assessing the Capacity of Adaptive Policy Pathways to Adapt on Time by Mapping Trigger Values to Their Outcomes," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(6), pages 1-16, March.
    15. Patrick Steinmann & Koen van der Zwet & Bas Keijser, 2024. "Simulation‐based generation and analysis of multidimensional future scenarios with time series clustering," Futures & Foresight Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 6(4), December.
    16. Ding, H. & Zhou, D.Q. & Liu, G.Q. & Zhou, P., 2020. "Cost reduction or electricity penetration: Government R&D-induced PV development and future policy schemes," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 124(C).
    17. Giacomo Marangoni & Gauthier De Maere & Valentina Bosetti, "undated". "Optimal Clean Energy R&D Investments Under Uncertainty," MITP: Mitigation, Innovation and Transformation Pathways 256056, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei (FEEM).
    18. Julie E. Shortridge & Seth D. Guikema, 2016. "Scenario Discovery with Multiple Criteria: An Evaluation of the Robust Decision‐Making Framework for Climate Change Adaptation," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 36(12), pages 2298-2312, December.
    19. 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).
    20. Eker, Sibel & van Daalen, Els, 2015. "A model-based analysis of biomethane production in the Netherlands and the effectiveness of the subsidization policy under uncertainty," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 82(C), pages 178-196.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;

    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:eee:eneeco:v:33:y:2011:i:4:p:619-631. 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.