Interim monitoring of cost dynamics for publicly supported energy technologies
The combination of substantial public funding of nascent energy technologies and recent increases in the costs of those that have been most heavily supported has raised questions about whether policy makers should sustain, alter, enhance, or terminate such programs. This paper uses experience curves for photovoltaics (PV) and wind to (1) estimate ranges of costs for these public programs and (2) introduce new ways of evaluating recent cost dynamics. For both technology cases, the estimated costs of the subsidies required to reach targets are sensitive to the choice of time period on which cost projections are based. The variation in the discounted social cost of subsidies exceeds an order of magnitude. Vigilance is required to avoid the very expensive outcomes contained within these distributions of social costs. Two measures of the significance of recent deviations are introduced. Both indicate that wind costs are within the expected range of prior forecasts but that PV costs are not. The magnitude of the public funds involved in these programs heightens the need for better analytical tools with which to monitor and evaluate cost dynamics.
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.:
- Kahouli-Brahmi, Sondes, 2008. "Technological learning in energy-environment-economy modelling: A survey," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(1), pages 138-162, January.
- Baker, Erin & Adu-Bonnah, Kwame, 2008. "Investment in risky R&D programs in the face of climate uncertainty," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 30(2), pages 465-486, March.
- McDonald, Alan & Schrattenholzer, Leo, 2001. "Learning rates for energy technologies," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 29(4), pages 255-261, March.
- Neij, Lena, 2008. "Cost development of future technologies for power generation--A study based on experience curves and complementary bottom-up assessments," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(6), pages 2200-2211, June.
- Rubin, Edward S. & Yeh, Sonia & Antes, Matt & Berkenpas, Michael & Davison, John, 2007. "Use of experience curves to estimate the future cost of power plants with CO2 capture," Institute of Transportation Studies, Working Paper Series qt46x6h0n0, Institute of Transportation Studies, UC Davis.
- Ottmar Edenhofer, Kai Lessmann, Claudia Kemfert, Michael Grubb and Jonathan Kohler, 2006. "Induced Technological Change: Exploring its Implications for the Economics of Atmospheric Stabilization: Synthesis Report from the Innovation Modeling Comparison Project," The Energy Journal, International Association for Energy Economics, vol. 0(Special I), pages 57-108.
- Albrecht, Johan, 2007. "The future role of photovoltaics: A learning curve versus portfolio perspective," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(4), pages 2296-2304, April.
- Uyterlinde, Martine A. & Junginger, Martin & de Vries, Hage J. & Faaij, Andre P.C. & Turkenburg, Wim C., 2007. "Implications of technological learning on the prospects for renewable energy technologies in Europe," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(8), pages 4072-4087, August.
- Arthur van Benthem & Kenneth Gillingham & James Sweeney, 2008. "Learning-by-Doing and the Optimal Solar Policy in California," The Energy Journal, International Association for Energy Economics, vol. 0(Number 3), pages 131-152.
- Sabine Messner, 1997. "Endogenized technological learning in an energy systems model," Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Springer, vol. 7(3), pages 291-313.
- Freeman, Chris & Louca, Francisco, 2002.
"As Time Goes By: From the Industrial Revolutions to the Information Revolution,"
Oxford University Press, number 9780199251056.
- Freeman, Chris & Louca, Francisco, 2001. "As Time Goes By: From the Industrial Revolutions to the Information Revolution," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780199241071.
- Irwin, Douglas A & Klenow, Peter J, 1994. "Learning-by-Doing Spillovers in the Semiconductor Industry," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 102(6), pages 1200-1227, December.
- Neij, Lena & Astrand, Kerstin, 2006. "Outcome indicators for the evaluation of energy policy instruments and technical change," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 34(17), pages 2662-2676, November.
- Rubin, Edward S & Taylor, Margaret R & Yeh, Sonia & Hounshell, David A, 2004. "Learning curves for environmental technology and their importance for climate policy analysis," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 29(9), pages 1551-1559.
- Rubin, Edward S. & Taylor, Margaret R & Yeh, Sonia & Hounshell, David A., 2007. "Learning curves for environmental technology and their importance for climate policy analysis," Institute of Transportation Studies, Working Paper Series qt2b35s2b3, Institute of Transportation Studies, UC Davis.
- Popp, David, 2006. "ENTICE-BR: The effects of backstop technology R&D on climate policy models," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 28(2), pages 188-222, March.
- Goldemberg, Jose & Coelho, Suani Teixeira & Lucon, Oswaldo, 2004. "How adequate policies can push renewables," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 32(9), pages 1141-1146, June.
- van der Zwaan, Bob & Rabl, Ari, 2004. "The learning potential of photovoltaics: implications for energy policy," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 32(13), pages 1545-1554, September.
- Nemet, Gregory F., 2006. "Beyond the learning curve: factors influencing cost reductions in photovoltaics," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 34(17), pages 3218-3232, November.
- Gregory F. Nemet & Erin Baker, 2009. "Demand Subsidies Versus R&D: Comparing the Uncertain Impacts of Policy on a Pre-commercial Low-carbon Energy Technology," The Energy Journal, International Association for Energy Economics, vol. 0(Number 4), pages 49-80.
- Rosenberg,Nathan, 1994. "Exploring the Black Box," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521459556.
- Rosenberg,Nathan, 1994. "Exploring the Black Box," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521452700, September.
- Junginger, M. & Faaij, A. & Turkenburg, W. C., 2005. "Global experience curves for wind farms," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 33(2), pages 133-150, January.
- 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.
- Koomey, Jonathan & Hultman, Nathan E., 2007. "A reactor-level analysis of busbar costs for US nuclear plants, 1970-2005," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(11), pages 5630-5642, November.
- Shum, Kwok L. & Watanabe, Chihiro, 2007. "Photovoltaic deployment strategy in Japan and the USA--an institutional appraisal," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(2), pages 1186-1195, February.
- Geels, Frank W., 2002. "Technological transitions as evolutionary reconfiguration processes: a multi-level perspective and a case-study," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 31(8-9), pages 1257-1274, December.
- Gritsevskyi, Andrii & Nakicenovi, Nebojsa, 2000. "Modeling uncertainty of induced technological change," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 28(13), pages 907-921, November.
- Arthur, W. Brian, 2006. "Out-of-Equilibrium Economics and Agent-Based Modeling," Handbook of Computational Economics,in: Leigh Tesfatsion & Kenneth L. Judd (ed.), Handbook of Computational Economics, edition 1, volume 2, chapter 32, pages 1551-1564 Elsevier.
- Alberth, Stephan & Hope, Chris, 2007. "Climate modelling with endogenous technical change: Stochastic learning and optimal greenhouse gas abatement in the PAGE2002 model," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(3), pages 1795-1807, March. Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:enepol:v:37:y:2009:i:3:p:825-835. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.