IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/energy/v34y2009i7p873-879.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Modeling technological change in energy systems – From optimization to agent-based modeling

Author

Listed:
  • Ma, Tieju
  • Nakamori, Yoshiteru

Abstract

Operational optimization models are one of the main streams in modeling energy systems. Agent-based modeling and simulation seem to be another approach getting popular in this field. In either optimization or agent-based modeling practices, technological change in energy systems is a very important and inevitable factor that researchers need to deal with. By introducing three stylized models, namely, a traditional optimization model, an optimization model with endogenous technological change, and an agent-based model, all of which were developed based on the same deliberately simplified energy system, this paper compares how technological change is treated differently in different modeling practices for energy systems, the different philosophies underlying them, and the advantages/disadvantages of each modeling practice. Finally, this paper identifies the different contexts suitable for applying optimization models and agent-based models in decision support regarding energy systems.

Suggested Citation

  • Ma, Tieju & Nakamori, Yoshiteru, 2009. "Modeling technological change in energy systems – From optimization to agent-based modeling," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 34(7), pages 873-879.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:energy:v:34:y:2009:i:7:p:873-879
    DOI: 10.1016/j.energy.2009.03.005
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0360544209000929
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.energy.2009.03.005?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    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. Messner, S. & Golodnikov, A. & Gritsevskii, A., 1996. "A stochastic version of the dynamic linear programming model MESSAGE III," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 21(9), pages 775-784.
    2. Arthur, W Brian, 1989. "Competing Technologies, Increasing Returns, and Lock-In by Historical Events," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 99(394), pages 116-131, March.
    3. Wene, C.-O., 1996. "Energy-economy analysis: Linking the macroeconomic and systems engineering approaches," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 21(9), pages 809-824.
    4. Socrates Kypreos & Leonardo Barreto & Pantelis Capros & Sabine Messner, 2000. "ERIS: A model prototype with endogenous technological change," International Journal of Global Energy Issues, Inderscience Enterprises Ltd, vol. 14(1/2/3/4), pages 347-397.
    5. Sabine Messner, 1997. "Endogenized technological learning in an energy systems model," Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Springer, vol. 7(3), pages 291-313.
    6. Derek W. Bunn and Fernando Oliveira, 2001. "An Application of Agent-based Simulation to the New Electricity Trading Arrangements of England and Wales," Computing in Economics and Finance 2001 93, Society for Computational Economics.
    7. Ma, Tieju & Nakamori, Yoshiteru, 2005. "Agent-based modeling on technological innovation as an evolutionary process," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 166(3), pages 741-755, November.
    8. Gritsevskyi, Andrii & Nakicenovi, Nebojsa, 2000. "Modeling uncertainty of induced technological change," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 28(13), pages 907-921, November.
    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. Tieju Ma, 2010. "Coping with Uncertainties in Technological Learning," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 56(1), pages 192-201, January.
    2. Ding, Suiting & Zhang, Ming & Song, Yan, 2019. "Exploring China's carbon emissions peak for different carbon tax scenarios," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 129(C), pages 1245-1252.
    3. Chen, Huayi & Zhou, P., 2019. "Modeling systematic technology adoption: Can one calibrated representative agent represent heterogeneous agents?," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 89(C), pages 257-270.
    4. Loschel, Andreas, 2002. "Technological change in economic models of environmental policy: a survey," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 43(2-3), pages 105-126, December.
    5. Ma, T. & Grubler, A. & Nakamori, Y., 2009. "Modeling technology adoptions for sustainable development under increasing returns, uncertainty, and heterogeneous agents," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 195(1), pages 296-306, May.
    6. Grubler, Arnulf & Nakicenovic, Nebojsa & Victor, David G., 1999. "Dynamics of energy technologies and global change," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 27(5), pages 247-280, May.
    7. Takanobu Kosugi, 2010. "Assessments of ‘Greenhouse Insurance’: A Methodological Review," Asia-Pacific Financial Markets, Springer;Japanese Association of Financial Economics and Engineering, vol. 17(4), pages 345-363, December.
    8. 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.
    9. Samadi, Sascha, 2018. "The experience curve theory and its application in the field of electricity generation technologies – A literature review," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 82(P3), pages 2346-2364.
    10. Chen, Huayi & Ma, Tieju, 2017. "Optimizing systematic technology adoption with heterogeneous agents," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 257(1), pages 287-296.
    11. Giovanni Dosi & Richard Nelson, 2013. "The Evolution of Technologies: An Assessment of the State-of-the-Art," Eurasian Business Review, Springer;Eurasia Business and Economics Society, vol. 3(1), pages 3-46, June.
    12. Aurélie Méjean & Franck Lecocq & Yacob Mulugetta, 2015. "Equity, burden sharing and development pathways: reframing international climate negotiations," International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 15(4), pages 387-402, November.
    13. Ma, Tieju & Chen, Huayi, 2015. "Adoption of an emerging infrastructure with uncertain technological learning and spatial reconfiguration," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 243(3), pages 995-1003.
    14. Berglund, Christer & Soderholm, Patrik, 2006. "Modeling technical change in energy system analysis: analyzing the introduction of learning-by-doing in bottom-up energy models," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 34(12), pages 1344-1356, August.
    15. Kalkuhl, Matthias & Edenhofer, Ottmar & Lessmann, Kai, 2012. "Learning or lock-in: Optimal technology policies to support mitigation," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 34(1), pages 1-23.
    16. Yeh, Sonia & Rubin, Edward, 2007. "A centurial history of technological change and learning curves or pulverized coal-fired utility boilers," Institute of Transportation Studies, Working Paper Series qt4xn4w7rn, Institute of Transportation Studies, UC Davis.
    17. Moglianesi, Andrea & Keppo, Ilkka & Lerede, Daniele & Savoldi, Laura, 2023. "Role of technology learning in the decarbonization of the iron and steel sector: An energy system approach using a global-scale optimization model," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 274(C).
    18. Manne, Alan S. & Barreto, Leonardo, 2004. "Learn-by-doing and carbon dioxide abatement," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 26(4), pages 621-633, July.
    19. Gillingham, Kenneth & Newell, Richard G. & Pizer, William A., 2008. "Modeling endogenous technological change for climate policy analysis," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 30(6), pages 2734-2753, November.
    20. Way, Rupert & Lafond, François & Lillo, Fabrizio & Panchenko, Valentyn & Farmer, J. Doyne, 2019. "Wright meets Markowitz: How standard portfolio theory changes when assets are technologies following experience curves," Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Elsevier, vol. 101(C), pages 211-238.

    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:energy:v:34:y:2009:i:7:p:873-879. 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.journals.elsevier.com/energy .

    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.