IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/
MyIDEAS: Login to save this article or follow this journal

Future capacity growth of energy technologies: are scenarios consistent with historical evidence?

  • C. Wilson

    ()

  • A. Grubler
  • N. Bauer
  • V. Krey
  • K. Riahi
Registered author(s):

    Future scenarios of the energy system under greenhouse gas emission constraints depict dramatic growth in a range of energy technologies. Technological growth dynamics observed historically provide a useful comparator for these future trajectories. We find that historical time series data reveal a consistent relationship between how much a technology’s cumulative installed capacity grows, and how long this growth takes. This relationship between extent (how much) and duration (for how long) is consistent across both energy supply and end-use technologies, and both established and emerging technologies. We then develop and test an approach for using this historical relationship to assess technological trajectories in future scenarios. Our approach for “learning from the past” contributes to the assessment and verification of integrated assessment and energy-economic models used to generate quantitative scenarios. Using data on power generation technologies from two such models, we also find a consistent extent - duration relationship across both technologies and scenarios. This relationship describes future low carbon technological growth in the power sector which appears to be conservative relative to what has been evidenced historically. Specifically, future extents of capacity growth are comparatively low given the lengthy time duration of that growth. We treat this finding with caution due to the low number of data points. Yet it remains counter-intuitive given the extremely rapid growth rates of certain low carbon technologies under stringent emission constraints. We explore possible reasons for the apparent scenario conservatism, and find parametric or structural conservatism in the underlying models to be one possible explanation. Copyright Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

    If 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.

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1007/s10584-012-0618-y
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.

    Article provided by Springer in its journal Climatic Change.

    Volume (Year): 118 (2013)
    Issue (Month): 2 (May)
    Pages: 381-395

    as
    in new window

    Handle: RePEc:spr:climat:v:118:y:2013:i:2:p:381-395
    Contact details of provider: Web page: http://www.springer.com/economics/journal/10584

    Order Information: Web: http://link.springer.de/orders.htm

    References listed on IDEAS
    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.:

    as in new window
    1. 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.
    2. Daron Acemoglu & Philippe Aghion & Leonardo Bursztyn & David Hemous, 2010. "The Environment and Directed Technical Change," Working Papers 2010.93, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei.
    3. Kruyt, Bert & van Vuuren, D.P. & de Vries, H.J.M. & Groenenberg, H., 2009. "Indicators for energy security," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(6), pages 2166-2181, June.
    4. Ek, Kristina & Söderholm, Patrik, 2010. "Technology learning in the presence of public R&D: The case of European wind power," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(12), pages 2356-2362, October.
    5. Unruh, Gregory C., 2000. "Understanding carbon lock-in," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 28(12), pages 817-830, October.
    6. Clarke, Leon & Weyant, John & Edmonds, Jae, 2008. "On the sources of technological change: What do the models assume," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 30(2), pages 409-424, March.
    7. Gillingham, Kenneth T. & Newell, Richard G. & Pizer, William A., 2007. "Modeling Endogenous Technological Change for Climate Policy Analysis," Discussion Papers dp-07-14, Resources For the Future.
    8. Yeh, Sonia & Rubin, Edward S., 2012. "A review of uncertainties in technology experience curves," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 34(3), pages 762-771.
    9. 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.
    10. Roger Fouquet, 2010. "The Slow Search for Solutions: Lessons from Historical Energy Transitions by Sector and Service," Working Papers 2010-05, BC3.
    11. 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.
    12. Azar, Christian & Lindgren, Kristian & Andersson, Bjorn A., 2003. "Global energy scenarios meeting stringent CO2 constraints--cost-effective fuel choices in the transportation sector," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 31(10), pages 961-976, August.
    13. Pizer, William A. & Popp, David, 2008. "Endogenizing technological change: Matching empirical evidence to modeling needs," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 30(6), pages 2754-2770, November.
    14. van Vuuren, Detlef P. & Hoogwijk, Monique & Barker, Terry & Riahi, Keywan & Boeters, Stefan & Chateau, Jean & Scrieciu, Serban & van Vliet, Jasper & Masui, Toshihiko & Blok, Kornelis & Blomen, Eliane , 2009. "Comparison of top-down and bottom-up estimates of sectoral and regional greenhouse gas emission reduction potentials," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(12), pages 5125-5139, December.
    15. Nic Rivers & Mark Jaccard, 2005. "Combining Top-Down and Bottom-Up Approaches to Energy-Economy Modeling Using Discrete Choice Methods," The Energy Journal, International Association for Energy Economics, vol. 0(Number 1), pages 83-106.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

    When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:climat:v:118:y:2013:i:2:p:381-395. 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: (Sonal Shukla)

    or (Christopher F Baum)

    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 references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

    If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link 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 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.

    This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.