IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/arx/papers/1502.05274.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

How predictable is technological progress?

Author

Listed:
  • J. Doyne Farmer
  • Francois Lafond

Abstract

Recently it has become clear that many technologies follow a generalized version of Moore's law, i.e. costs tend to drop exponentially, at different rates that depend on the technology. Here we formulate Moore's law as a correlated geometric random walk with drift, and apply it to historical data on 53 technologies. We derive a closed form expression approximating the distribution of forecast errors as a function of time. Based on hind-casting experiments we show that this works well, making it possible to collapse the forecast errors for many different technologies at different time horizons onto the same universal distribution. This is valuable because it allows us to make forecasts for any given technology with a clear understanding of the quality of the forecasts. As a practical demonstration we make distributional forecasts at different time horizons for solar photovoltaic modules, and show how our method can be used to estimate the probability that a given technology will outperform another technology at a given point in the future.

Suggested Citation

  • J. Doyne Farmer & Francois Lafond, 2015. "How predictable is technological progress?," Papers 1502.05274, arXiv.org, revised Nov 2015.
    • Handle: RePEc:arx:papers:1502.05274
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://arxiv.org/pdf/1502.05274
    File Function: Latest version
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. repec:ucp:bknber:9780226304557 is not listed on IDEAS
    2. Colpier, Ulrika Claeson & Cornland, Deborah, 2002. "The economics of the combined cycle gas turbine--an experience curve analysis," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 30(4), pages 309-316, March.
    3. Bosetti, Valentina & Catenacci, Michela & Fiorese, Giulia & Verdolini, Elena, 2012. "The future prospect of PV and CSP solar technologies: An expert elicitation survey," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 49(C), pages 308-317.
    4. Nordhaus, William D., 2007. "Two Centuries of Productivity Growth in Computing," The Journal of Economic History, Cambridge University Press, vol. 67(1), pages 128-159, March.
    5. Chatfield, Chris, 1993. "Calculating Interval Forecasts: Reply," Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, American Statistical Association, vol. 11(2), pages 143-144, April.
    6. Michael P. Clements & David F.Hendry, 2001. "Forecasting with difference-stationary and trend-stationary models," Econometrics Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 4(1), pages 1-19.
    7. Erin Baker & Meredith Fowlie & Derek Lemoine & Stanley S. Reynolds, 2013. "The Economics of Solar Electricity," Annual Review of Resource Economics, Annual Reviews, vol. 5(1), pages 387-426, June.
    8. Argote, L. & Epple, D., 1990. "Learning Curves In Manufacturing," GSIA Working Papers 89-90-02, Carnegie Mellon University, Tepper School of Business.
    9. Chatfield, Chris, 1993. "Calculating Interval Forecasts," Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, American Statistical Association, vol. 11(2), pages 121-135, April.
    10. Gavin Sinclair & Steven Klepper & Wesley Cohen, 2000. "What's Experience Got to Do With It? Sources of Cost Reduction in a Large Specialty Chemicals Producer," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 46(1), pages 28-45, January.
    11. Blough, Stephen R, 1992. "The Relationship between Power and Level for Generic Unit Root Tests in Finite Samples," Journal of Applied Econometrics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 7(3), pages 295-308, July-Sept.
    12. James W. Taylor & Derek W. Bunn, 1999. "A Quantile Regression Approach to Generating Prediction Intervals," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 45(2), pages 225-237, February.
    13. Tooraj Jamasb, 2007. "Technical Change Theory and Learning Curves: Patterns of Progress in Electricity Generation Technologies," The Energy Journal, , vol. 28(3), pages 51-72, July.
    14. Peter Thompson, 2012. "The Relationship between Unit Cost and Cumulative Quantity and the Evidence for Organizational Learning-by-Doing," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 26(3), pages 203-224, Summer.
    15. McNerney, James & Doyne Farmer, J. & Trancik, Jessika E., 2011. "Historical costs of coal-fired electricity and implications for the future," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(6), pages 3042-3054, June.
    16. 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.
    17. K. J. Arrow, 1971. "The Economic Implications of Learning by Doing," Palgrave Macmillan Books, in: F. H. Hahn (ed.), Readings in the Theory of Growth, chapter 11, pages 131-149, Palgrave Macmillan.
    18. A.G. Wilson, 1969. "Forecasting 'Planning'," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 6(3), pages 347-367, November.
    19. McDonald, Alan & Schrattenholzer, Leo, 2001. "Learning rates for energy technologies," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 29(4), pages 255-261, March.
    20. Béla Nagy & J Doyne Farmer & Quan M Bui & Jessika E Trancik, 2013. "Statistical Basis for Predicting Technological Progress," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(2), pages 1-7, February.
    21. Shlyakhter, Alexander I. & Kammen, Daniel M. & Broido, Claire L. & Wilson, Richard, 1994. "Quantifying the credibility of energy projections from trends in past data : The US energy sector," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 22(2), pages 119-130, February.
    22. Lee, Yun Shin & Scholtes, Stefan, 2014. "Empirical prediction intervals revisited," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 30(2), pages 217-234.
    23. Schilling, Melissa A. & Esmundo, Melissa, 2009. "Technology S-curves in renewable energy alternatives: Analysis and implications for industry and government," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(5), pages 1767-1781, May.
    24. Valentina Bosetti & Michela Catenacci & Giulia Fiorese & Elena Verdolini, 2012. "The Future Prospects of PV and CSP Solar Technologies," Review of Environment, Energy and Economics - Re3, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei, January.
    25. Nemet, Gregory F., 2006. "Beyond the learning curve: factors influencing cost reductions in photovoltaics," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 34(17), pages 3218-3232, November.
    26. William D. Nordhaus, 2014. "The Perils of the Learning Model for Modeling Endogenous Technological Change," The Energy Journal, International Association for Energy Economics, vol. 0(Number 1).
    27. Robert J. Gordon, 1990. "The Measurement of Durable Goods Prices," NBER Books, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc, number gord90-1.
    28. Sampson, Michael, 1991. "The Effect of Parameter Uncertainty on Forecast Variances and Confidence Intervals for Unit Root and Trend Stationary Time-Series Models," Journal of Applied Econometrics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 6(1), pages 67-76, Jan.-Marc.
    29. Benson, Christopher L. & Magee, Christopher L., 2014. "On improvement rates for renewable energy technologies: Solar PV, wind turbines, capacitors, and batteries," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 68(C), pages 745-751.
    30. Marvin B. Lieberman, 1984. "The Learning Curve and Pricing in the Chemical Processing Industries," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 15(2), pages 213-228, Summer.
    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. 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.
    2. Funk, Jeffrey L. & Magee, Christopher L., 2015. "Rapid improvements with no commercial production: How do the improvements occur?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(3), pages 777-788.
    3. Rubin, Edward S. & Azevedo, Inês M.L. & Jaramillo, Paulina & Yeh, Sonia, 2015. "A review of learning rates for electricity supply technologies," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 86(C), pages 198-218.
    4. Yeh, Sonia & Rubin, Edward S., 2012. "A review of uncertainties in technology experience curves," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 34(3), pages 762-771.
    5. Dosi, Giovanni & Grazzi, Marco & Mathew, Nanditha, 2017. "The cost-quantity relations and the diverse patterns of “learning by doing”: Evidence from India," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 46(10), pages 1873-1886.
    6. Magee, C.L. & Basnet, S. & Funk, J.L. & Benson, C.L., 2016. "Quantitative empirical trends in technical performance," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 104(C), pages 237-246.
    7. Singh, Anuraag & Triulzi, Giorgio & Magee, Christopher L., 2021. "Technological improvement rate predictions for all technologies: Use of patent data and an extended domain description," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(9).
    8. Santhakumar, Srinivasan & Meerman, Hans & Faaij, André, 2021. "Improving the analytical framework for quantifying technological progress in energy technologies," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 145(C).
    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. Béla Nagy & J Doyne Farmer & Quan M Bui & Jessika E Trancik, 2013. "Statistical Basis for Predicting Technological Progress," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(2), pages 1-7, February.
    11. Triulzi, Giorgio & Alstott, Jeff & Magee, Christopher L., 2020. "Estimating technology performance improvement rates by mining patent data," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 158(C).
    12. De Cian, Enrica & Buhl, Johannes & Carrara, Samuel & Michela Bevione, Michela & Monetti, Silvia & Berg, Holger, 2016. "Knowledge Creation between Integrated Assessment Models and Initiative-Based Learning - An Interdisciplinary Approach," MITP: Mitigation, Innovation and Transformation Pathways 249784, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei (FEEM).
    13. Jeffrey Funk, 2018. "Technology change, economic feasibility, and creative destruction: the case of new electronic products and services," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 27(1), pages 65-82.
    14. Lafond, François & Greenwald, Diana & Farmer, J. Doyne, 2022. "Can Stimulating Demand Drive Costs Down? World War II as a Natural Experiment," The Journal of Economic History, Cambridge University Press, vol. 82(3), pages 727-764, September.
    15. Christopher L Benson & Christopher L Magee, 2015. "Quantitative Determination of Technological Improvement from Patent Data," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(4), pages 1-23, April.
    16. Grafström, Jonas & Poudineh, Rahmat, 2021. "A review of problems associated with learning curves for solar and wind power technologies," Ratio Working Papers 347, The Ratio Institute.
    17. Karali, Nihan & Park, Won Young & McNeil, Michael, 2017. "Modeling technological change and its impact on energy savings in the U.S. iron and steel sector," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 202(C), pages 447-458.
    18. Wu, X.D. & Yang, Q. & Chen, G.Q. & Hayat, T. & Alsaedi, A., 2016. "Progress and prospect of CCS in China: Using learning curve to assess the cost-viability of a 2×600MW retrofitted oxyfuel power plant as a case study," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 60(C), pages 1274-1285.
    19. Castrejon-Campos, Omar & Aye, Lu & Hui, Felix Kin Peng, 2022. "Effects of learning curve models on onshore wind and solar PV cost developments in the USA," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 160(C).
    20. Anuraag Singh & Giorgio Triulzi & Christopher L. Magee, 2020. "Technological improvement rate estimates for all technologies: Use of patent data and an extended domain description," Papers 2004.13919, arXiv.org.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • C53 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Econometric Modeling - - - Forecasting and Prediction Models; Simulation Methods
    • O30 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - General
    • Q47 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Energy - - - Energy Forecasting

    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:arx:papers:1502.05274. 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: arXiv administrators (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://arxiv.org/ .

    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.