Mitigation strategies and energy technology learning: An assessment with the POLES model

Technological Forecasting and Social Change

Volumn 90, Issue PA, 2015, Pages 119-136

  Criqui, P ^a   Mima, S ^a   Menanteau, P ^a   Kitous, A ^b  

^a CNRS   (France)

^b JOINT RESEARCH CENTRE   (Italy)

Author keywords

Emission constraints; Learning by doing; Learning by searching; Mitigation scenarios; Path dependency; Technological change; Technology modelling

Indexed keywords

BUDGET CONTROL; COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS; COSTS; POLES; WIND POWER;

EMISSION CONSTRAINTS; LEARNING BY DOING; LEARNING-BY-SEARCHING; MITIGATION SCENARIOS; PATH DEPENDENCY; TECHNOLOGICAL CHANGE; TECHNOLOGY MODELLING;

ENGINEERING EDUCATION;

ENERGY; LEARNING; MITIGATION; MODELING; RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT; TECHNOLOGICAL CHANGE;

EID: 84916877214     PISSN: 00401625     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.techfore.2014.05.005     Document Type: Article

References (36)

1. Schumpeter J. Business Cycles 1939, McGraw-Hill, New York.
2. Grübler A., Nakicenovic N., Victor D.G. Dynamics of energy technologies and global change. Energ Policy 1999, 27:247-280.
3. Arrow K. Economic Welfare and the Allocation of Resources to Invention 1962, Princet. Univ. Press, N. Y. R.R. Nelson (Ed.).
4. Kouvaritakis N., Soria A., Isoard S. Modelling energy technology dynamics: methodology for adaptive expectations models with learning by doing and learning by searching. Int. J. Global Energy Issues 2000, 14(1-4):104-115.
5. Kobos P.H., Erickson J.D., Drennen T.E. Technological learning and renewable energy costs: implications for US renewable energy policy. Energy Policy 2006, 34(13):1645-1658.
6. Miketa A., Schrattenholzer L. Experiments with a methodology to model the role of R&D expenditures in energy technology learning processes; first results. Energ Policy 2004, 32:1679-1692.
7. Criqui P., Kouvaritakis N., Thonet C. World post-Kyoto scenarios: benefits from accelerated technology progress. Int. J. Global Energy 2000, 14(1-2-3):184-203.
8. Berglund, Sodërholm Modeling technical change in energy system analysis: analyzing the introduction of learning-by-doing in bottom-up energy models. Energy Policy 2006, 34.
9. Wiesenthal T., Dowling P., Morbee J., Thiel C., Schade B., Russ P., Simoes S., Peteves S., Schoots K., Londo M. Technol. Learn. Curves Energy Policy Support JRC Sci. Policy Rep. ECN 2012.
10. Nemet G.F. Inter-technology knowledge spillovers for energy technologies. Energy Econ. 2012, 34.
11. Clarke L., Weyant J., Edmonds J. On the sources of technological change: what do the models assume. Energy Econ. 2008, 30.
12. Lindman A., Söderholm P. Wind power learning rates: a conceptual review and meta-analysis. Energy Econ. 2012, 34.
13. Panzer C. Investment Costs of Renewable Energy Technologies under Consideration of Volatile Raw Material Prices 2012.
14. Yeh S., Rubin E.S. A review of uncertainties in technology experience curves. Energy Econ. 2012, 34.
15. K. Riahi, E. Kriegler, N. Johnson, Ch. Bertram, M. den Elzen, J. Eom M. Schaeffer, J. Edmonds, M. Isaac, V. Krey, T. Longdon, G. Luderer, A. Mejean, D.L. McCollum, S. Mima, H. Turton, D. van Vuuren, K. Wada, V. Bosetti, P. Capros, P. Criqui, M. Hamdi-Cherif, M. Kainuma, O. Edenhofer, Locked into Copenhagen pledges - implications of short-term emission targets for the cost and feasibility of long-term climate goalsTechnol. Forecast. Soc. Change (in press, Corrected Proof Available Online 27 November 2013).
16. J. Eom, J. Edmonds, V. Krey, N. Johnson, K. Riahi, D.P. van Vuuren, The impact of near-term climate policy choices on technology and emissions transition pathwaysTechnol. Forecast. Soc. Change (in press, Corrected Proof, Availableonline 8 November 2013).
17. McDonald A., Schrattenholzer L. Learning rates for energy technologies. Energy Policy 2001, 33(29):255-261.
18. 2 capture. Int. J. Greenhouse Gas Control 2007, 1(2):188-197.
19. Neij L. The development of the experience curve concept and its application in energy policy assessment. Energy Technol. Policy 2003, 2:3-14.
20. Wene C.-O. Experience Curves for Energy Technology Policy 2000.
21. Technological Learning in the Energy Sector, Lessons for Policy, Industry and Science 2010, M. Junginger, W. van Sark, A. Faaij (Eds.).
22. Ferioli F., Schoots K., van der Zwaan B.C.C. Use and limitations of learning curves for energy technology policy: a component-learning hypothesis. Energy Policy 2009, 37:2525-2535.
23. Yu C.F., van Sark W.G.J.H.M., Alsema E.A. Unraveling the Photovoltaic Technology Learning Curve by Incorporation of Input Price Changes and Scale Effects 2011.
24. Nemet G., Kammen D. U.S. energy research and development: declining investment, increasing need, and the feasibility of expansion. Energy Policy 2007, 35(1):746-755.
25. Van der Zwaan B.C.C., Wene C.-O. Developments in Interpreting learning curves and applications for energy technology policy. Theory Models Appl 2011, 425-443. Taylor Francis, N. Y. M. Jaber (Ed.).
26. Bolinger M., Wiser R. Understanding Trends in Wind Turbine Prices Over the Past Decade 2011.
27. Kitous A., Criqui P., Bellevrat E., Chateau B. Transformation patterns of the worldwide energy system - scenarios for the century with the POLES model. Vol. 31, special issue n° 1 on the economics of low stabilization. Energy J. 2010, 31(1):57-90.
28. 2 emission reduction: the soft landing scenario analysed with POLES and other world models. Energy Policy 2007, 35(2):786-796.
29. Kouvaritakis N., Soria A., Isoard S. Modelling energy technology dynamics: methodology for adaptive expectations models with learning by doing and learning by searching. Int. J. Global Energy 2000, 104-115.
30. Criqui P., Mima S. Technology Improvement Dynamics for Power Generation Technologies and R&D Objectives Measurement 2002.
31. Patrick C.R.I.Q.U.I., Silvana M.I.M.A. Model Extensions to Represent Hydrogen Economy Configurations into POLES Model 2008.
32. Patrick Criqui, Silvana Mima Results of the Climate and Energy Policy Analysis with the POLES Model, Rep. Modelling Energy Technol. Prospect. Gen. Partial Equilib. Framew.-MENGTECH. Proj. Res. Proj. DG RES 6th Framew. Programme 2008, 51.
33. Tavoni M., De Cia E., Luderer G., Steckel J.C., Waisman H. The value of technology and of its evolution towards a low carbon economy. Clim. Change 2012, 114:39-57.
34. Krey V., Clarke L. Role of renewable energy in climate mitigation: a synthesis of recent scenarios. Clim. Policy 2011, 11:1-28.
35. Hoffert M.I., et al. Advanced technology paths to climate stability: energy for a greenhouse planet. Science 2002, 298:981-987.
36. Pacala S., Socolow R. Stabilization wedges: solving the climate problem for the next 50years with current technologies. Science 2004, 305.