Energy Technology R&D Policy - agci.org
Transcript of Energy Technology R&D Policy - agci.org
![Page 1: Energy Technology R&D Policy - agci.org](https://reader033.fdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022050600/6272b554a693974f613aa3c8/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
ENERGY TECHNOLOGY R&D PORTFOLIO Erin Baker, University of Massachusetts, Amherst PATHWAYS TO CLIMATE SOLUTIONS: ASSESSING ENERGY TECHNOLOGY AND POLICY INNOVATION Aspen, CO, February 27, 2014
![Page 2: Energy Technology R&D Policy - agci.org](https://reader033.fdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022050600/6272b554a693974f613aa3c8/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
Tying it all together: Choosing an energy technology R&D portfolio.
![Page 3: Energy Technology R&D Policy - agci.org](https://reader033.fdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022050600/6272b554a693974f613aa3c8/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
3
Paradigm: Act – Learn – Act
![Page 4: Energy Technology R&D Policy - agci.org](https://reader033.fdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022050600/6272b554a693974f613aa3c8/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
4
Today’s talk: how R&D influences probability over technical success; and optimal portfolios
![Page 5: Energy Technology R&D Policy - agci.org](https://reader033.fdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022050600/6272b554a693974f613aa3c8/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
TEaM: The Elicitation and Modeling Project
Erin Baker, Umass Amherst;; Valentina Bosetti, FEEM; Laura Diaz Anadon, Harvard; Max Henrion, Lumina. With senior researchers from Stanford, Wisconsin, MIT, PNNL, BNL
![Page 6: Energy Technology R&D Policy - agci.org](https://reader033.fdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022050600/6272b554a693974f613aa3c8/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
Harmonized TEaM Results
UMass Low Mid High Solar 25 140 NA Nuclear 40 480 1980 CCS 13 48 108 Biofuels 13 201 838 Bio electricity 15 50 150 CCS Umass 2 0 750 NA Harvard Solar 143 409.1 4091 Nuclear 466 1883 18833 CCS 701 2250 22500 Biofuels 214 585 5850 Bio electricity 214 585 5850 FEEM Solar 163 244 326 Nuclear 942 1883 18833 CCS NA NA NA Bio fuels 160 240 320 Bio electricity 161 242 322
Funding Levels $M/yr
![Page 7: Energy Technology R&D Policy - agci.org](https://reader033.fdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022050600/6272b554a693974f613aa3c8/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
The Solar LCOE was harmonized using a capacity factor of 12%
Reference
Module cost 2050
($/Wp)
Module cost 2025
($/Wp)
Module cost 2014
($/Wp) BOS
($/Wp) lifetime LCOE TEaM
China 0.75 0.73 20 $0.17 China 0.75 1.67 20 $0.28 UMass, medium 0.35 0.51 0.73 30 $0.13 UMass, aggressive 0.17 0.25 0.35 15 $0.08
![Page 8: Energy Technology R&D Policy - agci.org](https://reader033.fdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022050600/6272b554a693974f613aa3c8/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
Returns to R&D
![Page 9: Energy Technology R&D Policy - agci.org](https://reader033.fdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022050600/6272b554a693974f613aa3c8/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
Returns to R&D
Returns to increasing public R&D funding from Low to Mid R&D levels and from Mid to High R&D levels, assuming improvements from increments of R&D are perfectly correlated. The box plot represents the 5th, 25th, 50th, 75th and 95th
percentiles of the distribution aggregated across teams, where each team is assigned equal probability, the dots represent samples (in increments of 5 percentage points from the 5th to the 95th percentile) from the FEEM (red), Harvard (green), and UMass (blue) studies. The full colored diamonded shaped points refer to the returns on the median
![Page 10: Energy Technology R&D Policy - agci.org](https://reader033.fdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022050600/6272b554a693974f613aa3c8/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
11
Impact of technology on the MAC • GCAM, MAC in 2050
MACs
050
100150200250300
0 0.2 0.4
Abatement
$/tC
MACs
0200400600800
100012001400
0.5 0.7 0.9
Abatement
$/tC
Baseline
Organic SolarOnlyChem LoopingOnlyLWR only
Combined
![Page 11: Energy Technology R&D Policy - agci.org](https://reader033.fdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022050600/6272b554a693974f613aa3c8/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
Different representations of climate risk
12
![Page 12: Energy Technology R&D Policy - agci.org](https://reader033.fdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022050600/6272b554a693974f613aa3c8/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
13
In initial work, we found that the composition of the optimal portfolio did not change with damage risk.
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
1800
2000
200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1500 2000
R&D
Exp
endi
ture
s (m
illio
ns)
R&D Budget (millions, NPV)
Solar
Nuclear
CCS
![Page 13: Energy Technology R&D Policy - agci.org](https://reader033.fdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022050600/6272b554a693974f613aa3c8/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
CCS, batteries, and biofuels increase in risk; nuclear, solar, bio-electricity decrease
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
No Risk Med Risk High Risk No Risk Med Risk High Risk No Risk Med Risk High Risk No Risk Med Risk High Risk No Risk Med Risk High Risk
800 (100/yr) 1600 (200/yr) 2300 (285/yr) 4000 (500/yr) 6100 (750/yr)NPV of Budget ($millions)
Energy Technology R&D Portfolios
Batteries
Solar
Nuclear
CCS
Bio-Fuels
Bio-Electricity
$milli
ons/
yr
![Page 14: Energy Technology R&D Policy - agci.org](https://reader033.fdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022050600/6272b554a693974f613aa3c8/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
Robust Portfolio Analysis
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
in out maybe
6100
Batteries
Solar
Nuclear
CCS
Bio-Fuels
Bio-Electricity
$Milli
ons/
yr
(NPV of R&D budget, in $millions
![Page 15: Energy Technology R&D Policy - agci.org](https://reader033.fdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022050600/6272b554a693974f613aa3c8/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
The response to risk depends on the shape of the MAC
0
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.1
0.12
0.14
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
Mar
gina
l Cos
t
Abatement
Baseline
CCS
Biofuels
Batteries
Solar
Nuclear
Bio-electricity
![Page 16: Energy Technology R&D Policy - agci.org](https://reader033.fdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022050600/6272b554a693974f613aa3c8/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
Technologies that pivot down are better in high risk
(% lo
ss o
f GD
P)
![Page 17: Energy Technology R&D Policy - agci.org](https://reader033.fdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022050600/6272b554a693974f613aa3c8/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
Experiments Focus on comparing different policy environments
Policy Abatement Key characteristics
Baseline no-controls 0
DICE Optimal optimal
Stern optimal Abatement chosen under low interest rate
Stern Fixed optimal Abatement and R&D chosen under low
interest rate
Gore Lower bound
between 0.25 - 0.95 Limited participation
Kyoto Strong fixed for 150 years Limited participation
2 degrees optimal Upper bound on temperature
18
![Page 18: Energy Technology R&D Policy - agci.org](https://reader033.fdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022050600/6272b554a693974f613aa3c8/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
19
Optimal R&D Investment is robust
Risk 1 Risk 2
![Page 19: Energy Technology R&D Policy - agci.org](https://reader033.fdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022050600/6272b554a693974f613aa3c8/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
24
Abatement path depends on technology (and damages).
![Page 20: Energy Technology R&D Policy - agci.org](https://reader033.fdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022050600/6272b554a693974f613aa3c8/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
25
R&D has different impacts in the different policy environments
Temperature Paths
Abatement Cost Paths
![Page 21: Energy Technology R&D Policy - agci.org](https://reader033.fdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022050600/6272b554a693974f613aa3c8/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
26
Policy Implications • Expert studies show disagreement about which technologies are most promising – indicating that a broad portfolio might make sense. • We need to look at how the technologies impact the cost of
addressing climate change. • We will compare different elicitation teams, different models,
and different decision frameworks
• Optimal R&D investment is fairly robust to risk, policy, opportunity costs. • Technologies that do relatively well at very high abatement
levels, do better as risk increases. • The role of R&D is important but different in different policy environments and risk cases • If abatement is high, it mostly effects costs • If abatement is low, it mostly effects environmental variables.
![Page 22: Energy Technology R&D Policy - agci.org](https://reader033.fdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022050600/6272b554a693974f613aa3c8/html5/thumbnails/22.jpg)
References • UMass elicitations and R&D portfolio results:
• Baker, E., Chon, H. & Keisler, J., 2009a. Carbon capture and storage: combining economic analysis with expert elicitations to inform climate policy. Climatic Change, Volume 96, pp. 379-408.
• Baker, E., Chon, H. & Keisler, J., 2009b. Advanced solar R&D: Combining economic analysis with expert elicitations to inform climate policy. Energy Economics, Volume 31, pp. S37-S49.
• Baker, E., Chon, H. & Keisler, J. M., 2008. Advanced Nuclear Power: Combining Economic Analysis with Expert Elicitations to Inform Climate Policy. 08 August.
• Baker, E. & Keisler, J., 2011. Cellulosic biofuels Expert views on prospects for advancement. Energy, Volume 36, pp. 595-605
• Baker, E., S. Solak. 2011. Climate change and optimal energy technology R&D policy. European Journal of Operational Research 213(2) 442–454.
• E. Baker and S. Solak, "Management of Energy Technology for Sustainability: How to Fund Energy Technology R&D," Production and Operations Management, Forthcoming
• Harvard and FEEM papers: • Anadon, L. et al., 2012. Expert judgments about RD&D
and the future of nuclear energy. Environ. Sci. Technol., Volume 46, pp. 11497-504.
• Anadón, L., Chan, G. & Lee, A., 2014. Transforming U.S. Energy Innovation. Cambridge, U.K., and New York, NY, USA: Cambridge University Press.
• Bosetti, V., Catenacci, M., Fiorese, G. & Verdolini, E., 2012. The future prospect of PV and CSP solar technologies: An expert elicitation survey. Energy Policy, Volume 49, pp. 308-317.
• Catenacci, M. V. E., Bosetti, V. & Fiorese, G., 2013. Going electric: Expert survey on the future of battery technologies for electric vehicles. Energy Policy, Volume 61, p. 403–413.
• Fiorese, G., Catenacci, M., Verdolini, E. & Bosetti, V., 2013. Advanced biofuels: Future perspectives from an expert elicitation survey. Energy Policy, Volume 56, p. 293–311.
• CCS & Solar, R&D & subsidies: • Nemet GF, Baker E. Demand subsidies versus R&D:
comparing the uncertain impacts of policy on a pre-commercial low-carbon energy technology. The Energy Journal 2009;30:49-80.
• Jenni KE, Baker ED, Nemet GF. Expert elicitations of energy penalties for carbon capture technologies. International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control 2013;12:136-45.
• Nemet, Baker, & Jenni. Modeling the future costs of carbon capture using experts’ elicited probabilities under policy scenarios. Energy 2013