Literature DB >> 34183405

Comparing expert elicitation and model-based probabilistic technology cost forecasts for the energy transition.

Jing Meng1,2, Rupert Way3,4, Elena Verdolini5,6, Laura Diaz Anadon7,8.   

Abstract

We conduct a systematic comparison of technology cost forecasts produced by expert elicitation methods and model-based methods. Our focus is on energy technologies due to their importance for energy and climate policy. We assess the performance of several forecasting methods by generating probabilistic technology cost forecasts rooted at various years in the past and then comparing these with observed costs in 2019. We do this for six technologies for which both observed and elicited data are available. The model-based methods use either deployment (Wright's law) or time (Moore's law) to forecast costs. We show that, overall, model-based forecasting methods outperformed elicitation methods. Their 2019 cost forecast ranges contained the observed values much more often than elicitations, and their forecast medians were closer to observed costs. However, all methods underestimated technological progress in almost all technologies, likely as a result of structural change across the energy sector due to widespread policies and social and market forces. We also produce forecasts of 2030 costs using the two types of methods for 10 energy technologies. We find that elicitations generally yield narrower uncertainty ranges than model-based methods. Model-based 2030 forecasts are lower for more modular technologies and higher for less modular ones. Future research should focus on further method development and validation to better reflect structural changes in the market and correlations across technologies.
Copyright © 2021 the Author(s). Published by PNAS.

Entities:  

Keywords:  energy technology costs; energy transition; expert elicitation; model-based technology forecasts; uncertainty

Year:  2021        PMID: 34183405     DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1917165118

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A        ISSN: 0027-8424            Impact factor:   11.205


  3 in total

1.  Testing and improving technology forecasts for better climate policy.

Authors:  Jessika E Trancik
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2021-08-31       Impact factor: 11.205

2.  The quantity-quality transition in the value of expanding wind and solar power generation.

Authors:  Enrico G A Antonini; Tyler H Ruggles; David J Farnham; Ken Caldeira
Journal:  iScience       Date:  2022-03-22

Review 3.  Understanding the complexity of existing fossil fuel power plant decarbonization.

Authors:  Chuan Zhang; Haibo Zhai; Liwei Cao; Xiang Li; Fangwei Cheng; Liqun Peng; Kangkang Tong; Jing Meng; Lei Yang; Xiaonan Wang
Journal:  iScience       Date:  2022-07-16
  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.