Climatic Change

, Volume 96, Issue 3, pp 379–408 | Cite as

Carbon capture and storage: combining economic analysis with expert elicitations to inform climate policy

  • Erin BakerEmail author
  • Haewon Chon
  • Jeffrey Keisler


The relationship between R&D investments and technical change is inherently uncertain. In this paper we combine economics and decision analysis to incorporate the uncertainty of technical change into climate change policy analysis. We present the results of an expert elicitation on the prospects for technical change in carbon capture and storage. We find a significant amount of disagreement between experts, even over the most mature technology; and this disagreement is most pronounced in regards to cost estimates. We then use the results of the expert elicitations as inputs to the MiniCAM integrated assessment model, to derive probabilistic information about the impacts of R&D investments on the costs of emissions abatement. We conclude that we need to gather more information about the technical and societal potential for Carbon Storage; cost differences among the different capture technologies play a relatively smaller role.


Technical Change Carbon Price Abatement Level Expert Elicitation Environ Econ Manage 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Baker E, Adu-Bonnah K (2008) Investment in risky R&D programs in the face of climate uncertainty. Energy Econ 30:465–486CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Baker E, Chon H, Keisler J (2008a) NuclearPower: combining expert elicitations with economic analysis to inform climate policy. Available at SSRN:
  3. Baker E, Chon H, Keisler J (2009) Advanced solar R&D: combining economic analysis with expert elicitations to inform climate policy. Energy Econ 31:S37–S49CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Baker E, Clarke L, Keisler J, Shittu E (2007) Uncertainty, technical change, and policy models. Technical Report 1028, College of Management, University of Massachusetts, BostonGoogle Scholar
  5. Baker E, Clarke L, Shittu E (2008b) Technical change and the marginal cost of abatement. Energy Econ 30:2799–2816CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Baker E, Clarke L, Weyant J (2006) Optimal technology R&D in the face of climate uncertainty. Clim Change 78:157–179CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Blanford GJ (2006) Technology strategy for climate change: optimal R&D investment and its interaction with abatement policy. Ph.D. thesis, Stanford UniversityGoogle Scholar
  8. Bohringer C, Rutherford TF (2006) Innovation, uncertainty and instrument choice for climate policy. Working paper.
  9. Bramoulle Y, Olson LJ (2005) Allocation of pollution abatement under learning by doing. J Public Econ 89:1935–1960CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Brenkert AS, Smith S, Kim S, Pitcher H (2003) Model documentation for the MiniCAM. Technical report PNNL-14337, Pacific Northwest National LaboratoryGoogle Scholar
  11. Clarke JF, Edmonds JA (1993) Modeling energy technologies in a competitive market. Energy Econ J 15:123–129CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Clarke L, Edmonds J, Jacoby H, Pitcher H, Reilly J, Richels R (2007a) Scenarios of greenhouse gas emissions and atmospheric concentrations. Final report, U.S. Climate Change Science Program.
  13. Clarke L, Wise M, Kim S, Smith S, Lurz J, Edmonds J, Pitcher H (2007b) Model documentation for the minicam climate change science program stabilization scenarios: Ccsp product 2.1a. Technical report, Pacific Northwest National LaboratoryGoogle Scholar
  14. Clarke L, Wise M, Placet M, Izaurralde RC, Lurz J, Kim S, Smith S, Thomson A (2006) Climate change mitigation: an analysis of advanced technology scenarios. Technical report PNNL-16078, Pacific Northwest National LaboratoryGoogle Scholar
  15. Clemen RT, Winkler RL (1999) Combining probability distributions from experts in risk analysis. Risk Anal 19:187–203Google Scholar
  16. David J, Herzog H (2000) The cost of carbon capture. Presented at the fifth international conference on greenhouse gas control technologies, Cairns, Australia, 13–16 AugustGoogle Scholar
  17. DOE (2007) Carbon sequestration technology roadmap and program plan. United States Department of Energy, Washington D.C.Google Scholar
  18. Dooley JJ, Dahowski RT, Davidson CL, Wise MA, Gupta N, Kim SH (2006) Carbon dioxide capture and geologic storage: a core element of a global energy technology strategy to address climate change. PNNL, Richland, WAGoogle Scholar
  19. Downing PB, White LJ (1986) Innovation in pollution control. J Environ Econ Manage 13:18–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Edmonds JA, Clarke JF, Dooley JJ, Kim SH, Smith SJ (2005) Stabilization of CO2 in a B2 world: insights on the roles of carbon capture and storage, hydrogen, and transportation technologies. In: Weyant J, Tol R (eds) Special issue, energy economicsGoogle Scholar
  21. Fischer C, Parry IWH, Pizer WA (2003) Instrument choice for environmental protection when technological innovation is endogenous. J Environ Econ Manage 45:523–545CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Goulder L, Mathai K (2000) Optimal CO2 abatement in the presence of induced technological change. J Environ Econ Manage 39:1–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Goulder L, Schneider S (1999) Induced technological change and the attractiveness of CO2 abatement policies. Resour Energy Econ 21:211–253CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hotelling H (1931) The economics of exhaustible resources. J Polit Econ 39:137–175CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Howard RA, Matheson JE (2005) Influence diagram retrospective. Decision Anal 2:144–147Google Scholar
  26. Esber III GS (2006) Carbon dioxide capture technology for the coal-powered electricity industry: a systematic prioritization of research needs. MIT, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  27. IPCC (2005) Special report on carbon dioxide capture and storage. Cambridge University Press, New York, NYGoogle Scholar
  28. Jensen MD, Musich MA, Rubya JD, Steadman EN, Harju JA (2005) Carbon seperation and capture. Technical report, Energy and Environmental Research Center, National Energy Technology LaboratoryGoogle Scholar
  29. Jung C, Krutilla K, Boyd R (1996) Incentives for advanced pollution abatement technology at the industry level: an evaluation of policy alternatives. J Environ Econ Manage 30:95–111CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Katzer J, Moniz EJ, Deutch J, Ansolabehere S, Beer J et al (2007) The future of coal: an interdisciplinary MIT study. Technical report, Massachusetts Institute of TechnologyGoogle Scholar
  31. Keith DW (1996) When is it appropriate to combine expert judgments? Clim Change 33:139–143CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Metz B, Davidson O, de Coninck HC, Loos M, Meyer LA (eds) (2005) IPCC special report on carbon dioxide capture and storage. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  33. Milliman SR, Prince R (1989) Firm incentives to promote technological change in pollution control. J Environ Econ Manage 17:247–265CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Montero J-P (2002) Permits, standard, and technology innovation. J Environ Econ Manage 44:23–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Morgan MG, Keith DW (1995) Subjective judgments by climate experts. Environ Sci Technol 29:468–476CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. National Research Council (2007) Prospective evaluation of applied energy research and development at DOE (Phase two). The National Academies Press, Washington D.C. Google Scholar
  37. Nemet GF, Baker E (2009) Demand subsidies versus R&D: comparing the uncertain impacts of policy on a pre-commercial low-carbon energy technology. Energy Journal, forthcomingGoogle Scholar
  38. Parry I (1998) Pollution regulation and the efficiency gains from technological innovation. J Regul Econ 14:229–254CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Peck SC, Wan YH (1996) Analytic solutions of simple greenhouse gas emission models. In: Van Ierland EC, Gorka K (eds) Economics of atmospheric pollution, chapter 6. Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  40. Riahi K, Rubin ES, Taylor MR, Schrattenholzer L, Hounshell D (2004) Technological learning for carbon capture and sequestration technologies. Energy Econ 26:539–564CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Rosendahl KE (2004) Cost-effective environmental policy: implications of induced technological change. J Environ Econ Manage 48:1099–1121CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Rubin ES, Taylor MR, Yeh S, Hounshell DA (2004) Learning curves for environmental technology and their importance for climate policy analysis. Energy 29:1551–1559CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Salo AA, Bunn DW (1995) Decomposition in the assessment of judgmental probability forecasts. Technol Forecast Soc Change 49:13–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Spetzler CS, Stael von Holstein C-AS (1975) Probability encoding in decision analysis. Manage Sci 22:340–358CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. von Winterfeldt D, Edwards W (1986) Decision analysis and behavioral research. Cambridge Universtiy Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  46. Weyant JP, Hill J (1999) Introduction and overview. The costs of the Kyoto protocol: a multi-model evaluation. Special Issue of The Energy Journal, pp vii–xlivGoogle Scholar
  47. Winkler RL, Clemen RT (2004) Multiple experts vs. multiple methods: combining correlation assessments. Decision Anal 1:167–176CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.220 ElabUniversity of MassachusettsAmherstUSA
  2. 2.Joint Global Change Research InstituteUniversity of MarylandCollege ParkUSA
  3. 3.College of ManagementUniversity of MassachusettsBostonUSA

Personalised recommendations