Future capacity growth of energy technologies: are scenarios consistent with historical evidence?
Future scenarios of the energy system under greenhouse gas emission constraints depict dramatic growth in a range of energy technologies. Technological growth dynamics observed historically provide a useful comparator for these future trajectories. We find that historical time series data reveal a consistent relationship between how much a technology’s cumulative installed capacity grows, and how long this growth takes. This relationship between extent (how much) and duration (for how long) is consistent across both energy supply and end-use technologies, and both established and emerging technologies. We then develop and test an approach for using this historical relationship to assess technological trajectories in future scenarios. Our approach for “learning from the past” contributes to the assessment and verification of integrated assessment and energy-economic models used to generate quantitative scenarios. Using data on power generation technologies from two such models, we also find a consistent extent - duration relationship across both technologies and scenarios. This relationship describes future low carbon technological growth in the power sector which appears to be conservative relative to what has been evidenced historically. Specifically, future extents of capacity growth are comparatively low given the lengthy time duration of that growth. We treat this finding with caution due to the low number of data points. Yet it remains counter-intuitive given the extremely rapid growth rates of certain low carbon technologies under stringent emission constraints. We explore possible reasons for the apparent scenario conservatism, and find parametric or structural conservatism in the underlying models to be one possible explanation.
KeywordsCapacity Growth Duration Relationship Scenario Data Energy System Model Power Generation Technology
Peter Kolp at the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA) provided invaluable technical support. Earlier drafts were much improved by insightful comments from Alex Bowen at the LSE, and from participants at the ETIP Seminar at Harvard University (April 2009) and the International Energy Workshop in Stockholm (June 2010).
- Clarke L, Edmonds J, Krey V, Richels R, Rose S, Tavoni M (2009) International climate policy architectures: Overview of the EMF 22 International Scenarios. Energy Econ 31 (Supplement 2: (International, U.S. and E.U. Climate Change Control Scenarios: Results from EMF 22)):S64-S81Google Scholar
- Edenhofer O, Knopf B, Leimbach M, Bauer N (2010) ADAM’s Modeling Comparison Project – Intentions and Prospects The Energy Journal 31 (Special Issue: The Economics of Low Stabilization)Google Scholar
- Grubler A (1996) Time for a Change: On the Patterns of Diffusion of Innovation. Dædalus 125(3):19–42Google Scholar
- Grubler A, Messner S (1996) Technological Uncertainty. In: Nakicenovic N, Nordhaus WD, Richels R, Toth F (eds) Climate Change: Integrating Science, Economics and Policy. IIASA, LaxenburgGoogle Scholar
- Kitous A, Criqui P, Bellevrat E, Chateau B (2010) Transformation Patterns of the Worldwide Energy System – Scenarios for the Century with the POLES Model. The Energy Journal 31 (Special Issue: The Economics of Low Stabilization):49-82Google Scholar
- Luderer G, Pietzcker RC, Kriegler E, Haller M, Bauer N (2012) Asia’s role in mitigating climate change: a technology and sector specific analysis with ReMIND-R. Energy Econ (Special Issue on the "Asian Modeling Exercise"). doi. 10.1016/j.eneco.2012.07.022
- Messner S, Strubegger M (1995) User's guide for MESSAGE III. IIASA, LaxenburgGoogle Scholar
- Metz B, Davidson OR, Bosch PR, Dave R, Meyer LA (2007) Climate Change 2007: Mitigation of Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2007., vol III. Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UKGoogle Scholar
- Rivers N, Jaccard M (2005) Combining Top-Down and Bottom-Up Approaches To Energy-Economy Modeling Using Discrete Choice Methods. Energy J 26(1):83–106Google Scholar
- Rogers EM (2003) Diffusion of Innovations. Free Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
- van Vuuren D, Hoogwijk M, Barker T, Riahi K, Boeters S, Chateau J, Scrieciu S, van Vliet J, Masui T, Blok K, Blomen E, Krama T (2009) Comparison of top-down and bottom-up estimates of sectoral and regional greenhouse gas emission reduction potentials. Energy Policy 37:5125–5139CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Wilson C (2009) Meta-analysis of unit and industry level scaling dynamics in energy technologies and climate change mitigation scenarios. International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA), Laxenburg, AustriaGoogle Scholar