Advertisement

Environmental Modeling & Assessment

, Volume 17, Issue 1–2, pp 107–121 | Cite as

The Value of Better Information on Technology R&D Programs in Response to Climate Change

  • Erin BakerEmail author
  • Yiming Peng
Article

Abstract

Expert elicitations are a promising method for determining how R&D investments are likely to have an impact on technological advance in climate change energy technologies. But, expert elicitations are time consuming and resource intensive. Thus, we investigate the value of the information gained in expert elicitations. More specifically, given baseline elicitations from one study, we estimate the expected value of better information (EVBI) from revisiting and improving these assessments. We find that the EVBI is very large in comparison with the cost of performing expert elicitations. We also find that EVBI is higher on technologies with larger budgets and with net values that are not too high or too low.

Keywords

Value of information Technology R&D Uncertainty Environmental policy 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The research leading to these results was completed while Baker was visiting the Precourt Energy Efficiency Center at Stanford University and was partially supported by NSF under award number SES-0745161 and by the European Research Council under the European Community’s Seventh Framework Programme (FP7/2007-2013)/ERC grant agreement n° 240895—Project ICARUS “Innovation for Climate Change Mitigation: a Study of energy R&D, its Uncertain Effectiveness and Spillovers”. We thank Haewon McJeon for providing the GCAM results.

References

  1. 1.
    Ambrosi, P., Hourcade, J.-C., Hallegatte, S., Lecocq, F., Dumas, P., & Duong, M. H. (2010). Optimal control models and elicitation of attitudes towards climate damages. In J. A. Filar, & A. Haurie (Eds.), Uncertainty and environmental decision making (pp. 177–209). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Baker, E. (2006). Increasing risk and increasing informativeness: Equivalence theorems. Operations Research, 54, 26–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Baker, E. (2009). Uncertainty and learning in climate change. Journal of Public Economic Theory, 11, 721–747.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Baker, E., & Adu-Bonnah, K. (2008). Investment in risky R&D programs in the face of climate uncertainty. Energy Economics, 30, 465–486.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Baker, E., Chon, H., & Keisler, J. (2008). Advanced Nuclear Power: Combining expert elicitations with economic analysis to inform climate policy. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1407048.
  6. 6.
    Baker, E., Chon, H., & Keisler, J. (2009). Advanced solar R&D: Combining economic analysis with expert elicitations to inform climate policy. Energy Economics, 31, S37–S49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Baker, E., Chon, H., & Keisler, J. (2009). Carbon capture and storage: combining expert elicitations with economic analysis to inform climate policy. Climatic Change, 96(3), 379.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Baker, E., Clarke, L., & Weyant, J. (2006). Optimal technology R&D in the face of climate uncertainty. Climatic Change, 78, 157–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Baker, E., & Shittu, E. (2006). Profit-maximizing R&D in response to a random carbon tax. Resource and Energy Economics, 28, 160–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Baker, E., & Shittu, E. (2008). Uncertainty and endogenous technical change in climate policy models. Energy Economics, 30, 2817–2828.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Baker, E., & Solak, S. (2011). Climate change and optimal energy technology R&D policy. European Journal of Operations Research, 213, 442–454.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Bickel, J. E. (2008). The relationship between perfect and imperfect information in a two-action risk-sensitive problem. Decision Analysis, 3, 116–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Blanford, G. J. (2009). R&D investment strategy for climate change: A numerical study. Energy Economics, 31, S27–S36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Blanford, G. J., & Weyant, J. P. (2007). Optimal investment portfolios for basic R&D. Working Paper, Stanford University.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Bosetti, V., & Drouet, L. (2004). Accounting for uncertainty affecting technical change in an economic-climate model. Technical Report FEEM Working Paper 147, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei, Milan.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Bosetti, V., & Gilotte, L. (2007). The impact of carbon capture and storage on overall mitigation policy. Climate Policy, 7, 3–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Bosetti, V., & Tavoni, M. (2009). Uncertain R&D, backstop technology and GHGs stabilization. Energy Economics, 31, S18–S26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Brenkert, A. S., Smith, S., Kim, S., & Pitcher, H. (2003). Model documentation for the MiniCAM. Technical Report PNNL-14337, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Clarke, L., Kyle, P., Wise, M. A., Calvin, K., Edmonds, J. A., Kim, S. H., et al. (2008). CO2 emissions mitigation and technological advance: an updated analysis of advanced technology scenarios. Technical Report PNNL-18075, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Clarke, L., Weyant, J., & Birky, A. (2006). On the sources of technological advance: assessing the evidence. Energy Economics, 28(5–6), 579–595.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Clarke, L., Weyant, J., & Edmonds, J. (2006). On the sources of technological advance: what do the models assume? Energy Economics, (in press).Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Clarke, L. E., & Weyant, J. P. (2002). Modeling induced technological change: An overview. In A. Grubler, N. Nakicenovic, & W. D. Nordhaus (Eds.), Technological change and the environment. Washington, DC: Resources for the Future.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Clemen, R., & Winkler, R. (2002). Multiple experts vs. multiple methods: combining correlation assessments. Durham: Duke University.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Clemen, R. T., & Kwit, R. C. (2001). The value of decision analysis at Eastman Kodak Company, 1990–1999. Interfaces, 31, 74–92.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Clemen, R. T., & Winkler, R. L. (1999). Combining probability distributions from experts in risk analysis. Risk Analysis, 19, 187–203.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Cooke, R. M., & Probst, K. N. (2006). Highlights of the expert judgment policy symposium and technical workshop. Technical Report Conference Summary, Resources for the Future.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Edmonds, J. A., Clarke, J. F., Dooley, J. J., Kim, S. H., & Smith, S. J. (2004). Stabilization of CO2 in a B2 world: insights on the roles of carbon capture and storage, hydrogen, and transportation technologies. In J. Weyant, & R. Tol (Eds.), Special issue, Energy Economics (Vol 26(4), pp. 517–537).Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Farzin, Y. H., & Kort, P. M. (2000). Pollution abatement investment when environmental regulation is uncertain. Journal of Public Economic Theory, 2, 183–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Gillingham, K., Newell, R., & Pizer, W. (2007). Modeling endogenous technological change for climate policy analysis. RFF Discussion Paper 07-14. Washington, DC: Resources For the Future.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Goeschl, T., & Perino, G. (2009). On backstops and boomerangs: Environmental R&D under technological uncertainty. Energy Economics, 31(437), 800–809.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Gritsevskyi, A., & Nakicenovic, N. (2002). Modeling uncertainty of induced technological change. In A. Grubler, N. Nakicenovic, & W. D. Nordhaus (Eds.), Technological change and the environment (pp. 251–279). Washington, DC: RFF.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Grubb, M., Kohler, J., & Anderson, D. (2002). Induced technical change in energy and environmental modeling: Analytic approaches and policy implications. Annual Review of Energy and the Environment, 27, 271–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Grubler, A., & Gritsevskyi, A. (2002). A model of endogenous technological change through uncertain returns on innovation. In A. Grubler, N. Nakicenovic, & W. D. Nordhaus (Eds.), Technological change and the environment (pp. 280–319). Washington, DC: RFF.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Kanudia, A., & Loulou, R. (1998). Robust responses to climate change via stochastic MARKAL: the case of Quebec. European Journal of Operations Research, 106, 15–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Keith, D. W. (1996). When is it appropriate to combine expert judgments? Climatic Change, 33, 139–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Linville, C. (1998). Mathematical and computational techniques for research prioritization with an application to global climate change research. Ph.D. thesis, Carnegie Mellon University.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Loschel, A. (2004). Technological change, energy consumption, and the costs of environmental policy in energy-economy-environment modeling. International Journal of Energy Technology and Policy, 2(3), 250–261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    National Research Council (2007). Prospective evaluation of applied energy research and development at DOE (phase two). Washington: The National Academies Press. http://www.nap.edu/catalog/11806.html.
  39. 39.
    Nordhaus, W. (2008). A question of balance: Weighing the options on global warming policies. Connecticut: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Nordhaus, W. D. (2002). Modeling induced innovation in climate change policy. In A. Grubler, N. Nakicenovic, & W. D. Nordhaus (Eds.), Technological change and the environment (pp. 182–209). Washington: RFF/IIASA.Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Nordhaus, W. D., & Popp, D. (1997). What is the value of scientific knowledge? An application to global warming using the PRICE model. The Energy Journal, 18, 1–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Peerenboom, J. P., Buehring, W. A., & Joseph, T. W. (1989). Selecting a portfolio of environmental programs for a synthetic fuels facility. Operations Research, 37, 689–699.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Peng, Y. (2010). A stochastic R&D portfolio model under climate uncertainty. Master’s thesis, University of Massachusetts AmherstGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Pizer, W. A., & Popp, D. (2008). Endogenizing technological change: matching empirical evidence to modeling needs. Energy Economics, 30, 2754–2770.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Popp, D. (2006). ENTICE-BR: The effects of backstop technology R&D on climate policy models. Energy Economics, 28, 188–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Rao, A. B., Rubin, E. S., Keith, D. W., & Morgan, M. G. (2006). Evaluation of potential cost reductions from improved amine-based CO2 capture systems. Energy Policy, 34, 3765–3772.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Rothschild, M., & Stiglitz, J. (1970). Increasing risk I: A definition. Journal of Economic Theory, 2, 225–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Schlaifer, R. (1959). Probability and statistics for business decisions. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Schorpp, G. (2009). Optimal energy R&D decision making under climate change uncertainty. Master’s thesis, University of Massachusetts AmherstGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Sharpe, P., & Keelin, T. (1998). How smithkline beecham makes better resource-allocation decisions. Harvard Business Review, 76, 45–57.Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Titus, J. G., & Narayanan, V. (1996). A delphic monte carlo analysis in which twenty researchers specify subjective probability distributions for model coefficients within their respective areas of expertise. Climatic Change, 33, 151–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Wing, I. S. (2006). Representing induced technological change in models for climate policy analysis. Energy Economics, 28, 539–562.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Viscusi, K. (1983). Frameworks for analyzing the effects of risk and environmental regulations on productivity. American Economic Journal, 73, 793–801.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Mechanical and Industrial EngineeringUniversity of MassachusettsAmherstUSA

Personalised recommendations