The Value of Better Information on Technology R&D Programs in Response to Climate Change
- 255 Downloads
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.
KeywordsValue of information Technology R&D Uncertainty Environmental policy
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.
- 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
- 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.
- 14.Blanford, G. J., & Weyant, J. P. (2007). Optimal investment portfolios for basic R&D. Working Paper, Stanford University.Google Scholar
- 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
- 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.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
- 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.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.Clemen, R., & Winkler, R. (2002). Multiple experts vs. multiple methods: combining correlation assessments. Durham: Duke University.Google Scholar
- 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.Clemen, R. T., & Winkler, R. L. (1999). Combining probability distributions from experts in risk analysis. Risk Analysis, 19, 187–203.Google Scholar
- 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.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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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.Nordhaus, W. (2008). A question of balance: Weighing the options on global warming policies. Connecticut: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
- 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
- 43.Peng, Y. (2010). A stochastic R&D portfolio model under climate uncertainty. Master’s thesis, University of Massachusetts AmherstGoogle Scholar
- 48.Schlaifer, R. (1959). Probability and statistics for business decisions. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
- 49.Schorpp, G. (2009). Optimal energy R&D decision making under climate change uncertainty. Master’s thesis, University of Massachusetts AmherstGoogle Scholar
- 50.Sharpe, P., & Keelin, T. (1998). How smithkline beecham makes better resource-allocation decisions. Harvard Business Review, 76, 45–57.Google Scholar
- 53.Viscusi, K. (1983). Frameworks for analyzing the effects of risk and environmental regulations on productivity. American Economic Journal, 73, 793–801.Google Scholar