The Effect of the Projection Time Frame on Projection Performance and Projection Performance Requirements

  • Yuri D. KononovEmail author
Part of the Springer Geophysics book series (SPRINGERGEOPHYS)


As the projection time frame extends, it increases the uncertainty of future conditions of the energy industry development and compromises the performance of long-term projections. The assumption that the discrepancy between projected values and the actual data decreases as the projection year nears the reference year does not hold true in all cases. However, the general tendency toward narrowing the projection error range appears well-established. Estimates of the likely error for the projection variables facilitate making more well-grounded the choice of the acceptable level of complexity of employed economic and mathematical models. If an elaboration of these models leads to a change in the projection that is less than the acceptable projection error, the practicality of implementing such approaches may prove unwarranted. The fundamental possibility of narrowing down the uncertainty is implicated by objective patterns and trends; the system inertia inherent into the energy sector, and other factors. Freestyle task-specific constructing of hybrid “pipelines” of uncertainty-handling formalisms are capable of addressing any realistically formulated forecasting problems.


Projection Time frame Input data Projection error Uncertainty range Uncertainty handling formalisms 


  1. 1.
    Pivovarov SE (1984) The methodology for comprehensive forecasting of the development of an individual industry. Nauka, Leningrad, p 192 (In Russian)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Siforov VI (ed) (1990) Prognostics: terms and definitions. Nauka, Moscow, p 56 (In Russian)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    U.S. Energy Information Administration. Annual energy outlook (1995–2013) [Electronic Publication]. Retrieved from:
  4. 4.
    U.S. Energy Information Administration. International energy outlook (1995–2013) [Electronic Publication]. Retrieved from:
  5. 5.
    Galperova EV, Mazurova OV (2013) A study of a dependence of the growth of uncertainty of projections of energy production and consumption on the projection time frame. Energeticheskaya politika 3:33–38 (In Russian)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Shibalkin OY, Maiminas EZ (1992) Problems and methods of developing scenarios of social and economic development. Nauka, Moscow, p 176 (In Russian)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Makarov AA, Melentiev LA (1973) Research and optimization models for energy facilities. Nauka, Novosibirsk, p 274 (In Russian)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    The uncertainty factor in making optimal decision in large energy systems: In 3 Vols. Ed. by L. S. Belyaev, A. A. Makarov. – Irkutsk: The Siberian Energy Institute of the Siberian Branch of the Academy of Sciences of the Soviet Union, 1974. (In Russian)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Belyaev LS (1978) Solving complex optimization problems under uncertainty. Nauka, Novosibirsk, p 126 (In Russian)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Belyaev LS, Rudenko YN (eds) (1986) Theoretical foundations of the energy systems analysis. Nauka, Novosibirsk, p 331 (In Russian)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Makarov AA (1988) On some of the problems of the long-term energy forecasting. National and regional energy systems: Governance theory and its methods. Nauka, Novosibirsk, pp 43–98 (In Russian)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Makarov AA (2010) Methods and results of forecasting the development of Russia’s energy industry. Izvestiia RAN. Energetika 4:26–40 (In Russian)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Ermakov SM (1975) Monte Carlo methods and related problems. Nauka, Moscow, p 472 (In Russian)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Raiffa H (1977) Decision analysis: an introduction into the problem of decision-making under uncertainty. Decision Analysis. Nauka, Moscow, p 418 (In Russian)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Belyaev LS, Saneev BG (2010) Handling of uncertain information in the energy systems analysis. In: Voropai NI (ed) Energy systems analysis: the Siberian Energy Institute/Energy Systems Institute schools of thought in hindsight. Novosibirsk, pp 42–50 (In Russian)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Bellman R, Zadeh L (1976) Decision-making in a fuzzy environment. Problems of decision-making analysis and procedures. Mir, Moscow, pp 173–215 (In Russian)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Yager RR, Liu L (2007) Classic works of the Dempster-Shafer theory of belief functions. Springer, Norwalk, Conn, p 806Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Augustin T. et al (2014) Introduction to imprecise probabilities. Wiley, Hoboken, NJ, p 448Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Pytyev Yu (2000) Possibility. Theoretical and applied aspects. Editorial URSS, pp 192 (In Russian)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Pawlak Z (2013) Rough sets: theoretical aspects of reasoning about data. Rough sets. Springer, Dordrecht, p 231Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Kohlas J, Monney P-A (2013) A mathematical theory of hints: an approach to the Dempster-Shafer theory of evidence. Springer, Berlin; New York, p 422Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Walley P (1991) Statistical reasoning with imprecise probabilities, monographs on statistics and applied probability, vol 42. Chapman and Hall, London, p 706CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Kuznetsov V (1991) Interval statistical models. Radio i Sviaz, p 352 (In Russian)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Bouchon-Meunier B, Yager RR, Zadeh LA (1995) Fuzzy logic and soft computing. World Scientific Pub Co Inc, Singapore; River Edge, NJ, p 497CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Zadeh LA (1996) Fuzzy logic = computing with words. Trans Fuz Sys 4(2):103–111CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Podkovalnikov SV (2001) Fuzzy pay-off matrix for under uncertainty for justifying decisions in the energy industry. Izvestiia RAN. Seriia Energetika 4:164–173 (In Russian)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Greco S, Matarazzo B, Slowinski R (2001) Rough sets theory for multicriteria decision analysis. Eur J Oper Res 129(1):1–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Liu S, Lin Y (2010) Grey systems: theory and applications. Springer, Berlin, p 379Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Yager RR, Kacprzyk J (1997) The ordered weighted averaging operators: theory and applications. Springer, Boston, p 347Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Shafer G (1986) Savage revisited. Stat Sci 1(4):463–485CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Tversky A, Kahneman D (1992) Advances in prospect theory: cumulative representation of uncertainty. J Risk Uncertainty 5. Advances in prospect theory 4:297–323CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Schmeidler D (1989) Subjective probability and expected utility without additivity. Econometrica 57(3):571CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.IrkutskRussia

Personalised recommendations