选择赢家为时过早:专家之间的分歧意味着研发投资多元化的必要性

Laura Diaz Anadon, E. Baker, V. Bosetti, L. Reis
{"title":"选择赢家为时过早:专家之间的分歧意味着研发投资多元化的必要性","authors":"Laura Diaz Anadon, E. Baker, V. Bosetti, L. Reis","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.2749585","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Mitigating climate change will require innovation in energy technologies. Policy makers are faced with the question of how to promote this innovation, and whether to focus on a few technologies or to spread their bets. We present results on the extent to which public R&D might shape the future cost of energy technologies by 2030. We bring together three major expert elicitation efforts carried out by researchers at UMass Amherst, Harvard, and FEEM, covering nuclear, solar, Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS), bioelectricity, and biofuels. The results show experts believe that there will be decreasing returns to R&D and report median cost reductions around 20% for most of the technologies at the R&D budgets considered. Although the returns to solar and CCS R&D show some promise, the lack of consensus across studies, and the larger magnitude of the R&D investment involved in these technologies, calls for caution when defining what technologies would benefit the most from additional public R&D. Indeed, the wide divergence of opinions suggests that it is still too early to pick winners and that a broad portfolio of investments may be the best option.","PeriodicalId":101533,"journal":{"name":"ERN: Exploitation of Renewable & Non-Renewables Natural Resources & the Environment (Topic)","volume":"405 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2016-03-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"6","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Too Early to Pick Winners: Disagreement Across Experts Implies the Need to Diversify R&D Investment\",\"authors\":\"Laura Diaz Anadon, E. Baker, V. Bosetti, L. Reis\",\"doi\":\"10.2139/ssrn.2749585\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Mitigating climate change will require innovation in energy technologies. Policy makers are faced with the question of how to promote this innovation, and whether to focus on a few technologies or to spread their bets. We present results on the extent to which public R&D might shape the future cost of energy technologies by 2030. We bring together three major expert elicitation efforts carried out by researchers at UMass Amherst, Harvard, and FEEM, covering nuclear, solar, Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS), bioelectricity, and biofuels. The results show experts believe that there will be decreasing returns to R&D and report median cost reductions around 20% for most of the technologies at the R&D budgets considered. Although the returns to solar and CCS R&D show some promise, the lack of consensus across studies, and the larger magnitude of the R&D investment involved in these technologies, calls for caution when defining what technologies would benefit the most from additional public R&D. Indeed, the wide divergence of opinions suggests that it is still too early to pick winners and that a broad portfolio of investments may be the best option.\",\"PeriodicalId\":101533,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"ERN: Exploitation of Renewable & Non-Renewables Natural Resources & the Environment (Topic)\",\"volume\":\"405 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2016-03-18\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"6\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"ERN: Exploitation of Renewable & Non-Renewables Natural Resources & the Environment (Topic)\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2749585\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ERN: Exploitation of Renewable & Non-Renewables Natural Resources & the Environment (Topic)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2749585","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 6

摘要

减缓气候变化需要能源技术的创新。政策制定者面临着如何促进这种创新的问题,以及是专注于少数几项技术还是分散赌注。我们展示了到2030年公共研发可能在多大程度上影响能源技术的未来成本的结果。我们汇集了由麻省大学阿默斯特分校、哈佛大学和FEEM的研究人员开展的三个主要专家启发工作,涵盖核能、太阳能、碳捕获和储存(CCS)、生物电和生物燃料。研究结果显示,专家们认为,在考虑的研发预算中,大多数技术的成本中值将降低20%左右。尽管太阳能和CCS研发的回报显示出一些希望,但研究之间缺乏共识,而且这些技术所涉及的研发投资规模更大,因此在确定哪些技术将从额外的公共研发中获益最大时,需要谨慎。事实上,意见的巨大分歧表明,现在挑选赢家还为时过早,广泛的投资组合可能是最佳选择。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Too Early to Pick Winners: Disagreement Across Experts Implies the Need to Diversify R&D Investment
Mitigating climate change will require innovation in energy technologies. Policy makers are faced with the question of how to promote this innovation, and whether to focus on a few technologies or to spread their bets. We present results on the extent to which public R&D might shape the future cost of energy technologies by 2030. We bring together three major expert elicitation efforts carried out by researchers at UMass Amherst, Harvard, and FEEM, covering nuclear, solar, Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS), bioelectricity, and biofuels. The results show experts believe that there will be decreasing returns to R&D and report median cost reductions around 20% for most of the technologies at the R&D budgets considered. Although the returns to solar and CCS R&D show some promise, the lack of consensus across studies, and the larger magnitude of the R&D investment involved in these technologies, calls for caution when defining what technologies would benefit the most from additional public R&D. Indeed, the wide divergence of opinions suggests that it is still too early to pick winners and that a broad portfolio of investments may be the best option.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信