Policies for Energy Technology Innovation Systems Arnulf Grubler IIASA & Yale University
Energy Technology Innovation Energy technology innovation is the embodied result of institutionalized research, development and deployment efforts driven by collective learning processes involving both suppliers and users of technologies operating in specific contexts of adoption environments and incentive structures. GEA Chapter 24
Chapter 24 Highlights & News New concepts: -- Systems perspective (ETIS) -- “granularity” of technologies/projects New quantifications: - ETIS resource mobilization - R&D in BRIMCS - knowledge depreciation - impacts of policy misalignments and volatility - innovation portfolio biases Generic criteria for policy design: -- Knowledge: feedbacks (experimentation), spillovers (globalization) -- Policy: stability, alignment -- Targets: systems, and portfolio based Literature review + research + 20 GEA case studies
World – Primary Energy Transitions changeover time Δts: 80-130 years Begin of energy policy focus: Δt’s >2000 yrs Δt -130 yrs Δt -80 yrs Δt +130 yrs Δt +90 yrs
The GEA ETIS Framework
ETIS at Work: US Solar Thermal 1982-1992
Post Fossil Technologies Cost Trends
Cumulative Experience /Learning Favors “granular” Technologies Draft, table will be replaced by graphic in final presentation
Knowledge Depreciation Rates (% per year) empirical studies reviewed GEA KM24 (2012) and modeled R&D deprecation in US manufacturing (Hall, 2007)
ETIS Actors & Institutions Institutional design for technology innovation remains amiss of importance of BRICs in energy R&D and “minimizes” global knowledge spillovers National Energy R&D (public+private) OECD vs BRICs International Clean-tech collaborations (# of IEA implementation agreements)
World ETIS Resource Mobilization Billion $2005 Source: GEA KM24, 2012
Public Policy-induced ETIS Investments billion US$2005 Source: Wilson et al. Nature CC 2012
KNOWLEDGE RESOURCES TECHNOLOGY CHARACTERISTICS ACTORS & INSTITUTIONS generation learning Future Needs Analysis & Modelling Social Rates of Return shared expectations performance Learning Effects ACTORS & INSTITUTIONS Roadmaps & Portfolios TECHNOLOGY CHARACTERISTICS Technology Lifecycle Technology Collaborations Market Formation entrepreneurs / risk taking R,D&D (public $) Diffusion Support cost resource inputs public policy & leverage RESOURCES Directable (Activities) Non-Directable (Outputs) key CLIMATE MITIGATION
KNOWLEDGE RESOURCES TECHNOLOGY CHARACTERISTICS ACTORS & INSTITUTIONS generation learning Future Needs Analysis & Modelling Social Rates of Return shared expectations performance Learning Effects ACTORS & INSTITUTIONS Roadmaps & Portfolios TECHNOLOGY CHARACTERISTICS Technology Lifecycle Technology Collaborations Market Formation entrepreneurs / risk taking R,D&D (public $) Diffusion Support cost resource inputs public policy & leverage RESOURCES Directable (Activities) Non-Directable (Outputs) key supply : end-use (relative effort) CLIMATE MITIGATION
GEA Chapter 24 Authors and Resources Case studies: http://www.iiasa.ac.at/web/home/research/researchPrograms/ TransitionstoNewTechnologies/CaseStudy_home.en.html Related publications: Gallagher, K.S., A. Grubler, L. Kuhl, G. Nemet, C. Wilson, 2012. The Energy Technology Innovation System. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 37:137-62 doi:10.1146/annurev-environ-060311-133915. Wilson, C., Grubler, A., Gallagher, K. S., Nemet, G.F., 2012. Marginalization of end-use technologies in energy innovation for climate protection. Nature Climate Change, 2(11), 780-788, doi: 10.1038/nclimate1576. A. Grubler and C. Wilson (eds.), Energy Technology Innovation: Learning from Historical Successes and Failures, Cambridge University Press (in press)