Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-669899f699-rg895 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-04-25T14:48:16.004Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Chapter 24 - Policies for the Energy Technology Innovation System (ETIS)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 September 2012

Global Energy Assessment Writing Team
By
Arnulf Grubler ,
Francisco Aguayo ,
Kelly Gallagher ,
Marko Hekkert ,
Kejun Jiang ,
Lynn Mytelka ,
Lena Neij ,
Gregory Nemet ,
Charlie Wilson  and
Per Dannemand Andersen
...Show all authors
Arnulf Grubler
Affiliation:
International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, Austria and Yale University
Francisco Aguayo
Affiliation:
El Colegio de México
Kelly Gallagher
Affiliation:
Tufts University
Marko Hekkert
Affiliation:
Utrecht University
Kejun Jiang
Affiliation:
Energy Research Institute
Lynn Mytelka
Affiliation:
United Nations University-MERIT
Lena Neij
Affiliation:
Lund University
Gregory Nemet
Affiliation:
University of Wisconsin
Charlie Wilson
Affiliation:
Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research
Per Dannemand Andersen
Affiliation:
Technical University of Denmark
Leon Clarke
Affiliation:
University of Maryland
Laura Diaz Anadon
Affiliation:
Harvard University
Sabine Fuss
Affiliation:
International Institute of Applied Systems Analysis
Martin Jakob
Affiliation:
Swiss Federal Institute of Technology
Daniel Kammen
Affiliation:
University of California
Ruud Kempener
Affiliation:
Harvard University
Osamu Kimura
Affiliation:
Central Research Institute of Electric Power Industry
Bernadette Kiss
Affiliation:
Lund University
Anastasia O'Rourke
Affiliation:
Big Room Inc.
Robert N. Schock
Affiliation:
World Energy Council, UK and Center for Global Security Research
Paulo Teixeira de Sousa Jr.
Affiliation:
Federal University Mato Grosso
Leena Srivastava
Affiliation:
The Energy and Resources Institute
Get access

Summary

Executive Summary

Innovation and technological change are integral to the energy system transformations described in the Global Energy Assessment (GEA) pathways. Energy technology innovations range from incremental improvements to radical breakthroughs and from technologies and infrastructure to social institutions and individual behaviors. This Executive Summary synthesizes the main policy-relevant findings of Chapter 24. Specific positive policy examples or key takehome messages are highlighted in italics.

The innovation process involves many stages – from research through to incubation, demonstration, (niche) market creation, and ultimately, widespread diffusion. Feedbacks between these stages influence progress and likely success, yet innovation outcomes are unavoidably uncertain. Innovations do not happen in isolation; interdependence and complexity are the rule under an increasingly globalized innovation system. Any emphasis on particular technologies or parts of the energy system, or technology policy that emphasizes only particular innovation stages or processes (e.g., an exclusive focus on energy supply from renewables, or an exclusive focus on Research and Development [R&D], or feed-in tariffs) is inadequate given the magnitude and multitude of challenges represented by the GEA objectives.

A first, even if incomplete, assessment of the entire global resource mobilization (investments) in both energy supply and demand-side technologies and across different innovation stages suggests current annual Research, Development & Demonstration (RD&D) investments of some US$50 billion, market formation investments (which rely on directed public policy support) of some US$150 billion, and an estimated US$1 trillion to US$5 trillion investments in mature energy supply and end-use technologies (technology diffusion).

Type
Chapter
Information
Global Energy Assessment
Toward a Sustainable Future
 , pp. 1665 - 1744
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2012

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Book purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Adeyeye, A., J., Barrett, J., Diamond, L., Goldman, J., Pendergrass and D., Schramm, 2009: Estimating U.S. Government Subsidies to Energy Sources: 2002–2008. Environmental Law Institute, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
,AEIC, 2010: A Business Plan for America's Future. American Energy Innovation Council.Google Scholar
Aguayo, F., 2008: Renewable Energy and Sustainable Development in Mexico: The case of Wind Energy on the Tehuantepec Isthmus. Mexico's Energy Future Seminar, 22 June – 3 July, John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
Alchian, A., 1963: Reliability of Progress Curves in Airframe Production. Econometrica: Journal of the Econometric Society, 31(4):679–693.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alkemade, F., C., Kleinschmidt and M., Hekkert, 2007: Analysing emerging innovation systems: a functions approach to foresight. International Journal of Foresight. and Innovation Policy, 3(2):139–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anadon, L. D., K. S., Gallagher, M., Bunn and C., Jones, 2009: Tackling U.S. Energy Challenges and Opportunities: Preliminary Policy Recommendations for Enhancing Energy Innovation in the United States. Energy Technology Innovation Policy Group, Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
,ANFAVEA, 2008: Brazilian Autmotive Industry Yearbook. Associacao Nacional dos Fabricantes de Veiculos Automores – Brasil (ANFAVEA), Sao Paolo.Google Scholar
Argote, L., S. L., Beckman and D., Epple, 1990: The Persistence and Transfer of Learning in Industrial Settings. Management Science, 36(2):140–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Argote, L. and D., Epple, 1990: Learning Curves in Manufacturing. Science, 247(4945):920–924.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Arrow, K. J., 1962a: The Economic Implications of Learning by Doing. The Review of Economic Studies, 29(3):155–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arrow, K. J., 1962b: Economic welfare and the allocation of resources for invention. In The Rate and Direction of Economic Activity. R., Nelson, (ed.), Princeton University Press, Princeton pp. 609–625.Google Scholar
Arthur, B. W., 1988a: Competing Technologies. In Technical Change and Economic Theory. G., Dosi, C., Freeman, R., Nelson, G., Silverberg and L., Soete, (eds.), Pinter Publishers, London.Google Scholar
Arthur, B. W., 1988b: Self-Reinforcing Mechanisms in Economics. In The Economy as an Evolving Complex System, Westview Press, Boulder, CO.Google Scholar
Arthur, B. W., 1989: Competing Technologies, Increasing Returns, and Lock-In by Historical Events. The Economic Journal, 99(394):116–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ausubel, J. H. and C., Marchetti, 1997: Elektron: Electrical systems in Retrospect and Prospect. In Technological Trajectories and the Human Environment. J. H., Ausubel and H. D., Langford, (eds.), National Academy Press, Washington, DC pp.115–140.Google Scholar
Bahk, B.-H. and M., Gort, 1993: Decomposing Learning by Doing in New Plants. Journal of Political Economy, 101(4):561–583.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baker, E., H., Chon and J., Keisler, 2009: Advanced solar R&D: Combining economic analysis with expert elicitations to inform climate policy. Energy Economics, 31:S37–S49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barton, J. H., 2009: Patenting and Access to Clean Energy Technologies in Developing Countries. WIPO Magazine, World Intellectual Property Organization, March 2009.Google Scholar
,BCG, 1972: Perspectives on Experience. The Boston Consulting Group, Boston, MA.Google Scholar
Benkard, C. L., 2000: Learning and Forgetting: The Dynamics of Aircraft Production. American Economic Review, 90(4):1034–10541.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bergek, A., S., Jacobsson, B., Carisson, S., Lindmark and A., Rickne, 2008: Analyzing the functional dynamics of technological innovation systems: A scheme of analysis. Research Policy, 37(3):407–407.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bolingar, M. and Wiser, R., 2012: Understanding wind turbine price trends in the U.S. Over the past decade. Energy Policy, 42:628–641.Google Scholar
Boone, T., R., Ganeshan and R. L., Hicks, 2008: Learning and Knowledge Depreciation in Professional Services. Management Science, 54(7):1231–1236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Borja-Diaz, M. A., O. A., Jaramillo-Salgado and F., Mimiaga-Sosa, 2005: Primer Documento del Proyecto Eoloeléctrico del Corredor Eólico del Istmo de Tehuantepec. Instituto de Investigacione Eléctricas-PNUD-GEF, México.Google Scholar
Borup, M., N., Brown, K., Konrad and H., Van Lente, 2006: The sociology of expectations in science and technology. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 18(3–4):285–298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bosetti, V., C., Carraro, E., Massetti and M., Tavoni, 2008: International energy R&D spillovers and the economics of greenhouse gas atmospheric stabilization. Energy Economics, 30(6):2912–2929.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brennand, T. P., 2001: Wind energy in China: policy options for development. Energy for Sustainable Development, 5(4:84–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brooks, H., 1995: What We Know and Do Not Know About Technology Transfer: Linking Knowledge to Action. In Marshaling technology for development, National Academy Press, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
Bush, V., 1945: Science The Endless Frontier. A Report to the President, United States Government Printing Offfice, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
Calvin, K., J., Edmonds, B., Bond-Lamberty, L., Clarke, S. H., Kim, P., Kyle, S. J., Smith, A., Thomson and M., Wise, 2009: 2.6: Limiting climate change to 450 ppm CO2 equivalent in the 21st century. Energy Economics, 31(Supplement 2):S107–S120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carlsson, B. and R., Stankiewicz, 1991: On the nature, function and composition of technological systems. Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 1(2):93–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clemen, R. T. and R. C., Kwit, 2001: The Value of Decision Analysis at Eastman Kodak Company, 1990–1999. INTERFACES, 31(5):74–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coe, D. T. and E., Helpman, 1995: International R&D spillovers. European Economic Review, 39(5):859–888.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coe, D. T., E., Helpman and A. W., Hoffmaister, 2009: International R&D spillovers and institutions. European Economic Review, 53(7):723–723.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cohen, W. M. and D. A., Levinthal, 1989: Innovation and learning: the two faces of R&D. The Economic Journal, 99(397):569–596.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cohen, W. M. and D. A., Levinthal, 1990: Absorptive Capacity: A New Perspective on Learning and Innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35(1):128–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Conley, P., 1970: Experience curves as a planning tool. IEEE Spectrum, 7(6):63–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cowan, R., 1990: Nuclear power reactors: a study in technological lock-in. The Journal of Economic History, 50(3):541–567.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cowan, R. and S., Hulten, 1996: Escaping Lock-In: The Case of the Electric Vehicle. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 53(1):61–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Darr, E., D., , and D., Epple, 1995: The Acquisition, Transfer, and Depreciation of Knowledge in Service Organizations: Productivity in Franchises. Management Science, 41(11):1750–1762.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dasgupta, P. and P. A., David, 1994: Toward a new economics of science. Research Policy, 23(5):487–521.Google Scholar
Deutch, J. M. and R. K., Lester, 2004: Making technology work: applications in energy and the environment. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.Google Scholar
Deutch, J. M., 2005: What Should the Government Do to Encourage Technical Change in the Energy Sector? MIT Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge MA.Google Scholar
Dooley, J. J., 2000: A Short Primer on collecting and Analyzing Energy R&D Statistics. PNNL-13158, Batelle.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dooley, J. J. and P. J., Runci, 2000: Developing nations, energy R&D, and the provision of a planetary public good: A long-term strategy for addressing climate change. Journal of Environment & Development, 9(3):215–239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Doornbosch, R. and S., Upton, 2006: DO WE HAVE THE RIGHT R&D PRIORITIES AND PROGRAMMES TO SUPPORT THE ENERGY TECHNOLOGIES OF THE FUTURE? Round Table on Sustainable Development – SG/SD/RT(2006)1, OECD, Paris.Google Scholar
Duke, R. and D. M., Kammen, 1999: The economics of energy market transformation programs. The Energy Journal, 20(4):15–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dutton, J. M. and A., Thomas, 1984: Treating Progress Functions as a Managerial Opportunity. Academy of Management. The Academy of Management Review, 9(2):235–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
,EC, 2005: Energy R&D Statistics in the European Research Area. European Commision, Brussels.Google Scholar
Edquist, C. and B., Johnson, 1997: Institution and Organizations in Systems of Innovation. In Systems of Innovation: Technologies, Institutions and Organization. C., Edquist, (ed.), Pinter Publishers, London pp.41–60.Google Scholar
Edquist, C., 2001: Innovation Systems and Innovation Policy: the state of the art. DRUID's Nelson-Winter Conference, Aarlborg.Google Scholar
Enos, J. L., 1962: Petroleum progress and profits: a history of process innovation. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
,EPRI, 2003: Electricity Technology Roadmap – Meeting the Critical Challenges of the 21st Century. Electric Power Research Insititute (EPRI), Palo Alto, CA.Google Scholar
Evenson, R. E., 2002: Induced Adaptive Invention/Innovation and Productivity Convergence in Developing Countries. In Technological Change and the Environment. A., Grubler, N., Nakicenovic and W. D., Nordhaus, (eds.), Resources for the Future Press, Washington DC, USA pp.61–96.Google Scholar
Falvey, R., N., Foster and D., Greenaway, 2004: Imports, exports, knowledge spillovers and growth. Economics Letters, 85(2):209–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Farsi, M., A., Fetz and M., Filippini, 2008: Economies of Scale and Scope in Multi-Utilities. The Energy Journal, 29(4):123–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fligstein, N., 1997: Social skill and institutional theory. American Behavioral Scientist, 40(4):397–406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Florida, R. and D. F., Smith Jr., 1990: Venture capital, innovation, and economic development. Economic Development Quarterly, 4(4):345–361.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Foray, D., 2004: The Economics of Knowledge. The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
Frankel, M., 1955: OBSOLESCENCE AND TECHNOLOGICAL CHANGE IN A MATURING ECONOMY. American Economic Review, 45(3):296–320.Google Scholar
Freeman, C. and C., Perez, 1988: Structural Crises of Adjustment, Business Cycles and Investment Behaviour InTechnical Change and Economic Theory. G., Dosi, C., Freeman, R., Nelson, G., Silverberg and L., Soete, (eds.), Pinter Publishers, London pp.38–66.Google Scholar
Freeman, C., 1994: The Economics of Technical Change. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 18(5):463–463.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fridlund, M., 2000: Procuring Products and Power, Developing International Competitiveness in Swedish Electrotechnology and Electric Power. In Public Technology Procurement and Innovation. C., Edquist, L., Hommen and L., Sipouri, (eds.), Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht.Google Scholar
Gallagher, K. S., 2006: Limits to leapfrogging in energy technologies? Evidence from the Chinese automobile industry. Energy Policy, 34(4):383–394.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gallagher, K. S., J. P., Holdren and A. D., Sagar, 2006: ENERGY-TECHNOLOGY INNOVATION. Annual Review of Environment & Resources, 31(1):193–242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garud, R. and P., Karnoe, 2003: Bricolage versus breakthrough: Distributed and embedded agency in technology entrepreneurship. Research Policy, 32(2):277–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gaskins, D. and B., Stram, 1991: A Meta Plan: A Policy Response to Global Warming. CSIA Discussion Paper 91–3, Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University.Google Scholar
Geels, F. W., 2004: From sectoral systems of innovation to socio-technical systems: Insights about dynamics and change from sociology and institutional theory. Research Policy, 33(6–7):897–920.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldemberg, J., 1998: FROM PHYSICS TO DEVELOPMENT STRATEGIES. Annual Review of energy and the environment, 23:1–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldemberg, J., S. T., Coelho, P. M., Nastari and O., Lucon, 2004: Ethanol learning curve-the Brazilian experience. Biomass and Bioenergy, 26(3):301–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grubler, A., 1998: Technology and Global Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grubler, A., N., Nakicenovic and D. G., Victor, 1999: Dynamics of energy technologies and global change. Energy Policy, 27(5):247–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grubler, A., 2008: Energy Transitions. Encyclopedia of Earth. C. J., Cleveland, (ed.), Washington, DC.Google Scholar
Grubler, A., 2010: The costs of the French nuclear scale-up: A case of negative learning by doing. Energy Policy, 38(9):5174–5188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grubler, A. and K., Riahi, 2010: Do governments have the right mix in their energy R&D portfolios?Carbon Management, 1(1):79–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
,GSI, 2009: Kinds of subsidies, who uses them and how big they are. www.globalsubsidies.org/en/research/kinds-subsidies-who-uses-them-and-how-big-they-are-0 (accessed 25 August, 2010).
Gurney, A., H., Ahammad and M., Ford, 2009: The economics of greenhouse gas mitigation: Insights from illustrative global abatement scenarios modelling. Energy Economics, 31(Supplement 2):S174–S186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hall, B. H., 2007: MEASURING THE RETURNS TO R&D: THE DEPRECIATION PROBLEM. NBER Working Paper Series, Working Paper 13473, National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
Hall, G. and S., Howell, 1985: The Experience Curve from the Economist's Perspective. Strategic Management Journal, 6(3):197–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Halsnæs, K., P., Shukla, D., Ahuja, G., Akumu, R., Beale, J., Edmonds, C., Gollier, A., Grubler, M. Ha, Duong, A., Markandya, M., McFarland, E., Nikitina, T., Sugiyama, A., Villavicencio and J., Zou, 2007: Framing issues. In Climate Change 2007: Mitigation. B., Metz, O., Davidson, P., Bosch, R., Dave and L., Meyer, (eds.), Contribution of Working Group III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK pp.117–167.Google Scholar
Hekkert, M. P., R. A. A., Suurs, S. O., Negro, S., Kuhlmann and R. E. H. M., Smits, 2007: Functions of innovation systems: A new approach for analysing technological change. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 74(4):413–432.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Henriksen, E., K.-H., Midelfart and F., Steen, 2001a: Economies of Scale in European Manufacturing Revisited. CEPR Discussion Papers, Centre for Economic Policy Research, London, UK.Google Scholar
Henriksen, E., F., Steen and K., Ulltveit-Moe, 2001b: Economies of Scale in European Manufacturing Revisited. CEPR Discussion Paper no. 2896, Centre for Economic Policy Research, London.Google Scholar
Hillman, K. M., R. A. A., Suurs, M. P., Hekkert and B. A., Sandén, 2008: Cumulative causation in biofuels development: a critical comparison of the Netherlands and Sweden. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 20(5):593–593.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoffert, M. I., K., Caldeira, G., Benford, D. R., Criswell, C., Green, H., Herzog, A. K., Jain, H. S., Kheshgi, K. S., Lackner, J. S., Lewis, H. D., Lightfoot, W., Manheimer, J. C., Mankins, M. E., Mauel, L. J., Perkins, M. E., Schlesinger, T., Volk and T. M. L., Wigley, 2002: Advanced Technology Paths to Global Climate Stability: Energy for a Greenhouse Planet. Science, 298(5595):981–987.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hoffert, M. I., 2010: Farewell to Fossil Fuels?Science, 329(5997):1292–1294.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hughes, T. P., 1983: Networks of Power: electrification in Western society, 1880–1930. The Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore and London.Google Scholar
,IAEA-PRIS, 2010: IAEA Power Reactor Information System. www.iaea.org/programmes/a2/ (accessed 2 November 2010).
,IEA, 2002: World Energy Outlook. International Energy Agency, Paris.Google Scholar
,IEA, 2003: World Energy Investment Outlook. International Energy Agency, Paris.Google Scholar
,IEA, 2006: World Energy Outlook. International Energy Agency, Paris.Google Scholar
,IEA, 2007: World Energy Outlook: China and India Insights. International Energy Agency, Paris.Google Scholar
,IEA, 2008a: World Energy Outlook. International Energy Agency, Paris.Google Scholar
,IEA, 2008b: Energy Technology Perspectives: Energy Technology Perspectives to 2050. International Energy Agency – OECD, Paris.Google Scholar
,IEA, 2009a: World Energy Outlook. International Energy Agency, Organization for Economic Cooperation & Development, Paris.Google Scholar
,IEA, 2009b: R&D Statisticswww.iea.org/stats/rd.asp (accessed 25 August 2010).
,IEA, 2010: World Energy Outlook. International Energy Agency, Organization for Economic Cooperation & Development, Paris.Google Scholar
Jacobson, A. and D. M., Kammen, 2007: Engineering, institutions, and the public interest: Evaluating product quality in the Kenyan solar photovoltaics industry. Energy Policy, 35(5):2960–2960.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jacobsson, S. and A., Johnson, 2000: The diffusion of renewable energy technology: An analytical framework and key issues for research. Energy Policy, 28(9):625–640.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jacobsson, S. and A., Bergek, 2004: Transforming the energy sector: the evolution of technological systems in renewable energy technology. Industrial and corporate change, 13(5):815–849.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jacobsson, S. and V., Lauber, 2006: The politics and policy of energy system transformation-explaining the German diffusion of renewable energy technology. Energy Policy, 34(3):256–276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jaffe, A. B. and M., Trajtenberg, 1999: International Knowledge Flows: Evidence from Patent Citations. Economics of Innovation & New Technology, 8(1–2):105–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jäger-Waldau, A., 2006: PV Status Report 2006. European Commission, Joint Research Centre, Ispra, Italy.Google Scholar
Joskow, P. L. and N. L., Rose, 1985: The effects of technological change, experience, and environmental regulation on the construction cost of coal-burning generating units. The Rand Journal of Economics, 16(1):1–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kamp, L. M., R., Smits, E., Andriesse and D., Cornelis, 2004: Notions on learning applied to wind turbine development in the Netherlands and Denmark. Energy Policy, 32(1625–1637).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kemp, R., J., Schot and R., Hoogma, 1998: Regime shifts to sustainability through processes of niche formation: The approach of strategic niche management. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 10(2):175–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kempener, R., L. D., Anadon and J., Condor, 2010a: Governmental Energy Innovation Investments, Policies, and Institutions in the Major Emerging Economies: Brazil, Russia, India, Mexico, China, and South Africa. Energy Technology Innovation Policy Discussion Paper #2010–16, Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, Harvard Kennedy School, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
Kempener, R., L. D., Anadon, J., Condor and J., Kenrick, 2010b: A Comparative Analysis of Energy Technology Innovation Policies in Major Emerging Economies: Brazil, Russia, India, Mexico, China and South Africa. HKS Faculty Working Paper Series: Harvard University, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
Kim, I. and H. L., Seo, 2009: Depreciation and transfer of knowledge: an empirical exploration of a shipbuilding process. International Journal of Production Research, 47(7):1857–1857.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klaassen, G., A., Miketa, K., Larsen and T., Sundqvist, 2005: The impact of R&D on innovation for wind energy in Denmark, Germany and the United Kingdom. Ecological Economics, 54(2–3):227–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kemperer, P., 1990: How Broad Should the Scope of Patent Protection Be?The Rand Journal of Economics, 21(1):113–131.Google Scholar
Kilne, S. J. and N., Rosenberg, 1986: An Overview of Innovation. In The Positive Sum Strategy: Harnessing Technology for Economic Growth. R., Landau and N., Rosenberg, (eds.), National Academy Press, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
Koomey, J. and N. E., Hultman, 2007: A reactor-level analysis of bus bar costs for US nuclear plants, 1970–2005. Energy Policy, 35(11):5630–5630.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kouvaritakis, N., A., Soria and S., Isoard, 2000: Modelling energy technology dynamics: methodology for adaptive expectations models with learning by doing and learning by searching. International Journal of Global Energy Issues, 14(1):104–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krawiec, F., J., Thornton and M., Edesess, 1980: An Investigation of Learning and Experience Curves. Solar Energy Reseach Institute, Report SERI/TR-353-459 prepeared for the US Department of Energy, Golden, Colorado.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kwon, O. S. and W.-C., Yun, 2003: Measuring economies of scope for cogeneration systems in Korea: a nonparametric approach. Energy Economics, 25(4):331–338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
La Manna, M. A., 1992: Optimal patent life vs optimal patentability standards. International Journal of Industrial Organization, 10(1):81–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lako, P., 2004: Spillover Effects from Wind Power: Case study in the framework of the project Spillovers of climate policy. Energy Research Centre of the Netherlands, Petten, the Netherlands.Google Scholar
Landau, R. and N., Rosenberg, (eds.), 1986: The Positive sum strategy: harnessing technology for economic growth. National Academy Press, Washington D.C.
Lee, T. H. and R. L., Loftness, 1987: Managing Electrotechnology Innovation in the USA. Working Papper WP-87-54, Laxenburg, Austria.Google Scholar
Levin, R., A., Klevorick, R., Nelson and S., Winter, 1987: Appropriating the Returns from Industrial Research and Development. In Brooking Papers on Economic Activity, Brookings Institution Press, Washington, DC, Vol. Vol. 3, pp.783–820.Google Scholar
Lipsey, R. G., K. I., Carlaw and C. T., Bekar, 2006: Economic Transformations: General Purpose Technologies and Long Term Economic Growth. Oxford University Press, New York.Google Scholar
Lovins, A. B., E. Kyle, Datta, T., Feiler, K. R., Rábago, J., Swisher, A., Lehmann and K., Wicker, 2002: Small is Profitable: The Hidden Economic Benefits of Making Electrical Resources the Right Size. Rocky Mountain Institute, Snowmass, CO.Google Scholar
Lundvall, B.-A., 1998: Why Study National Systems and National Styles of Innovation?Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 10(4):407–422.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lundvall, B.-Å., (ed.) 1992: National Systems of innovation: Towards a theory of innovation and interactive learning. Pinter Publishers, London.
Lundvall, B.-Å., 2007: National Innovation Systems-Analytical Concept and Development Tool. Industry and Innovation, 14(1):95–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lundvall, B.- Å., 2009: Innovation as an Interactive Process: User-Producer Interaction to the National System of Innovation. African Journal of Science, Technology, Innovation and Development, 1(2&3):10–34.Google Scholar
Lutsey, N. and D., Sperling, 2005: Energy Efficiency, Fuel Economy, and Policy Implications. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 1941: Figure 6(a), p14. Copyright, National Academy Sciences, Washinton, DC, 2005. Reproduced with permission of teh Transportation Research Board.Google Scholar
Machlup, F., 1984: Knowledge, its creation, distribution and economic significance: The economics of information and human capital. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mancusi, M. L., 2008: International spillovers and absorptive capacity: A cross-country cross-sector analysis based on patents and citations. Journal of International Economics, 76(2):155–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maskus, K. E., 2000: Chapter 2: A Road Map for the TRIPs ahead. In Intellectual property rights in the global economy, Institute for International Economics, Washington DC.Google Scholar
Mayo, J. W., 1984: The Technological Determinants of the U.S. Energy Industry Structure. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 66(1):51–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCabe, M. J., 1996: Principals, Agents, and the Learning Curve: The Case of Steam-Electric Power Plant Design and Construction. The Journal of Industrial Economics, 44(4):357–375.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meijer, I. and M. P., Hekkert, 2007: Managing Uncertainties in the Transition Towards Sustainability: Cases of Emerging Energy Technologies in The Netherlands. Journal of Environmental Policy and Planning, 9(3–4):281–298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miketa, A. and L., Schrattenholzer, 2004: Experiments with a methodology to model the role of R&D expenditures in energy technology learning processes; first results. Energy Policy, 32(15):1679–1692.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mishina, K., 1992: Learning by New Experiences. Working Paper 93–084, Harvard Business School, Cambridge MA.Google Scholar
Mishina, K., 1999: Learning by New Experiences: Revisiting the Flying Fortress Learning Curve. In Learning by doing in markets, firms, and countries, N. R., Lamoreaux, D. M. G., Raff and P., Temin, Eds., The University of Chicago Press, Chicago. pp.145–184.Google Scholar
Mohnen, P., 1997: Introduction: Input-output analysis of interindustry R&D spillovers. Economic Systems Research, 9(1):3–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mowery, D. and N., Rosenberg, 1979: The infiuence of market demand upon innovation: a critical review of some recent empirical studies. Research Policy, 8(2):102–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nakicenovic, N. and H.-H., Rogner, 1996: Financing global energy perspectives to 2050. OPEC Review, 20(1):1–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nakicenovic, N., J., Alcamo, G., Davis, B., de Vries, J., Fenhann, S., Gaffin, K., Gregory, A., Grubler, Y. J., Tae, T., Kram, E. L. La, Rovere, L., Michaelis, S., Mori, T., Morita, W., Pepper, H., Pitcher, L., Price, K., Riahi, A., Roehrl, H.-H., Rogner, A., Sankovski, M., Schlesinger, P., Shukla, S., Smith, R., Swart, S., van Rooijen, N., Victor and D., Zhou, 2000: Special Report on Emissions Scenarios. IPCC and Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.Google Scholar
Nakićenović, N., A., Grubler and A., McDonald, (eds.), 1998: Global energy: perspectives. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
,NEF/SEFI, 2009: Analysis of Trend and Issues in the Financing of Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency. Global Trends in Sustainable Energy Investment 2009, UNEP & Basel Agency for Sustaianble Energy, New Energy Finance (NEF) / Sustainable Energy Finance Initiative (SEFI), Basel, Switzerland.Google Scholar
Neij, L., 2004: The development of the experience curve concept and its application in energy policy assessment. International Journal of Energy Technology and Policy, 2(1–2):3–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nelson, R. and S., Winter, 1982: An Evolutionary Theory of Economic Change. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
Nelson, R., (ed.) 1993: National Innovation Systems: A Comparative Analysis. Oxford University Press, New York.
Nemet, G. F., 2006: Beyond the learning curve: factors infiuencing cost reductions in photovoltaics. Energy Policy, 34(17):3218–3232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nemet, G. F., 2007: Policy and Innovation in Low-carbon energy Technologies. PhD Dissertetion, University of California, Barkeley, CA.Google Scholar
Nemet, G. F. and D. M., Kammen, 2007: U.S. energy research and development: Declining investment, increasing need, and the feasibility of expansion. Energy Policy, 35(1):746–746.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nemet, G. F., 2009a: Demand-pull, technology-push, and government-led incentives for non-incremental technical change. Research Policy, 38(5):700–700.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nemet, G. F., 2009b: Interim monitoring of cost dynamics for publicly supported energy technologies. Energy Policy, 37(3):825–825.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nordhaus, W. D., 1969: Inventions, Growth and Welfare: a Theoretical Treatment of Technological Change. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
,NRC, 2001: Energy Research at DOE was it Worth itfiEnergy Ef? ciency and Fossil Energy Research 1978 to 2000. Board on Energy and Environmental Systems, National Research Council (NRC), Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
,NRC, 2007: Prospective Evaluation of Applied Energy Research and Development at DOE (Phase Two). National Research Council (NRC), Washington, DC.Google Scholar
,NSF, 2009: Research and Development in Industry: 2004. NSF-09–301 National Science Foundation, Arlington VA.Google Scholar
,NSF, 2010: Science and Engineering Indicators 2010. Chapter 4: Research and Development: National Trends and International Linkages. Report NSB 10-01, National Science Fundation, Arlington, VA.Google Scholar
O'Rourke, A. R., 2009: The Emergence of Cleantech. Yale University, New Haven CT.Google Scholar
,OECD, 2002: Frascati Manual: Proposed Standard Practice for Surveys on Research and Experimental Development. The Measurement of Scientific and Technological Activities, Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development, Paris.Google Scholar
,OECD, 2007: Science, Technology and Innovation Indicators in a Changing World: Responding to Policy Needs. Paper discussed at the OECD Blue Sky II Forum, Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, Ottawa, Canada.Google Scholar
,OECD, 2009: R&D Expenditure in Industry ISIC Rev.3, OECD STAN (Structural Analysis Database), Paris.Google Scholar
Pacala, S. and R., Socolow, 2004: Stabilization Wedges: Solving the Climate Problem for the Next 50 Years with Current Technologies. Science, 305(5686):968–972.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Panzar, J. and R., Willig, 1975: Economies of scale and scope in Multi-Output Production. Economics Discussion Paper No. 33, Bell Laboratories, Murray Hill, NJ.Google Scholar
,PCAST, 1997: Report to the President on Federal Energy Research and Development for the Challenges of the Twenty-First Century. President's Committee of Advisors on Science and Technology Panel on Energy Research and Development, Washington, D. C.Google Scholar
Peerenboom, J. P., W. A., Buehring and T. W., Joseph, 1989: Selecting a Portfolio of Environmental Programs for a Synthetic Fuels Facility. Operations Research, 37(5):689–699.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Plevin, R. J., M., O'Hare, A. D., Jones, M. S., Torn and H. K., Gibbs, 2010: Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Biofuels' Indirect Land Use Change Are Uncertain but May Be Much Greater than Previously Estimated. Environmental Science & Technology, 44(21):8015–8021.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Popp, D., 2006: R&D Subsidies and Climate Policy: Is There a “Free Lunch”?Climatic Change, 77(3):311–341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Raff, D. M. G., 1991: Making Cars and Making Money in the Interwar AutomobileIndustry: Economies of Scale and Scope and the Manufacturing behind the Marketing. The Business History Review, 65(4):721–753.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rapier, R., 2008: FutureGen Project Stopped. www.consumerenergyreport.com/2008/01/31/futuregen-project-stopped/ (accessed 31 January 2008).Google Scholar
Rapping, L., 1965: Learning and World War 2 Production Functions. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 47(1):81–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Riahi, K., A., Grubler and N., Nakicenovic, 2007: Scenarios of long-term socioeconomic and environmental development under climate stabilization. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 74(7):887–935.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosegger, G., 1996: The Economics of Production and Innovation: An Industrial Perspective. Butterworth-Heinemann Ltd, Oxford, UK.Google Scholar
Rosenberg, N., 1982: Inside the black box: technology and economics. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.Google Scholar
Rosenberg, N., 1994: Exploring the black box: technology, economics, and history. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ruttan, V., 2001: Technology, Growth, and Development: an induced innovation perspective. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK.Google Scholar
Ruttan, V. W., 1996: Induced Innovation and Path Dependence: A Reassessment with Respect to Agricultural Development and the Environment. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 53(1):41–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sabatier, P. A., 1987: Knowledge, Policy-Oriented Learning, and Policy Change. Science Communication, 8(4):649–692.Google Scholar
Sabatier, P. A., 1988: An advocacy coalition framework of policy change and the role of policy-oriented learning therein. Policy Sciences, 21(2–4):129–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schumpeter, J. A., 1942: Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy. Harper, New York.Google Scholar
Sharpe, P. and T., Keelin, 1998: How SmithKline Beecham makes better resource-allocation decisions. Harvard Business Review, 76(2):45–57.Google ScholarPubMed
Shum, K. L. and C., Watanabe, 2008: Towards a local learning (innovation) model of solar photovoltaic deployment. Energy Policy, 36(2):508–508.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smekens, K. E. L., P., Lako and A. J., Seebregts, 2003: Technologies and technology learning, contributions to IEA's Energy Technology Perspectives. Report ECN-C– 03-046, Energy Research Centre of the Netherlands, Petten, the Netherlands.Google Scholar
Smil, V., 1994: Energy in World History. Westview Press, Boulder, CO.Google Scholar
Smil, V., 2008: Energy in Nature and Society: General Energetics of Complex Systems. MIT Press, Boston, MA.Google Scholar
Smith, A., 1776: Chapter 1: Of the Division of Labor. In An Inquiry into the Nature of the Causes of the Wealth of Nations, Methuen and Co., London.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, A. and A., Stirling, 2010: The Politics of Social-ecological Resilience and Sustainable Socio-technical Transitions. Ecology and Society, 15(1):11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, K., 2002: What is the ‘knowledge economy’? Knowledge intensity and distributed knowledge bases. Discussion Paper Series, United Nations University, Institute for New Technologies, Maastricht, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
Solow, R. M., 1957: Technical Change and the Aggregate Production Function. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 39(3):312–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Suurs, R. A. A. and M. P., Hekkert, 2009a: Competition between first and second generation technologies: Lessons from the formation of a biofuels innovation system in the Netherlands. Energy, 34(5):669–679.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Suurs, R. A. A. and M. P., Hekkert, 2009b: Cumulative causation in the formation of a technological innovation system: The case of biofuels in The Netherlands. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 76(8):1003–1020.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Teece, D. J., 1980: Economies of scope and the scope of the enterprise. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 1(3):223–247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thompson, P., 2007: How Much Did the Liberty Shipbuilders Forget?Management Science, 53(6):908–918.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thomson, Financial, 2009: Thomson Reuters VentureXpert Data Base. vx.thomsonib.com/NASApp/VxComponent/NewMain.htm (accessed 15 July 2010).Google Scholar
,UKERC, (ed.) 2010: Great Expectations:The cost of offshore wind in UK waters – understanding the past and projecting the future. UK Energy Research Centre, London.Google Scholar
,UNCTAD, 2002: World Investment Report 2002: Transnational Corporations and Export Competitiveness. Report UNCTAD/WIR/2002, United Nations Conference On Trade And Development, Geneva, Switzerland.Google Scholar
Unel, B., 2008: R&D spillovers through trade in a panel of OECD industries. The Journal of International Trade & Economic Development, 17(1):105–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
,UNEP/SEFI/NEF, 2009: Global Trends in Sustainable Energy Investments 2009. UN Environment Programme; Sustainable Energy Finance Initiative; New Energy Finance, Nairobi.Google Scholar
,UNFCCC, 1992: Convention TextUN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), IUCC, Geneva.Google Scholar
Unruh, G. C., 2000: Understanding carbon lock-in. Energy Policy, 28(12):817–830.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van De Ven, H., 1993: The development of an infrastructure for entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Venturing, 8(3):211–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van den Wall Bake, J. D., M., Junginger, A., Faaij, T., Poot and A., Walter, 2009: Explaining the experience curve: Cost reductions of Brazilian ethanol from sugarcane. Biomass and Bioenergy, 33(4):644–658.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van der Zwaan, B. and A., Seebregts, 2004: Endogenous learning in climate-energyeconomic models – an inventory of key uncertainties. International Journal of Energy Technology and Policy, 2(1–2):130–141.Google Scholar
van Lente, H. and A., Rip, 1998: The Rise of Membrane Technology: From Rhetorics to Social Reality. Social Studies of Science, 28(2):221–254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Pottelsberghe de la Potterie, B., 1997: Issues in assessing the effect of interindustry R&D spillovers. Economic Systems Research, 9(4):331–357.Google Scholar
von Hippel, E., 1988: The Sources of Innovation. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK.Google Scholar
von Hippel, E., 1994: “Sticky Information“ and the Locus of Problem Solving: Implications for Innovation. Management Science, 40(4):429–439.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Watanabe, C., K., Wakabayashi and T., Miyazawa, 2000: Industrial dynamism and the creation of a “virtuous cycle” between R&D, market growth and price reduction – The case of photovoltaic power generation (PV) development in Japan. Technovation, 20(6):299–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Watanabe, C., C., Griffy-Brown, B., Zhu and A., Nagamatsu, 2002: Inter-Firm Technology Spillover and the “Virtuous Cycle” of Photovoltaic Development in Japan. In Technological Change and the Environment. A., Grubler, N., Nakicenovic and W., Nordhaus, (eds.), Resources for the Future, Washington. pp.127–159.Google Scholar
Watson, J., 2004: Selection environments, fiexibility and the success of the gas turbine. Research Policy, 33(8):1065–1080.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
,WEC, 2001: Energy Technologies for the 21st Century: Energy Research, Development and Demonstration Expenditure 1985–2000: An International Comparison. A Report by a Study Group of the World Energy Council (WEC), London.Google Scholar
Wene, C. O., 2000: Experience Curves for Energy Technology Policy. International Energy Agency, Paris.Google Scholar
Wilson, C., 2009: Meta-analysis of unit and industry level scaling dynamics in energy technologies and climate change mitigation scenarios. Interim Report IR-09-029, International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, Laxenburg, Austria.Google Scholar
Wilson, C. and A., Grubler, 2011: A Comparative Analysis of Annual Market Investments in Energy Supply and End-use Investments. Interim Report IR-11-032. International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, Laxenburg, Austria.Google Scholar
Worrell, E. and G., Biermans, 2005: Move over! Stock turnover, retrofit and industrial energy efficiency. Energy Policy, 33(7):949–962.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wright, T. P., 1936: Factors Affecting the Cost of Airplanes. Journal of Aeronautical Sciences, 3:122–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×