Jump to content
Main menu
Main menu
move to sidebar
hide
Navigation
Main page
Recent changes
Random page
Help about MediaWiki
Special pages
ClimateKG
Search
Search
English
Appearance
Create account
Log in
Personal tools
Create account
Log in
Pages for logged out editors
learn more
Contributions
Talk
Editing
IPCC:AR6/WGIII/Chapter-16
(section)
IPCC
Discussion
English
Read
Edit source
View history
Tools
Tools
move to sidebar
hide
Actions
Read
Edit source
View history
General
What links here
Related changes
Page information
In other projects
Appearance
move to sidebar
hide
Warning:
You are not logged in. Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits. If you
log in
or
create an account
, your edits will be attributed to your username, along with other benefits.
Anti-spam check. Do
not
fill this in!
==== 16.2.2.4 Explaining Past and Projecting Future Technology Cost Changes ==== <div id="h3-8-siblings" class="h3-siblings"></div> Researchers and policymakers alike are interested in using observed empirical patterns of learning to project future reductions in costs of technologies. Studies cutting across a wide range of industrial sectors (not just energy) have tried to relate cost reductions to different functional forms, including cost reductions as a function of time (Moore’s law) and cost reductions as a function of production or deployment (Wright’s law, also known as Henderson’s law), finding that those two forms perform better than alternatives combining different factors, with costs as a function of production (Wright’s law) performing marginally better ( [[#Nagy--2013|Nagy et al. 2013]] ). A comparison of expert elicitation and model-based forecasts of the future cost of technologies for the energy transition indicates that model-based forecast medians were closer to the average realised values in 2019 ( [[#Meng--2021|Meng et al. 2021]] ). Recent studies attempt to separate the influence of learning by doing (which is a basis of Wright’s law) versus other factors in explaining cost reductions, specifically in energy technologies. Some studies explain cost reductions with two factors: cumulative deployment (as proxy for experience); and R&D investment – see the ‘two factor’ learning curve ( [[#Klaassen--2005|Klaassen et al. 2005]] ). However, reliable information on public energy R&D investments for developing countries is not systematically collected. Available data for OECD countries cannot be precisely assigned to specific industrial sectors or sub-technologies ( [[#Verdolini--2018|Verdolini et al. 2018]] ). Some learning-curve studies take into account that historical variation in technology costs could be explained by variation in key materials and fuel costs – for example, steel costs for wind turbines ( [[#Qiu--2012|Qiu and Anadon 2012]] ), silicon costs ( [[#Nemet--2006|Nemet 2006]] ; [[#Kavlak--2018|Kavlak et al. 2018]] ) as well as coal and coal plant construction costs ( [[#McNerney--2011|McNerney et al. 2011]] ). Economies of scale played a significant role in the PV cost reductions since the early 2000s ( [[#Yu--2011|Yu et al. 2011]] ) (Box 16.4), which can also become the case in organic PV technologies ( [[#Gambhir--2016|Gambhir et al. 2016]] ; [[#Kavlak--2018|Kavlak et al. 2018]] ). <div id="16.2.3" class="h2-container"></div> <span id="directing-technological-change"></span>
Summary:
Please note that all contributions to ClimateKG may be edited, altered, or removed by other contributors. If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly, then do not submit it here.
You are also promising us that you wrote this yourself, or copied it from a public domain or similar free resource (see
ClimateKG:Copyrights
for details).
Do not submit copyrighted work without permission!
Cancel
Editing help
(opens in new window)
Search
Search
Editing
IPCC:AR6/WGIII/Chapter-16
(section)
Add languages
Add topic