IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/enepol/v106y2017icp415-426.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Consistency and robustness of forecasting for emerging technologies: The case of Li-ion batteries for electric vehicles

Author

Listed:
  • Sakti, Apurba
  • Azevedo, Inês M.L.
  • Fuchs, Erica R.H.
  • Michalek, Jeremy J.
  • Gallagher, Kevin G.
  • Whitacre, Jay F.

Abstract

There are a large number of accounts about rapidly declining costs of batteries with potentially transformative effects, but these accounts often are not based on detailed design and technical information. Using a method ideally suited for that purpose, we find that when experts are free to assume any battery pack design, a majority of the cost estimates are consistent with the ranges reported in the literature, although the range is notably large. However, we also find that 55% of relevant experts’ component-level cost projections are inconsistent with their total pack-level projections, and 55% of relevant experts’ elicited cost projections are inconsistent with the cost projections generated by putting their design- and process-level assumptions into our process-based cost model (PBCM). These results suggest a need for better understanding of the technical assumptions driving popular consensus regarding future costs. Approaches focusing on technological details first, followed by non-aggregated and systemic cost estimates while keeping the experts aware of any discrepancies, should they arise, may result in more accurate forecasts.

Suggested Citation

  • Sakti, Apurba & Azevedo, Inês M.L. & Fuchs, Erica R.H. & Michalek, Jeremy J. & Gallagher, Kevin G. & Whitacre, Jay F., 2017. "Consistency and robustness of forecasting for emerging technologies: The case of Li-ion batteries for electric vehicles," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 106(C), pages 415-426.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:enepol:v:106:y:2017:i:c:p:415-426
    DOI: 10.1016/j.enpol.2017.03.063
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421517302161
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.enpol.2017.03.063?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Catenacci, Michela & Verdolini, Elena & Bosetti, Valentina & Fiorese, Giulia, 2013. "Going electric: Expert survey on the future of battery technologies for electric vehicles," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 61(C), pages 403-413.
    2. Edward S. Rubin & Sonia Yeh & David A. Hounshell & Margaret R. Taylor, 2004. "Experience curves for power plant emission control technologies," International Journal of Energy Technology and Policy, Inderscience Enterprises Ltd, vol. 2(1/2), pages 52-69.
    3. Verdolini, Elena & Anadon, Laura Diaz & Lu, Jiaqi & Nemet, Gregory F., 2015. "The effects of expert selection, elicitation design, and R&D assumptions on experts' estimates of the future costs of photovoltaics," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 80(C), pages 233-243.
    4. Argote, L. & Epple, D., 1990. "Learning Curves In Manufacturing," GSIA Working Papers 89-90-02, Carnegie Mellon University, Tepper School of Business.
    5. ., 2016. "Electric energy utilities," Chapters, in: Public Utilities, Second Edition, chapter 4, pages 69-88, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    6. Daschbach, J. M. & Apgar, Henry, 1988. "Design analysis through techniques of parametric cost estimation," Engineering Costs and Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 14(2), pages 87-93, July.
    7. Baker, Erin & Bosetti, Valentina & Anadon, Laura Diaz & Henrion, Max & Aleluia Reis, Lara, 2015. "Future costs of key low-carbon energy technologies: Harmonization and aggregation of energy technology expert elicitation data," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 80(C), pages 219-232.
    8. Nemet, Gregory F., 2006. "Beyond the learning curve: factors influencing cost reductions in photovoltaics," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 34(17), pages 3218-3232, November.
    9. Rubin, Edward S. & Azevedo, Inês M.L. & Jaramillo, Paulina & Yeh, Sonia, 2015. "A review of learning rates for electricity supply technologies," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 86(C), pages 198-218.
    10. Mihai Burcea & Wing-Kai Hon & Hsiang-Hsuan Liu & Prudence W. H. Wong & David K. Y. Yau, 2016. "Scheduling for electricity cost in a smart grid," Journal of Scheduling, Springer, vol. 19(6), pages 687-699, December.
    11. Richard Green & Iain Staffell, 2016. "Electricity in Europe: exiting fossil fuels?," Oxford Review of Economic Policy, Oxford University Press and Oxford Review of Economic Policy Limited, vol. 32(2), pages 282-303.
    12. Nemet, Gregory F. & Baker, Erin & Jenni, Karen E., 2013. "Modeling the future costs of carbon capture using experts' elicited probabilities under policy scenarios," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 56(C), pages 218-228.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Marc Wentker & Matthew Greenwood & Jens Leker, 2019. "A Bottom-Up Approach to Lithium-Ion Battery Cost Modeling with a Focus on Cathode Active Materials," Energies, MDPI, vol. 12(3), pages 1-18, February.
    2. Duffner, F. & Wentker, M. & Greenwood, M. & Leker, J., 2020. "Battery cost modeling: A review and directions for future research," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 127(C).
    3. Doremus, Jacqueline & Helfand, Gloria & Liu, Changzheng & Donahue, Marie & Kahan, Ari & Shelby, Michael, 2019. "Simpler is better: Predicting consumer vehicle purchases in the short run," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 129(C), pages 1404-1415.
    4. Cotterman, Turner & Fuchs, Erica R.H. & Whitefoot, Kate S. & Combemale, Christophe, 2024. "The transition to electrified vehicles: Evaluating the labor demand of manufacturing conventional versus battery electric vehicle powertrains," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 188(C).
    5. Yang, Zaoli & Zhang, Weijian & Yuan, Fei & Islam, Nazrul, 2021. "Measuring topic network centrality for identifying technology and technological development in online communities," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 167(C).
    6. Whiston, Michael M. & Lima Azevedo, Inês M. & Litster, Shawn & Samaras, Constantine & Whitefoot, Kate S. & Whitacre, Jay F., 2021. "Paths to market for stationary solid oxide fuel cells: Expert elicitation and a cost of electricity model," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 304(C).
    7. Duffner, Fabian & Mauler, Lukas & Wentker, Marc & Leker, Jens & Winter, Martin, 2021. "Large-scale automotive battery cell manufacturing: Analyzing strategic and operational effects on manufacturing costs," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 232(C).
    8. Xiaohong Wang & Shixiang Li & Lizhi Wang & Yaning Sun & Zhongxing Wang, 2020. "Degradation and Dependence Analysis of a Lithium-Ion Battery Pack in the Unbalanced State," Energies, MDPI, vol. 13(22), pages 1-25, November.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Loeb, Benjamin & Kockelman, Kara M., 2019. "Fleet performance and cost evaluation of a shared autonomous electric vehicle (SAEV) fleet: A case study for Austin, Texas," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 121(C), pages 374-385.
    2. De Cian, Enrica & Buhl, Johannes & Carrara, Samuel & Michela Bevione, Michela & Monetti, Silvia & Berg, Holger, 2016. "Knowledge Creation between Integrated Assessment Models and Initiative-Based Learning - An Interdisciplinary Approach," MITP: Mitigation, Innovation and Transformation Pathways 249784, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei (FEEM).
    3. Safari, M., 2018. "Battery electric vehicles: Looking behind to move forward," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 115(C), pages 54-65.
    4. Few, Sheridan & Schmidt, Oliver & Offer, Gregory J. & Brandon, Nigel & Nelson, Jenny & Gambhir, Ajay, 2018. "Prospective improvements in cost and cycle life of off-grid lithium-ion battery packs: An analysis informed by expert elicitations," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 114(C), pages 578-590.
    5. Paul Lehmann & Patrik Söderholm, 2018. "Can Technology-Specific Deployment Policies Be Cost-Effective? The Case of Renewable Energy Support Schemes," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 71(2), pages 475-505, October.
    6. Grafström, Jonas & Poudineh, Rahmat, 2021. "A review of problems associated with learning curves for solar and wind power technologies," Ratio Working Papers 347, The Ratio Institute.
    7. Karali, Nihan & Park, Won Young & McNeil, Michael, 2017. "Modeling technological change and its impact on energy savings in the U.S. iron and steel sector," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 202(C), pages 447-458.
    8. Santhakumar, Srinivasan & Meerman, Hans & Faaij, André, 2021. "Improving the analytical framework for quantifying technological progress in energy technologies," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 145(C).
    9. Heuberger, Clara F. & Rubin, Edward S. & Staffell, Iain & Shah, Nilay & Mac Dowell, Niall, 2017. "Power capacity expansion planning considering endogenous technology cost learning," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 204(C), pages 831-845.
    10. Yeh, Sonia & Rubin, Edward S., 2012. "A review of uncertainties in technology experience curves," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 34(3), pages 762-771.
    11. Schauf, Magnus & Schwenen, Sebastian, 2021. "Mills of progress grind slowly? Estimating learning rates for onshore wind energy," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 104(C).
    12. Baker, Erin & Bosetti, Valentina & Salo, Ahti, 2016. "Finding Common Ground when Experts Disagree: Belief Dominance over Portfolios of Alternatives," MITP: Mitigation, Innovation and Transformation Pathways 243147, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei (FEEM).
    13. Polzin, Friedemann & Sanders, Mark & Serebriakova, Alexandra, 2021. "Finance in global transition scenarios: Mapping investments by technology into finance needs by source," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 99(C).
    14. Gawel, Erik & Lehmann, Paul & Purkus, Alexandra & Söderholm, Patrik & Witte, Katherina, 2017. "Rationales for technology-specific RES support and their relevance for German policy," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 102(C), pages 16-26.
    15. Laura Diaz Anadon & Erin Baker & Valentina Bosetti & Lara Aleluia Reis, 2016. "Expert views - and disagreements - about the potential of energy technology R&D," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 136(3), pages 677-691, June.
    16. Baldwin, Elizabeth & Cai, Yongyang & Kuralbayeva, Karlygash, 2020. "To build or not to build? Capital stocks and climate policy∗," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 100(C).
    17. He, Zhengxia & Cao, Changshuai & Kuai, Leyi & Zhou, Yanqing & Wang, Jianming, 2022. "Impact of policies on wind power innovation at different income levels: Regional differences in China based on dynamic panel estimation," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 71(C).
    18. Elena Verdolini & Laura Díaz Anadón & Erin Baker & Valentina Bosetti & Lara Aleluia Reis, 2018. "Future Prospects for Energy Technologies: Insights from Expert Elicitations," Review of Environmental Economics and Policy, Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 12(1), pages 133-153.
    19. Tran, Thomas T.D. & Smith, Amanda D., 2017. "fEvaluation of renewable energy technologies and their potential for technical integration and cost-effective use within the U.S. energy sector," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 80(C), pages 1372-1388.
    20. Carlos de Castro & Iñigo Capellán-Pérez, 2020. "Standard, Point of Use, and Extended Energy Return on Energy Invested (EROI) from Comprehensive Material Requirements of Present Global Wind, Solar, and Hydro Power Technologies," Energies, MDPI, vol. 13(12), pages 1-43, June.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:enepol:v:106:y:2017:i:c:p:415-426. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/enpol .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.