IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/enepol/v35y2007i3p1795-1807.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Climate modelling with endogenous technical change: Stochastic learning and optimal greenhouse gas abatement in the PAGE2002 model

Author

Listed:
  • Alberth, Stephan
  • Hope, Chris

Abstract

No abstract is available for this item.

Suggested Citation

  • Alberth, Stephan & Hope, Chris, 2007. "Climate modelling with endogenous technical change: Stochastic learning and optimal greenhouse gas abatement in the PAGE2002 model," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(3), pages 1795-1807, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:enepol:v:35:y:2007:i:3:p:1795-1807
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301-4215(06)00254-0
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    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. Popp, David, 2004. "ENTICE: endogenous technological change in the DICE model of global warming," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 48(1), pages 742-768, July.
    2. Papineau, Maya, 2006. "An economic perspective on experience curves and dynamic economies in renewable energy technologies," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 34(4), pages 422-432, March.
    3. Rubin, Edward S & Taylor, Margaret R & Yeh, Sonia & Hounshell, David A, 2004. "Learning curves for environmental technology and their importance for climate policy analysis," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 29(9), pages 1551-1559.
    4. Loschel, Andreas, 2002. "Technological change in economic models of environmental policy: a survey," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 43(2-3), pages 105-126, December.
    5. Stephan Alberth & Chris Hope, 2006. "Developing the PAGE2002 Model with Endogenous Technical Change," Working Papers EPRG 0613, Energy Policy Research Group, Cambridge Judge Business School, University of Cambridge.
    6. Marvin B. Lieberman, 1987. "The learning curve, diffusion, and competitive strategy," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 8(5), pages 441-452, September.
    7. van der Zwaan, Bob & Rabl, Ari, 2004. "The learning potential of photovoltaics: implications for energy policy," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 32(13), pages 1545-1554, September.
    8. Peterson, Sonja, 2006. "Uncertainty and economic analysis of climate change: a survey of approaches and findings," Open Access Publications from Kiel Institute for the World Economy 3778, Kiel Institute for the World Economy (IfW Kiel).
    9. Junginger, M. & Faaij, A. & Turkenburg, W. C., 2005. "Global experience curves for wind farms," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 33(2), pages 133-150, January.
    10. Alberth, S. & Hope, C., 2006. "Developing the PAGE2002 Model with Endogenous Technical Change," Cambridge Working Papers in Economics 0632, Faculty of Economics, University of Cambridge.
    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. Michael Grubb & Jean-Francois Mercure & Pablo Salas & Rutger-Jan Lange & Ida Sognnaes, 2018. "Systems Innovation, Inertia and Pliability: A mathematical exploration with implications for climate change abatement," Working Papers EPRG 1808, Energy Policy Research Group, Cambridge Judge Business School, University of Cambridge.
    2. Armon Rezai & Frederick Van Der Ploeg, 2017. "Abandoning Fossil Fuel: How Fast and How Much," Manchester School, University of Manchester, vol. 85(S2), pages 16-44, December.
    3. Ackerman, Frank & Stanton, Elizabeth A. & Hope, Chris & Alberth, Stephane, 2009. "Did the Stern Review underestimate US and global climate damages?," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(7), pages 2717-2721, July.
    4. Nemet, Gregory F., 2009. "Interim monitoring of cost dynamics for publicly supported energy technologies," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(3), pages 825-835, March.
    5. Way, Rupert & Lafond, François & Lillo, Fabrizio & Panchenko, Valentyn & Farmer, J. Doyne, 2019. "Wright meets Markowitz: How standard portfolio theory changes when assets are technologies following experience curves," Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Elsevier, vol. 101(C), pages 211-238.
    6. Andrea Rampa, 2020. "Climate change, catastrophes and Dismal Theorem: a critical review [Klimawandel, Katastrophen und das „Dismal Theorem“: eine kritische Überprüfung]," Review of Regional Research: Jahrbuch für Regionalwissenschaft, Springer;Gesellschaft für Regionalforschung (GfR), vol. 40(2), pages 113-136, October.
    7. Armon Rezai & Frederick Ploeg, 2017. "Second-Best Renewable Subsidies to De-carbonize the Economy: Commitment and the Green Paradox," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 66(3), pages 409-434, March.
    8. Partridge, Ian, 2013. "Renewable electricity generation in India—A learning rate analysis," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 60(C), pages 906-915.
    9. In Hwang & Frédéric Reynès & Richard Tol, 2013. "Climate Policy Under Fat-Tailed Risk: An Application of Dice," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 56(3), pages 415-436, November.
    10. Patrick Breun & Magnus Fröhling & Konrad Zimmer & Frank Schultmann, 2017. "Analyzing investment strategies under changing energy and climate policies: an interdisciplinary bottom-up approach regarding German metal industries," Journal of Business Economics, Springer, vol. 87(1), pages 5-39, January.
    11. Ritchie, Justin & Dowlatabadi, Hadi, 2017. "The 1000 GtC coal question: Are cases of vastly expanded future coal combustion still plausible?," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 65(C), pages 16-31.

    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. Arthur van Benthem & Kenneth Gillingham & James Sweeney, 2008. "Learning-by-Doing and the Optimal Solar Policy in California," The Energy Journal, International Association for Energy Economics, vol. 0(Number 3), pages 131-152.
    2. Hong, Sungjun & Chung, Yanghon & Woo, Chungwon, 2015. "Scenario analysis for estimating the learning rate of photovoltaic power generation based on learning curve theory in South Korea," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 79(C), pages 80-89.
    3. 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.
    4. Kahouli-Brahmi, Sondes, 2008. "Technological learning in energy-environment-economy modelling: A survey," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(1), pages 138-162, January.
    5. Nemet, Gregory F., 2009. "Interim monitoring of cost dynamics for publicly supported energy technologies," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(3), pages 825-835, March.
    6. Samadi, Sascha, 2018. "The experience curve theory and its application in the field of electricity generation technologies – A literature review," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 82(P3), pages 2346-2364.
    7. Harashima, Taiji, 2012. "A Theory of Intelligence and Total Factor Productivity: Value Added Reflects the Fruits of Fluid Intelligence," MPRA Paper 43151, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    8. Kahouli, Sondès, 2011. "Effects of technological learning and uranium price on nuclear cost: Preliminary insights from a multiple factors learning curve and uranium market modeling," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 33(5), pages 840-852, September.
    9. Candelise, Chiara & Winskel, Mark & Gross, Robert J.K., 2013. "The dynamics of solar PV costs and prices as a challenge for technology forecasting," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 26(C), pages 96-107.
    10. Harashima, Taiji, 2014. "Division of Work and Fragmented Information: An Explanation for the Diminishing Marginal Product of Labor," MPRA Paper 56301, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    11. Mort Webster & Karen Fisher-Vanden & David Popp & Nidhi Santen, 2017. "Should We Give Up after Solyndra? Optimal Technology R&D Portfolios under Uncertainty," Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, University of Chicago Press, vol. 4(S1), pages 123-151.
    12. Lafond, François & Bailey, Aimee Gotway & Bakker, Jan David & Rebois, Dylan & Zadourian, Rubina & McSharry, Patrick & Farmer, J. Doyne, 2018. "How well do experience curves predict technological progress? A method for making distributional forecasts," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 128(C), pages 104-117.
    13. Bolinger, Mark & Wiser, Ryan, 2009. "Wind power price trends in the United States: Struggling to remain competitive in the face of strong growth," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(3), pages 1061-1071, March.
    14. Nemet, Gregory F., 2006. "Beyond the learning curve: factors influencing cost reductions in photovoltaics," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 34(17), pages 3218-3232, November.
    15. Gerlagh , Reyer & Kverndokk, Snorre & Rosendahl, Knut Einar, 2008. "Linking Environmental and Innovation Policy," Memorandum 10/2008, Oslo University, Department of Economics.
    16. Jouvet, Pierre-André & Schumacher, Ingmar, 2012. "Learning-by-doing and the costs of a backstop for energy transition and sustainability," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 122-132.
    17. Guangyuan Xing & Youheng Zhang & Ju’e Guo, 2023. "Environmental Regulation in Evolution and Governance Strategies," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 20(6), pages 1-25, March.
    18. Bibas, Ruben & Méjean, Aurélie & Hamdi-Cherif, Meriem, 2015. "Energy efficiency policies and the timing of action: An assessment of climate mitigation costs," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 90(PA), pages 137-152.
    19. Peterson, Sonja, 2005. "Technischer Fortschritt im DART-Modell," Open Access Publications from Kiel Institute for the World Economy 3806, Kiel Institute for the World Economy (IfW Kiel).
    20. Kemfert, Claudia, 2005. "Induced technological change in a multi-regional, multi-sectoral, integrated assessment model (WIAGEM): Impact assessment of climate policy strategies," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 54(2-3), pages 293-305, August.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:35:y:2007:i:3:p:1795-1807. 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.