IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/pugtwp/331000.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Measuring the Potential of Renewable Energy

Author

Listed:
  • Macauley, Molly K.
  • Shih, Jhih-Shyang
  • Aronow, Emily
  • Austin, David
  • Bath, Tom
  • Darmstadter, Joel

Abstract

In this paper we measure the expected consumer welfare gains from innovation in electricity generation technologies. We estimate how much better off consumers would be from 2000 to 2020 as renewable energy technologies continue to be improved and gradually adopted, compared with a counterfactual scenario that allows for continual improvement of conventional technology. We evaluate renewable energy technologies used to generate electricity and for each, we assume an accelerated adoption rate due to technological advances. We evaluate the benefits against a baseline technology, combined-cycle gas turbine, which experts cite as the conventional technology most likely to be installed as incremental capacity over the next decade. We estimate the model for two geographic regions of the nation for which renewable energy is, or can be expected to be, a somewhat sizable portion of the electricity market—California and the north central United States. In present-value terms we find that median consumer welfare gains over 20 years vary markedly among the renewable technologies, ranging from large negative values (welfare losses) to large positive values (welfare gains). The effect of uncertainty can lead to estimates that are 20% to 40% larger or smaller than median predicted values. Our results suggest that portfolios that give equal weight to the use of each generation technology are likely to lead to consumer losses in our regions, regardless of the role of the externalities that we consider. However, when the portfolio is more heavily weighted toward certain renewables, consumer gains can be positive.

Suggested Citation

  • Macauley, Molly K. & Shih, Jhih-Shyang & Aronow, Emily & Austin, David & Bath, Tom & Darmstadter, Joel, 2002. "Measuring the Potential of Renewable Energy," Conference papers 331000, Purdue University, Center for Global Trade Analysis, Global Trade Analysis Project.
  • Handle: RePEc:ags:pugtwp:331000
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/331000/files/318.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. James E. Anderson & J. Peter Neary, 1996. "A New Approach to Evaluating Trade Policy," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 63(1), pages 107-125.
    2. Laird, Samuel & Yeats, Alexander, 1988. "A Note on the Aggregation Bias in Current Procedures for the Measurement of Trade Barriers," Bulletin of Economic Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 40(2), pages 133-143, April.
    3. Bach, Christian F. & Martin, Will, 2001. "Would the right tariff aggregator for policy analysis please stand up?," Journal of Policy Modeling, Elsevier, vol. 23(6), pages 621-635, August.
    4. Anderson, James E, 1998. "Trade Restrictiveness Benchmarks," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 108(449), pages 1111-1125, July.
    5. Hertel, Thomas, 1997. "Global Trade Analysis: Modeling and applications," GTAP Books, Center for Global Trade Analysis, Department of Agricultural Economics, Purdue University, number 7685, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Youssef Chahed & Sophie Drogue & Luca Salvatici, 2001. "Protection du secteur agricole dans les pays tiers : un outil pour les négociations du Millenium Round," Working Papers hal-02827128, HAL.
    2. Jean‐Christophe Bureau & Luca Salvatici, 2005. "Agricultural trade restrictiveness in the European Union and the United States," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 33(s3), pages 479-490, November.
    3. Narayanan, Badri & Thomas Hertel & Mark Horridge, 2010. "Linking Partial and General Equilibrium Models: A GTAP Application Using TASTE," GTAP Technical Papers 3192, Center for Global Trade Analysis, Department of Agricultural Economics, Purdue University.
    4. Maria Cipollina & Luca Salvatici, 2008. "Measuring Protection: Mission Impossible?," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 22(3), pages 577-616, July.
    5. Narayanan, Badri G. & Hertel, Thomas W. & Horridge, J. Mark, 2010. "Disaggregated data and trade policy analysis: The value of linking partial and general equilibrium models," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 27(3), pages 755-766, May.
    6. Fofana, Ismaël & Cockburn, John & Decaluwé, Bernard & Mabugu, Ramos & Chitiga, Margaret & Latigo, Alfred & Abdourahman, Omar, 2006. "A Gender-Aware Integrated Macro-Micro Model for Evaluating Impacts of Policies on Poverty Reduction in Africa: The Case of South Africa," Conference papers 331562, Purdue University, Center for Global Trade Analysis, Global Trade Analysis Project.
    7. Anderson, Kym & Martin, Will & van der Mensbrugghe, Dominique, 2013. "Estimating Effects of Price-Distorting Policies Using Alternative Distortions Databases," Handbook of Computable General Equilibrium Modeling, in: Peter B. Dixon & Dale Jorgenson (ed.), Handbook of Computable General Equilibrium Modeling, edition 1, volume 1, chapter 0, pages 877-931, Elsevier.
    8. Beyhan Bektasoglu & Tanja Engelbert & Martina Brockmeier, 2017. "The Effect of Aggregation Bias: An NTB-modelling Analysis of Turkey's Agro-food Trade with the EU," The World Economy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 40(10), pages 2255-2276, October.
    9. Conforti, Piero & Ford, Deep & Hallam, David & Rapsomanikis, George & Salvatici, Luca, 2007. "The European Union preferential trade with developing countries. Total trade restrictiveness and the case of sugar," Economics & Statistics Discussion Papers esdp07037, University of Molise, Department of Economics.
    10. Lloyd, P. J. & MacLaren, D., 2002. "Measures of trade openness using CGE analysis," Journal of Policy Modeling, Elsevier, vol. 24(1), pages 67-81, March.
    11. Antimiani, Alessandro & Salvatici, Luca, 2005. "EU Trade Policies: Benchmarking Protection in a General Equilibrium Framework," Working Papers 18856, TRADEAG - Agricultural Trade Agreements.
    12. Cletus C. Coughlin, 2010. "Measuring international trade policy: a primer on trade restrictiveness indices," Review, Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, vol. 92(Sep), pages 381-394.
    13. Hiau LooiKee & Alessandro Nicita & Marcelo Olarreaga, 2009. "Estimating Trade Restrictiveness Indices," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 119(534), pages 172-199, January.
    14. Bureau Jean-Christophe & Salvatici Luca, 2004. "WTO Negotiations on Market Access in Agriculture: a Comparison of Alternative Tariff Cut Proposals for the EU and the US," The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 4(1), pages 1-35, March.
    15. David Laborde & Will Martin & Dominique van der Mensbrugghe, 2017. "Measuring the Impacts of Global Trade Reform with Optimal Aggregators of Distortions," Review of International Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 25(2), pages 403-425, May.
    16. James E. Anderson & J. Peter Neary, 2003. "The Mercantilist Index of Trade Policy," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 44(2), pages 627-649, May.
    17. Gouel, Christophe & Mitaritonna, Cristina & Ramos, Maria Priscila, 2011. "Sensitive products in the Doha negotiations: The case of European and Japanese market access," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 28(6), pages 2395-2403.
    18. Andrea Bigano & Maria Berrittella & Roberto Roson & Richard S.J. Tol, 2004. "A General Equilibrium Analysis of Climate Change Impacts on Tourism," Working Papers 2004.127, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei.
    19. Feenstra, Robert C., 1995. "Estimating the effects of trade policy," Handbook of International Economics, in: G. M. Grossman & K. Rogoff (ed.), Handbook of International Economics, edition 1, volume 3, chapter 30, pages 1553-1595, Elsevier.
    20. Bouët, Antoine & Berisha-Krasniqi, Valdete & Estrades, Carmen & Laborde, David, 2012. "Trade and investment in Latin America and Asia: Perspectives from further integration," Journal of Policy Modeling, Elsevier, vol. 34(2), pages 193-210.

    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:ags:pugtwp:331000. 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: AgEcon Search (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/gtpurus.html .

    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.