IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/rff/dpaper/dp-21-10.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

The Value of Advanced Energy Funding: Projected Effects of Proposed US Funding for Advanced Energy Technologies

Author

Listed:
  • Cleary, Kathryne

    (Resources for the Future)

  • Funke, Christoph

    (Resources for the Future)

  • Witkin, Steven

    (Resources for the Future)

  • Shawhan, Daniel

    (Resources for the Future)

Abstract

Conservatively, average power sector benefits across the technologies are likely to outweigh costs by 10.5 times with a national clean electricity standard, and 6.9 times without such standard.Ten years of additional funding, like what is authorized by the Energy Act of 2020, would generate average societal benefits of almost $40 billion per technology from 2040–2060.The experts expect the additional funding to reduce the costs of the technologies by 9–30 percent in 2035 compared to without it.Consumer electricity savings amount to an average of approximately $56 per household per year for each technology with a clean electricity standard, and $14 per household per year for each technology without one.Read the summary issue brief of this study here.

Suggested Citation

  • Cleary, Kathryne & Funke, Christoph & Witkin, Steven & Shawhan, Daniel, 2021. "The Value of Advanced Energy Funding: Projected Effects of Proposed US Funding for Advanced Energy Technologies," RFF Working Paper Series 21-10, Resources for the Future.
    • Handle: RePEc:rff:dpaper:dp-21-10
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.rff.org/documents/2909/RFF_WP_21-10_Projected_Effects_of_Proposed_US_Funding_for_Advanced_Energy_Technologies.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Shawhan, Daniel L., 2018. "Co-emission and welfare effects of electricity policy and market changes: Results from the EMF 32 model intercomparison project," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 380-392.
    2. 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.
    3. Palmer, Karen & Paul, Anthony & Keyes, Amelia, 2018. "Changing baselines, shifting margins: How predicted impacts of pricing carbon in the electricity sector have evolved over time," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 371-379.
    4. Ryan Wiser & Karen Jenni & Joachim Seel & Erin Baker & Maureen Hand & Eric Lantz & Aaron Smith, 2016. "Expert elicitation survey on future wind energy costs," Nature Energy, Nature, vol. 1(10), pages 1-8, October.
    5. Laura Diaz Anadon & Gregory Nemet & Elena Verdolini, 2013. "The Future Costs of Nuclear Power Using Multiple Expert Elicitations: Effects of RD&D and Elicitation Design," Working Papers 2013.85, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei.
    6. Klaassen, Ger & Miketa, Asami & Larsen, Katarina & Sundqvist, Thomas, 2005. "The impact of R&D on innovation for wind energy in Denmark, Germany and the United Kingdom," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 54(2-3), pages 227-240, August.
    7. Gregory Nemet & Erin Baker & Bob Barron & Samuel Harms, 2015. "Characterizing the effects of policy instruments on the future costs of carbon capture for coal power plants," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 133(2), pages 155-168, November.
    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. 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.
    2. 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.
    3. Wiser, Ryan & Millstein, Dev, 2020. "Evaluating the economic return to public wind energy research and development in the United States," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 261(C).
    4. Bistline, John E.T. & Blanford, Geoffrey J., 2020. "Value of technology in the U.S. electric power sector: Impacts of full portfolios and technological change on the costs of meeting decarbonization goals," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 86(C).
    5. Whiston, Michael M. & Lima Azevedo, Inês M. & Litster, Shawn & Samaras, Constantine & Whitefoot, Kate S. & Whitacre, Jay F., 2022. "Expert elicitation on paths to advance fuel cell electric vehicles," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 160(C).
    6. Schauf, Magnus & Schwenen, Sebastian, 2021. "Mills of progress grind slowly? Estimating learning rates for onshore wind energy," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 104(C).
    7. Brozynski, Max T. & Leibowicz, Benjamin D., 2020. "Markov models of policy support for technology transitions," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 286(3), pages 1052-1069.
    8. Franklyn Kanyako & Erin Baker, 2021. "Uncertainty analysis of the future cost of wind energy on climate change mitigation," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 166(1), pages 1-17, May.
    9. Bosetti, Valentina & Carraro, Carlo & Duval, Romain & Tavoni, Massimo, 2011. "What should we expect from innovation? A model-based assessment of the environmental and mitigation cost implications of climate-related R&D," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 33(6), pages 1313-1320.
    10. Vitaliy Roud & Thomas Wolfgang Thurner, 2018. "The Influence of State‐Ownership on Eco‐Innovations in Russian Manufacturing Firms," Journal of Industrial Ecology, Yale University, vol. 22(5), pages 1213-1227, October.
    11. Xu, Qi & Liu, Kui, 2024. "Hero or Devil: A comparison of different carbon tax policies for China," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 306(C).
    12. Abolhosseini, Shahrouz & Heshmati, Almas & Altmann, Jörn, 2014. "A Review of Renewable Energy Supply and Energy Efficiency Technologies," IZA Discussion Papers 8145, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    13. Olimpia Neagu, 2019. "The Link between Economic Complexity and Carbon Emissions in the European Union Countries: A Model Based on the Environmental Kuznets Curve (EKC) Approach," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(17), pages 1-27, August.
    14. Grafström, Jonas & Poudineh, Rahmat, 2023. "No evidence of counteracting policy effects on European solar power invention and diffusion," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 172(C).
    15. Harborne, Paul & Hendry, Chris, 2009. "Pathways to commercial wind power in the US, Europe and Japan: The role of demonstration projects and field trials in the innovation process," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(9), pages 3580-3595, September.
    16. Hana Kim & Eungdo Kim, 2018. "How an Open Innovation Strategy for Commercialization Affects the Firm Performance of Korean Healthcare IT SMEs," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(7), pages 1-14, July.
    17. Aalbers, Rob & Shestalova, Victoria & Kocsis, Viktória, 2013. "Innovation policy for directing technical change in the power sector," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 63(C), pages 1240-1250.
    18. Jin-Young Kim & Hyun-Goo Kim & Yong-Heack Kang, 2017. "Offshore Wind Speed Forecasting: The Correlation between Satellite-Observed Monthly Sea Surface Temperature and Wind Speed over the Seas around the Korean Peninsula," Energies, MDPI, vol. 10(7), pages 1-15, July.
    19. Rubio-Domingo, G. & Linares, P., 2021. "The future investment costs of offshore wind: An estimation based on auction results," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 148(C).
    20. Womeldorf, Carole A. & Chimeli, Ariaster B., 2014. "A computational fluid dynamics approach to wind prospecting: Lessons from the U.S. Appalachian region," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 645-653.

    More about this item

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:rff:dpaper:dp-21-10. 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: Resources for the Future (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/rffffus.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.