• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

比较专家启发式和基于模型的概率技术成本预测在能源转型中的应用。

Comparing expert elicitation and model-based probabilistic technology cost forecasts for the energy transition.

机构信息

The Bartlett School of Sustainable Construction, University College London, London WC1E 7HB, United Kingdom.

Cambridge Centre for Environment, Energy and Natural Resource Governance, Department of Land Economy, University of Cambridge, Cambridge CB3 9EP, United Kingdom.

出版信息

Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2021 Jul 6;118(27). doi: 10.1073/pnas.1917165118.

DOI:10.1073/pnas.1917165118
PMID:34183405
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8271727/
Abstract

We conduct a systematic comparison of technology cost forecasts produced by expert elicitation methods and model-based methods. Our focus is on energy technologies due to their importance for energy and climate policy. We assess the performance of several forecasting methods by generating probabilistic technology cost forecasts rooted at various years in the past and then comparing these with observed costs in 2019. We do this for six technologies for which both observed and elicited data are available. The model-based methods use either deployment (Wright's law) or time (Moore's law) to forecast costs. We show that, overall, model-based forecasting methods outperformed elicitation methods. Their 2019 cost forecast ranges contained the observed values much more often than elicitations, and their forecast medians were closer to observed costs. However, all methods underestimated technological progress in almost all technologies, likely as a result of structural change across the energy sector due to widespread policies and social and market forces. We also produce forecasts of 2030 costs using the two types of methods for 10 energy technologies. We find that elicitations generally yield narrower uncertainty ranges than model-based methods. Model-based 2030 forecasts are lower for more modular technologies and higher for less modular ones. Future research should focus on further method development and validation to better reflect structural changes in the market and correlations across technologies.

摘要

我们对专家启发式方法和基于模型的方法生成的技术成本预测进行了系统比较。我们的重点是能源技术,因为它们对能源和气候政策很重要。我们通过生成根植于过去不同年份的概率技术成本预测,并将这些预测与 2019 年的实际成本进行比较,来评估几种预测方法的性能。我们对六种既有观察数据又有启发数据的技术进行了这项研究。基于模型的方法使用部署(莱特定律)或时间(摩尔定律)来预测成本。我们发现,总体而言,基于模型的预测方法优于启发式方法。它们的 2019 年成本预测范围更经常包含实际值,而且预测中位数更接近实际成本。然而,所有方法都低估了几乎所有技术的技术进步,这可能是由于广泛的政策、社会和市场力量导致能源部门的结构发生变化。我们还使用这两种类型的方法对 10 种能源技术进行了 2030 年成本预测。我们发现,启发式方法通常比基于模型的方法产生更窄的不确定性范围。对于更模块化的技术,基于模型的 2030 年预测值较低,而对于较不模块化的技术,预测值较高。未来的研究应侧重于进一步的方法开发和验证,以更好地反映市场的结构性变化和技术之间的相关性。

相似文献

1
Comparing expert elicitation and model-based probabilistic technology cost forecasts for the energy transition.比较专家启发式和基于模型的概率技术成本预测在能源转型中的应用。
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2021 Jul 6;118(27). doi: 10.1073/pnas.1917165118.
2
Statistical basis for predicting technological progress.预测技术进步的统计学基础。
PLoS One. 2013;8(2):e52669. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0052669. Epub 2013 Feb 28.
3
A strategy to improve expert technology forecasts.提高专家技术预测的策略。
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2021 May 25;118(21). doi: 10.1073/pnas.2021558118.
4
Quantifying the Effects of Expert Selection and Elicitation Design on Experts' Confidence in Their Judgments About Future Energy Technologies.量化专家选择和启发式设计对专家对未来能源技术判断的信心的影响。
Risk Anal. 2017 Feb;37(2):315-330. doi: 10.1111/risa.12604. Epub 2016 Mar 31.
5
Long-term probabilistic forecasts of activity mitigation in English hospitals: a national elicitation exercise providing an outside view based on judgements of experts in support of the New Hospital Programme.英国医院活动缓解的长期概率预测:基于专家判断的全国征询意见,为新医院计划提供外部视角。
BMJ Open. 2024 Oct 4;14(10):e084632. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2024-084632.
6
Probabilistic population forecasting: Short to very long-term.概率性人口预测:短期到极长期。
Int J Forecast. 2023 Jan-Mar;39(1):73-97. doi: 10.1016/j.ijforecast.2021.09.001. Epub 2021 Oct 7.
7
How New Mexico Leveraged a COVID-19 Case Forecasting Model to Preemptively Address the Health Care Needs of the State: Quantitative Analysis.新墨西哥州如何利用新冠疫情预测模型来预先满足该州的医疗保健需求:定量分析
JMIR Public Health Surveill. 2021 Jun 9;7(6):e27888. doi: 10.2196/27888.
8
Explore a Multivariate Bayesian Uncertainty Processor driven by artificial neural networks for probabilistic PM forecasting.探索基于人工神经网络的多元贝叶斯不确定性处理器在概率性 PM 预测中的应用。
Sci Total Environ. 2020 Apr 1;711:134792. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.134792. Epub 2019 Oct 31.
9
Development of a Group Judgment Process for Forecasts of Health Care Innovations.开发一种用于医疗创新预测的群体判断过程。
JAMA Netw Open. 2018 Nov 2;1(7):e185108. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2018.5108.
10
Performance of the MARS-crop yield forecasting system for the European Union: Assessing accuracy, in-season, and year-to-year improvements from 1993 to 2015.欧盟MARS作物产量预测系统的性能:评估1993年至2015年期间的准确性、季内及逐年改进情况。
Agric Syst. 2019 Jan;168:203-212. doi: 10.1016/j.agsy.2018.06.009.

引用本文的文献

1
Cost trajectory of hydrogen fuel cell technology in China.中国氢燃料电池技术的成本轨迹。
iScience. 2025 Apr 6;28(5):112359. doi: 10.1016/j.isci.2025.112359. eCollection 2025 May 16.
2
Probabilistic projections of granular energy technology diffusion at subnational level.国家以下层面颗粒能源技术扩散的概率预测。
PNAS Nexus. 2023 Sep 29;2(10):pgad321. doi: 10.1093/pnasnexus/pgad321. eCollection 2023 Oct.
3
The momentum of the solar energy transition.太阳能转型的势头。

本文引用的文献

1
Granular technologies to accelerate decarbonization.加速脱碳的颗粒技术。
Science. 2020 Apr 3;368(6486):36-39. doi: 10.1126/science.aaz8060. Epub 2020 Apr 2.
2
Making technological innovation work for sustainable development.让技术创新为可持续发展发挥作用。
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2016 Aug 30;113(35):9682-90. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1525004113. Epub 2016 Aug 12.
3
Quantifying the Effects of Expert Selection and Elicitation Design on Experts' Confidence in Their Judgments About Future Energy Technologies.量化专家选择和启发式设计对专家对未来能源技术判断的信心的影响。
Nat Commun. 2023 Oct 17;14(1):6542. doi: 10.1038/s41467-023-41971-7.
4
Progress in modeling dynamic systems for sustainable development.可持续发展动态系统建模的进展。
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2023 Oct 3;120(40):e2216656120. doi: 10.1073/pnas.2216656120. Epub 2023 Sep 26.
5
Global mitigation efforts cannot neglect emerging emitters.全球减缓气候变化的努力不能忽视新兴排放源。
Natl Sci Rev. 2022 Oct 19;9(12):nwac223. doi: 10.1093/nsr/nwac223. eCollection 2022 Dec.
6
Quantifying the cost savings of global solar photovoltaic supply chains.量化全球太阳能光伏供应链的成本节约。
Nature. 2022 Dec;612(7938):83-87. doi: 10.1038/s41586-022-05316-6. Epub 2022 Oct 26.
7
Understanding the complexity of existing fossil fuel power plant decarbonization.了解现有化石燃料发电厂脱碳的复杂性。
iScience. 2022 Jul 16;25(8):104758. doi: 10.1016/j.isci.2022.104758. eCollection 2022 Aug 19.
8
The quantity-quality transition in the value of expanding wind and solar power generation.扩大风能和太阳能发电价值中的量质转变。
iScience. 2022 Mar 22;25(4):104140. doi: 10.1016/j.isci.2022.104140. eCollection 2022 Apr 15.
9
Testing and improving technology forecasts for better climate policy.测试和改进技术预测以制定更好的气候政策。
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2021 Aug 31;118(35). doi: 10.1073/pnas.2109417118.
Risk Anal. 2017 Feb;37(2):315-330. doi: 10.1111/risa.12604. Epub 2016 Mar 31.
4
Use (and abuse) of expert elicitation in support of decision making for public policy.利用(和滥用)专家判断支持公共政策决策。
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2014 May 20;111(20):7176-84. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1319946111. Epub 2014 May 12.
5
Statistical basis for predicting technological progress.预测技术进步的统计学基础。
PLoS One. 2013;8(2):e52669. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0052669. Epub 2013 Feb 28.
6
Expert assessments of future photovoltaic technologies.未来光伏技术的专家评估。
Environ Sci Technol. 2008 Dec 15;42(24):9031-8. doi: 10.1021/es8014088.
7
The decision to seed hurricanes.人工影响飓风的决策。
Science. 1972 Jun 16;176(4040):1191-202. doi: 10.1126/science.176.4040.1191.