Technology adoption with limited foresight and uncertain technological learning

Most previous optimization models on technology adoption assume perfect foresight over the long term. In reality, decision-makers do not have perfect foresight, and the endogenous driving force of technology adoption is uncertain. With a stylized optimization model, this paper explores the adoption of a new technology, its associated cost dynamics, and technological bifurcations with limited foresight and uncertain technological learning. The study shows that when modeling with limited foresight and technological learning, (1) the longer the length of the decision period, the earlier the adoption of a new technology, and the value of a foresight can be amplified with a high learning rate. However, when the decision period is beyond a certain length, further extending its length has little influence on adopting the new technology; (2) with limited foresight, decisions aiming at minimizing the total cost of each decision period will commonly result in a non-optimal solution from the perspective of the entire decision horizon; and (3) the range of technological bifurcation is much larger than that with perfect foresight, but uncertainty in technological learning tends to reduce the range by removing the early adoption paths of a new technology.

[1]  Malte Schwoon,et al.  Learning by doing, learning spillovers and the diffusion of fuel cell vehicles , 2008, Simul. Model. Pract. Theory.

[2]  Björn Andersson,et al.  Global energy scenarios meeting stringent CO2 constraints--cost-effective fuel choices in the transportation sector , 2003 .

[3]  Yoshiteru Nakamori,et al.  Modeling technological change in energy systems – From optimization to agent-based modeling , 2009 .

[4]  E. Rogers,et al.  Diffusion of innovations , 1964, Encyclopedia of Sport Management.

[5]  Kristian Lindgren,et al.  Induced Technological Change in a Limited Foresight Optimization Model , 2005 .

[6]  Alan S. Manne,et al.  Learn-by-doing and carbon dioxide abatement , 2004 .

[7]  Ad Seebregts,et al.  Energy/Environmental Modeling with the MARKAL Family of Models , 2002 .

[8]  V. Krey,et al.  Implications of high energy prices for energy system and emissions--The response from an energy model for Germany , 2007 .

[9]  K. Arrow.  The Economic Implications of Learning by Doing , 1962 .

[10]  Fred D. Davis,et al.  Development and Test of a Theory of Technological Learning and Usage , 1992 .

[11]  Socrates Kypreos,et al.  Multi-regional technological learning in the energysystems MARKAL model , 2002 .

[12]  Arnulf Grubler,et al.  A Model of Endogenous Technological Change Through Uncertain Returns on Learning (R&D and Investments) , 1997 .

[13]  O. Edenhofer,et al.  Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) , 2013 .

[14]  Leo Schrattenholzer,et al.  Learning rates for energy technologies , 2001 .

[15]  D. North.  Competing Technologies , Increasing Returns , and Lock-In by Historical Events , 1994 .

[16]  Frank M. Bass,et al.  A New Product Growth for Model Consumer Durables , 2004, Manag. Sci..

[17]  P. Geroski.  Models of technology diffusion , 2000 .

[18]  I. Keppo,et al.  Short term decisions for long term problems – The effect of foresight on model based energy systems analysis , 2010 .

[19]  Yoshiteru Nakamori,et al.  Modeling technology adoptions for sustainable development under increasing returns, uncertainty, and heterogeneous agents , 2009, Eur. J. Oper. Res..

[20]  Tieju Ma,et al.  Towards a low-carbon economy: Coping with technological bifurcations with a carbon tax , 2012 .

[21]  Fred D. Davis.  Perceived Usefulness, Perceived Ease of Use, and User Acceptance of Information Technology , 1989, MIS Q..

[22]  S. Messner,et al.  A stochastic version of the dynamic linear programming model MESSAGE III , 1996 .

[23]  M. Strubegger,et al.  The energy model MESSAGE III , 1994 .

[24]  Tieju Ma.  Coping with Uncertainties in Technological Learning , 2010, Manag. Sci..