Upload
others
View
1
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
1
Effect of Government Actions on Effect of Government Actions on Environmental Technology Innovation:Environmental Technology Innovation:
Applications to the Applications to the Integrated Assessment of Integrated Assessment of
Carbon Sequestration TechnologiesCarbon Sequestration Technologies
E.S. Rubin, D.A. Hounshell and M. TaylorCarnegie Mellon University
Pittsburgh, PA 15213
July 20, 2000
Integrated Assessment Models of Integrated Assessment Models of Global Climate ChangeGlobal Climate Change
Assumptions about technology innovation and diffusion are among the most important uncertainties in current IA modelsMost models use simple metrics/assumptions; a few treat technological change endogenouslyResults are highly dependent on these (and other) assumptions
2
Carbon Sequestration Technologies Carbon Sequestration Technologies for Electric Power Plantsfor Electric Power Plants
CO2 separation, capture, and storage could become viable carbon management options, allowing continued use of fossil fuels with no/low atmospheric emissionsIA models must be capable of representing these options, and the potential for technology innovations to improve performance and reduce costs in the future
Carbon Sequestration Technologies Carbon Sequestration Technologies ((contcont’’dd))
As with other environmental technologies, future markets for CO2 sequestration technologies will be driven mainly by government requirements and incentives to control greenhouse gas emissionsModels of technology innovation and diffusion in this domain can benefit from the study of other environmental technologies now in use
3
Study Scope and ObjectivesStudy Scope and Objectives
Develop new tools and techniques to elucidate role of government actions on future innovations in carbon sequestration technologyDraw upon and extend results of recent work by M.Taylor, et al. focused on innovations in SO2control technology over the past 30 yearsIncorporate study findings and models into IA frameworks at IIASA and elsewhere to examine role of carbon sequestration technologies over a range of scenarios
Case Study Nearing Completion: Case Study Nearing Completion: SOSO22 Control IndustryControl Industry
Primary Source of SO2: Coal-fired power plantsLegislation/Regulation
Clean Air Act Amendments 1970, 1977, 1990New Source Performance Standards 1971, 1979
R&D Funding / Financial IncentivesEPA multi-million $ research budget in 1970sDOE Clean Coal Technology Program starts 1985
– $2.5 billion government cost-sharing for advanced technology demonstrations (over 14 years)
Facilitating Technology TransferThe SO2 Control Symposia start in 1969EPA is initial sponsor; later EPRI and DOE co-sponsor
4
TerminologyTerminology
Government actions include regulation, research funding, financial incentives, and facilitation of technology transfer.Technological change refers to the entire innovative process, from invention to adoption and diffusion in the marketplace.Environmental technology consists of a wide range of products and processes that combat an environmental problem, often in fulfillment of legislation.
ExistingEmission cap w/ trading of emission credits
40% over 10 years, 2 phases(On top of any previous reductions)
1990 CAAA
New & Modified
Technology-based standard
70-90%Independent of fuel sulfur content
1977 CAAA1979 NSPS
New & Modified
Performance standards
1.2 lbs/MBtu heat input (0-70% removal, depending on fuel sulfur content)
1971 NSPS
AFFECTED SOURCES
IMPLEMENTING MECHANISM
SO2 REDUCTION REQUIREDAND TIMETABLE
LEGISLATION/ REGULATION
Characteristics of Characteristics of Legislation/RegulationLegislation/Regulation
1970 CAAA As needed to achieve NAAQSwithin 5 years SIPs Existing
5
Potential Industry ActionsPotential Industry Actions
Plant shut-downReduce generation Switch to low-sulfur fuelsInstall control technologyTrade SO2 allowances (since 1990)
Technology ResponsesTechnology Responses
Pre-combustion: Coal cleaning (<30% removal)During combustion: Sorbent injection (<50%)Post-combustion: Flue gas desulfurization (FGD)
– Wet Systems: Lime/limestone scrubbers (90-98%)– Dry Systems: Lime spray dryer scrubbers (70-90%)
Sorbent injection processes (<50%)
6
Schematic of a Power PlantSchematic of a Power PlantSOSO22 Removal SystemRemoval System
Atop an SOAtop an SO22 AbsorberAbsorber
7
8
Evaluating Technology InnovationEvaluating Technology Innovation
Approach: Integrate several complementary evaluation methods and apply to an environmental industry or technological system defined by a single pollutant: sulfur dioxide (SO2)Rationale: The interaction between government, industry, and technological change is complex. By evaluating this interaction from different perspectives, a more realistic understanding can be developed while weaknesses in individual measures can be counteracted.
Technology ActorsTechnology Actors
Equipment vendorsArchitect & engineering firmsIndividual utilitiesResearch Sponsors
Government (DOE, EPA)Utilities (EPRI)
Universities
9
GOVERNMENT ROLE?GOVERNMENT ROLE?
Environmental Equipment Suppliers
Environmental Equipment Suppliers
Environmental Equipment Suppliers
Byproduct Pollution Producers
Byproduct Pollution Producers
An Environmental Industry An Environmental Industry Inside a Black BoxInside a Black Box
Research Methods to Evaluate Research Methods to Evaluate Technology InnovationTechnology Innovation
Analysis of Patents Filed in the U.S. and EuropeInventive activity, linkages to adoption and diffusionIdentify key agents
Analysis of Technological “Learning”Technological change attributed to experienceTechnological change attributed to generational improvements
Analysis of Technical ConferencesInventive activity, linkages to adoption and diffusionIdentify key agents, industry structure, alliances, knowledge flows
Retrospective Analyses by Key AgentsInnovative inputsOrganizational context and constraintsImportance of patents, conferences to industry and technologyElicitation of learning curves, expert opinion of patenting trends
10
InventiveActivity
Adoption &Diffusion
Knowledge Gained from Operating Experience
R&D• Goal-setting• Funding priorities• IP protection• Alliances
Marketing
Learning by Doing
• Product introduction• Advertising• Customer relationsThe Black Box
of Technological
ChangeRole of Government?
Technological InnovationTechnological Innovation
R&D• Goal-setting• Funding priorities• IP protection• Alliances
Marketing
Learning by Doing
• Product introduction• Advertising• Customer relations
Patents and Activity in Technical Conferences
Learning Curves Expert Interviews
The Black Box of
Technological Change
Role of Government?
Measuring InnovationMeasuring Innovation
11
Data Contained in a PatentData Contained in a Patent
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
1966
1968
1970
1972
1974
1976
1978
1980
1982
1984
1986
1988
1990
1992
1994
1996
Year Filed
Num
ber
of P
aten
ts F
iled
CAA/NSPS CCT CAA-Try CAACAA/NSPS
Total U.S. Inventive Activity: Total U.S. Inventive Activity: Patents by ExaminerPatents by Examiner--Based MethodBased Method
12
• Obtained patent lists from companies occupying a significant portion of the U.S. scrubbing market in 1973-93
Company A Commercially
Successful Patents (16)
Company B Commercially
Successful Patents (69)
Company C Commercially
Successful Patents (15)
Total Patents
from the 3 Portfolios
Patent Examiner Class-Based Filter
56% 46% 87% 54%
U.S. Patent Methodology:U.S. Patent Methodology:Linking Patents to Commercial SuccessLinking Patents to Commercial Success
Company A Commercially
Successful Patents (16)
Company B Commercially
Successful Patents (69)
Company C Commercially
Successful Patents (15)
Total Patents
from the 3 Portfolios
My Abstract-Based Filter Set Finds:
64% 71% 100% 75%
Patent Examiner Class-Based Filter Set Finds:
56% 46% 87% 54%
Linking Patents to Commercial Linking Patents to Commercial Success: AbstractSuccess: Abstract--based Methodbased Method
13
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
1974
1976
1978
1980
1982
1984
1986
1988
1990
1992
Year Filed
Num
ber
of P
aten
ts F
iled
CAA/NSPS CCT CAA-Try CAA
Total U.S. Inventive Activity: Total U.S. Inventive Activity: AbstractAbstract--Based PatentsBased Patents
0
10
20
30
1974
1976
1978
1980
1982
1984
1986
1988
1990
1992
Year Filed
Num
ber
of P
aten
ts F
iled
CAA/NSPS CCT CAA-Try CAA
Patent Activity by Technology Type:Patent Activity by Technology Type:PrePre--Combustion ControlCombustion Control
14
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
35019
73
1975
1977
1979
1981
1983
1985
1987
1989
1991
1993
1995
Year of Conference
# of Papers# of Affiliations# of CoAuthors
Group 1 Group 2 Group 3
Social Networks and Tech Transfer: Social Networks and Tech Transfer: Conference PresentationsConference Presentations
Alliance Changes Over Time
15
R&D• Goal-setting• Funding priorities• IP protection• Alliances
Marketing
Learning by Doing
• Product introduction• Advertising• Customer relations
Patents and Activity in Technical Conferences
Learning Curves Expert Interviews
The Black Box of
Technological Change
Role of Government?
Measuring InnovationMeasuring Innovation
Learning Curve for an Existing Learning Curve for an Existing FGD SystemFGD System
16
Realized Improvements in FGD Realized Improvements in FGD Technology PerformanceTechnology Performance
50
60
70
80
90
100
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Cumulative 1000 MWe Wet Scrubbed
% S
ulfu
r R
emov
ed
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
0 20 40 60 80 100
Cumulative Capacity for Wet Scrubbers (1000 MW)
Cap
ital C
osts
( 1
977$
/ kW
)
1976 19801982
19901995
1976 19801982
19901995
Realized Improvements in FGD Realized Improvements in FGD Technology CostTechnology Cost
17
Extension to IA of Carbon Extension to IA of Carbon Management: Management: Research TasksResearch Tasks
Phase I: Refine current models of technology innovationin the SO2 domain
Phase II: Apply study methods to innovations in powerplant NOx controls
Phase III: Extend methods and models to carbonsequestration technology
Phase IV: Implement findings in large-scale IA models(IIASA, others) to assess role of alternative carbon management options