Abstract
The Nordic Energy Technology Scoreboard provides a tool for understanding the state of low-carbon energy technology development in the Nordic region. It assesses the five Nordic countries of Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway and Sweden, alongside reference countries and regions including: The United Kingdom, Germany, Spain, Portugal, France, Italy, the Netherlands, Austria, USA, Japan and the EU 27. It focuses on five low-carbon energy technologies: Wind, photovoltaic (PV) solar, bio-fuels, geothermal, and carbon capture and storage (CCS). This scoreboard was developed as a pilot project with a limited scope of technologies, countries and indicators. In addition to providing a tool for decision-makers, it aimed to act as a catalyst for the future development of scoreboards and a vehicle to promote better data collection. Low-carbon energy technologies are not easy to measure. This is due to a variety of factors that much be kept in account when developing scoreboards for this purpose. Many low-carbon technologies are still at immature stages of development. Sound comparable data requires common definitions and standards to be adopted before collection can even take place. This process often lags behind the development of low-carbon technologies, and there are therefore considerable data availability and categorisation issues. The diversity of
More>>
Citation Formats
Kiltkou, Antje, Iversen, Eric, and Scortato, Lisa.
Nordic energy technology scoreboard. Full version.
Norway: N. p.,
2010.
Web.
Kiltkou, Antje, Iversen, Eric, & Scortato, Lisa.
Nordic energy technology scoreboard. Full version.
Norway.
Kiltkou, Antje, Iversen, Eric, and Scortato, Lisa.
2010.
"Nordic energy technology scoreboard. Full version."
Norway.
@misc{etde_1007291,
title = {Nordic energy technology scoreboard. Full version}
author = {Kiltkou, Antje, Iversen, Eric, and Scortato, Lisa}
abstractNote = {The Nordic Energy Technology Scoreboard provides a tool for understanding the state of low-carbon energy technology development in the Nordic region. It assesses the five Nordic countries of Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway and Sweden, alongside reference countries and regions including: The United Kingdom, Germany, Spain, Portugal, France, Italy, the Netherlands, Austria, USA, Japan and the EU 27. It focuses on five low-carbon energy technologies: Wind, photovoltaic (PV) solar, bio-fuels, geothermal, and carbon capture and storage (CCS). This scoreboard was developed as a pilot project with a limited scope of technologies, countries and indicators. In addition to providing a tool for decision-makers, it aimed to act as a catalyst for the future development of scoreboards and a vehicle to promote better data collection. Low-carbon energy technologies are not easy to measure. This is due to a variety of factors that much be kept in account when developing scoreboards for this purpose. Many low-carbon technologies are still at immature stages of development. Sound comparable data requires common definitions and standards to be adopted before collection can even take place. This process often lags behind the development of low-carbon technologies, and there are therefore considerable data availability and categorisation issues. The diversity of technologies and their different stages of development hamper comparability. The IEA classifies low-carbon technologies into three categories. The most mature includes hydropower, onshore wind, biomass CHP, and geothermal energy, the second most mature includes PV solar and offshore wind power, while the least mature includes concentrating solar power, CCS and ocean energy. This is problematic as less mature technologies are underrepresented in later stages of the innovation system. Many low-carbon technologies are systemic, meaning progress in developing one technology may hinge on developments in a connected technology. Examples are hydrogen and fuel cells, or even intermittent renewable generation and smart grids. There is an inconsistent link between innovation activities and economic benefit. Due to the positive externalities created by mitigating environmental harm, increasing energy security and sustaining economic development, governments have interests in supporting technology development despite a lack of direct economic benefits from this support. This often occurs in the demonstration phase where a prime example is CCS. This hampers the ability of indicators of economic outcomes in assessing the impact of certain inputs to the innovation system. With regard to the construction of a low-carbon energy technology scoreboard, the following ten areas were identified as needing further development in data collection and categorisation. These are presented in more detail in the summary. 1. RD&D investment - specifically addressing the data gap for private-sector RD&D budgets and improving collection of public RD&D demonstration budgets by the IEA, especially for demonstration. 2. Industrial activities - including value added from the manufacture of technologies, and improved categorisation and collection of export data. 3. Licensing and private investment - through venture capital, capturing activities closer to market. 4. International technology transfer - specifically the scope, type and direction. 5. Technology standards - measured for example by the development, existence and application of standards. 6. Relationships between indicators - how indicators of different aspects of the innovation system can be combined into composite indicators. 7. Bibliometric and patent indicators - specifically the categorisations and keywords used to sort this data. 8. Monitoring carbon capture and storage - with publicly available data. 9. Political framework conditions - improving the categorisation of measurable policy variables. 10. Public acceptance - improving the availability and comparability of data. Three strategies were employed in selecting and compiling the indicators that make up this scoreboard. A near-view strategy based on compiling available data collected according to standardised guidelines and established routines - such as the concerted multinational efforts of IEA or Eurostat. This data is current, reliable and comparable. A mid-view strategy based on harvesting indicators using standard-definitions, such as classifications in databases of patents or articles. Due to the speed of development in low-carbon energy technologies, some classification systems do not capture industrial activity at a sufficiently fine-grained level. Where this has limited data gathering, this scoreboard has recommended categories instead. A long-view strategy involving long-term development work to provide relevant measures that may be useful in the future. These indicators require improvement of the collection and classification of the areas identified above.}
place = {Norway}
year = {2010}
month = {Jul}
}
title = {Nordic energy technology scoreboard. Full version}
author = {Kiltkou, Antje, Iversen, Eric, and Scortato, Lisa}
abstractNote = {The Nordic Energy Technology Scoreboard provides a tool for understanding the state of low-carbon energy technology development in the Nordic region. It assesses the five Nordic countries of Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway and Sweden, alongside reference countries and regions including: The United Kingdom, Germany, Spain, Portugal, France, Italy, the Netherlands, Austria, USA, Japan and the EU 27. It focuses on five low-carbon energy technologies: Wind, photovoltaic (PV) solar, bio-fuels, geothermal, and carbon capture and storage (CCS). This scoreboard was developed as a pilot project with a limited scope of technologies, countries and indicators. In addition to providing a tool for decision-makers, it aimed to act as a catalyst for the future development of scoreboards and a vehicle to promote better data collection. Low-carbon energy technologies are not easy to measure. This is due to a variety of factors that much be kept in account when developing scoreboards for this purpose. Many low-carbon technologies are still at immature stages of development. Sound comparable data requires common definitions and standards to be adopted before collection can even take place. This process often lags behind the development of low-carbon technologies, and there are therefore considerable data availability and categorisation issues. The diversity of technologies and their different stages of development hamper comparability. The IEA classifies low-carbon technologies into three categories. The most mature includes hydropower, onshore wind, biomass CHP, and geothermal energy, the second most mature includes PV solar and offshore wind power, while the least mature includes concentrating solar power, CCS and ocean energy. This is problematic as less mature technologies are underrepresented in later stages of the innovation system. Many low-carbon technologies are systemic, meaning progress in developing one technology may hinge on developments in a connected technology. Examples are hydrogen and fuel cells, or even intermittent renewable generation and smart grids. There is an inconsistent link between innovation activities and economic benefit. Due to the positive externalities created by mitigating environmental harm, increasing energy security and sustaining economic development, governments have interests in supporting technology development despite a lack of direct economic benefits from this support. This often occurs in the demonstration phase where a prime example is CCS. This hampers the ability of indicators of economic outcomes in assessing the impact of certain inputs to the innovation system. With regard to the construction of a low-carbon energy technology scoreboard, the following ten areas were identified as needing further development in data collection and categorisation. These are presented in more detail in the summary. 1. RD&D investment - specifically addressing the data gap for private-sector RD&D budgets and improving collection of public RD&D demonstration budgets by the IEA, especially for demonstration. 2. Industrial activities - including value added from the manufacture of technologies, and improved categorisation and collection of export data. 3. Licensing and private investment - through venture capital, capturing activities closer to market. 4. International technology transfer - specifically the scope, type and direction. 5. Technology standards - measured for example by the development, existence and application of standards. 6. Relationships between indicators - how indicators of different aspects of the innovation system can be combined into composite indicators. 7. Bibliometric and patent indicators - specifically the categorisations and keywords used to sort this data. 8. Monitoring carbon capture and storage - with publicly available data. 9. Political framework conditions - improving the categorisation of measurable policy variables. 10. Public acceptance - improving the availability and comparability of data. Three strategies were employed in selecting and compiling the indicators that make up this scoreboard. A near-view strategy based on compiling available data collected according to standardised guidelines and established routines - such as the concerted multinational efforts of IEA or Eurostat. This data is current, reliable and comparable. A mid-view strategy based on harvesting indicators using standard-definitions, such as classifications in databases of patents or articles. Due to the speed of development in low-carbon energy technologies, some classification systems do not capture industrial activity at a sufficiently fine-grained level. Where this has limited data gathering, this scoreboard has recommended categories instead. A long-view strategy involving long-term development work to provide relevant measures that may be useful in the future. These indicators require improvement of the collection and classification of the areas identified above.}
place = {Norway}
year = {2010}
month = {Jul}
}