Show simple item record

dc.contributor.advisorDavid H. Marks and John D. Sterman.en_US
dc.contributor.authorCulver, Lauren C. (Lauren Claire)en_US
dc.contributor.otherMassachusetts Institute of Technology. Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering.en_US
dc.date.accessioned2010-02-09T16:57:27Z
dc.date.available2010-02-09T16:57:27Z
dc.date.copyright2009en_US
dc.date.issued2009en_US
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/1721.1/51656
dc.descriptionThesis (S.M. in Technology and Policy)--Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Engineering Systems Division, Technology and Policy Program; and, (S.M.)--Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering, 2009.en_US
dc.descriptionIncludes bibliographical references (p. 148-153).en_US
dc.description.abstractThe need for new Renewable Energy Technologies (RETs) is growing with the challenge of providing affordable electricity under increasing environmental and public health constraints while promoting energy security and improved energy access. Governments have chosen to intervene in the commercialization process to overcome market failures that distort private investment in new technologies to ensure the provision of these technologies. Both technology-push and demand-pull policies are necessary to accelerate commercialization of renewable energy technologies, but the optimal balance of these strategies is not understood. This thesis investigates the most cost-effective allocation of public funding, provided through a portfolio of commercialization policies, to ensure technologies bridge the valley of death. Case studies of photovoltaic technology promotion in the United States, Germany, and Japan provide examples of commercialization policy portfolios with varied results. Distilling the key funding flows and the resulting technology, product, and market development from the historical data provides a basis for a system dynamics model that simulates a firm commercializing a single technology from research and development through deployment. Different policy portfolios are tested to determine the most cost-effective distribution of commercialization support. The Japanese example suggests providing balanced support throughout research and development, demonstration, and deployment is more cost-effective than the either the US research-focused approach or the German market stimulation strategy.en_US
dc.description.abstract(cont.) Similarly, the simulation model shows that providing funding through all phases of commercialization is more cost-effective than an unbalanced strategy that relies predominately on technology-push or market-pull strategies.en_US
dc.description.statementofresponsibilityby Lauren C. Culver.en_US
dc.format.extent153 p.en_US
dc.language.isoengen_US
dc.publisherMassachusetts Institute of Technologyen_US
dc.rightsM.I.T. theses are protected by copyright. They may be viewed from this source for any purpose, but reproduction or distribution in any format is prohibited without written permission. See provided URL for inquiries about permission.en_US
dc.rights.urihttp://dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/7582en_US
dc.subjectEngineering Systems Division.en_US
dc.subjectTechnology and Policy Program.en_US
dc.subjectCivil and Environmental Engineering.en_US
dc.titleCost-effective allocation of public funding to promote the commercialization of renewable energy technologyen_US
dc.typeThesisen_US
dc.description.degreeS.M.en_US
dc.description.degreeS.M.in Technology and Policyen_US
dc.contributor.departmentMassachusetts Institute of Technology. Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering
dc.contributor.departmentMassachusetts Institute of Technology. Engineering Systems Division
dc.contributor.departmentTechnology and Policy Program
dc.identifier.oclc501810379en_US


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record