When and how to support renewables? Letting the data speak. Bruegel Working Paper 2014/01, February 2014

Low-carbon energy technologies are pivotal for decarbonising our economies up to 2050 while ensuring secure and affordable energy. Consequently, innovation that reduces the cost of low-carbon energy would play an important role in reducing transition costs. We assess the two most prominent innovation policy instruments (i) public research, development and demonstration (RD&D) subsidies and (ii) public deployment policies. Our results indicate that both deployment and RD&D coincide with increasing knowledge generation and the improved competitiveness of renewable energy technologies. We find that both support schemes together have a greater effect that they would individually, that RD&D support is unsurprisingly more effective in driving patents and that timing matters. Current wind deployment based on past wind RD&D spending coincides best with wind patenting. If we look into competitiveness we find a similar picture, with the greatest effect coming from deployment. Finally, we find significant cross-border effects, especially for winddeployment. Increased deployment in one country coincides with increased patenting in nearby countries. Based on our findings we argue that both deployment and RD&D support are needed to create innovation in renewable energy technologies. However, we worry that current support is unbalanced. Public spending on deployment has been two orders of magnitude larger (in 2010 about €48 billion in the five largest EU countries in 2010) than spending on RD&D support (about €315 million). Consequently, basing the policy mix more on empirical evidence could increase the efficiency of innovation policy targeted towards renewable energy technologies.

Low-cost batteries will not disrupt (all) energy utilities. CEPS Commentary, 5 October 2015

With the launch last April of an affordable lithium-ion home battery – the Powerwall – Tesla’s CEO Elon Musk is betting that batteries are going to become a mass market. This may very well become reality, but this commentary argues that one should not jump to the conclusion that this is the end of energy utilities. Similar to solar panels, batteries have high upfront costs. The massive deployment of solar was driven by dedicated policy support, in many cases without any kind of cost or volume control. There is no such thing for batteries. In the absence of financing programmes, the author finds that high upfront costs provide an unfavourable starting point for a disruptive development. But he notes that the fact that self-consumption of stored solar energy will soon pay for consumers represents a paradigm shift in the power industry, which should be seen as an opportunity, at least for first-movers.