Subject The article considers methodological approaches to forecasting the economic and ecological effects of diffusion of innovative automobile transport technologies, i.e. electric cars and hydrogen-powered cars. Methods I employ a scenario analysis. The forecast of changes in technical and economic parameters of primary and supporting technologies rests on learning curve models, the forecast of demand for new technologies – on time series, and the diffusion level of new technologies is determined by a variety of external factors, including the State policy. I propose several scenarios that further serve as a framework to forecast the economic and ecological effects of the technology replacement process subject to the impact of exogenous factors. Results A simplified version of the scenario-based analysis has been tested in the Pskov oblast (a region with the highest indicators of air pollution by automobile transport per unit of GRP and per capita). I obtained quantitative estimation of pure ecological effect for the case of full diffusion of the electric car technology in the private transport sector. Conclusions The quantitative estimations of decreasing pollution after complete replacement of private cars by electric ones prove the invalidity of concerns that positive ecological effect of new automobile technologies introduction is completely smoothed over by increased negative ecological effects at other stages of the life cycle. The increase in demand for electricity caused by the transition to new automobile technologies has been insignificant in the pilot region, and could be compensated for by increasing the use factor of existing power-generating capacities.
Rohrbeck R., Battistella C., Huizingh E. Corporate Foresight: An emerging field with a rich tradition. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 2015, vol. 101, pp. 1–9. doi: 10.1016/j.techfore.2015.11.002
Voronina L.A., Ivanova N.E., Ratner S.V. [Using the foresight methodology when developing the innovation strategy of the higher school: The Kuban State University case]. EKO = ECO, 2008, no. 9, pp. 133–140. (In Russ.)
Rout U.K., Blesl M., Fahl U., Emme U., Voß A. Uncertainty in the Learning Rates of Energy Technologies: An experiment in a global multi-regional energy system model. Energy Policy, 2009, vol. 37, iss. 11, pp. 4927–4942. doi: Link
Klochkov V.V., Ratner S.V. Upravlenie razvitiem “zelenykh” tekhnologii: ekonomicheskie aspekty [Managing the development of green technologies: Economic aspects]. Moscow, Institute of Control Sciences of RAS Publ., 2013, 292 p.
Weimer-Jehle W., Buchgeister J., Hauser W., Kosow H. et al. Context Scenarios and Their Usage for the Construction of Socio-Technical Energy Scenarios. Energy, 2016, vol. 111, pp. 956–970. doi: 10.1016/j.energy.2016.05.073
Guillaume J.H.A., Arshad M., Jakeman A.J., Jalava M., Kummu M. Robust Discrimination Between Uncertain Management Alternatives by Iterative Reflection on Crossover Point Scenarios: Principles, Design and Implementations. Environmental Modelling & Software, 2016, vol. 83, pp. 326–343. doi: Link
Offer G.J., Howey D., Contestabile M., Clague R., Brandon N.P. Comparative Analysis of Battery Electric, Hydrogen Fuel Cell and Hybrid Vehicles in a Future Sustainable Road Transport System. Energy Policy, 2010, vol. 38, iss. 1, pp. 24–29. doi: Link
Neij L. Cost Dynamics of Wind Power. Energy, 1999, vol. 24, iss. 5, pp. 375–389.
Cody G.D., Tiedje T. A Learning Curve Approach to Projecting Cost and Performance for Photovoltaic Technologies. In: Proceedings of the First Conference on Future Generation Photovoltaic Technologies, Denver, CO, USA, 1997, vol. 404. doi: 10.1063/1.53464
Ratner S.V., Iosifov V.V. [Prospects for solar energy development in Russia: Cost analysis]. Vestnik Ural'skogo Federal'nogo universiteta. Seriya: Ekonomika i upravlenie = Bulletin of Ural Federal University. Series Economics and Management, 2014, no. 4, pp. 52–62. (In Russ.)
Ratner S.V. [Cost analysis of solar energy development in the world and its prospects for Russia]. Nauchno-tekhnicheskie vedomosti Sankt-Peterburgskogo gosudarstvennogo politekhnicheskogo universiteta = Saint-Petersburg State Polytechnic University Journal. Economics, 2014, no. 3, pp. 90–97. (In Russ.)
Doukas H., Karakosta C., Flamos A., Psarras J. Foresight for Energy Policy: Techniques and Methods Employed in Greece. Energy Sources, Part B: Economics, Planning and Policy, 2014, no. 9, pp. 109–119. doi: Link
David B., De Lattre-Gasquet M., Mathy S., Moncomble J.E., Rozenberg J. Energy Foresight: The Possible, the Desirable and the Acceptable. Futuribles: Analyse et Prospective, 2014, no. 398, pp. 37–47.
Proskuryakova L., Filippov S. Energy Technology Foresight 2030 in Russia: An Outlook for Safer and More Efficient Energy Future. Energy Procedia, 2015, vol. 75, pp. 2798–2806. doi: 10.1016/j.egypro.2015.07.550
Lundmark R., Pettersson F. The Economics of Power Generation Technology Choice and Investment Timing in the Presence of Policy Uncertainly. Low Carbon Economy, 2012, vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 1–10. doi: 10.4236/lce.2012.31001
Yang M., Blyth W., Bradley R., Bunn D., Clarke C., Wilson T. Evaluating the Power Investment Options with Uncertainly in Climate Policy. Energy Economics, 2008, vol. 30, iss. 4, pp. 1933–1950. doi: Link
Ratner S.V. [Managing the technology portfolio of the energy company: scenario approach]. Upravlenie bol'shimi sistemami, 2013, vol. 45. (In Russ.) Available at: Link.
Sinyak Yu.V., Nekrasov A.S., Voronina S.A., Semikashev V.V., Kolpakov A.Yu. [Fuel and energy complex of Russia: Opportunities and prospects]. Problemy prognozirovaniya = Problems of Forecasting, 2013, no. 1, pp. 4–21. (In Russ.)
Sobko A. Nuzhno li toropit'sya? K initsiativam po vnedreniyu VIE v Rossii [Do we need to hurry? On initiatives to introduce renewables in Russia]. Available at: Link. (In Russ.)
Padey P., Blanc I., Le Boulch D., Xiusheng Z. A Simplified Life Cycle Approach for Assessing Greenhouse Gas Emissions of Wind Electricity. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 2012, vol. 16, iss. S1, pp. S28–S38. doi: 10.1111/j.1530-9290.2012.00466.x
Turconi R., Boldrin A., Astrup T. Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) of Electricity Generation Technologies: Overview, Comparability and Limitations. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 2013, vol. 28, iss. C, pp. 555–565. doi: Link
Raadal H.L., Vold B.I., Myhr A., Nygaard T.A. GHG Emissions and Energy Performance of Offshore Wind Power. Renewable Energy, 2014, no. 66, pp. 314–324. doi: Link
Chang Y., Huang R., Ries R.J., Masanet E. Life-cycle Comparison of Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Water Consumption for Coal and Shale Gas Fired Power Generation in China. Energy, 2015, vol. 86, pp. 335–343. doi: Link
Kim H.C., Fthenakis V., Choi J.-K., Turney D.E. Life Cycle Greenhouse Gas Emissions of Thin-film Photovoltaic Electricity Generation. Systematic Review and Harmonization. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 2012, vol. 16, iss. s1, pp. S110–S121. doi: 10.1111/j.1530-9290.2011.00423.x
Thomas C.E. Fuel Cell and Battery Electric Vehicles Compared. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, 2009, vol. 34, iss. 15, pp. 6005–6020. doi: Link
Iosifov V.V., Ratner S.V. [Analysis of barriers and development prospects for motor transport innovative technologies]. Innovatsii = Innovation, 2016, no. 4, pp. 12–20. (In Russ.)
Burke A.F. Batteries and Ultracapacitors for Electric, Hybrid, and Fuel Cell Vehicles. Proceedings of the IEEE, 2007, vol. 95, iss. 4, pp. 806–820. doi: 10.1109/JPROC.2007.892490
