Consistency and Robustness in Forecasting for Emerging Technologies: The Case of Li-ion Batteries for Electric Vehicles

Apurba Sakti, I. Azevedo, E. Fuchs, Jeremy J. Michalek, K. Gallagher, J. Whitacre
{"title":"Consistency and Robustness in Forecasting for Emerging Technologies: The Case of Li-ion Batteries for Electric Vehicles","authors":"Apurba Sakti, I. Azevedo, E. Fuchs, Jeremy J. Michalek, K. Gallagher, J. Whitacre","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.2868386","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"There are a large number of accounts about rapidly declining costs of batteries with potentially transformative effects, but these accounts often are not based on detailed design and technical information. Using a method ideally suited for that purpose, we find that when experts are free to assume any battery pack design, a majority of the cost estimates are consistent with the ranges reported in the literature, although the range is notably large. However, we also find that 55% of relevant experts’ component-level cost projections are inconsistent with their total pack-level projections, and 55% of relevant experts’ elicited cost projections are inconsistent with the cost projections generated by putting their design- and process-level assumptions into our process-based cost model (PBCM). These results suggest a need for better understanding of the technical assumptions driving popular consensus regarding future costs. Approaches focusing on technological details first, followed by non-aggregated and systemic cost estimates while keeping the experts aware of any discrepancies, should they arise, may result in more accurate forecasts.    ","PeriodicalId":341058,"journal":{"name":"ERN: Primary Taxonomy (Topic)","volume":"76 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2016-11-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ERN: Primary Taxonomy (Topic)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2868386","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

There are a large number of accounts about rapidly declining costs of batteries with potentially transformative effects, but these accounts often are not based on detailed design and technical information. Using a method ideally suited for that purpose, we find that when experts are free to assume any battery pack design, a majority of the cost estimates are consistent with the ranges reported in the literature, although the range is notably large. However, we also find that 55% of relevant experts’ component-level cost projections are inconsistent with their total pack-level projections, and 55% of relevant experts’ elicited cost projections are inconsistent with the cost projections generated by putting their design- and process-level assumptions into our process-based cost model (PBCM). These results suggest a need for better understanding of the technical assumptions driving popular consensus regarding future costs. Approaches focusing on technological details first, followed by non-aggregated and systemic cost estimates while keeping the experts aware of any discrepancies, should they arise, may result in more accurate forecasts.    
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
新兴技术预测的一致性和稳健性:以电动汽车用锂离子电池为例
有大量关于电池成本迅速下降并具有潜在变革性影响的报道,但这些报道往往没有基于详细的设计和技术信息。使用一种非常适合这一目的的方法,我们发现,当专家可以自由地假设任何电池组设计时,大多数成本估算与文献中报道的范围一致,尽管范围非常大。然而,我们也发现55%的相关专家的组件级成本预测与他们的总包级预测不一致,55%的相关专家的成本预测与将他们的设计和过程级假设纳入我们的基于过程的成本模型(PBCM)所产生的成本预测不一致。这些结果表明,有必要更好地理解推动有关未来成本的普遍共识的技术假设。首先关注技术细节的方法,然后是非汇总和系统的成本估计,同时让专家了解任何差异,如果它们出现,可能会导致更准确的预测。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Military Policing Exacerbates Crime and May Increase Human Rights Abuses: A Randomized Controlled Trial in Cali, Colombia Color, Loan Approval, and Crimes: The Dark Side of Mortgage Market Deregulation Time-of-Day and Day-of-Week Variations in Amazon Mechanical Turk Survey Responses Education Equity During COVID-19: Analyzing In-Person Priority Policies for Students with Disabilities Gender Mix and Team Performance: Differences between Exogenously and Endogenously Formed Teams
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1