4.7 Article

Linking scientific research and energy innovation: A comparison of clean and dirty technologies

期刊

ENERGY RESEARCH & SOCIAL SCIENCE
卷 78, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.erss.2021.102122

关键词

Energy innovation; Patents; Bibliographic data; Knowledge translation; Clean technology; Dirty technology

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Despite the urgent need for new energy technologies, the development process is slow, taking approximately 10 years to translate scientific knowledge into working prototypes. These findings will assist policymakers in devising more effective mechanisms and strategies to accelerate technological change in the energy sector.
Despite the urgent case for bringing new energy technologies to the marketplace, the delivery of these innovations has been frustratingly slow, often taking several decades to develop even the most promising ideas into novel technologies that achieve a significant amount of market penetration. The pathway for delivering new energy technologies is frequently discussed in the literature in a vague and aggregated way, but innovation tends to consist of a series of partially overlapping processes consisting of: (1) the production of scientific and technological knowledge, (2) the translation of that knowledge into working technologies or artifacts, and (3) the introduction of the artifacts into the marketplace, where they are matched with users' requirements. However, relatively little data is available showing how long each of these processes takes for energy technologies. Here we combine information from patent applications with bibliographic data to shine light on the second process-that is, the translation of scientific knowledge into working prototypes. Our results show that energy technologies take an average of approximately 10 years to pass through this phase. These findings will help policymakers to devise more effective mechanisms and strategies for accelerating the overall rate of technological change in this domain.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据