Capital-labour-energy Constant Elasticity of Substitution (CES) production functions and their estimated parameters now form a key part of energy-economy models which inform energy and emissions policy. However, the collation and guidance as to the specification and estimation choices involved with such energy-extended CES functions is disparate. This risks poorly specified and estimated CES functions, with knock-on implications for downstream energy-economic models and climate policy. In response, as a first step, this paper assembles in one place the major considerations involved in the empirical estimation of these CES functions. Discussions of the choices and their implications lead to recommendations for CES empiricists. The extensive bibliography allows those interested to dig deeper into any aspect of the CES parameter estimation process.

Development of energy policy is often informed by economic considerations via aggregate production functions (APFs). We identify a theory-to-policy process involving APFs comprised of six steps: (1) selecting a theoretical energy-economy framework; (2) formulating modeling approaches; (3) econometrically fitting an APF to historical economic and energy data; (4) comparing and evaluating modeling approaches; (5) interpreting the economy; and (6) formulating energy and economic policy. We find that choices made in Steps 1-4 can lead to very different interpretations of the economy (Step 5) and policies (Step 6). To investigate these effects, we use empirical data (Portugal and UK) and the Constant Elasticity of Substitution (CES) APF to evaluate four modeling choices: (a) rejecting (or not) the cost-share principle; (b) including (or not) energy; (c) quality-adjusting (or not) factors of production; and (d) CES nesting structure. Thereafter, we discuss two revealing examples for which different upstream modeling choices lead to very different policies. In the first example, the (kl)e nesting structure implies significant investment in energy, while other nesting structures suggest otherwise. In the second example, unadjusted factors of production suggest balanced investment in labor and energy, while quality-adjusting suggests significant investment in labor over energy. Divergent outcomes provide cautionary tales for policymakers: greater understanding of upstream modeling choices and their downstream implications is needed.

No abstract

No abstract

Background: In this paper, we explore the concept of multi-objective optimization in the field of metabolic engineering when both continuous and integer decision variables are involved in the model. In particular, we propose a multi-objective model that may be used to suggest reaction deletions that maximize and/or minimize several functions simultaneously. The applications may include, among others, the concurrent maximization of a bioproduct and of biomass, or maximization of a bioproduct while minimizing the formation of a given by-product, two common requirements in microbial metabolic engineering. Results: Production of ethanol by the widely used cell factory Saccharomyces cerevisiae was adopted as a case study to demonstrate the usefulness of the proposed approach in identifying genetic manipulations that improve productivity and yield of this economically highly relevant bioproduct. We did an in vivo validation and we could show that some of the predicted deletions exhibit increased ethanol levels in comparison with the wild-type strain.