Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37137971›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2023

Machine learning reduces soft costs for residential solar photovoltaics.

Changgui Dong, Gregory Nemet, Xue Gao, Galen Barbose, Benjamin Sigrin, Eric O'Shaughnessy

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Changgui DongSchool of Public Administration and Policy, Renmin University of China, Beijing, 100872, China. changgui.dong@ruc.edu.cn.
Gregory NemetLa Follette School of Public Affairs, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI, 53706, USA.
Xue GaoDepartment of Political Science, University of Miami, Coral Gables, FL, 33146, USA. xgao5@fsu.edu.
Galen BarboseLawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley, CA, 94720, USA.
Benjamin SigrinNational Renewable Energy Laboratory, Golden, CO, 80401, USA.
Eric O'ShaughnessyClean Kilowatts, LLC, Boulder, CO, 80302, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Further deployment of rooftop solar photovoltaics (PV) hinges on the reduction of soft (non-hardware) costs-now larger and more resistant to reductions than hardware costs. The largest portion of these soft costs is the expenses solar companies incur to acquire new customers. In this study, we demonstrate the value of a shift from significance-based methodologies to prediction-oriented models to better identify PV adopters and reduce soft costs. We employ machine learning to predict PV adopters and non-adopters, and compare its prediction performance with logistic regression, the dominant significance-based method in technology adoption studies. Our results show that machine learning substantially enhances adoption prediction performance: The true positive rate of predicting adopters increased from 66 to 87%, and the true negative rate of predicting non-adopters increased from 75 to 88%. We attribute the enhanced performance to complex variable interactions and nonlinear effects incorporated by machine learning. With more accurate predictions, machine learning is able to reduce customer acquisition costs by 15% ($0.07/Watt) and identify new market opportunities for solar companies to expand and diversify their customer bases. Our research methods and findings provide broader implications for the adoption of similar clean energy technologies and related policy challenges such as market growth and energy inequality.

Identifiers

PMID37137971
PMCPMC10156750

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.