Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41345124›Full record

ArticleScientific data2025

Historical and future projected costs of capital for ten energy technologies across 176 countries.

Luke Hatton, Iain Staffell, Malte Jansen, Gbemi Oluleye, Adam Hawkes

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific data, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. 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

5 authors.

Luke HattonDepartment of Chemical Engineering, Imperial College London, Exhibition Rd, London, SW7 2AZ, UK. l.hatton23@imperial.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1813-4467
Iain StaffellCentre for Environmental Policy, Imperial College London, Exhibition Rd, London, SW7 2AZ, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1012-7075
Malte JansenScience Policy Research Unit, University of Sussex, Brighton, BN1 9RH, UK.
Gbemi OluleyeCentre for Environmental Policy, Imperial College London, Exhibition Rd, London, SW7 2AZ, UK.
Adam HawkesDepartment of Chemical Engineering, Imperial College London, Exhibition Rd, London, SW7 2AZ, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9720-332X

Funding

RCUK | Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC) EP/W524323/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Accelerating the deployment of clean generation technologies will be key to achieving global climate targets, yet accurately modelling the financial conditions they face is challenging. The cost of capital (or discount rate) is a key input for energy system models, which are used widely to explore future decarbonisation scenarios. Despite its importance, data on the cost of capital is typically outdated, closed-source and geographically concentrated. Even for countries with substantial technology deployment, accessing empirical data can be difficult, leading to the use of standard assumptions in modelling which can substantially bias results (due to the high capital intensity of clean technologies). Here, we provide estimates of the cost of capital for 10 generation technologies at a national level (including solar, wind, bioenergy, and natural gas with carbon capture) for 176 countries, for 2015 to 2030 spanning 27,640 data points. An interactive web tool available at wacc-forecaster.streamlit.app has also been produced to visualise estimates for given years, countries and technologies, making results more accessible to a range of audiences.

Identifiers

PMID41345124
PMCPMC12678392

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.