Limits...
Modelling socio-environmental sensitivities: how public responses to low carbon energy technologies could shape the UK energy system.

Moran Jay B, Howard D, Hughes N, Whitaker J, Anandarajah G - ScientificWorldJournal (2014)

Bottom Line: However, the role of the public's socio-environmental sensitivities to low carbon energy technologies and their responses to energy deployments does not receive much serious attention in planning decarbonisation pathways to 2050.The scenarios represent risk aversion (DREAD) which avoids deployment of potentially unsafe large-scale technology, local protectionism (NIMBY) that constrains systems to their existing spatial footprint, and environmental awareness (ECO) where protection of natural resources is paramount.Very different solutions for all three sets of constraints are identified; some seem slightly implausible (DREAD) and all show increased cost (especially in ECO).

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Institute for Energy Systems, School of Engineering, University of Edinburgh, King's Buildings, Edinburgh EH9 3JL, UK.

ABSTRACT
Low carbon energy technologies are not deployed in a social vacuum; there are a variety of complex ways in which people understand and engage with these technologies and the changing energy system overall. However, the role of the public's socio-environmental sensitivities to low carbon energy technologies and their responses to energy deployments does not receive much serious attention in planning decarbonisation pathways to 2050. Resistance to certain resources and technologies based on particular socio-environmental sensitivities would alter the portfolio of options available which could shape how the energy system achieves decarbonisation (the decarbonisation pathway) as well as affecting the cost and achievability of decarbonisation. Thus, this paper presents a series of three modelled scenarios which illustrate the way that a variety of socio-environmental sensitivities could impact the development of the energy system and the decarbonisation pathway. The scenarios represent risk aversion (DREAD) which avoids deployment of potentially unsafe large-scale technology, local protectionism (NIMBY) that constrains systems to their existing spatial footprint, and environmental awareness (ECO) where protection of natural resources is paramount. Very different solutions for all three sets of constraints are identified; some seem slightly implausible (DREAD) and all show increased cost (especially in ECO).

Show MeSH
Electricity generation in 2050. Scenarios are the low carbon (LC) baseline and the three socio-environmental forms (NIMBY, ECO, and DREAD).
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection


getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC3921941&req=5

fig2: Electricity generation in 2050. Scenarios are the low carbon (LC) baseline and the three socio-environmental forms (NIMBY, ECO, and DREAD).

Mentions: The differences in supply technology mixes can be seen through the electricity generation and installed capacity of the scenarios (Figures 2 and 3). The key technology shifts highlighted in this paper are dramatic shifts to wind power in DREAD, increased use of nuclear and wind in NIMBY and ECO, and the shifting of limited biomass resources in NIMBY.


Modelling socio-environmental sensitivities: how public responses to low carbon energy technologies could shape the UK energy system.

Moran Jay B, Howard D, Hughes N, Whitaker J, Anandarajah G - ScientificWorldJournal (2014)

Electricity generation in 2050. Scenarios are the low carbon (LC) baseline and the three socio-environmental forms (NIMBY, ECO, and DREAD).
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC3921941&req=5

fig2: Electricity generation in 2050. Scenarios are the low carbon (LC) baseline and the three socio-environmental forms (NIMBY, ECO, and DREAD).
Mentions: The differences in supply technology mixes can be seen through the electricity generation and installed capacity of the scenarios (Figures 2 and 3). The key technology shifts highlighted in this paper are dramatic shifts to wind power in DREAD, increased use of nuclear and wind in NIMBY and ECO, and the shifting of limited biomass resources in NIMBY.

Bottom Line: However, the role of the public's socio-environmental sensitivities to low carbon energy technologies and their responses to energy deployments does not receive much serious attention in planning decarbonisation pathways to 2050.The scenarios represent risk aversion (DREAD) which avoids deployment of potentially unsafe large-scale technology, local protectionism (NIMBY) that constrains systems to their existing spatial footprint, and environmental awareness (ECO) where protection of natural resources is paramount.Very different solutions for all three sets of constraints are identified; some seem slightly implausible (DREAD) and all show increased cost (especially in ECO).

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Institute for Energy Systems, School of Engineering, University of Edinburgh, King's Buildings, Edinburgh EH9 3JL, UK.

ABSTRACT
Low carbon energy technologies are not deployed in a social vacuum; there are a variety of complex ways in which people understand and engage with these technologies and the changing energy system overall. However, the role of the public's socio-environmental sensitivities to low carbon energy technologies and their responses to energy deployments does not receive much serious attention in planning decarbonisation pathways to 2050. Resistance to certain resources and technologies based on particular socio-environmental sensitivities would alter the portfolio of options available which could shape how the energy system achieves decarbonisation (the decarbonisation pathway) as well as affecting the cost and achievability of decarbonisation. Thus, this paper presents a series of three modelled scenarios which illustrate the way that a variety of socio-environmental sensitivities could impact the development of the energy system and the decarbonisation pathway. The scenarios represent risk aversion (DREAD) which avoids deployment of potentially unsafe large-scale technology, local protectionism (NIMBY) that constrains systems to their existing spatial footprint, and environmental awareness (ECO) where protection of natural resources is paramount. Very different solutions for all three sets of constraints are identified; some seem slightly implausible (DREAD) and all show increased cost (especially in ECO).

Show MeSH