IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/enepol/v145y2020ics0301421520304936.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Next-generation battery research and development: Non-politicized science at the Joint Center for Energy Storage Research

Author

Listed:
  • Shapiro, Matthew A.

Abstract

Research on the politicization of science often highlights the role of the media or the effects of the public's prior beliefs. Less prominent are case studies addressing the direct communications from scientists working on a narrowly defined project. This paper introduces for consideration the United States Department of Energy-funded Joint Center for Energy Storage Research (JCESR), which fuses together basic research, battery design, and pathways to market. The central point is to assess whether, given its proximity to the climate change issue, JCESR's research has been politicized. Based on the results from interviews, observations, measures of public interest, and a survey of scientists working at JCESR, it is concluded that JCESR's next-generation battery research has avoided politicization and even thrived. This is attributed in part to bipartisan support among policy makers, the absence of any ideology-based impacts on beliefs about energy storage, and a perception among key actors that next-generation battery technology is not a pressing threat. JCESR also presents a collective ability to protect its scientific credibility while enhancing its political relevance. JCESR's battery storage research and development has been effectively buffered from the volatility of climate change.

Suggested Citation

  • Shapiro, Matthew A., 2020. "Next-generation battery research and development: Non-politicized science at the Joint Center for Energy Storage Research," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 145(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:enepol:v:145:y:2020:i:c:s0301421520304936
    DOI: 10.1016/j.enpol.2020.111771
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421520304936
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.enpol.2020.111771?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Dharshing, Samdruk & Hille, Stefanie Lena & Wüstenhagen, Rolf, 2017. "The Influence of Political Orientation on the Strength and Temporal Persistence of Policy Framing Effects," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 142(C), pages 295-305.
    2. Dan M. Kahan & Hank Jenkins-Smith & Donald Braman, 2011. "Cultural cognition of scientific consensus," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 14(2), pages 147-174, February.
    3. de Sisternes, Fernando J. & Jenkins, Jesse D. & Botterud, Audun, 2016. "The value of energy storage in decarbonizing the electricity sector," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 175(C), pages 368-379.
    4. Oehl, Bianca & Schaffer, Lena Maria & Bernauer, Thomas, 2017. "How to measure public demand for policies when there is no appropriate survey data?," Journal of Public Policy, Cambridge University Press, vol. 37(2), pages 173-204, June.
    5. Sander Linden & Anthony Leiserowitz & Geoffrey Feinberg & Edward Maibach, 2014. "How to communicate the scientific consensus on climate change: plain facts, pie charts or metaphors?," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 126(1), pages 255-262, September.
    6. Cacciatore, Michael A. & Scheufele, Dietram A. & Shaw, Bret R., 2012. "Labeling renewable energies: How the language surrounding biofuels can influence its public acceptance," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(C), pages 673-682.
    7. Sander L van der Linden & Anthony A Leiserowitz & Geoffrey D Feinberg & Edward W Maibach, 2015. "The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change as a Gateway Belief: Experimental Evidence," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(2), pages 1-8, February.
    8. Wesley M. Cohen & Richard R. Nelson & John P. Walsh, 2003. "Links and Impacts: The Influence of Public Research on Industrial R&D," Chapters, in: Aldo Geuna & Ammon J. Salter & W. Edward Steinmueller (ed.), Science and Innovation, chapter 4, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    9. Ashlie Delshad & Leigh Raymond, 2013. "Media Framing and Public Attitudes Toward Biofuels," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 30(2), pages 190-210, March.
    10. James N. Druckman, 2017. "The crisis of politicization within and beyond science," Nature Human Behaviour, Nature, vol. 1(9), pages 615-617, September.
    11. Zhao, Yang & Noori, Mehdi & Tatari, Omer, 2017. "Boosting the adoption and the reliability of renewable energy sources: Mitigating the large-scale wind power intermittency through vehicle to grid technology," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 120(C), pages 608-618.
    12. Roger A. Pielke, 2002. "Policy, politics and perspective," Nature, Nature, vol. 416(6879), pages 367-368, March.
    13. Priessner, Alfons & Sposato, Robert & Hampl, Nina, 2018. "Predictors of electric vehicle adoption: An analysis of potential electric vehicle drivers in Austria," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 122(C), pages 701-714.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Lawrence C. Hamilton, 2016. "Public Awareness of the Scientific Consensus on Climate," SAGE Open, , vol. 6(4), pages 21582440166, November.
    2. Kaitlin T Raimi & Paul C Stern & Alexander Maki, 2017. "The Promise and Limitations of Using Analogies to Improve Decision-Relevant Understanding of Climate Change," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(1), pages 1-20, January.
    3. Carisa Bergner & Bruce A. Desmarais & John Hird, 2019. "Speaking truth in power: Scientific evidence as motivation for policy activism," Journal of Behavioral Public Administration, Center for Experimental and Behavioral Public Administration, vol. 2(1).
    4. Jessica E. Hughes & James D. Sauer & Aaron Drummond & Laura E. Brumby & Matthew A. Palmer, 2023. "Endorsement of scientific inquiry promotes better evaluation of climate policy evidence," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 176(6), pages 1-20, June.
    5. Goldfarb, Jillian L. & Kriner, Douglas L., 2021. "U.S. public support for biofuels tax credits: Cost frames, local fuel prices, and the moderating influence of partisanship," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 149(C).
    6. Sacha Altay & Marlène Schwartz & Anne-Sophie Hacquin & Aurélien Allard & Stefaan Blancke & Hugo Mercier, 2022. "Scaling up interactive argumentation by providing counterarguments with a chatbot," Nature Human Behaviour, Nature, vol. 6(4), pages 579-592, April.
    7. Olson-Hazboun, Shawn K. & Howe, Peter D. & Leiserowitz, Anthony, 2018. "The influence of extractive activities on public support for renewable energy policy," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 123(C), pages 117-126.
    8. Salil D. Benegal & Lyle A. Scruggs, 2018. "Correcting misinformation about climate change: the impact of partisanship in an experimental setting," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 148(1), pages 61-80, May.
    9. Bojana Većkalov & Sandra J. Geiger & František Bartoš & Mathew P. White & Bastiaan T. Rutjens & Frenk Harreveld & Federica Stablum & Berkan Akın & Alaa Aldoh & Jinhao Bai & Frida Berglund & Aleša Brat, 2024. "A 27-country test of communicating the scientific consensus on climate change," Nature Human Behaviour, Nature, vol. 8(10), pages 1892-1905, October.
    10. Brandi S. Morris & Polymeros Chrysochou & Jacob Dalgaard Christensen & Jacob L. Orquin & Jorge Barraza & Paul J. Zak & Panagiotis Mitkidis, 2019. "Stories vs. facts: triggering emotion and action-taking on climate change," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 154(1), pages 19-36, May.
    11. Goldfarb, Jillian L. & Buessing, Marric & Kriner, Douglas L., 2016. "Geographic proximity to coal plants and U.S. public support for extending the Production Tax Credit," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 99(C), pages 299-307.
    12. Albert Ayorinde Abegunde, 2017. "Local communities’ belief in climate change in a rural region of Sub-Saharan Africa," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 19(4), pages 1489-1522, August.
    13. Lawrence C. Hamilton, 2018. "Self-assessed understanding of climate change," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 151(2), pages 349-362, November.
    14. Richard S.J. Tol, 2019. "The elusive consensus on climate change," Working Paper Series 0319, Department of Economics, University of Sussex Business School.
    15. Branden B. Johnson, 2019. "Experiments in Lay Cues to the Relative Validity of Positions Taken by Disputing Groups of Scientists," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 39(8), pages 1657-1674, August.
    16. Connie Roser-Renouf & Edward W Maibach & Jennifer Li, 2016. "Adapting to the Changing Climate: An Assessment of Local Health Department Preparations for Climate Change-Related Health Threats, 2008-2012," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(3), pages 1-17, March.
    17. Sander L van der Linden & Anthony A Leiserowitz & Geoffrey D Feinberg & Edward W Maibach, 2015. "The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change as a Gateway Belief: Experimental Evidence," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(2), pages 1-8, February.
    18. Karine Lacroix & Robert Gifford & Jonathan Rush, 2020. "Climate change beliefs shape the interpretation of forest fire events," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 159(1), pages 103-120, March.
    19. Alexander Cordes & Ulrich Schasse, 2015. "The firm's evaluation of local research institutes and universities - an empirical analysis for Germany," ERSA conference papers ersa15p933, European Regional Science Association.
    20. Isaksson, Olov H.D. & Simeth, Markus & Seifert, Ralf W., 2016. "Knowledge spillovers in the supply chain: Evidence from the high tech sectors," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(3), pages 699-706.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:enepol:v:145:y:2020:i:c:s0301421520304936. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/enpol .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.