IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/enepol/v37y2009i11p4500-4513.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Rejecting renewables: The socio-technical impediments to renewable electricity in the United States

Author

Listed:
  • Sovacool, Benjamin K.

Abstract

If renewable power systems deliver such impressive benefits, why do they still provide only 3 percent of national electricity generation in the United States? As an answer, this article demonstrates that the impediments to renewable power are socio-technical, a term that encompasses the technological, social, political, regulatory, and cultural aspects of electricity supply and use. Extensive interviews of public utility commissioners, utility managers, system operators, manufacturers, researchers, business owners, and ordinary consumers reveal that it is these socio-technical barriers that often explain why wind, solar, biomass, geothermal, and hydroelectric power sources are not embraced. Utility operators reject renewable resources because they are trained to think only in terms of big, conventional power plants. Consumers practically ignore renewable power systems because they are not given accurate price signals about electricity consumption. Intentional market distortions (such as subsidies), and unintentional market distortions (such as split incentives) prevent consumers from becoming fully invested in their electricity choices. As a result, newer and cleaner technologies that may offer social and environmental benefits but are not consistent with the dominant paradigm of the electricity industry continue to face comparative rejection.

Suggested Citation

  • Sovacool, Benjamin K., 2009. "Rejecting renewables: The socio-technical impediments to renewable electricity in the United States," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(11), pages 4500-4513, November.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:enepol:v:37:y:2009:i:11:p:4500-4513
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301-4215(09)00421-2
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    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. Tienda, Marta & Aborampah, Osei-Mensah, 1981. "Energy-Related Adaptation in Low-Income Nonmetropolitan Wisconsin Counties," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 8(3), pages 265-270, December.
    2. Sovacool, Benjamin K. & Cooper, Christopher, 2007. "Big Is Beautiful: The Case for Federal Leadership on a National Renewable Portfolio Standard," The Electricity Journal, Elsevier, vol. 20(4), pages 48-61, May.
    3. Bennett, Peter D & Moore, Noreen Klein, 1981. "Consumers' Preferences for Alternative Energy Conservation Policies: A Trade-Off Analysis," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 8(3), pages 313-321, December.
    4. Belk, Russell & Painter, John & Semenik, Richard, 1981. "Preferred Solutions to the Energy Crisis as a Function of Causal Attributions," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 8(3), pages 306-312, December.
    5. Sanstad, Alan H & Blumstein, Carl & Stoft, Steven E, 1995. "How high are option values in energy-efficiency investments?," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 23(9), pages 739-743, September.
    6. Herbert A. Simon, 1955. "A Behavioral Model of Rational Choice," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 69(1), pages 99-118.
    7. Sovacool, Benjamin K., 2008. "Renewable Energy: Economically Sound, Politically Difficult," The Electricity Journal, Elsevier, vol. 21(5), pages 18-29, June.
    8. Benjamin Sovacool, 2008. "The problem with the “portfolio approach” in American energy policy," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 41(3), pages 245-261, September.
    9. Simon, Herbert A, 1979. "Rational Decision Making in Business Organizations," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 69(4), pages 493-513, September.
    10. Dermot Gately, 1980. "Individual Discount Rates and the Purchase and Utilization of Energy-Using Durables: Comment," Bell Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 11(1), pages 373-374, Spring.
    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. DeCanio, Stephen J. & Watkins, William E., 1998. "Information processing and organizational structure," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 36(3), pages 275-294, August.
    2. Siegfried Berninghaus & Werner Güth & M. Vittoria Levati & Jianying Qiu, 2006. "Satisficing in sales competition: experimental evidence," Papers on Strategic Interaction 2006-32, Max Planck Institute of Economics, Strategic Interaction Group.
    3. Michaël Lainé, 2014. "Vers une alternative au paradigme de la rationalité ? Victoires et déboires du programme spinoziste en économie," Post-Print hal-01335618, HAL.
    4. Sadok Mansour, 2007. "Modelisation Du Risque Dans Les Methodologies D'Audit : Apport Des De La Psychometrie," Post-Print halshs-00543217, HAL.
    5. Hosseini, Hamid, 2003. "The arrival of behavioral economics: from Michigan, or the Carnegie School in the 1950s and the early 1960s?," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 32(4), pages 391-409, September.
    6. Elżbieta Jędrych & Dariusz Klimek & Agnieszka Rzepka, 2021. "Principles of Sustainable Management of Energy Companies: The Case of Poland," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(8), pages 1-18, April.
    7. Prietula, Michael J. & Watson, Harry S., 2008. "When behavior matters: Games and computation in A Behavioral Theory of the Firm," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 66(1), pages 74-94, April.
    8. Feng, Lei & Zhang, Minghui & Li, Yixin & Jiang, Yan, 2020. "Satisfaction principle or efficiency principle? Decision-making behavior of peasant households in China’s rural land market," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 99(C).
    9. Feduzi, Alberto & Runde, Jochen, 2014. "Uncovering unknown unknowns: Towards a Baconian approach to management decision-making," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 124(2), pages 268-283.
    10. Meinard, Y. & Tsoukiàs, A., 2019. "On the rationality of decision aiding processes," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 273(3), pages 1074-1084.
    11. Tina Kalayil & Somya Tyagi & Mahfuza Khatun & Sikandar Siddiqui, 2019. "A Risk-Sensitive Momentum Approach To Stock Selection," Economic Annals, Faculty of Economics and Business, University of Belgrade, vol. 64(220), pages 61-84, January –.
    12. Siegfried Berninghaus & Werner Güth & M. Levati & Jianying Qiu, 2011. "Satisficing search versus aspiration adaptation in sales competition: experimental evidence," International Journal of Game Theory, Springer;Game Theory Society, vol. 40(1), pages 179-198, February.
    13. repec:dau:papers:123456789/3528 is not listed on IDEAS
    14. Tyson, Christopher J., 2008. "Cognitive constraints, contraction consistency, and the satisficing criterion," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 138(1), pages 51-70, January.
    15. Dariusz Klimek & Elżbieta Jędrych, 2020. "A Model for the Sustainable Management of Enterprise Capital," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(1), pages 1-13, December.
    16. Ronald Schettkat, 2018. "The Behavioral Economics of John Maynard Keynes," Schumpeter Discussion Papers sdp18007, Universitätsbibliothek Wuppertal, University Library.
    17. Sanjit Dhami & Ali al-Nowaihi & Cass R. Sunstein, 2019. "Heuristics and Public Policy: Decision-making Under Bounded Rationality," Studies in Microeconomics, , vol. 7(1), pages 7-58, June.
    18. Nawrocki, David N., 1995. "Expectations, technological change, information and the theory of financial markets," International Review of Financial Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 4(2-3), pages 85-105.
    19. Giada Marchi & Giulia Lucertini & Alexis Tsoukiàs, 2016. "From evidence-based policy making to policy analytics," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 236(1), pages 15-38, January.
    20. Sovacool, Benjamin K., 2015. "The political economy of pollution markets: Historical lessons for modern energy and climate planners," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 49(C), pages 943-953.
    21. Lembregts, Christophe & Cadario, Romain, 2024. "Consumer-Driven Climate Mitigation: Exploring Barriers and Solutions in Studying Higher Mitigation Potential Behaviors," OSF Preprints ywus6, Center for Open Science.

    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:37:y:2009:i:11:p:4500-4513. 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.