skip to main content
OSTI.GOV title logo U.S. Department of Energy
Office of Scientific and Technical Information

Title: Socio-energy systems design: A policy framework for energy transitions

; ;
Publication Date:
Sponsoring Org.:
USDOE Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE)
OSTI Identifier:
Resource Type:
Journal Article: Publisher's Accepted Manuscript
Journal Name:
Energy Research and Social Science
Additional Journal Information:
Journal Volume: 6; Journal Issue: C; Related Information: CHORUS Timestamp: 2017-05-12 09:12:02; Journal ID: ISSN 2214-6296
Country of Publication:

Citation Formats

Miller, Clark A., Richter, Jennifer, and O’Leary, Jason. Socio-energy systems design: A policy framework for energy transitions. Netherlands: N. p., 2015. Web. doi:10.1016/j.erss.2014.11.004.
Miller, Clark A., Richter, Jennifer, & O’Leary, Jason. Socio-energy systems design: A policy framework for energy transitions. Netherlands. doi:10.1016/j.erss.2014.11.004.
Miller, Clark A., Richter, Jennifer, and O’Leary, Jason. 2015. "Socio-energy systems design: A policy framework for energy transitions". Netherlands. doi:10.1016/j.erss.2014.11.004.
title = {Socio-energy systems design: A policy framework for energy transitions},
author = {Miller, Clark A. and Richter, Jennifer and O’Leary, Jason},
abstractNote = {},
doi = {10.1016/j.erss.2014.11.004},
journal = {Energy Research and Social Science},
number = C,
volume = 6,
place = {Netherlands},
year = 2015,
month = 3

Journal Article:
Free Publicly Available Full Text
Publisher's Version of Record at 10.1016/j.erss.2014.11.004

Save / Share:
  • The construction of new infrastructure is hotly contested. This paper presents a comparative study on three environmental policy domains in the Netherlands that all deal with legitimising building and locating infrastructure facilities. Such infrastructure is usually declared essential to environmental policy and claimed to serve sustainability goals. They are considered to serve (proclaimed) public interests, while the adverse impact or risk that mainly concerns environmental values as well is concentrated at a smaller scale, for example in local communities. The social acceptance of environmental policy infrastructure is institutionally determined. The institutional capacity for learning in infrastructure decision-making processes in themore » following three domains is compared: 1.The implementation of wind power as a renewable energy innovation; 2.The policy on space-water adaptation, with its claim to implement a new style of management replacing the current practice of focusing on control and 'hard' infrastructure; 3.Waste policy with a focus on sound waste management and disposal, claiming a preference for waste minimization (the 'waste management hierarchy'). All three cases show a large variety of social acceptance issues, where the appraisal of the impact of siting the facilities is confronted with the desirability of the policies. In dealing with environmental conflict, the environmental capacity of the Netherlands appears to be low. The policies are frequently hotly contested within the process of infrastructure decision-making. Decision-making on infrastructure is often framed as if consensus about the objectives of environmental policies exists. These claims are not justified, and therefore stimulating the emergence of environmental conflicts that discourage social acceptance of the policies. Authorities are frequently involved in planning infrastructure that conflicts with their officially proclaimed policy objectives. In these circumstances, they are often confronted with local actors who support alternatives that are in fact better in tune with the new policy paradigm.« less
  • The North German coastal area which until recently was regarded as a development area, has in the last few years become a topic of discussion because of spectacular industrial estates. The Nonth German electric utility firms are making their contribution to the further economic development of the coastal region by providing electric power cheaply and reliably. The point of view of a utility with regard to the impending decisions on further investment is explained. (GE)
  • This study presents a novel integrated method for considering the economics of waste-to-energy (WTE) facilities with priced greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions based upon technical and economic characteristics of the WTE facility, MSW stream, landfill alternative, and GHG emissions policy. The study demonstrates use of the formulation for six different policy scenarios and explores sensitivity of the results to ranges of certain technical parameters as found in existing literature. The study shows that details of the GHG emissions regulations have large impact on the levelized cost of energy (LCOE) of WTE and that GHG regulations can either increase or decrease themore » LCOE of WTE depending on policy choices regarding biogenic fractions from combusted waste and emissions from landfills. Important policy considerations are the fraction of the carbon emissions that are priced (i.e. all emissions versus only non-biogenic emissions), whether emissions credits are allowed due to reducing fugitive landfill gas emissions, whether biogenic carbon sequestration in landfills is credited against landfill emissions, and the effectiveness of the landfill gas recovery system where waste would otherwise have been buried. The default landfill gas recovery system effectiveness assumed by much of the industry yields GHG offsets that are very close to the direct non-biogenic GHG emissions from a WTE facility, meaning that small changes in the recovery effectiveness cause relatively larger changes in the emissions factor of the WTE facility. Finally, the economics of WTE are dependent on the MSW stream composition, with paper and wood being advantageous, metal and glass being disadvantageous, and plastics, food, and yard waste being either advantageous or disadvantageous depending upon the avoided tipping fee and the GHG emissions price.« less