Moran Jay Brighid, Howard David, Hughes Nick, Whitaker Jeanette, Anandarajah Gabrial
Institute for Energy Systems, School of Engineering, University of Edinburgh, King's Buildings, Edinburgh EH9 3JL, UK.
Centre for Ecology and Hydrology, Library Avenue, Lancaster, Bailrigg LA1 4AP, UK.
ScientificWorldJournal. 2014 Jan 27;2014:605196. doi: 10.1155/2014/605196. eCollection 2014.
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).
低碳能源技术并非在社会真空中得以应用；人们以各种复杂方式理解并参与这些技术以及整体不断变化的能源系统。然而，在规划到2050年的脱碳路径时，公众对低碳能源技术的社会环境敏感度及其对能源部署的反应所起的作用并未得到太多认真关注。基于特定社会环境敏感度对某些资源和技术的抵制，会改变可用选项组合，这可能会影响能源系统实现脱碳的方式（脱碳路径），并影响脱碳的成本和可行性。因此，本文提出了一系列三个模拟情景，说明各种社会环境敏感度可能影响能源系统发展和脱碳路径的方式。这些情景分别代表规避风险（DREAD），即避免部署潜在不安全的大规模技术；地方保护主义（NIMBY），即限制系统在其现有空间范围内；以及环境意识（ECO），即自然资源保护至上。针对这三组限制条件确定了截然不同的解决方案；有些似乎有些不太可信（DREAD），而且所有方案都显示成本增加（尤其是在ECO情景中）。
