Richard F. Hirsh

Wind Turbines and Invisible Technology: Unarticulated Reasons for Local Opposition to Wind Energy

Local opposition to wind turbines stems from concerns about environmental and economic damage, as well as conflicts between rural and urban residents. This essay goes beyond these considerations to explore the often-unarticulated explanations for animosity toward this energy technology. Originally, it posits that opposition to visually obvious turbines arises from the successful history of an electric utility system that made its product largely invisible in its manufacture and physical manifestation. The existence of conspicuous turbines, however, reminds observers that power generation requires difficult choices in a technology-based society. The system’s previous achievement in hiding infrastructural elements, in other words, sometimes works ironically to spur objections to wind turbines. Receiving little historical study, the concealed features of a system’s infrastructure often influence assessments of technologies. By revealing the previously invisible, this essay, which draws on research in history, landscape architecture, geography, and psychology, therefore provides insights for social scientists and policymakers.

PURPA: The Spur to Competition and Utility Restructuring

Abstract While free-market advocates seek to repeal the 1978 law, they should not forget that it helped create a system in which deregulation and competition became possible in the first place.

Assessing U.S. energy policy

told us that we need to use energy more ef1⁄2ciently and derive more of it from domestic sources.1 Since the energy crisis of 1973, U.S. presidents have declared the need to gain independence from unstable foreign energy suppliers and to do so with the same moral fortitude as if 1⁄2ghting a war. Some politicians have proposed massive government programs to achieve the goals of their energy policies; others have sought to unleash freemarket forces that would encourage companies to develop novel sources of energy and motivate consumers to use energy more wisely. Despite more than three decades of such efforts, the United States has not achieved the goal of energy independence. While progress in adopting more energy-ef1⁄2cient technologies has saved billions of dollars throughout the economy, most other indicators of energy autonomy–such as the percentage of imported fuel–demonstrate that the country has become less independent than ever. President Bush acknowledged this fact in his recent State of the Union address, telling Americans that the country has become “addicted to oil” and urging citizens to 1⁄2nd alternative ways to satisfy their energy needs. For those with a sense of history, Bush’s clarion call sounded eerily familiar. Even though energy ef1⁄2ciency has taken root in some sectors of the economy,

Energy Myth Six – The Barriers to New and Innovative Energy Technologies are Primarily Technical: The Case of Distributed Generation (DG)

For almost a century, the electric utility system had been well served by gigantic generating plants that delivered energy to customers through an intricate grid of power lines. But traditional generation technology appeared to reach limits to improvement by the 1970s, hindering companies’ ability to lower the cost of power. Moreover, as consumption grew and as utility firms and independent generating companies put new demands on the grid, especially during the period of utility restructuring that began in the 1990s, the transmission and distribution network became constrained. Parts of the grid became unstable, leading to events such as the cascading Northeast blackout of 2003. Advocates of distributed generation (DG) facilities have suggested a novel approach to the challenges facing the conventional network of power production, transmission, and distribution. Employing small, modular (and sometimes renewable-energy) generators that produce power close to end users, they foresee a host of potential benefits. In contrast to the customary use of a few largescale generators distantly located from load centers, employment of numerous, but small plants can provide power onsite with little reliance on the distribution and transmission grid. DG technologies produce power in capacities that range from a fraction of a kilowatt (kW) to about 100 megawatts (MW); utility-scale generation units have capacities that sometimes reach beyond 1,000MW. Distributed generators can also offer, in many cases, lower-cost electricity and higher power

Condemned to Repeat? IOUs, History and Green Markets

Abstract Seventy-five years ago, America’s utilities dawdled in serving rural customers, and lost out on a sizable potential market. Are they making a similar miscalculation with renewable energy today?

Consensus, Confrontation and Control in the American Electric Utility System: An Interpretative Framework for the Virtual Utility Conference

The turmoil in today’s electric utility system can be understood by examining the changing nature of political and economic power held by various parties. Early in the 20th century, Progressive-era politicians and power company managers came to a consensus that established the structure of the monopoly market and the vertically-integrated industry. With other stakeholders supporting the broad terms of the consensus, utility managers obtained effective control of the system, including domination over supposedly independent regulatory commissions. But the stresses of technological stasis, the 1970s energy crisis, and rise of environmentalism challenged this control. By the early 1990s, regulators, legislators, independent power producers, free-market advocates, and environmental organizations gained status as political “elites” who questioned whether the utility consensus still made sense. As the newly empowered participants in the utility system jockey for influence, a new consensus appears unlikely.

Teaching about values and engineering: the American electric utility industry as a case study

Engineering students are often forced to take courses in the humanities and social sciences. Even so, they rarely learn how to bridge the gap between the technical and nontechnical world. As a result, they usually fail to understand the significance of values in the every-day functioning of their craft. This paper describes a class module designed for the SUCCEED program at Georgia Tech that seeks to remedy this failure. It employs a case study of the American electric utility industry to demonstrate how power company managers-usually trained as engineers-adopted a value system based on growth in electricity consumption and big new technology. For decades, the public and utility regulators shared that value system, but when the energy crisis struck in the 1970s, the public and regulators adopted low-growth and environmentally-conscious values that conflicted with those held by managers. Ultimately, managers lost control over the industry. Todays turmoil in the utility industry can be explained partly by the changing value systems. Telling the story in the course module should alert engineering students to the importance of values and the social fabric as they practice their profession.

Renegotiating the social contract: Toward a new consensus in the electric utility industry

Abstract With the failure in the 1970s of the old “social contract” between utilities and the public, stakeholders are now working toward a new consensus. PURPA, IRP, and the “DSM revolution” have contributed novel approaches toward developing a new social contract and a refashioned electric utility industry.

Power Struggles: Scientific Authority and the Creation of Practical Electricity before Edison by Michael Brian Schiffer (review)

Hirsh reviews Power Struggles: Scientific Authority and the Creation of Practical Electricity before Edison by Michael Brian Schiffer.

Proseminar on Space History, 22 May 1981

The last fifteen years have witnessed the emergence of a new research field for historians of science and technology-the field of space history. Resulting from the growing interest in contemporary history and encouraged especially by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) and the Smithsonian Institution, the field is already marked with a respectable number of books, monographs, dissertations, and works-in-progress that document humankinds recent exploration of space. In order to examine some of the historiographical problems of the field, David DeVorkin and Pamela Mack of the Smithsonians Department of Space Science and Exploration convened a proseminar on space history at the National Air and Space Museum on 22 May 1981. Many of the participants were active in producing works in the history of space technology, such as histories of the development of spacecraft projects. In the process of explaining the course of technological change, these histories usually dealt with external factors such as the institutional organization of NASA, the politics of scientists, engineers, and Congress, and the scientific content of the missions of the spacecraft. Because of the mix of science, technology, and public policy, some people asked whether this activity was history of science or history of technology. While a discussion about this point ensued, some participants saw it as a red herring and not really very significant in light of previous, more general discussions on the differences between history of science and history of technology. The nature of the exploration of space requires sophisticated technological systems as well as scientific instruments. A synthesis of the histories of science and technology seems necessary, at least in my view.