Energy and the Social Sciences

An Examination of Research Needs

Hans H. Landsberg, John J. Schanz, Jr., Sam H. Schurr, Grant P. Thompson

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2016
• eBook ISBN: 9781317355991
• Topic: Biological Sciences
• Subtopic: Ecology
• Index: Biological Sciences

Originally published in 1974, this report dwells on the problems of meeting global energy demands and the time, effort and knowledge needed to research new energy methods. With rising costs, the uncertainty of supply from the Middle East and concern over the environmental impact of energy products, Energy and the Social Sciences outlines the intense need for well-designed research. This title will be of interest to students of Environmental Studies.

Chapter I

INTRODUCTION

The Need for Research

Project Objectives

The Procedure

Limitations

Organization of the Report

RFF and Energy R&D

Chapter I

INTRODUCTION

The Need for Research

In the past several years a combination of problems has created a situation often referred to as an “energy crisis.” Among the many contributors to the nation’s energy-associated problems are those related to unrelenting growth of energy use, here and abroad; a multitude of specific public policies seeking to affect each segment of this vast industry, and the necessity for placing some degree of environmental constraint upon energy use and supply. As the amount of material which must be dealt with to supply energy needs increases, problems which were initially of little importance become of major significance.

In this period of rapid change and rather drastic alteration in our manner of dealing with energy needs, gaps in our detailed understanding of the functioning of our energy system have become increasingly apparent. If these inadequacies were primarily of academic interest perhaps we could wait for the normal research processes to deal with them in due course. Unfortunately, the current threat to the nation’s economic and environmental welfare and its security of supplies does not permit us to accept a casual attitude about meeting these research needs, especially as we are on the verge of committing sums of money to energy research that will exceed many-fold the level of past expenditures.

At present, there exists no coordinated national energy policy, nor a coherent research plan capable of providing perspective over the entire energy system. The knowledge which would derive from such research is essential if a national energy strategy is to be developed. This report is concerned with providing a program that will help fill at least a part of that knowledge gap.

Citing the need for more research is not to say that without it we shall never be in a position to adopt a more rational energy policy. Lack of data or of analytical work and recommendations is not nearly as drastic as might be concluded from the nation’s failure to establish something that could be called a “national energy policy.” Perhaps what is needed to give the conventional call for “more research” a more appealing ring is a policy-making environment that encourages scholarly work by drawing on it. By revealing the need for studies as basis for highly practical decisions affecting our daily routines the events of 1973 may have taken us a long step in that direction.

Project Objectives

The National Science Foundation, which plays a prominent part in the energy research effort, both as a source of funding and in its advisory role to the executive branch of the government, in late 1972 requested Resources for the Future to draw upon its past experience in social science and energy research and provide guidance in the area of energy systems research needs. The project subsequently proposed required as a first step the identification of those areas of knowledge not directly related to hardware which would be of immediate importance in considering policies affecting energy production, conversion, and use as a part of a system. Following this identification process, RFF would then proceed to develop a detailed research plan which would encompass as many of these areas as feasible. This task, RFF agreed, was directed toward the entire research community and not to be restricted to activities which would involve NSF directly, as provider of funds or policy adviser.

This publication presents the research recommendations that have been developed over the period from March through September 1973. The report is addressed almost exclusively to two specific audiences–those who will be involved over the next few years in funding research efforts designed to lead to improved national energy policy and those members of the research community who will undertake the various research programs directed toward that end. We hope that in this report the decision-makers in industry, government, and foundations who wish to sponsor work on policy, economic, institutions, and energy system analysis will find some stimulation in their search for an answer to the question, “Where are there needs for my research dollars?” For the researcher, we would hope to identify areas of fruitful research to assist him in planning his personal research objectives.

A dual audience and elaboration of rather specific goals required three objectives to be encompassed in the design of the papers and in the preparation of the report. First, the final report needed to contain descriptive information concerning each research area and an appraisal of the potential significance of the research for the guidance of the non-specialist faced with funding commitments. Second, for the researcher himself, we felt obliged to expose in brief fashion our perspective concerning the state-of-the-art in the various areas and the rationale for the projects chosen. Finally, although time horizon of the research proposed did not need to be limited, the time span over which the proposed research would be conducted could not be left open-ended. The authors of the papers presented in Chapter IV consequently directed their attention toward research that would be closely connected with work recently completed or now under way in the sense of being undertaken within the next two or three years. Research needs beyond that time will naturally reflect both the research completed in the interim as well as the changing pattern of national energy problems. These cannot be foreseen with sufficient accuracy to permit making recommendations as to specific research recommendations very far into the future.

It is appropriate to distinguish between energy “studies” and energy “research.” The abundance of information, such as the Senate work under Resolution S.45, that is flowing from congressional committees and other investigative groups serves to more than meet the current need for reports and commentary on the energy situation. It is our expectation that the proposals presented here will stimulate truly original research rather than trigger just another round of energy “studies.” Simultaneously, there has been an intentional effort to avoid a bias toward highly theoretical work that would have limited short-term applications to meeting current energy policy needs.

The Procedure

Thirteen papers were commissioned in the areas selected for inclusion in the project. The authors, selected for their expertise, were requested to prepare manuscripts which would: review the current status of research in their respective areas, present a general discussion of research needed to be undertaken next, translate this need into specific research projects to be undertaken by individuals or teams of investigators, estimate the magnitude of the effort required, and indicate the usefulness of the research in the solution of contemporary energy problems. The authors were encouraged to refine their ideas in sufficient detail to describe any particular research need in a manner that would lead easily toward developing a detailed research proposal in a relatively short time. This required the authors to attempt to arrive at a point falling somewhere between stating broad generalities about research and actually writing a fundable proposal for the research itself.

Initial outlines were reviewed in an authors’ workshop. Concurrently, through the efforts of the Environmental Law Institute and an environmentalists’ workshop arranged by the Institute, suggestions, reactions, and papers were sought from environmentalists to attempt to weave their viewpoints and needs into the fabric of the research plan. Three papers were commissioned in this area. When completed, the first-draft manuscripts were reviewed, in a third workshop, by research specialists, industrial and governmental representatives, and project-team members. A draft of the final report was prepared with the help of a small group drawn primarily from participants in the third workshop. Members of this group were: Joseph Bell, Gerald Garvey, Hans Landsberg, Almarin Phillips, John Schanz, Sam Schurr, Thomas Stoel, Edward Strohbehn, and Frederick Wells. The final step was to circulate the draft report for review to a number of individuals representing a wide spectrum of energy research viewpoints, most of whom had not previously participated in the undertaking.

Limitations

The term “energy-systems” in the context of the research proposed connotes the social and economic framework within which we deal with energy rather than the physical system for energy production and use. Hardware, and the research related to it, are of importance only as they interact with or have impacts upon such things as price incentives or conservation goals. Obviously it is impossible to discuss either economics or policies as they relate to energy conservation, for example, without frequent reference to “hardware” and “hardware research.” But this is always incidental to the main focus of the research need.

While the various kinds of research proposed fall within the broad domain of the social scientist, there was no intent to develop a comprehensive research plan for all of the non-technical disciplines and research specialities that are capable of contributing to better national energy management: e.g., psychology, sociology, communications, labor-management relations, etc. We do not claim exhaustiveness in this respect and fully recognize that even within the areas chosen there are natural limitations imposed by the breadth of experience and knowledge possessed by the project participants, and by the time dimension imposed on the exercise. A similar planning effort in any social science research area that is not adequately reflected in the research plan developed in this study would be most useful. Moreover, we wish to emphasize the continuing value of research ideas which stem from the individual’s own enterprise; this often flourishes best in an “unstructured” research environment. This study is not meant to supplant this traditional approach to research planning.

One of the hazards of R&D agenda is that their compilers fill them with all the ideas they can think up but find it much harder to isolate recommended projects in the context of past and ongoing research. Re-inventing the wheel is not wholly absent from the present effort either, and no systematic effort was made to inventory in great detail past and existing research. However, authors chosen were sufficiently at home in their respective fields for us to rely upon their general awareness of activity. To become overly concerned with precise linkage to existing research and to ferret out every possible instance of duplication or redundancy would require more effort than was warranted by the purpose of the study. The appropriate occasion to expend effort on this point is at the time of proposal-writing and funding for a specific research project. To the extent that this report serves as a guide to future research, those undertaking and those funding it will be well advised not only to go to the particulars of Chapter IV, (and, for work especially desired by environmentalists to Chapter V) but to carry forward the relevant portions thereof to the point where previous research leaves off and their own begins, at the time of funding.

Since no constraints based upon available funds and manpower were imposed upon the authors, the aggregate effort required to implement the total research plan, or separate elements within it, could easily exceed our national capabilities, particularly in the short run. Consequently, while not asked to limit their suggestions, the authors were asked where possible to give some indication of manpower needs and relative priorities.

Organization of the Report

Chapter II, “The Changing Energy Scene” is a staff-written paper that briefly lays out the current situation and outlook as introductory background to the rest of the report.

Chapter III, also staff-written, is a summary of the research needs developed by the authors of the detailed papers presented in the main body of the report–Chapters IV and V.

Chapter IV consists of thirteen commissioned papers of authors who have considered the needs for energy research in the area of the social sciences.

Chapter V consists of three commissioned papers reflecting the views of a cross-section of environmentalists. Many environmental problems are dealt with in Chapter IV, others are discussed within a social-science framework–largely economic. In V the approach is from ecological and other non-economic standpoints.

Problems of organization were particularly thorny in Chapter IV, where the interlocking of the various research areas led to unavoidable overlaps and duplications, e.g., repetitive calls for efforts to develop an adequate data base, energy models, or measures of elasticity. Although obvious areas of duplication were eliminated, there was no attempt to publish a monolithic report. This publication is the output of a group effort and thus possesses all of the characteristics one would normally expect to find.

As is often true in attempts to categorize and structure a field, the organization chosen merely offers a workable scheme – no doubt one of several that come to mind. Many specific items of research could be accommodated under one heading or the other. To illustrate, effluent fees are associated with environmental trade-offs; they represent a specific type of incentive; they could be discussed in connection with policy and institutions, or they might be an example of how to achieve conservation in use. Modeling is a pervasive subject, relating to international topics as much as to capital needs, and perhaps to other topics. The solution here has been to assign each R&D topic to one group only, but not to bar discussion in another context when clarity or completeness so dictate.

The essays of Chapter IV look at the energy field in these principal ways: (1) techniques for describing the system and evolving models that may have predictive value; (2) increased understanding of the circumstances under which energy is produced and supplied; (3) increased understanding of conditions associated with and underlying consumption of energy; and (4) options and mechanisms for reconciling energy use with other societal objectives or aspirations.

The essay on projections and modeling, both of which stress the fundamental problem of data base, form a unit that has common feat...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Original Copyright Page
• Table of Contents
• Preface (May 1974)
• Preface (October 1973)
• Chapter I. Introduction
• Chapter II. The Changing Energy Scene
• Chapter III. Research Needs in Energy Systems—A Staff Report
• Chapter IV. Commissioned Essays on Research Needs
• Chapter V. Environmentalists Look at Energy Research Needs
• Appendices