The construction of technology and place: Concentrating solar power conflicts in the United States

Abstract There is sufficient space in the United States to site large-scale renewable energy technologies, yet siting decisions are often highly contentious with conflicting land-use values. This paper examines conflicts surrounding large-scale solar power siting through the lens of place-making and the co-shaping of place and technology. It traces the place-based conflicts over the Ivanpah solar power plant in California over five years, from designed to operational, in order to understand the evolving public engagement process in issues of place. Place-making can aid in understanding conflicts over renewable energy siting by interpreting stakeholder values. Through the place-making process, both the place and technology were shaped but could only be bent so far until they became something else entirely, making the negotiation of trade-offs difficult and the object of the negotiation a moving target. Moving forward, the challenge should be addressed that the technology and place must be sufficiently concrete to engage the public in siting decisions but accomplished early enough to avoid polarization and to facilitate mutual accommodation. Innovative forms of place-based participation are needed that would help citizens to debate the properties and trade-offs of energy systems in constructive ways downstream without damaging or breaking trust.

[1]  Patrick Devine-Wright,et al.  Renewable Energy and the Public : From NIMBY to Participation , 2011 .

[2]  R. Phadke Defending Place in the Google Earth Age , 2010 .

[3]  L. Winner The Whale and the Reactor , 2020 .

[4]  G. Ottinger Changing Knowledge, Local Knowledge, and Knowledge Gaps , 2013 .

[5]  M. Augé,et al.  Non-Places: An Introduction to Supermodernity , 2009 .

[6]  Chapter 6 Noninstrumental Reasoning over Sacred Values: An Indonesian Case Study , 2009 .

[7]  B. Sovacool What Are We Doing Here? Analyzing Fifteen Years of Energy Scholarship and Proposing a Social Science Research Agenda , 2014 .

[8]  Scott Atran,et al.  Reframing Sacred Values , 2008 .

[9]  D. Medin,et al.  Sacred bounds on rational resolution of violent political conflict , 2007, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[10]  T. Cresswell,et al.  Place: A Short Introduction , 2012 .

[11]  T. Gieryn,et al.  A Space for Place in Sociology , 2000 .

[12]  Maarten Wolsink,et al.  Invalid theory impedes our understanding: A critique on the persistence of the language of NIMBY , 2006 .

[13]  Steven A. Moore Technology, Place, and the Nonmodern Thesis , 2001 .

[14]  T. P. Hughes,et al.  The Social Construction of Technological Systems: New Directions in the Sociology and History of Technology , 1989 .

[15]  Jeffrey C. Joe,et al.  Support for solar energy: Examining sense of place and utility-scale development in California , 2014 .

[16]  A. Stirling Transforming power: Social science and the politics of energy choices , 2014 .

[17]  D. Horst NIMBY or not? Exploring the relevance of location and the politics of voiced opinions in renewable energy siting controversies , 2007 .

[18]  Willard McCarty,et al.  Modeling: A Study in Words and Meanings , 2007 .

[19]  Frank N. Laird,et al.  Against Transitions? Uncovering Conflicts in Changing Energy Systems , 2013 .

[20]  R. Phadke,et al.  Steel forests or smoke stacks: the politics of visualisation in the Cape Wind controversy , 2010 .

[21]  C. M. Hays Placing Nature(s) on Safari , 2012 .