Energy Transitions, Citizen Decisions, and the Social Basis for Technological Transformation: The Western North Carolina Renewable Energy Initiative

I'd bet a substantial sum--for me anything over a hundred bucks--that 99% or more of Americans could not identify the source of the following quotation.

"I'd put my money on the sun and solar energy. What a source of power! I hope we don't have to wait until oil and coal run out before we tackle that."

Until relatively recently, I would have been among the vast majority who would not have a clue. I might have selected Amory Lovins, Helen Caldicott, Barry Commoner, or any of another dozen or so recent proponents of alternative energy, sustainable living, and a less centralized and heavily capitalized existence. And I would have gotten it wrong again and again.

Thomas Alva Edison expressed this opinion eight decades ago, just before he died. A full understanding of the implications of this--that the 'father' of electrical living would have banked on renewable sources--is critically important for a clear comprehension of several critical matters in relation to what the citizens and communities of the United States are going to have to do to remain viable in a century of inevitable transition. In "Current Thinking," a lovely little 2007 article by Heather Rogers in the New York Times Sunday Magazine, readers can access a brief and highly intelligent introduction to these implications.

Basically, three points are central to citizen/consumer/human participation in any dialog or other transformative process about energy:

• No technology arises or gains ascendancy strictly as a result of 'efficiency' or other ways of stating 'superiority' alone.


• Technical policy decisions have not yet generally resulted primarily from democratic processes.


• Only by 'skilling up' can citizens have any input, other than 'rubber stamping' or Luddite resistance, into the policy making process.

Today's profile of the Western North Carolina Renewable Energy Initiative (WNC-REI) reinforces these points. Marcus Taylor, a voluble and articulate youngster who is a researcher, employee, and general roustabout at WNC-REI's offices at Appalachian State University in Boone, gave me a virtual tour of WNC-REI's background and mission, and in the process of learning about this, I also came to understand more deeply than I had before the points that Heather Rogers had developed in her NYT piece.

ASU's campus exemplifies a general social commitment to renewable energy, to the whole idea of sustainability. The young Mr. Taylor indicated that, in a student led campaign in 2004, App-State voted a five dollar student fee to fund demonstrable examples of alternative energy, such as a demonstration wind turbine that now produces a hundred kilowatts whenever the blades are turning at peak performance, and progressively less at lower wind speeds, on a 121 foot tower; moreover, the site itself has become a popular touring attraction--"it's basically like a museum," said Taylor, the Small Wind Research and Demonstration Site, that is a primary part of the work that he does.

This climate of social affirmation of decentralized, locally controlled, and sustainable energy, for all of which ASU has exhibited decades of support, led the university to form the Appalachian Energy Center in 2001. WNC-REI grew out of that, currently defining a primary role as annual series of workshops on renewable and sustainable energy. According to Marcus Taylor, WNC-REI's ongoing, day-to-day work now, "and for the foreseeable future" focuses on wind, operating from the offices of North Carolina Wind Energy at ASU, which includes the Small Wind Initiative which is Taylor's particular bailiwick.

All of this effort accurately reflect a groundswell of popular enthusiasm for alternative means of powering ourselves, for renewable energy, and more fundamentally, for a transformation of our capital-intensive, highly centralized economy to a community-based, participatory, sustainable conception of how we relate to ourselves and our environs. Energy sits at the core of this hoped for transformation.

But utilities and business remain skeptical, or even abusively dismissive, of such visions. One can document this skepticism copiously, but since 'actions speak louder than words,' the easiest way to prove this point is to show that, in N.C., for example, where Duke Energy is the predominant electricity provider, investment in fossil fuel and nuclear dwarfs any interest in renewable energy by a ratio of more than a thousand to one.

For the vast majority of the citizenry presently uninvolved in this controversy, data is available to support the superiority of either perspective about how we should approach our energy future. What do we do? This is a political choice.

And presently, despite the nominal notion that America is history's greatest democracy, the political choices about these matters have little or no connection to majority rule. These decisions do not emanate from efficiency, nor from any 'objective' determination of what the empirical parameters of decision making are, but from political economic forces. As Taylor makes the point, in both a scholarly and historical way, "all energy is subsidized", and the winning policy formulation reveals what forces have overarching influence, or even control, of the decision making process.

Thus, DOE's 'Wind Powering America' program helps to fund WNC-REI to the tune of $50,000, in the form of a one year grant that the recipients must apply for annually. Duke Energy receives almost a blank check, in the form of billions of bucks in loan guarantees for its nuclear programs.

In a nutshell, science does not determine policy; superiority does not lead, ineluctably, to whatever technology that politicians select. Clearly then, as well, democracy is not at work here. An Accenture world wide survey found that "outright support" for nuclear stood, more or less uniformly, at just under 30%. A study from Yale found "overwhelming" backing for renewable energy among the public--90% support building more solar power facilities; 87% support expanded wind farms; 86% want increased funding for renewable energy research.

Similarly, even though a substantial majority of Western North Carolina's citizens---numbers congruent with the Yale study in many cases, according to the surveys that were at the heart of Taylor's undergrad thesis--strongly endorse wind and other solar-based energy sources, he was writing his paper in the midst of an attack on wind-siting led by WNC senators who feared harming tourism even though extensive evidence indicates that the presence of windmills can actually attract tourists.

And in this particular case, the majority ruled. The initiative did not pass in the legislature, and the grassroots efforts of such members of "The Wind Working Group" as Blue Ridge Environmental Defense League, North Carolina Safe Energy Alliance, and the Canary Coalition helped turn the tide, but no policy has followed that parallels this massive popular endorsement of Renewable Energy as the best direction for society to take.

Moreover, with the exception of W.Va., which has installed 330MW of wind capacity, (and to a lesser extent, this is true of Tennessee) no Appalachian state has evinced the commitment for substantial development of renewable technology. This is important because wind and other solar options are richly available regionally, yet almost no emphasis on such resources as a priority of energy policy has been forthcoming.

The issue is at least in part one of knowledge and capacity. This is one reason that the mission of both WNC-REI and most of the 'Small Wind' work that Taylor does includes education, outreach, and technical assistance. Examples of the vast documentation of this need for more community capacity abound; perhaps the monumental Accenture study's findings would serve here. "Only about one-quarter (28 percent) of respondents said they are either well or very well informed about their country's strategy regarding nuclear power, with nearly three-quarters of respondents (72 percent) claiming to be not well informed or not informed at all." Over 80% want more information.

Dire consequences will result from this ignorance, if renewables turn out to be essential, as much of Europe and Asia have created clear and cohesive policies in favor of renewable energy. Last year, for instance, according to Taylor,

"in a single year, China didn't just surpass our wind energy increases in installed wind capacity, they doubled what they're producing as a nation."

The U.S. is still ahead , but this level of commitment is lacking.

Taylor relies on a down-to-earth empiricism to address issues such as these, which revolve around economic and competitive facts to a large extent. He is not a polyanna proponent of solar methodologies. At ASU, he acknowledges that the campus turbine won't pay for itself. Wind, and often other solar-based alternatives like photovoltaic and hydroelectric, are 'very site specific.' Tech issues like dealing with variable wind speeds will continue to undercut many otherwise eager owner's and communities' desire to employ these approaches, even though, long term "these problems will be solved," Taylor says.

And in general, he is adamant about the potential in the field. "I repeat, all energy is subsidized; it's really a question of choice about how we spend our dollars." At least a significant chunk of N.C.'s overall energy needs, "and maybe 100% of the supply for many communities and property owners" could easily and quickly come from wind sources if a supportive policy environment was present. "Of course, 'return on investment' is the key factor," but Taylor takes that into account.

This passionate, knowledgeable, and articulate young fellow warns that, lacking the policy commitments that so far have disconnected from the will of the majority, "vital time will be lost" in allowing our communities, and our nation, to manage a key transition in energy usage that, whether we like it or not, is coming at us like a freight train. Taylor mentions how America overtook the Soviets in space after Sputnik and the way that Silicon Valley surpassed the Japanese leadership in microchips, exemplifying that American ingenuity can catch up and display leadership again in these areas.

Is this a basis for optimism? After all, after getting our butt kicked, I point out, the U.S. has often responded to such a wake up call. "Not at all," responds Taylor,

"the kick in the pants has already happened, has been happening for years, and it's getting worse. We still don't have a strong policy,"

and in some cases we don't have any policy.

"Without prioritizing government investment and other types of tangible backing, technological leadership is inconceivable."

In every possible technological way--an anemometer loan program that lets a potential user borrow such devices for up to a year, free wind surveys, siting and design assistance for communities and individuals, and much more--WNC-REi and its 'small wind initiative' advance NC's potential wind use. In many ways--through outreach, through the provision of clear documentation and research that evidences the excellence and present cost effectiveness of wind and renewable energy sources, WNC-REI and the 'small wind' programs improve the prospects for NC wind utilisation.

But something is awry. Progress of other than minimal variety is spotty. Little in the way of tangible gains in installed energy capacity has occurred, despite public fervor and obvious benefits from enhancing such expansion.

An aversion to complaint-and-theory based investigation, and a desire to do something tangible got Taylor into this field. So he's decidedly not complaining. Within the limits of what they can do under the rubric currently prevailing, Taylor and the Small Wind Initiative director Dr. Dennis Scanlin are doing what they can. WNC-REI, and ASU's programmatic dedication to appropriate technology are making a positive difference.

To make the necessary knowledge more accessible to citizens than a $750 workshop, however ($375 for students), to get more investment into communities that desperately need more local and job-producing energy choices, to make energy policy and development more congruent with democratic principles and the desires of the majority of citizens, some enhancement of community involvement and community power has to occur. And that is outside the purview of all the good work taking place at App State. That is the job of folks who are reading this, and the other denizens of progress, such as Justmeans folks generally.

Otherwise, policy and power will lead to decision making processes, and energy selections, that have little or nothing to do with what citizens want. Perhaps more important than an awareness of the political sources of science, the lack of demo policy making, and the lack of citizen capacity and knowledge are the critical issues that are the key to finding our way forward in these areas.

Maybe we need to look at the past, and determine why things so often turn out against the wishes of the people, so often are not of help to the people, and have little to offer for the people. When we ponder that Edison wanted solar so badly that he built model homes that would be completely self sustaining in terms of electrical needs, heating, and cooling, but that the "conglomerates struggling to control the nascent energy sector regarded ... a world of independence... as precisely the problem, ... a nightmare," a fourth core capacity is also clearly key to citizen involvement and the community friendly energy policy that accompanies democratic decision making.

We must study the social and political aspects of technology in a historical way as we build a movement for transformation.

Photo credits:
Thomas Edison, public domain
Xinjiang Wind Power, Chris Lim
Duke Energy Center, Justin Cozart
Anenometer, public domain