Advertisement

Planning with the Missing Masses: Innovative Wind Power Planning in France

  • Alain Nadaï
Part of the Energy, Climate and the Environment Series book series (ECE)

Abstract

In a recent review of lessons learned about wind power planning, Ellis et al. (2009) pointed out an emphasis on procedural efficiency, on barriers occurring from planning practices, and a downplaying of the qualitative understanding of planning processes. Planning is often seen as the origin or the carrier of the wind power problem (for example, CEC (Commission of European Communities) 2005; Wolsink 2009). This chapter argues that it is worth reversing this perspective. While the ‘planning problem’ results from a widely shared perspective of procedural efficiency, this is often framed in a perspective of ‘technological potential’ — that is, the potential (installed capacity) of a technology that could be achieved in the absence of social obstacles to its deployment. Definitions of technological potentials have been debated (Verbruggen et al. 2010). But beyond these debates, technological potential indicates the potential of an a-social technology, in the sense of a technology, which when deployed, fails to induce friction and leaves the social realm unchanged — in other words, a technological nirvana. The problem, as developments in Actor Network Theory (ANT) have made clear, is that technologies would not exist in such a nirvana. Technologies are assemblages made up of heterogeneous elements: human beings, non-humans, technical artefacts and so on.

Keywords

Planning Process Wind Turbine Wind Power Wind Farm Heterogeneous Network 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Bergek, A., Jacobsson, S., Carlsson, B., Lindmark, S. and Rickne A. (2008) ‘Analysing the functional dynamics of technological F. innovation systems: a scheme of analysis’, Research Policy, 37, 407–429.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Agterbosch, S., Meertens, R. M. and Vermeulen, W. J. V. (2009) ‘The relative importance of social and institutional conditions in the planning of wind power projects’, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 13, 393–405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Aitken, M. (2010b) ‘Why we still don’t understand the social aspects of wind power: a critique of key assumptions within the literature’, Energy Policy, 38:4 (April), 1834–1841.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Aitken, M., McDonald, S. and Strachan, P. (2008) ‘Locating “power” in wind power planning processes: the (not so) influential role of local objectors’, Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 51:6, 777–799.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bijker, W. E. and Law, J. (1992), Shaping Technology/Building Society: Studies in Sociotechnical Change, Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  6. BirdLife International (2005) Position Statement on Wind Farms and Birds, Adopted by the BirdLife Birds and Habitats Directive Task Force on 9 December 2005, http://www.birdlife.org/eu/pdfs/Nature_Directives_material/BHDTF_Position_Wind_farms_and_birds_2005_12_09.pdf, accessed on 15 August 2011.
  7. Callon, M. (1986) ‘Some elements of a sociology of translation: domestication of the scallops and the fishermen of St. Brieuc Bay’, in J. Law (ed.) Power, Action and Belief: A New Sociology of Knowledge, pp-196–233, London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  8. CEC (Commission of European Communities) (2005) ‘The support of electricity from renewable energy sources’, Communication from the Commission, SEC (2005) 157, COM(2005) 627 final, 7 December 2005, Brussels.Google Scholar
  9. Cowell, R. (2010) ‘Wind power, landscape and strategic, spatial planning — the construction of “acceptable locations” in Wales’, Land Use Policy, 27, 222–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Dosi, G. (1982), ‘Technological paradigms and technological trajectories: a suggested interpretation of the determinants of technological change’, Research Policy 11, 147–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Ellis, G., Cowell, R., Warren, C., Strachan, P. and Szarka, J. (2009) ‘Expanding wind power: a problem of planning, or of perception?’ Planning Theory and Practice, 10:4, 523–532CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Gross, C. (2007) ‘Community perspectives of wind energy in Australia: the application of a justice and community fairness framework to increase social acceptance’, Energy Policy, 35:5, 2727–2736.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hughes, T. (1983) Networks of Power: Electrification in Western Society, 1880–1930, Baltimore, MD: John Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Labussière, O. (2007) Le défi esthétique en aménagement: vers une prospective du milieu. Le cas des lignes très haute tension (Lot) et des parcs éoliens (Aveyron et Aude), Thèse de doctorat en géographie et aménagement (dir. de Vincent Berdoulay), Université de Pau et des Pays de l’Adour.Google Scholar
  15. Labussière, O. and Nadaï, A. (2011) ‘Expérimentations cartographiques et devenirs paysagers: la planification éolienne de la Narbonnaise (France, Aude)’, Espaces et Sociétés, 146:3, 71–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Latour, B. (1992) ‘Where are the missing masses? The sociology of a few mundane artefacts’, in W. E. Bijker and J. Law (eds) Shaping Technology/Building Society: Studies in Sociotechnical Change, pp. 225–258, Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  17. Latour, B. (2005) Reassembling the Social — An Introduction to Actor-Network-Theory, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Law, J. (1987) ‘Technology, closure and heterogeneous engineering: the case of the Portuguese expansion’, in Bijker, W. E., Hughes, T. P. and Pinch T. J. (eds) The Social Construction of Technological Systems, New Directions in the Sociology and History of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT PressGoogle Scholar
  19. Law, J. (1992) ‘Notes on the theory of the actor network: ordering, strategy and heterogeneity’, Lancaster: Lancaster University, Centre for Science Studies.Google Scholar
  20. LPO (2001) Suivi ornithologique des Parcs éoliens du plateau de Garrigue Haute (Aude), Rapport Final, Etude réalisée par LPO et ABIES, financée par l’ADEME.Google Scholar
  21. Lundvall, B-Å. (ed.) (1992). National Innovation Systems: Towards a Theory of Innovation and Interactive Learning, London: Pinter.Google Scholar
  22. Minefi (2006) L’éolien français a le vent en poupe. Les résultats de l’enquête 2006 sur l’instruction des demandes de permis de construire, Paris: DGEMP.Google Scholar
  23. Nadaï, A. (2007) ‘“Planning”, “siting” and the local acceptance of wind power: some lessons from the French case’, Energy Policy, 35:5 (May), 2715–2726.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Nadaï, A. and Labussière, O. (2009) ‘Wind power planning in France (Aveyron): from state regulation to local experimentation’, Land Use Policy, 26,3 (July), 744–754.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Nadaï, A. and Labussière, O. (2010a) ‘Birds, turbines and the making of wind power landscape in South France (Aude)’, Landscape Research, 35:2 (April), 209–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Nadaï, A. and Labussière, O. (2010b) ‘Acceptabilité sociale et planification territoriale: éléments de réflexion à partir de l’éolien et du stockage du CO2’, in N. Chaabane and M. Haduong (eds) Le Captage et le stockage du CO2: enjeux techniques et sociaux en France, 45–60, Paris: Quae.Google Scholar
  27. Nadaï, A. and Van der Horst, D. (2010a) ‘Wind power planning, landscapes and publics’ (Guest editorial), Land Use Policy, 27:2 (April), 181–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Nadaï, A. and Van der Horst, D. (2010b) ‘Landscapes of energies’ (Guest editorial), Special Issue of Landscape Research, 35:2 (April), 143–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Nadaï, A., Krauss W., Afonso, A. I., Dracklé, D., Hinkelbein, O., Labussière, O. and Mendes, C. (2010) ‘El paisaje y la transition energética: comparando la aparición de paisajes de energía eólica en Francia, Alemania y Portugal’, Nymbus, 25–26, 155–173.Google Scholar
  30. Nelson, R. (ed.) (1993) National Innovation Systems. A Comparative Analysis, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  31. Observ’er (2010) Le Baromètre 2010 des énergies renouvelables électriques en France, Observ’er: Paris, 8, at http.www.energies-renouvelables.org.Google Scholar
  32. PNRGC (2007) Zone de Développement de l’éolien dans le PNR des Grands Causses, Cahier des charges précisant les modalités du chapitre relatif à l’étude patrimoniale et paysagère du dossier de Z.D.E., Parc Naturel régional des Grands Causses: Millau.Google Scholar
  33. Préfecture de l’Aveyron (2005) Réflexion cadre pour un développement de l’énergie éolienne en Aveyron, Avril.Google Scholar
  34. PNRNM (2003) Charte du Développement Eolien — Projet de Parc Naturel Régional de la Narbonnaise en Méditerranée (3 cahiers), Parc Naturel Régional de la Narbonnaise, en Méditerranée, November, at http://www.parc-naturel-narbonnaise.fr/en_actions/maitrise_de_l_energie_et_energies_renouvelables/charte_eolienne.
  35. RTE (2007) Bilan prévisionnel de l’équilibre de l’offre et de la demande d’électricité en France — Edition 2007, Gestionnaire du Réseau de Transport d’Electricité, Paris, 118.Google Scholar
  36. Selman, P. (2010) ‘Learning to love the landscapes of carbon-neutrality’, Landscape Research, 35:2, 157–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Shove, E. (1998) ‘Gaps, barriers and conceptual chasms: theories of technology transfer and energy in buildings’, Energy Policy, 26:15, 1105–1112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Suchman, L. A. (1988) ‘Representing practice in cognitive science’, Human Studies, 11, 305–325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Verbruggen, A., Fischedick, M., Moomaw, M., Weir, T., Nadaï, A., Nilsson, L. J., Nyboer, J., and Sathaye, J. (2010) ‘Renewable energy costs, potentials, barriers: conceptual issues’, Energy Policy, 38:2 (February), 850–861.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Waterton, C. (2003) ‘Performing the classification of nature’, Sociological Review, 52, 111–29.Google Scholar
  41. Wolsink, M. (2009) ‘Planning: problem “carrier” or problem “source”?’, Planning Theory and Practice, 10:4, 539–543.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Alain Nadaï 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Alain Nadaï

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations