Editorial: Rethinking Green Energy Development: Cognitive Biases
Quande Qin,Lin Zhang,Xunpeng Shi,Bangzhu Zhu
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fenrg.2022.895127
IF: 3.4
2022-01-01
Frontiers in Energy Research
Abstract:Green energy development is a key strategy during the energy transition which is a process of large-scale socio-technological change (Geels, 2014). Due to the technical complexity and social reflexivity of the energy system (Geels, 2002; Loorbach, 2010), cognitive biases towards the green energy system is inevitable. Cognitive biases pose great challenges to achieve consensus for contemporary policy making. One effective step for addressing this challenge, as the sociotechnological theorists have suggested, is to explore and exhibit the multiplicity of value, the complexity of the socio-technological system, and the reflexivity of such system as well (Rip and Kemp, 1998; Coglianese et al., 1999; Rotmans et al., 2001; Kemp et al., 2007). Motivated by this, this special issue includes a collection of nine studies from researchers with distinctive backgrounds on the issue of green energy. Four papers in this issue have shed important light on the multiplicity of values. Specifically, Hu et al. suggest how difficult it is to simultaneously account and balance the economic value and the environmental impacts of shale gas extraction. Shale gas has been recognized as a type of unconventional energy that somehow can enlarge the possibility of relying on fossil fuels. Similarly, Lin et al. address the challenges on integrating both economic value and green trust during the transition from an existing product to a disruptive green product. Fan et al. highlight that the public evaluation on China’s energy storage projects have multiple dimensions. Li et al. have developed an acceptance model by capturing various aspects of an individual’s belief. They used this model to reveal the public attitude toward the commercial fleet of methanol vehicles in China. The energy system is complex that any analysis on the performance of a specific technical tool in the green energy domain could be. As such, researchers should expand the analytic scope when approaching problems related to green energy. However, it could also be in vain to conduct an analysis that covers the entire energy system. In other words, the analysis on energy system should find a “midway” between specificity and abstraction. In this regard, Xue et al., Zhang and Gu, Guo et al. and Chen et al. are good examples. The analytic scopes of these studies are energy consuming sectors, social capital, digital finance, and information technology investment, respectively. Those terms refer to either a manageable sub-sector (Xue et al.) or a controllable “fluid” that runs throughout the energy system (Zhang and Gu, Guo et al. and Chen et al.). To overcome cognitive biases also means to have more attention paid to the invisible depth. Social capital, digital finance and information technology investment are invisible relative to engineering projects. Each of these invisible elements, however, has profound impact on the landscape of the entire energy system. The above studies also have methodological implications on how to quantitatively approach a complex social-technological system. Xue et al. have applied a novel slack-based data envelopment analysis, Edited and reviewed by: Simone Bastianoni, University of Siena, Italy