A Stakeholder-Grounded Evaluation of the Seven Functions Model of Technological Innovation Systems Theory in UK Offshore Wind and Marine Renewables
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
ALDERSEY-WILLIAMS, J. 2020. A stakeholder-grounded evaluation of the seven functions model of technological innovation systems theory in UK offshore wind and marine renewables. Robert Gordon University [online], PhD thesis. Available from: https://openair.rgu.ac.uk A stakeholder-grounded evaluation of the seven functions model of technological innovation systems theory in UK offshore wind and marine renewables. ALDERSEY-WILLIAMS, J. 2020 The author of this thesis retains the right to be identified as such on any occasion in which content from this thesis is referenced or re-used. The licence under which this thesis is distributed applies to the text and any original images only – re-use of any third-party content must still be cleared with the original copyright holder. Redaction notice: The original thesis document included copies of several published papers in Appendix 3. For copyright reasons, the published text of one of these papers has been swapped with the accepted version, and the text of another paper has been removed entirely. The edits have been clearly indicated with pages inserted by repository staff, which include links for readers to access the published texts. This document was downloaded from https://openair.rgu.ac.uk A STAKEHOLDER-GROUNDED EVALUATION OF THE “SEVEN FUNCTIONS” MODEL OF TECHNOLOGICAL INNOVATION SYSTEMS THEORY IN UK OFFSHORE WIND AND MARINE RENEWABLES JOHN ALDERSEY-WILLIAMS PhD FEBRUARY 2020 A STAKEHOLDER-GROUNDED EVALUATION OF THE “SEVEN FUNCTIONS” MODEL OF TECHNOLOGICAL INNOVATION SYSTEMS THEORY IN UK OFFSHORE WIND AND MARINE RENEWABLES JOHN ALDERSEY-WILLIAMS A thesis submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements of the Robert Gordon University for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy This research programme was carried out in collaboration with Redfield Consulting Limited February 2020 Acknowledgements This PhD has relied on the critical support of many. And critical here means both “of decisive importance with respect to the outcome” and “involving skilful judgment as to truth, merit, etc.” Starting with early inspirations in the area of renewable energy and decarbonisation, I must pay tribute to Amory Lovins, whom I remember speaking at the Royal Institute for International Affairs at Chatham House in the late 1980s and whose clarity of vision and expression laid a foundation for my interest in this area. Since 2001, when I began to make a living in the field of renewable energy, there have been a number of individuals who have inspired and educated. They include Tom Delay, Peter Shortt and Cath Bremner of the Carbon Trust, Andrew Mill, John Griffiths and Neil Kermode of the European Marine Energy Centre, Benj Sykes of Ørsted and the Carbon Trust and Allan MacAskill of Talisman Energy, SeaEnergy PLC and Floating Energy plc. I’d like to record my thanks to all of them. In the academic field, another group of individuals have provided guidance, encouragement and a valuable sounding board. They include Matt Hannon and Tim Rubert at Strathclyde University, Andy MacGillivray (now with Wood plc), a number of the participants at the Second International Conference on Energy Research and Social Science held in Phoenix in 2019, and research colleagues and staff at Robert Gordon University, especially including Kgomotse Monare, April Cuffy, Martyn Gordon, Alison Orellana and Dorothy McDonald. Rob Jones of the sadly still notional Insch Sustainability Institute also provided useful input and review – with his help, I learned to operationalise the heuristic. My supervisors, Professor Peter Strachan and Dr Ian Broadbent of RGU enthusiastically bought into this project and have been essential in helping to develop its theoretical roots and practical expression. i Given the anonymised nature of the survey responses, I am not able to list the names of interviewees, but it is beyond question that without their assistance, this work would not have been possible. I thank them for their time, insight and generosity. I must thank Redfield Consulting Limited, which generously sponsored this research. I must also recognise the continuing support of friends and family, many of whom impressively and convincingly feigned interest. Natasha, I’m looking forward to getting those tattoos. Finally, and most importantly, thanks to Judith, Ellie and Meriel who tolerated and understood my strange monomania during this phase of our lives: it is to them that I dedicate this thesis. I can’t imagine they’ll be terribly thrilled. ii Abstract Technological Innovation Systems theory provides a useful framework with which to consider energy transitions. The “seven functions” framework allows researchers to examine the progress of emergence of new technologies but has not hitherto been tested for completeness and validity with stakeholders in an energy transition. The emergence of offshore wind over the last 20 years in the UK has been a significant part of the UK’s energy decarbonisation transition, and has provided the industrial roots for this research. The research has critically evaluated the “seven functions” model of TIS with stakeholders in the offshore renewable energy sector in the UK, with the aim of assessing whether each of the seven functions is necessary, and whether together they are sufficient to explain the development of a TIS. This thesis has reviewed the literature to find that no canonical inventory of seven functions exists, and it develops one. Using interviews with more than 30 influential participants in the offshore renewables sector, including project and technology developers, policy makers, supply chain, support organisations and other stakeholders, the thesis examines whether the seven functions provide a “necessary and sufficient” framework to characterise the emergence of offshore wind and marine renewables (tidal stream and wave) in the UK since 2000. The research supports the seven existing functions, and finds evidence for a new function, which is defined as “relative value potential”. RVP considers the potential or actual value offered by an emergent technology, to consider whether it can demonstrate a roadmap to achieving an unsupported viability. iii sTIS is far from unique in theories for understanding socio-technical transitions. This thesis also finds that the proposed new function offers some scope for a reconciliation of TIS and another leading theory in this space – Multi-Level Perspective. The thesis concludes by eliciting learnings from the emergence of offshore wind for the benefit of tidal stream and wave energy developers. Key words: transition theory, TIS, functions, offshore wind, marine renewables, validity iv Table of Contents 1 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................ 1 1.1 RESEARCH AIMS ........................................................................................................................ 1 1.2 THE IMPORTANCE OF ENERGY ....................................................................................................... 1 1.3 ENERGY TRANSITIONS ................................................................................................................. 3 1.3.1 PRE-INDUSTRIAL TO INDUSTRIAL ....................................................................................................... 3 1.3.2 THE FIRST INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION – COAL ........................................................................................ 3 1.3.3 THE TRANSITION TO OIL ................................................................................................................... 4 1.3.4 THE ROLE OF ELECTRICITY ................................................................................................................. 4 1.3.5 A MORE DIVERSE PICTURE ................................................................................................................ 6 1.4 THE DECARBONISATION TRANSITION .............................................................................................. 6 1.4.1 GREENHOUSE GASES AND CLIMATE CHANGE ........................................................................................ 6 1.4.2 CONSENSUS EMERGES ..................................................................................................................... 8 1.4.3 STEPS TO IMPLEMENTATION ............................................................................................................. 8 1.5 UK AND THE DECARBONISATION TRANSITION .................................................................................. 9 1.6 THE UK ENERGY “QUADRILEMMA” ............................................................................................. 10 1.6.1 DECARBONISATION AND EMISSIONS TARGETS .................................................................................... 10 1.6.2 SECURITY OF SUPPLY ..................................................................................................................... 10 1.6.3 COST OF ENERGY .......................................................................................................................... 10 1.6.4 LOCAL CONTENT AND GROSS VALUE ADDED ..................................................................................... 11 1.7 THE DEVELOPMENT OF OFFSHORE RENEWABLES IN THE UK ............................................................... 11 1.7.1 POLITICAL FRAMEWORK ......................................................................................................... 12 1.7.2 FINANCIAL