Chapter 29 Engineering Innovation: Energy, Policy, and the Role of Engineering

 

Abstract

The abstract discusses the United States' approach to energy innovation, particularly in the context of mitigating anthropogenic global warming. Here's a concise explanation:

Critique of the Linear Model in US Energy Innovation:

Historically, US energy innovation has been heavily influenced by the linear model of science and innovation. This model places basic research at the core of the innovation process, suggesting that technological advancements primarily stem from fundamental scientific discoveries.

Limitations of the Linear Model:

Despite criticism from historians and economists of technology, the linear model continues to shape public innovation programs in the US. This approach is seen as inadequate because it overemphasizes the role of basic scientific research while potentially neglecting other important factors in innovation.

Historical Context from the US Department of Energy:

The paper surveys the history of the US Department of Energy (DOE) to illustrate how the linear model has influenced energy policy and innovation efforts in the US.

Philosophical Debates on Science's Role in Innovation:

The paper delves into philosophical debates about the importance of basic scientific understanding and scientific laws in the innovation process. It suggests that outdated views in the philosophy of physics may contribute to the persistent emphasis on a science-focused approach to innovation.

Need for an Enriched Philosophy of Engineering and Innovation:

Recognizing the limitations of the linear model, the paper advocates for a more enriched philosophy of engineering and innovation. It aims to integrate insights from innovation studies literature to develop a more comprehensive and effective approach to energy innovation.

Presentation of Alternative Principles:

The author proposes new principles drawn from innovation studies as a way to enhance the understanding and practice of engineering and innovation, moving beyond the constraints of the linear model.

In summary, the abstract highlights the limitations of the linear model in US energy innovation, particularly in the context of addressing global warming. It suggests that outdated philosophical approaches in physics have contributed to an overemphasis on basic research, and it calls for a more nuanced philosophy of engineering and innovation that incorporates broader perspectives from innovation studies.

29.1 Introduction

The introduction of the paper focuses on the recent shift in climate change discussions from the scientific understanding of global warming to the engineering and innovation of low-carbon energy technologies. This change in focus has been particularly prominent in the United States, where difficulties in passing comprehensive climate policy have led to a greater emphasis on developing new technologies to reduce carbon emissions. This approach aims to create technological solutions that are not only environmentally beneficial but also economically viable and socially acceptable. With climate policy, some have hoped to induce political action based on consensus over the science of climate change. Some problems need to be resolved through political discourse; however overly focusing on the science can preclude important debates about political values from occurring, which may unintentionally delay the conclusion of policy debates. The lack of action on climate policy may reflect an attempt to improperly scientize the political debate.

Key Points Discussed in the Introduction:

Shift to Energy Innovation Policy: The paper highlights a new emphasis on energy innovation in the United States, spurred by the challenges in implementing climate policies. This shift is marked by efforts to develop low-carbon energy technologies as a means to address global warming more effectively.

Concerns with Over-Reliance on Science: The paper cautions against focusing too heavily on the science of climate change at the expense of political and societal considerations. It argues that overemphasizing scientific consensus can delay important discussions about values and policy decisions.

Role of Technological Solutions: While acknowledging the limitations of technological fixes for societal problems, (which can be incomplete or have negative unintended consequences) the paper suggests that new technologies can change the dynamics of political debates by offering new solutions that align with diverse values.

Importance of Engineers and Philosophy of Engineering: The introduction stresses the need for a refined understanding of the relationship between science, engineering, and innovation. It argues that engineers and philosophers of engineering should contribute to shaping innovation policies, which can benefit from a more nuanced perspective on the nature of engineering and its impact on society.

Critique of the Linear Model of Science: The paper critiques the traditional approach of the U.S. Department of Energy, which has often followed the linear model of science. This model posits that innovation primarily stems from basic research, an approach that the paper argues is too limiting.

Understanding Engineering and Innovation: The paper delves into philosophical debates about the nature of engineering, contrasting views that prioritize scientific laws with those that see engineering more as an art form integrated with business. The paper argues that innovation is not just engineering; it’s about creating technologies that are widely accepted and used in society.

In summary, the introduction presents a critique of the traditional science-focused approach to innovation, particularly in the context of climate change and energy policy. It calls for a broader understanding of engineering and innovation, recognizing the importance of integrating scientific, economic, and societal considerations in developing new technologies.

29.2 The US Department of Energy and the Linear Model of Science, Engineering and Innovation

The section "29.2 The US Department of Energy and the Linear Model of Science, Engineering and Innovation" discusses the approach of the United States, particularly the Department of Energy (DOE), towards energy innovation, and critiques the reliance on the linear model of science and innovation.

Key Points:

Historical Context: The DOE, formed in 1977, evolved from organizations that were part of the Energy Research and Development Administration, National Science Foundation, and Atomic Energy Commission. Many of its practices and focuses were influenced by its origins in these scientific organizations.

DOE’s Evolving Mission: The DOE's mission has shifted over time, from developing nuclear power and weapons systems to addressing national energy security and later focusing on non-greenhouse gas emitting energy sources.

Funding Changes: The budget for energy research, development, and demonstration (RD&D) has fluctuated significantly, reflecting the changing priorities and focus of the DOE.

Criticism of DOE's Approach: Experts have criticized the DOE for a fragmented mission, insufficient engagement with industry, challenges in commercialization, and a complex loan guarantee program. These criticisms highlight the department's struggle in effectively fostering innovation in energy technologies.

The Linear Model of Innovation: This model, which has been influential in U.S. science policy, posits that basic research leads to understanding and scientific laws, which in turn lead to practical applications and innovations. The DOE's approach has been characterized as adhering to this linear model, with a strong emphasis on basic research.

In 1945, the US president’s science and technology czar, Vannevar Bush, published Science: The Endless Frontier, which embodied the linear model in an extremely infl uential way. Bush laid a vision of science as the driver of innovation:

Basic research is performed without thought of practical ends. It results in general knowledge and an understanding of nature and its laws ... [Basic research] creates the fund from which the practical applications of knowledge must be drawn. New products and new processes do not appear full-grown. They are founded on new principles and new conceptions, which are in turn painstakingly developed by research in the purest realms of science. Today it is truer than ever that basic research is the pacemaker of technological progress. In the nineteenth century, Yankee mechanical ingenuity, building largely upon the basic discoveries of European scientists, could greatly advance the technical arts. Now the situation is different. (Bush 1945 )

Critique of the Linear Model: The linear model has been criticized for oversimplifying the innovation process. Historical evidence, like the Manhattan Project, shows that innovation is a complex, interdependent process where practical challenges can also inspire fundamental scientific insights.

Persistence of the Linear Model: Despite its limitations and criticisms, the linear model continues to influence national dialogue and policy on energy innovation.

In summary, the section examines the DOE's historical approach to energy innovation, highlighting its reliance on the linear model, and critiques this model for its oversimplification of the complex nature of innovation. The continued influence of this model, despite evidence of its limitations, is noted as a significant factor in shaping energy policy and innovation strategies in the U.S.

29.3 Behind the Linear Model, an Old Philosophical Debate About Science and Laws

The section "29.3 Behind the Linear Model, an Old Philosophical Debate About Science and Laws" examines the philosophical underpinnings of the linear model of science, engineering, and innovation, particularly in the context of the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). It discusses how historical views on scientific laws have influenced current approaches to innovation.

Key Points:

Linear Model and Ideal Science: The linear model, which posits basic research as central to the innovation process, is connected to traditional views of science, particularly physics. This model, dominant in the early 20th century, suggested that deep understanding and scientific laws are fundamental to technological innovation.

Mario Bunge’s Perspective: Philosopher Mario Bunge saw scientific laws as central to science, defining them as confirmed hypotheses depicting objective patterns. He differentiated sharply between science and engineering, viewing engineering as based on rules grounded in scientific law, but not dealing directly with laws themselves.

Engineering and Scientific Laws: Bunge’s view implies that technological developments often arise from basic science, aligning with the linear model where scientific understanding leads to practical applications. This view places significant emphasis on the role of scientific laws in engineering and innovation.

Critique of Bunge’s View: Bunge's perspective, though acknowledging the limited scope of laws, still gives science and laws epistemological primacy in engineering. This aligns with the linear model but is critiqued for oversimplifying the complex nature of innovation.

Nancy Cartwright’s Critique: Nancy Cartwright, in her work "How the Laws of Physics Lie," challenges the notion of fundamental, law-like truths in science. She presents a more chaotic and uneven relationship between different scientific disciplines, suggesting that innovation is more complex than a linear sequence from scientific laws to technology.

Cartwright’s Dappled World Metaphor: Cartwright proposes a metaphor of a "dappled world," where the universe is not governed by a unified system of laws but is a patchwork of different behaviors. In this view, regimented behavior results more from good engineering than from overarching scientific laws.

For Cartwright, science is a process of connecting scientific models to reality by carefully engineered experiment. Cartwright argues that there are no fundamental, law-like truths from which other ideas spring. Instead, different disciplines establish models with which to view and understand the world, and the disciplines relate to one another chaotically and unevenly. Cartwright’s account may map more closely to the complex and interdependent innovation cycle that actually occurs. In her 1999 book, The Dappled World, she presents a metaphor that might better help frame science, engineering and innovation:

[W]e live in a dappled world, a world rich in different things, with different natures, behaving in different ways. The laws that describe this world are a patchwork, not a pyramid. They do not take after the simple, elegant and abstract structure of a system of axioms and theorems. Rather they look like – and steadfastly stick to looking like – science as we know it: apportioned into disciplines, apparently arbitrarily grown up...For all we know, most of what occurs in nature occurs by hap, subject to no law at all. What happens is more like an outcome of negotiation between domains than the logical consequence of a system of order. The dappled world is what, for the most part, comes naturally: regimented behaviour results from good engineering. (Cartwright 1999 , p. 1)

Implications for Innovation: Cartwright's view suggests that innovation in a complex and varied world requires an approach that acknowledges the limitations of scientific laws and focuses on practical engineering solutions. This contrasts with the linear model's emphasis on basic research leading directly to technological advancements.

In summary, this section explores the philosophical debates around the nature of science and its laws, and how these have historically influenced the approach to innovation, particularly within the DOE. It highlights the transition from a linear model based on scientific laws to a more nuanced understanding of the interplay between science, engineering, and innovation.

29.4 Principles to Help Guide Energy Innovation

The section "29.4 Principles to Help Guide Energy Innovation" outlines key principles for successful energy innovation, particularly in the context of the U.S. government's role in fostering the development of low-carbon energy technologies. These principles are derived from a synthesis of literature by scholars and practitioners in innovation studies.

Key Principles:

Recognize Innovation as More than Research: Innovation encompasses a complex set of interactions beyond just research, mostly occurring in the private sector. Practical deployment of technologies is crucial for innovation, as it allows for optimization and improvement.

Align research and development (R&D) with deployment programs to ensure effectiveness.

It is clear that deployment programs can be essential. However, a lack of coordination between research, development and demonstration programs (RD&D) and deployment programs can hinder the effectiveness of both. Harvard’s Energy Research Development, Demonstration and Deployment (ERD3) team in particular emphasizes the importance of connecting the work of research agencies with applied programs.

Address both policy and technical challenges early in the development process to anticipate market entry obstacles.

Many of the challenges to innovation are non-technical in origin, and result from existing competition and entrenched political interests. When a new technology enters the marketplace, it is especially vulnerable to competition from established energy technologies. This problem should be examined early in the technology development process. Technologies should be evaluated based upon the businesses and markets that might produce and employ them, and potential political resistance that they might encounter. Investigating these non-technical issues early is important, and will allow development of technology policies that cater to the context of particular technologies.

Pursue Multiple Innovation Pathways: Diversification is essential in innovation. Just as no one technology will be able to solve the energy-climate problem, no one institution is capable of solving it either. A diverse ensemble of technologies should be pursued, recognizing that successful innovation is never certain and there will always be successes and failures. A successful innovation system will encourage technologies that will mature at a variety of short- to long-term timeframes: near-term, readily available technologies should not overwhelm and crowd out potential new technologies. Further, Richard Lester of MIT also argues for a diverse “system of innovation institutions,” with different institutions having their own specializations.

Encourage competition within the government to foster diverse approaches to energy innovation.

The Department of Energy has historically been focused toward basic research, and is not optimally equipped to work on more applied development projects. Encouraging multiple federal agencies, such as the Department of Defense, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, and National Science Foundation to take a greater part in energy innovation can create competition that can help each agency better support innovation. Some successful examples of government-sponsored innovation, including information technology, aircraft, and to an extent agricultural technology, reflect competition among a variety of government programs.

Facilitate collaborations between government, academia, and the private sector at various geographical levels to encourage regionally relevant innovations.

Encouraging use-oriented research is a complex problem, and one way to do it is by linking public and private researchers at particular geographic scales, as is suggested by the Brookings Institution report. Their report focuses on innovation in metropolitan areas, as opposed to emphasizing national and international scales. These proposed innovation hubs would focus on solving problems that are relevant for that particular region, which provides a framework and context that can encourage innovation. The Harvard ERD3 reports reviewed principles that can apply within an individual research institute, with advice on managing innovation and balancing competition and collaboration amongst different sectors.

Treat CO2 Reduction as a Public Good: Given that the market doesn't fully account for the societal costs of carbon emissions, government support for low-carbon technologies is justified. 

Use public procurement and regulatory mechanisms to stimulate demand for innovative energy technologies. 

Without a reliable demand for new energy technologies, firms will not aggressively pursue energy technology innovation. In the United States, most attempts to create demand for low-carbon energy technologies have focused on the establishment of a carbon cap or price. While this approach will push some innovation in the long run, carbon prices are likely to be low and unstable for an extended period, weakening their power. By contrast, direct government procurement is one of the most powerful ways that the Federal government has stimulated demand for innovation in past technological revolutions. Certain agencies, such as the Department of Defense, have uniquely powerful purchasing capabilities due to their large size. Procurement can be used to drive performance standards and show private industry that there will be a growing and sustained market, which in turn stimulates competition and innovation. In addition, direct technology-forcing regulatory mandates such as coal plant carbon performance standards are likely to move innovation in a shorter time scale.

Support late-stage development and demonstration projects to reduce uncertainty and attract investment.

Some energy technologies can be well understood in the laboratory, but demonstrating technologies at a large commercial scale can reveal and create new, unforeseen problems. Successful demonstrations reduce uncertainty in a new technology, which can enable adequate technologies to develop and receive more investment. However, economic and structural biases often make it too risky for private corporations to undertake some demonstration projects, which prevents innovation. Governments should help provide financing and incentives to encourage these demonstration projects. Finding the right mechanism and balance of funding with private industry is critical, and various authors have discussed creating a publicly-funded Energy Technology Corporation that would invest in new demonstration projects.

Collaborate Internationally, Especially with Rapidly Industrializing Countries: Collaborating with countries like China and India is crucial for global climate action. Focus on building innovation capacity in these countries rather than merely transferring technology. Utilize international collaboration to benefit from diverse innovation capacities globally.

These principles emphasize the importance of a holistic approach to energy innovation, recognizing the need for government involvement, diverse pathways for technology development, and international cooperation. The emphasis is on creating an environment where new technologies can be practically deployed, tested, and optimized, rather than focusing solely on theoretical research.

29.5 Conclusion

The conclusion of the text discusses the limitations of the traditional linear model in understanding and fostering innovation in engineering, especially in the context of developing low-carbon energy technologies to address climate change.

Key Points:

Inadequacy of the Linear Model: The linear model, which posits that innovation primarily stems from scientific research, fails to capture the complexities of real-world innovation systems. This model has influenced the U.S. Department of Energy's approach but has proven insufficient in addressing the practical challenges of energy innovation.

Complexities in Engineering and Innovation: Engineering and innovation involve a complex interplay of various factors that go beyond basic scientific research. The text suggests that a more nuanced understanding, akin to Nancy Cartwright's 'dappled' epistemology, is needed to accurately reflect the complexities in engineering and innovation processes.

Need for Better Conceptual Understanding: The current literature on the philosophy of engineering may not fully capture the broader processes and dynamics of engineering and innovation. There is a need for more detailed descriptions of practical, interconnected innovation systems and the importance of scaling technology appropriately.

Focus on Engineering for Societal Outcomes: The conclusion emphasizes the need to reorient the focus towards engineering as a force for positive societal outcomes, particularly in developing technologies to mitigate climate change. This involves a shift from a science-centric approach to one that values the practical, developmental work of engineers.

Implications for Innovation Policies: A richer conceptual understanding of engineering and innovation could lead to more effective innovation policies. Such policies would better recognize the diverse aspects of innovation, including industry collaboration, real-time adjustments, and the practical deployment of technologies.

In summary, the text argues for a departure from the linear model of science in understanding innovation, advocating for a more comprehensive and realistic approach that acknowledges the multifaceted nature of engineering and innovation in solving societal challenges like climate change.