Resource rights and the evolution of renewable energy technologies

Renewable Energy

Volumn 35, Issue 11, 2010, Pages 2399-2405

  Vermeylen, Saskia ^a  

^a LANCASTER UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Ownership; Property rights; Solar; Watermills; Windmills

Indexed keywords

AESTHETIC IMPACTS; EFFECTIVE MANAGEMENT; END-USES; ENERGY FLUXES; FLOW OF AIR; LOCAL PROPERTY; NEW TECHNOLOGIES; PROPERTY RIGHT; RENEWABLE ENERGY TECHNOLOGIES;

ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL EFFECTS; MACHINERY; MILLING MACHINES; PHOTOVOLTAIC CELLS; TECHNOLOGY;

WIND POWER;

ENERGY FLUX; ENERGY RESOURCE; MILL; OWNERSHIP; RENEWABLE RESOURCE; WIND POWER; WIND TURBINE;

EID: 77954818482     PISSN: 09601481     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.renene.2010.03.017     Document Type: Review

References (56)

1. See for example:.
2. Verbong G.P.J., Geels F.W. The ongoing energy transition: lessons from a socio-technical, multi-level analysis of the Dutch electricity system (1960-2004). Energy Policy 2007, 35(2):1025-1037.
3. Geels F.W. The dynamics of transitions in socio-technical systems: a multi-level analysis of the transition pathway from horse-drawn carriages to automobiles (1860-1930). Technology Analysis & Strategic Management 2005, 17(4):445-476.
4. Heymann M. Signs of hubris: the shaping of wind technology styles in Germany, Denmark and the United States, 1940-1990. Technology and Culture 1998, 39(4):641-670.
5. Russell S. Writing energy history: explaining the neglect of CHP/DH in Britain. British Journal for the History of Science 1993, 26(1):33-54.
6. Bradbrook A. The development of renewable energy technologies and energy efficiency measures through public international law. Beyond the carbon economy: energy law in transition 2008, 109-131. Oxford. D. Zillman, C. Redgwell, Y. Omorogbe, L. Barrera-Hernández (Eds.).
7. Ottinger R., Mathews L., Czachor Nadia Renewable energy in national legislation: challenges and opportunities. Beyond the carbon economy: energy law in transition 2008, 183-206. Oxford. D. Zillman, C. Redgwell, Y. Omorogbe, L. Barrera-Hernández (Eds.).
8. See for example.
9. Santoyo P. Laws regarding wind energy development headed for Texas. San Antonio Business Journal 2007, [last accessed 13.07.09]. http://www.bizjournals.com/sanantonio/stories/2007/08/27/focus2.html.
10. Bradbrook A. Future directions in solar access protection. Environmental Law 1988, 19:167-208.
11. Brown B., Escobar B. Wind power: generating electricity and lawsuits. Energy Law Journal 2007, 28:489-515. See for example.
12. Debates on the aesthetics and societal value of energy technologies, as exemplified by the so-called NIMBY debate (not in my back yard), are nothing new, as historical accounts of train lines, industrial water mills and hydropower schemes in the 1800s demonstrate; see.
13. Hennessey R.A.S. The electric revolution 1972, Oriel Press, New Castle, UK, p. 100.
14. Shaw J.P. The new rural industries: water power and textiles. The making of the Scottish countryside 1980, 195. see, Croom Helm, London. M.L. Parry, T.R. Slater (Eds.).
15. Sistrunk T. The right to wind in the later middle ages. Wind & water in the middle ages: fluid technologies from antiquity to the renaissance 2006, 153-169. Tempe. S. Walton (Ed.).
16. Sistrunk T. The right to wind in the later middle ages. Medieval and Renaissance Texts and Studies 2006, 322:153-170.
17. Butler H. The chronicle of Jocelin of Brakelond, concerning the acts of Samson, Abbot of the Monastery of Saint Edmund, London, 1949, p. 59-60.
18. Sistrunk, 9.
19. Sistrunk, 9.
20. [last accessed 22.09.09]. http://www.molenbiotoop.nl/content.php%3fpage%3Djp2.
21. Bijlholt A.G. Landschapsveranderingen in de omgeving van molens 1980, Rapport nr.226. Rijksinstituut voor onderzoek in de bos-en landschapsbouw, De Dorschkamp, Wageningen.
22. For examples of the extensive literature on renewable energy siting controversies, see.
23. Wolsink M. Wind power and the NIMBY-myth. Institutional capacity and the limited significance of public support. Renewable Energy 2000, 21(1):49-64.
24. Toke D. Explaining wind power planning outcomes - some findings from a study in England and Wales. Energy Policy 2005, 33(12):1527-1539.
25. Van der Horst D. NIMBY or not? Exploring the relevance of location and the politics of voiced opinions in renewable energy siting controversies. Energy Policy 2007, 35:2705-2714.
26. Wiel S. Natural communism: air, water, oil, sea, and seashore. Harvard Law Review 1934, 47:425-457.
27. Garnsey P, Thinking about property: from the antiquity to the age of revolution, Cambridge, 2007.
28. Salter J. Hugo Grotius: property and consent. Political Theory 2001, 29:537-555.
29. Salter J. Grotius and Pufendorf on the right of necessity. History of Political Thought 2005, XXVI:284-302.
30. Israel J, Enlightenment contested: philosophy, modernity and the emancipation of man 1670-1752, Oxford, 2006.
31. Boucheron P. Water and power in Milan, c. 1200-1500. Urban History 2001, 28(2):180-193. See for example.
32. Blomley N. Law, space and the geographies of power 1994, The Guildford Press, New York.
33. Blomley N., Delaney D., Ford R. The legal geographies reader 2001, Blackwell Publishers, Oxford.
34. Blackstone W. Commentaries on the laws of England (reproduction of 1766) 1979, Oxford Press, Clarendon.
35. Demsetz H. Toward a theory of property rights. The American Economic Review 1967, 57:347-353.
36. Horwitz M. The transformation of American law, 1780-1860 1977, Harvard University Press.
37. Bone Robert Normative theory and legal doctrine in American nuisance law: 1850-1920. Southern California Law Review 1985, 59:1101-1202. It is worth noting that developments in Late 19th century nuisance law (in which water law also played an important role) highlight a similar trend in doctrinal developments; see.
38. Roberts R.S., Emel J. Uneven development and the tragedy of the commons: competing images of nature-society analysis. Economic Geography 1992, 68(3):249-271. Rose, 24. See also.
39. Ramseyer M. Water law in imperial Japan: public goods, private claims, and legal convergence. The Journal of Legal Studies 1989, 18:51-77.
40. Rose C. Energy and efficiency in the realignment of common-law water rights. The Journal of Legal Studies 1990, 19:261-296.
41. Blackstone, 24.
42. Bealey v. Shaw, 102 Eng. Rep. 1266, also see Rose (Supra note 24) for more detail.
43. Mason v. Hill, 5B. & Ald. 1, 110 Eng. Rep. 692, 1833.
44. Palmer v. Mulligan, 3 Canies R. 307, 1805.
45. For example, in Wheeldon v. Burrows ([1879] 12chD31).
46. See Colls v. Home & Colonial Stores Ltd ([1904] AC 179).
47. For more details see e.g. (a) Bickford-Smith S and A. Francis, Right of light, London, 2007 and.
48. Chynoweth P. Progressing the rights to light debate - part 1: a review of current practice. Structural Survey 2004, 22:131-137.
49. Zieminski C. 'Easements: solar access protection yesterday, today and tomorrow', Solar Policy Paper [last accessed 13.07.09]. http://www.uvm.edu/%7egflomenh/%20CDAE170/2003/papers/Zieminski-Solar%20Access.doc.
50. Prah v. Maretti, 108 Wis. 2d 223, 321 N.W.2d 182, 1982.
51. For more details on this case see e.g.
52. McQuillen M.G. Prah v. Maretti: Solar Rights and Private Nuisance law. John Marshall Law Review 1983, 16:435-443.
53. Charter J. Wisconsin Supreme Court sees the light: nuisance remedy granted for obstruction of solar access. Ecology Law Quarterly 1983, 11:47-73.
54. Bradbrook A. Future directions in solar access protection. Environmental Law 1988, 19:167-208.
55. Ohl C., Eichhorn M. The mismatch between regional spatial planning for wind power development in Germany and national eligibility criteria for feed-in tariffs - A case study in West Saxony. Land Use Policy 2010, 27:243-254. In addition, Ohl and Eichhorn show that the process of 'repowering' (replacing old wind turbines with larger, new wind turbines) within designated wind farm zones can create an acute scarcity for suitable locations.
56. Knauer S. Who owns the wind? 4 May 2007, Der Spiegel Online, [last accessed 13.07.09]. http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,%201518,%20480327,00.html.