Explaining Divergent Energy Paths: Electricity Policy in Argentina and Uruguay
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
South America is a region that has received little attention in the literature dealing with renewable energy policy politics. Yet, it is a region in dramatic transition and this makes it an important case for examination. In this dissertation, Argentina and Uruguay, two countries that are experiencing rapid socioeconomic and electricity transition, are compared in relation to their energy policies related to electricity supply. The aim of this study is to compare the similarities and differences of energy policies in the two countries¬––from two selected electricity systems––explaining why and how certain policy ideas, understandings or beliefs (but not others) were adopted in their energy policies. This comparative case study of the historical policy process of energy policy seeks to understand why the countries showed different commitments to different forms of energy and how the development of renewable energy in particular can be explained in each case, all the while trying to identify supportive and hindering factors. Additionally, attention is given to the evolution of the German and French nuclear and/or renewable energy policies as they provide good examples in relation to their different energy choices. While Germany––together with Spain, Denmark, and California––is considered one of the worldwide pioneers in the deployment of wind and renewable energy, France––together with Canada, Japan, Sweden, and US––is deemed to be a reference in nuclear energy. This dissertation examines what can be learned from these two countries and whether there are elements that might be interesting to apply in Argentina and Uruguay for a better understanding of the policy process in these two countries. Both Argentina and Uruguay have faced energy supply shortages since the mid 2000s. Yet, while Argentina decided to focus more on increasing nuclear power and start developing some renewable energy, Uruguay rejected nuclear power and decided to begin significant development of renewable energy. The paradox is that having one of the most important domestic wind industries of South America, outstanding renewable resources and previous regulation in the sector, Argentina did not consider deploying renewable energy as a significant source to solve their electricity shortage. In contrast, Uruguay, which must import all components for their wind turbines and had no previous policies promoting renewable energy, saw in the development of renewable energy a good alternative to diversify their electricity mix and solve their electricity scarcity problem. The comparison of similarities and differences entails both why and how questions. The answer to the first question explains why facing a similar electricity supply shortage since the mid 2000s, Argentina and Uruguay decided to set different renewable energy and nuclear power goals in their public agendas. The how question describes the (policy) process behind the development of renewable and nuclear energy and the way key actors related to these options.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,002 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,008 | 0,006 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; les deux têtes enseignantes s’accordent sur ce qui est montré ici.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».