Policy efforts to reduce the carbon intensity of domestic energy consumption have, over the last three decades, been dominated by an almost dichotomous reading of the relationship between technology and social change. On the one hand, there is a conception of personal responsibility that constructs domestic energy users as key actors in the adoption and (appropriate) use of low carbon energy technologies; from this perspective, environmental change becomes a matter of mobilising personal capacities such that individuals make better choices. On the other hand, decarbonising homes is conceived to be an outcome of top-down infrastructural interventions, with householders (or end users) positioned as relatively passive agents who will respond to engineered efficiency in linear and predictable ways. In practice, both positions have been found wanting in terms of accounting for how (and why) change happens and in turn delivering on ambitious policy goals. The argument we develop in this article goes beyond critiquing these problematic framings of technology and the locus of agency. Drawing on three contrasting low carbon energy technology projects in the UK, we present an alternative perspective which foregrounds a more experimental, ad hoc and ultimately provisional mode of governing with domestic energy technologies. We reflect on the meaning and political implications of this experimental turn in transforming (and decarbonising) domestic energy practices.
Community enterprises may play pivotal roles in sustainability transitions but have received limited attention in the transitions literature. This paper proposes a framework for theorising the challenges that community enterprises face as they scale up due to the rising institutional complexity of their organisational model, combining the institutional logics of community, market, and corporation. We conceptualise the upscaling processes of community enterprises by distinguishing between the community volunteerism phase, the niche creation phase and the niche expansion phase. We formulate nine propositions on how institutional complexity arises and on possible mechanisms to manage it in each phase of the upscaling process. Our theoretical framework is supported by empirical research on carsharing and renewable energy initiatives in Western Europe. The paper concludes with some avenues for further research on community enterprises in sustainability transitions.
Renewable energy is not simply the cornerstone of a transition, but an entire electric power revolution. However, which are the technologies with which power companies are going to redesign the electricity industry? Interviews were conducted with innovation managers of the biggest power companies in Spain to shed some light on the innovation sources upon which the electric power system of the future is based. The results revealed that renewable electricity represents a complete paradigm shift. Until now, the system's net electricity balance has been achieved by adjusting power generation to its demand. However, in a renewable system, electricity generation is limited by and depends on environmental resources, so it cannot be sufficiently controlled to meet the demand at all times. Therefore, it is the electricity consumption that must be adjusted to generation. It was concluded that there are currently nine innovation sources that are redesigning the industry: renewable energy, energy storage systems, electric vehicles, Industry 4.0, smart grids, blockchain, distributed and selfconsumption generation, smart client, and demand side response. Moreover, it was found that system regulations established by governments, business sustainability plans, and open innovation by startups play key roles in the development of innovation. ; Las energías renovables no son simplemente la piedra angular de una transición, sino de toda una revolución eléctrica. Sin embargo, ¿cuáles son las tecnologías con las que las compañías eléctricas van a rediseñar la industria eléctrica? Se realizaron entrevistas a los responsables de innovación de las principales compañías eléctricas en España con el objetivo de arrojar luz sobre las fuentes de innovación en las que se basa el sistema eléctrico del futuro. Los resultados revelaron que las energías renovables suponen un cambio completo de paradigma. Hasta ahora, el balance de energía neto del sistema se alcanza ajustando la generación de energía a la demanda. Sin embargo, en un sistema renovable, la generación de electricidad está limitada por y depende de los recursos medio ambientales, por lo que no se puede controlar lo suficiente para satisfacer la demanda en todo momento. Por lo tanto, es el consumo de energía el que se debe ajustar a la generación. Se concluyó que actualmente existen nueve líneas de innovación que están rediseñando la industria: las energías renovables, los sistemas de almacenamiento de energía, el vehículo eléctrico, la Industria 4.0, las redes inteligentes, el blockchain, la generación distribuida y autoconsumo, el smart client y el control de la demanda. Asimismo, la regulación del sistema establecida por los gobiernos, los planes de sostenibilidad de las empresas y la innovación abierta protagonizada por las startups tienen un papel fundamental en el desarrollo de la innovación.
Wood pellets could potentially contribute to bioenergy demand in the European Union (EU). Market cost constraints as well as greenhouse gas (GHG) emission savings thresholds imposed by the European Commission however limit the potential use of pellets. A spatially explicit assessment of import potentials of both pellets and torrefied pellets, based on the growing stock of forestry biomass in the US, Canada, Brazil, Russia and Baltic States, was combined with an analysis of supply chain costs and emissions in order to analyse potentials as limited by different levels of costs and emission constraints. Results show that in case of GHG savings thresholds of 70%, 80% and 85% the total import potential is reduced to 61 to 24 and 1 Mt, respectively. The potential for torrefied pellets is larger in all cases, 44 Mt in the case of an 80% limit. Import potentials at cost limits of 200, 175, 150 and 125 €/t are reduced from 58 Mt to 52, 38 and 9 Mt pellets, respectively, with little difference between pellets and torrefied pellets. This work shows that spatially explicit variation in feedstock availability and logistics has a significant impact on total import potentials and must therefore be included in any assessment of bioenergy potential and trade.
Chile is a country rich in natural resources, and it is the world's largest producer and exporter of copper. Mining is the main industry and is an essential part of the Chilean economy, but the country has limited indigenous fossil fuels—over 90% of the country's fossil fuels must be imported. The electricity market in Chile comprises two main independent systems: the Northern Interconnected Power Grid (SING) and the Central Interconnected Power Grid (SIC). Currently, the primary Chilean energy source is imported fossil fuels, whereas hydropower represents the main indigenous source. Other renewables such as wind, solar, biomass and geothermics are as yet poorly developed. Specifically, geothermal energy has not been exploited in Chile, but among all renewables it has the greatest potential. The transition from thermal power plants to renewable energy power plants is an important target for the Chilean Government in order to reduce dependence on imported fossil fuels. In this framework, the proposed study presents an evaluation of the geothermal potential for northern Chile in terms of power generation. The El Tatio, Surire, Puchuldiza, Orriputunco-Olca and Apacheta geothermal fields are considered for the analysis. The estimated electrical power is approximately 1300 MWe, and the energy supply is 10,200 GWh/year. This means that more than 30% of the SING energy could be provided from geothermal energy, reducing the dependence on imported fossil fuels, saving 8 Mton/year of CO2 and supplying the mining industry, which is Chile's primary energy user. ; Published ; 5444-5459 ; 1TR. Georisorse ; JCR Journal
Funding Information: We would like to thank all of the survey participants for their time and expertise in completing the survey. We also thank the reviewers for their thoughtful comments and efforts towards improving our manuscript. Fabian Scheller kindly acknowledges the financial support of the European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under the Marie Sklodowska-Curie grant agreement no. 713683 (COFUNDfellowsDTU). ; Peer reviewed ; Publisher PDF
This paper focuses on the following two key research questions in the context of the change in allocation rules in the move from Phase I/II (2005–2012) to Phase III (2013–2020) of the European Emission Trading Scheme (EU ETS): First, how do allocations compare with actual installation-verified emissions in Phase III? For that purpose we analyse changes in sector-country allocations and verified emissions between Phase II and Phase III. The analysis is based on a selection of 2150 installations present in all phases of the EU ETS, taken from the European Union Transaction Log (EUTL) The results show that over-allocation has been considerably reduced in Phase III. Overall, allocation for the selected sectors decreased by 20% in 2013 compared to 2008 but varying across installations. Second, we investigate, whether the introduction of benchmarks in Phase III may have triggered carbon-reducing measures for industrial processes. For that purpose, we analyse for four product groups (cement clinker, pig iron, ammonia and nitric acid) the specific emissions (per tonne of product). Care was taken to define a data set with a similar delimitation of emission and production data. The findings were cross-checked through selected expert interviews. Our findings indicate that there is no evidence so far for improving specific emissions, though the strong improvement for nitric acid, as well as some improvement linked to ammonia occurring before the start of Phase III may have been supported by the introduction of Phase III.
Intro -- Foreword -- Acknowledgements -- Endorsements -- Four Book Blurbs -- Contents -- 1 Introduction: 'Paradigm Is a Tacit Agreement not to Ask Certain Questions' (Allen 2003) -- References -- 2 Scarcity, Promethean Technology, and Future Perspectives for Fossil Fuels and Uranium -- 2.1 Introduction -- 2.2 Reconsidering the Meaning of Scarcity for Sustainability -- 2.2.1 Reconsidering Scarcity in Relation to Limitless Wants -- 2.2.2 Reconsidering Scarcity in Relation to Resource Substation -- 2.2.3 Reconsidering Scarcity in Relation to Inter-generational and Intra-generational Equity -- 2.3 Energy Transformation, Promethean Technology and Reexamining the Transition of Energy and Materials During the Industrial Revolution -- 2.4 Coal, Oil, Natural Gas and Aviation Fuel: The Present Situation and Future Perspectives -- 2.4.1 Coal -- 2.4.2 Oil -- 2.4.3 Natural Gas -- 2.4.4 Aviation Fuel -- 2.4.5 The Future Perspectives for Shale Gas and Methane Hydrates -- 2.5 Uranium and Nuclear Technology -- 2.6 Conclusion -- References -- 3 Credibility of Scientific Analysis, and Assessment of PV Systems and Ethanol Production -- 3.1 Introduction -- 3.2 MuSIASEM Applied to the Evaluation of PV Systems -- 3.3 Large-Scale Ethanol Production from Corn and Sugarcane Reconsidered: The Case of the United States and Brazil -- 3.4 Scientific Analysis and Assessment in the Era of Post-normal Science -- 3.5 Conclusion -- References -- 4 Beyond the Conventional View: Reconsidering Money, Credit and Interest -- 4.1 Introduction -- 4.2 The Myth of Barter, Money and Credit -- 4.3 The Origin of Money Interest from the Perspective of Structural and Functional Decay -- 4.4 Debt Creation and Control: Miscellaneous Problems -- 4.5 Conclusion -- References -- 5 Capital Interest, the Financial Sector and Debt Expansion: Toward a More Sustainable and Equitable World Order.
Zugriffsoptionen:
Die folgenden Links führen aus den jeweiligen lokalen Bibliotheken zum Volltext:
In Sweden, the agricultural sector uses an estimated 3.7 TWh per year as electricity or fuel. About 34% of this total is estimated to be used in the production of beef, pork, eggs and milk, including the spreading of manure. Some energy is also used for harvesting ley and cereals as feed, which is not included. Most of the energy used is in the form of electricity (approx 63%). All these estimates are based on a 1981-1984 survey by Nilsson & Påhlstorp (1985). Most of the technical equipment is still the same today on farms of comparable size and production methods. However, herds of pigs and cattle are larger now, and therefore new equipment is being used. The average Swedish dairy farm is 39% larger (49 cows) than the EU-15 average (35.5 cows) and herd size is growing rapidly. The climate in winter at the study farms is not as cold as that in central Europe or northern Sweden, although air temperature was below 0ºC for about 3 months in 2006 (average -0.1ºC, Dec-Feb.) In the period June-August, the average temperature was 17.8ºC in 2005 and 19.1ºC in 2006. It only exceeded 30ºC for a period longer than three hours on seven occasions. Because of the climate, it is necessary to have artificial heating in buildings for sows (farrowing section). In all other buildings the animals produce enough heat themselves to keep the house warm. When breeding cattle or dry sows some farmers accept a low inside temperature. Swedish animal welfare legislation requires more space per animal than most other countries. Slatted floors in lying areas are only permissible for fattening steers. Cages for laying hens have to include a sand-bath, nest and perches. Another difference is that sows can only be kept in crates occasionally and can never be tied up. The purpose of this study was to collect data on energy use on modern farms of a size and with a level of technical equipment that could be expected to be in use for the next 10-15 years. The data obtained were then added to data from Nilsson & Påhlstorp (1985).The survey was conducted on 16 farms with buildings mainly constructed during the past 10 years and with modern equipment. All these farms except one were in the south of Sweden (Skåne, Halland, Lat. 55-56ºN) and the last one 180 km south-east of Stockholm (Lat. 58ºN). The study was structured as follows: - Four complete dairy farms were studied in detail and another three were studied because they had interesting technical equipment that was not installed on the first four farms. - Three farms with pigs were studied. One had an FTS-system (Farrowing To Slaughter in the same pen), one a farrowing-growing system (Farrowing to approx. 25 kg/11 weeks in the same pen), and one had fattening pigs (approx. 25-110 kg). - Two farms with laying hens were studied. One had furnished cages and the other had laying hens on floors. - Two broiler houses were studied. - Four different types of grain dryers were studied: batch drier, circulating batch drier, continuous drier and batch-in-bin drier with multiple stirring augers. To measure electricity use, electricity meters of the type used by power companies were installed. These meters distinguishing between feeding, ventilation, light, manure handling and, for some plants, cleaning/disinfection, heating, milking and packing of eggs. When all these were measured there was still some more electricity that was impossible to measure or to distribute to the right category. This was categorised as Miscellaneous. Meters were also installed for estimating the power (W) used at one piglet farm and at two dairy farms. The data were processed and are included in the appendices in order to allow estimations to be made for other farms and evaluations to reduce the use of energy (power). In milk production, energy use was between 930 and 1540 kWh/cow per year (0.125-0.203 kWh/L milk). The functions that used most energy were milking and feeding, which together used 65-75% of total energy. On farms that used a wheel loader and tractor for mixing Total Mixed Ration (TMR), energy consumption was higher than on those farms that used electrical engines for mixing. One litre of diesel was set to 9.8 kWh. Production of piglets (approx. 25 kg) used 689 kWh/sow per year, which means about 28.7 kWh/25 kg pig (assuming 24 piglets/sow & year). During the fattening period (25-110 kg), energy use was 20 kWh per pig. The total energy requirement to produce finishing pigs from birth to 110 kg was thus 48.7 kWh/110 kg pig or 1163 kWh/sow per year, assuming a sow produces 24 piglets per year. This can be compared with the FTS-system, which uses 2431 kWh/sow per year. This difference is not completely caused by different breeding systems but is more likely to be due to difference in buildings, and therefore to a greater need for energy for lighting and ventilation, and a higher temperature in the farrowing unit. The farm that used less energy heated the breeding areas with a heat-pump, while another used diesel as fuel. Most energy was used for heating (including the use of heat lamps). If the building for dry sows needs mechanical ventilation and artificial light, then this leads to a greater use of energy. Egg production with laying hens in furnished cages used 3.1 kWh/year per hen, while a system with free hens used 5.0 kWh/year per hen. Light and ventilation fans used most energy, but were also the functions that showed the greatest differences between the systems. The difference in energy used for light is most probably due to the higher light intensity and to the two extra hours of light each day in the system with free layers. In broiler production, the largest use of energy was heating (84%), followed by light (10.7%) and ventilation (3.6%). The energy needed to produce one broiler (1.5 kg) was an estimated 0.91 kWh. This value is an average of five batches due to large variations between batches. The use of electricity differed from 6% to 20% between similar houses. All the grain driers except the batch-in-bin drier used between 4.2 and 9.1 kWh per 1000 kg of grain during 2005 and 2006. Due to bad weather conditions the use of energy was 30% higher in 2006. The batch-in-bin dryer used 12.0 kWh per 1000 kg of grain 2006. Due to different technical standards the values are not directly comparable, but the data are valid for the separate functions.
