The arduous transition to low- carbon energy A multi-level analysis of renewable electricity niches and resilient regimes Prof. Frank W. Geels Manchester Business School + King Abdulaziz University 24 April 2014, Jeddah, KSA Conference organised by Faculty of Economics and Administration
58
Embed
The arduous transition to low-carbon energy A multi-level analysis of renewable electricity niches and resilient regimes Prof. Frank W. Geels Manchester.
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
The arduous transition to low-carbon energy
A multi-level analysis of renewable electricity niches and resilient regimes
Prof. Frank W. GeelsManchester Business School + King Abdulaziz University
24 April 2014, Jeddah, KSAConference organised by Faculty of Economics and
Administration
Structure1. Introduction
2. Multi-level perspective
3. Empirical application and assessment3.1. Positive developments in (global) renewable electricity
niches3.2. Negative developments in (global) electricity regimes
4. Conclusions
- Worldwide CO2 emissions rising fast- Current trends are in the upper scenario range- Timely transition will be difficult/arduous
1. Introduction/background
Addressing climate change requires major change in various sectors/systems (IPCC, 2007) Focus here on electricity supply
Confusing picture with conflicting trends
Some positive trends:• Rise of renewable electricity• Decreasing CO2 emissions in Europe and US
(shale gas, recession, offshoring, renewables)
• Many city initiatives
But also negative trends• Increasing worldwide coal use• Steep emission rise
Rising CO2 emissions mainly non-OECD (IEA, 2013)
Aims of presentation
1. Introduce MLP as analytic sensemaking framework
2. Make empirical assessment of transition to renewable electricitya) Positive (niche) developmentsb) Negative (regime) developments (coal, gas, nuclear)
2. Multi-level perspective (MLP)
Widely used in debate on socio-technical transitions.Some characteristics:
• Looks at systems, but also at actors(different from system dynamic models)
• Looks at multiple dimensions (multi-disciplinary!)
• Socio-technical systems as meso-level unit of analysis(not entire society, not individual innovations)
Socio- technical systemfor transportation
Culture and sym bolicm eaning (e.g . Freedom , ind ividuality)
Regulations and po licies(e.g. traffi c ru les,parking fees,em ission standards, car tax)
Road in frastructureand traffi c system(e.g. lights, signs)
Vehicle (artefact)
M arkets and user practices(m obility patterns, driver preferences)
I ndustry structure (e.g. car m anufacturers,suppliers)
M aintenance and d istribution netw ork (e.g. repair shops, dealers)
Fuel infrastructure (o il com panies, petro l stations)
Socio-technical system (Geels, 2004)
Analyse social interactions in organizational field
S up p ly ch ain : * m a te r ia l su p lie r s * co m p o n e n t su p p lie r s * m a c h in e s u p p lie rs
U sers
P ro duc tion ,indu stry :* f irm s* e n g in ee r s , d e s ig n e r s
R esearch :* u n iv e rs itie s* te c h n ic a l in s ti tu te s* R & D la b o ra to r ie s
P o licy, pub lic au tho ritie s :* E u ro p e a n C o m m is s io n , W T O , G AT T* G o v e rn m e n t , M in is tr ie s , P a r lia m e n t* L o c a l a u th o ri tie s a n d e x e c u t iv e b ra n c h e s
S oc ieta l g ro ups:(e .g . G re e n p e a c e ,m e d ia , b ran c ho rg a n is a tio n s)
Static multi-level perspective (nested hierarchy)* Radical innovation in niches (variation/novelty)* Struggling against existing regimes* In context of broader ‘landscape trends’
N ich es(n ove lty )
S ystem /reg im e
L an dscap e
In crea sing s truc tu ra tion o f ac tiv ities in lo ca l p rac tices
L a n d sc a p e d e v e lo p m e n ts p u t p re s su re o n e x is tin g re g im e , w h ic h o p e n s u p , c re a tin g w in d o w s o f o p p o rtu n ity fo r n o v e lt ie s
S o c io - te c h n ic a l re g im e is ‘d y n a m ic a lly s ta b le ’ .O n d iffe re n t d im e n s io n s th e re a re o n g o in g p ro c e ss e s
N e w c o n f ig u ra tio n b re a k s th ro u g h , ta k in ga d v a n ta g e o f ‘w in d o w s o f o p p o rtu n ity ’ . A d ju s tm e n ts o c c u r in so c io - te c h n ic a l re g im e .
E le m e n ts a re g ra d u a lly l in k e d to g e th e r,a n d s ta b ilis e in a d o m in a n t d e s ig n .In te rn a l m o m e n tu m in c re a se s .
S m a ll n e tw o rk s o f a c to rs s u p p o r t n o v e lt ie s o n th e b a s is o f e x p e c ta tio n s a n d fu tu re v is io n s .L e a rn in g p ro c e s se s ta k e p la c e o n m u ltip le d im e n s io n s .D iffe re n t e le m e n ts a re g ra d u a lly l in k e d to g e th e r in a se a m le ss w e b .
N e w s o c io - te c h n ic a lre g im e in f lu e n c e s la n d s c a p e
Tech n o log ica ln ich es
S oc io -tech n ica l’lan d scap e
S oc io -tech n ica lreg im e
Tec hno logy
M arke ts, u se r p re ferences
C u ltu reP o lic y
Scienc eIndustry
E x te rn a l in f lu e n c e s o n n ic h e s(v ia e x p e c ta tio n s a n d n e tw o rk s)
Transitions involve multi-dimensional struggles between niche-innovations and existing regimes (in context of wider
landscape change)
• Business/firms: New entrants vs. incumbents
• Economic: Competition between ‘grey’ and ‘green’ technologies in uneven playing field
• Political: Political struggles over adjustments in policies. Status quo defended by incumbent ‘elites’ (politicians, big firms).
• Cultural: Discursive struggles about importance and framing of
problems (e.g. ‘market failure’ vs. ‘planetary boundaries’)
3. Empirical application and assessment of low-carbon electricity transition
3.1. Positive developments in (global) renewable electricity niches
3.2. Negative developments in (global) electricity regimes
Overall MLP-interpretation: Niche-innovations are gaining momentum, but regimes are not (yet) falling apart Resilient regimes hinder transition
3.1. Positive developments in (global) renewable electricity niches
World-wide growth in installed capacity of renewable electricity options (in GW): wind, solar-PV and bio-power
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 20120
50
100
150
200
250
300
WindSolar-PVBio-power
- Most investments (cumulatively) in Europe (2004-2012), but 29% decrease in 2012
- China single largest country investor- US: boom and bust pattern
New investment in renewable energy (excluding large hydro) (Frankfurt School, 2013): billion $
Cumulative world-wide investment ($ billion) per type (data from Frankfurt School, 2013)- Most investments in wind and solar-PV- Global investment decreased in 2012
Investment in Europe led to substantial rise in renewable electricity
From 12.2% in 1990 to 19.6% in 2010:- Old renewables (hydro, biomass/wood) - New renewables (wind, solar, biogas)
- Europe is global leader in ‘new’ renewable electricity- Global renewable electricity = 20.5%- ‘old’ renewables dominate- Germany one of European leaders in new renewables, after Portugal (41.2%),
Denmark (32.9%) and Spain (29.5%)- China relatively small % new renewable (despite investments)
Relative composition (%) of electricity in 2011
Driving factors of positive niche-developments
1) Price/performance improvements in wind turbines and PV-modules (overproduction and dumping)
2) New political discourse (‘green growth’, ‘transitions to green economy), targets (e.g. Europe 2020 goals) and some favourable policies, e.g. generous feed-in tariffs
c) May lock us into new fossil fuel (for next 30 years)
d) cheap US coal flooding world-market, leading to 6% increase in coal use in Germany in 2012 and 32% increase in UK
2) Nuclear renaissance?• Nuclear seemed on its way out (expensive, risky)• Nuclear phase-out in Germany, Japan, Belgium
• But made comeback as low-carbon option + energy security
But ‘nuclear renaissance’ in UK, China, India, Russia• Also IPCC, IEA argue for doubling of nuclear capacity to
address climate change• This will be quite a challenge given recent stagnation
Worldwide installed nuclear capacity (in GW(e))
Actual decrease since 2006 (Schneider and Froggatt, 2013)
- New nuclear expansion would compete with renewables- Probably requires public subsidies (to cover risks)
3) Coal expansion
“For all the talk about natural gas and renewables, coal unquestionably won the energy race in the first decade of the 21st century” (IEA, 2011)
• South Africa (93%), Poland (90%), China (79%), Australia (70%), India (69%), US (45%), Germany (44%)
• Coal-fired generation grew 45% between 2000 and 2010 • Projected to keep growing in line with 6-degree climate
change
• Coal regime actors defend themselves with ‘clean coal’ discourse and promise of CCS
• Slow CCS progress (90 Mt CO2 is less than 1% of power sector CO2 emissions)
• Leads to ‘capture ready’ promise (contested)
CCS capacity by region and project status, 2012 (IEA: 2013: 25)
4) Regime conclusion: Fossil fuel regimes are resilient + adaptive Renewables mainly additional to fossil fuels We can only burn 1/3 of proven fossil fuel reserves to stay within 2-degree target
(Berners-Lee and Clark 2013; IEA, 2013)
So, we need accelerated diffusion of green niche-innovations (investments, market creation, cultural enthusiasm) and managed decline of ‘grey’ regimes (taxes, regulations, standards)Transition research should also look at destabilisation of existing regimes
4. Conclusions
Conceptual• Transitions are complex, multi-dimensional processes
• MLP is useful heuristic framework, not a ‘truth machine’
• MLP is ‘outside-in’ framework focusing on overall patterns
• But one can ‘zoom in’ further and develop ‘inside-out’ understanding (actors, searching, groping, struggling, debating)
Empirical conclusions
• Substantial (European) progress in green electricity
• But renewables face uphill struggles against regimes
• Regimes (coal, gas, nuclear) relatively stable, because of commitment from government and industry
• Transition will be arduous and likely more contentious in next 5-10 years
• We should not just study ‘green’, but also existing regimes + more attention for political economy
Transition pathways
a. Technological substitution
b. Regime transformation (endogenous)
c. Regime reconfiguration
d. De-alignment and re-alignment
a. Technological substitution
Landscape developments
Technology
Markets, user preferences
CulturePolicy
ScienceIndustry
Niche-level
Socio-technicalregime
Increasing structurationof activities in local practices
Specific shock
Time
Landscape developments
Socio-technicalregime
Niche level
Adoption ofsymbioticniche-innovation
Landscape pressure
Increasing structurationof activities in local practices
Time
b. Transformation pathway
c. Reconfiguration pathway
1) Novelties emerge in techno-scientific niches in contextof stable system architecture
2) Diffusion and adoptionof innovations inexisting system
3) Reconfiguration ofelements leads tonew system architecture
Niche level
Regime/systemslevel
Landscape level
d. De-alignment and re-alignment
Technology
Markets, user preferences
CulturePolicy
Science
Industry
Landscape developments
Niche-level
Socio-technicalregime
Increasing structurationof activities in local practices