THE CHALLENGE(S)<\/strong><\/p>\nFor the Research Design Challenge, we are interested in your theories, methods and approaches to an energy related research problem from your disciplinary point of view (see list above to qualify). The prerequisite is that you find at least one more partner (individual[s] from European academic institution[s]) from a different European country (H2020 eligible countries) to collaborate on the challenge. The challenge itself is kept relatively general in order for many potential researches being able to connect to it. They relate to the overarching research problems of control, change and capacity-building in energy systems from a social science and humanities perspective (concept and concomitant challenges based on: B\u00fcscher\/Sumpf 2015, see pdf download for details). Please consider the following three sub-challenges to relate to:<\/p>\n
Challenge A:\u00a0<\/em><\/strong>It is argued by many STEM and energy-SSH scholars alike that future energy systems will increase in complexity, due to larger degrees of decentralisation and the growing amount of actors and technical components in the grid. Against this background, it will be a challenge for system operators and supervisors in numerous fields to remain in control<\/em> of what happens in the system, i.e. control of technical processes (safety, security of supply, load management etc.) as well as social processes (e.g. control of market developments, control of electricity prices, control of smart grid data etc. ). From your (disciplinary) point of view, how would you approach the (research and real-world) problem of control<\/em> in future energy systems? What theories and methods would you apply to research this problem? What approaches would you suggest to act upon this problem?<\/p>\nChallenge B:\u00a0<\/em><\/strong>During the current energy transitions in Europe and beyond, we see that institutional change and learning are crucial prerequisites in order to achieve a more efficient and sustainable system, i.e. changing markets with new challenger actors, learning utilities extending their portfolios, changing political subsidies policies etc. In this connection, energy-SSH discussions circle around degrees and relations of stability and change<\/em>, given that some elements in the system must remain stable to perform system functions reliably during the transition with regard to current sustainment of operation (security of supply today, safety today, price stability today etc.). In other words, you can\u2019t change everything at once. This paradigm is often associated with the notion of (societal) experimentation, where certain islands of innovation are being tested and set variant while others remain stable to deliver familiar output, e.g. incumbent actors trying to hold on to the status quo while experimental niches try to foster innovation as quickly as possible. This balance between stability and change in the system for a transition to be successfully implemented is a repeated point of reference for energy-SSH. From your (disciplinary) point of view, how would you approach the (research and real-world) problem of stability and change <\/em>toward future energy systems? What theories and methods would you apply to research this problem? What approaches would you suggest to act upon this problem?<\/p>\nChallenge C<\/em><\/strong>: <\/strong>In the past, the energy system was said to be existing only \u2018behind the power outlet\u2019. The consumer was usually not considered an active part of the system, but rather the passive receptor of a service, or the \u2018end-user\u2019. This pattern is currently, and more so in the future, under transition along energy system innovation. \u2018Prosumers\u2018 and \u2018energy citizens\u2018, designed as active system components, are desired as roles for average consumers, helping the grid\u00b4s stability as demand-side management resources due to intermittent renewable energy sources, as well as creating new business opportunities for consumers and European economies alike. The underlying prerogative for this kind of development clearly is the\u00a0mobilisation of action capacity<\/i>\u00a0(i.e. the ability to act in the face of uncertainty) among both private and commercial consumers, who are expected to more actively participate in load shifting operations to make the \u2018smart grid\u2019 work. From your (disciplinary) point of view, how would you approach the (research and real-world) problem of\u00a0capacity-building, i.e. fostering the actions necessary\u00a0<\/i>to realise active consumer involvement? What theories and methods would you apply to research this problem? What approaches would you suggest to act upon this problem?<\/p>\n<\/div><\/div>
<\/div>
<\/div>
List of all abstracts and academic groups involved within the different challenges.<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/div>\n\n
\n\n\nCHALLENGE A: Control<\/strong><\/th>\n<\/tr>\n\n| Author<\/th>\n | Title<\/th>\n<\/tr>\n<\/thead>\n | \n\n| Smedberg, A.; Light, A.<\/td>\n | She\u2019s lost control again: A case study on localised energy production in Orkney<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n | \n\nLarsen, K.; \u015eorman, A. H.;
\nTurhan, E.<\/td>\n | Reconciling qualitative and quantitative storytelling in just energy decisionmaking:
\nNew scenarios for a new energetic metabolism<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n | \n\n| Smedberg, A.; Light, A.<\/td>\n | She\u2019s lost control again: A case study on localised energy production in Orkney<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n | \n\n| Wokuri, P.; Pechancov\u00e1, V.<\/td>\n | Stability and Change in Energy Systems:Islands of innovation in the UK,
\nCzech Republic and France<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/div>\n\n \n\n\nCHALLENGE B: Stability & Change<\/strong><\/th>\n<\/tr>\n\n| Author<\/th>\n | Title<\/th>\n<\/tr>\n<\/thead>\n | \n\n| Hobson, K.; Eadson, W.; Aiken, G.; Dinnie, L.<\/td>\n | The role of community energy in shifting energy landscapes:
\nexploring multi-scalar networks of stability and change<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n | \n\n| Oliveira, S.; Baborska-Narozny, M.<\/td>\n | Feeding back or feeding forward? A new lens into building energy use<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n | \n\n| Wagner, A.; Lis, A.; Ruzzenenti, F.; Walnum, H.J<\/td>\n | Envisaging the unintended social consequences of a transition
\nfrom fossil fuel based toelectric and electronic mobility<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n | \n\n| Greene, M.; Schiffer, A.<\/td>\n | Learning from past and current energy transitions to build sustainable
\nand resilient energy futures: lessons from Ireland and The Gambia<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n | \n\n| M\u00e4rker, C.; Milchram, Chr.<\/td>\n | How can institutional change in complex socio-technical systems
\nbe guided by an analysis of underlying values?<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n | \n\n| Schippl, J.; von Wirth, T.<\/td>\n | Including a spatial perspective into research on socio-technical transitions:
\ncase studies in the Swiss energy and German transport sector<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n | \n\n| Buchmann, K.;Heffer, Sh.; Mintz Cohen, Y.P.<\/td>\n | How do energy start-ups and energy societal experimentation projects in
\nIsrael and Germany constitute the inside (conformity) and outside (rebellion)?<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/div>\n\n \n\n\nCHALLENGE C: Capacity-Building<\/strong><\/th>\n<\/tr>\n\n| Author<\/th>\n | Title<\/th>\n<\/tr>\n<\/thead>\n | \n\n| Della Valle, N.; Poderi, G.<\/td>\n | What works for Consumer Engagement in Energy Transition:
\nExperimenting a Behavioral-Sociological approach<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n | \n\n| Fell, M ; Neves, D.<\/td>\n | Do learnings on community participation in island microgrid projects map
\nacross to urban quasi- or islanded-microgrid contexts, and if so, how?<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n | \n\n| Hanna, J.; Auger, J.; Watts, L<\/td>\n | Through the Wall<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n | \n\n| Schweiker, M.; Huebner, G.<\/td>\n | Beyond the average consumer:
\nExploring the potential to increase the activity of consumers in loadshifting behaviours
\nby means of custom\u2010made applications<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/div>\n | | | | | |