Transcript The arduous transition to low carbon energy [PPTX 2.62MB]

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
Structure
1. Introduction
2. Multi-level perspective
3. Empirical application and assessment
3.1. Positive developments in (global) renewable electricity
niches
3.2. Negative developments in (global) electricity regimes
4. Conclusions
1. Introduction/background
- Worldwide CO2 emissions rising fast
- Current trends are in the upper scenario range
- Timely transition will be difficult/arduous
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 electricity
a) Positive (niche) developments
b) 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 system (Geels, 2004)
Regulations and policies
(e.g. traffic rules,parking fees,
emission standards, car tax)
Road infrastructure
and traffic system
(e.g. lights, signs)
Maintenance and
distribution network
(e.g. repair shops, dealers)
Socio-technical system
for transportation
Culture and symbolic
meaning (e.g.
Freedom, individuality)
Vehicle (artefact)
Industry structure
(e.g. car manufacturers,
suppliers)
Markets and user practices
(mobility patterns, driver
preferences)
Fuel infrastructure
(oil companies,
petrol stations)
Analyse social interactions in organizational field
Supply chain:
* material supliers
* component suppliers
* machine suppliers
Users
Production,
industry:
* firms
* engineers,
designers
Research:
* universities
* technical institutes
* R&D laboratories
Societal groups:
Policy, public authorities:
* European Commission, WTO, GATT
* Government, Ministries, Parliament
* Local authorities and executive branches
(e.g. Greenpeace,
media, branch
organisations)
Static multi-level perspective (nested hierarchy)
* Radical innovation in niches (variation/novelty)
* Struggling against existing regimes
* In context of broader ‘landscape trends’
Increasing structuration
of activities in local practices
Landscape
System/regime
Niches
(novelty)
1) Existing regime is locked-in + path dependent
Economic:
a)vested interests
b)sunk investments (competence, infrastructure)
c)scale advantages, low cost
Social:
a)cognitive routines make ‘blind’ (beliefs)
b)alignment between social groups (‘social capital’)
c)user practices, values and life styles
Politics and power:
a)Opposition to change from vested interests
b)Uneven playing field + policy networks
2) Niches for radical innovation
•Nurturing of ‘hopeful monstrosities’ (Mokyr)
•Protection from mainstream market selection
•Carried by entrepreneurs, outsiders, small social networks
Invading product
Product performance
Established product
T (1)
T (2)
Time
Time lag between invention and innovation (Clark, Freeman, Soete, 1981)
electronic digital
computers
float glass
fluorescent lighting
helicopter
jet engine
magnetic taperecording
radar
radio
synthetic detergents
television
transistor
zipper
Invention
1939
Innovation Time lag (years)
1943
4
1902
1901
1904
1928
1898
1943
1938
1936
1941
1937
41
37
32
13
39
1925
1900
1886
1923
1948
1891
1934
1918
1928
1936
1950
1923
9
18
42
13
2
32
3. Situated in exogenous socio-technical landscape
•Exogeneous backdrop
•Slow-changing secular trends (demographics, macro-economics,
ideology, climate change)
Socio-technical’
landscape
Sociotechnical
regime
Landscape developments
put pressure on existing regime,
which opens up,
creating windows
of opportunity for novelties
Markets, user
preferences
New socio-technical
regime influences
landscape
Industry
Science
Policy
Culture
Technology
Socio-technical regime is ‘dynamically stable’.
On different dimensions there are ongoing processes
External influences on niches
(via expectations and networks)
New configuration breaks through, taking
advantage of ‘windows of opportunity’.
Adjustments occur in socio-technical regime.
Elements are gradually linked together,
and stabilise in a dominant design.
Internal momentum increases.
Technological
niches
Small networks of actors support novelties on the basis of expectations and future visions.
Learning processes take place on multiple dimensions.
Different elements are gradually linked together in a seamless web.
Time
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, solarPV and bio-power
300
250
200
Wind
150
Solar-PV
Bio-power
100
50
0
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
- 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
300
250
Marine
200
Geo-thermal
Small hydro
Bio-power
150
Biofuels
Solar
Wind
100
50
0
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
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)
Relative composition (%) of electricity in 2011
-
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)
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
3. Rising public concerns after 2005:
Hurricane Katrina (2005), All Gore’s movie (2005), Stern Review (2006) , IPCC report
(2007), Nobel Prize (2007)
Public attention to climate change (UK)
normalized: max=1
The Guardian
1,0
The Times
0,8
The Independent
Daily Express
0,6
0,4
0,2
2011*
2010
2009
2008
2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000
1999
1998
1997
1996
1995
1994
1993
1992
1991
1990
0,0
4. Green stimulus packages (2009):
$522 billion
Varying country commitments
- Korea + China
- UK low green stimulus
But also some weakening of drivers
1) Decline in public attention for climate change
2) Decline of global investment in 2012
3) Weakening of green policies
a) Reductions in feed-in tariffs (UK, Germany, Spain, Italy)
b) No successor of Kyoto; no international action until 2020
c) Green stimulus packages winding down (2011-2012)
d) EU ETS is not (yet) working: carbon price is low and variable
d) EU ETS carbon price: low, decreasing, fluctuating
3.2. Negative developments in
(global) electricity regimes
1) Shale gas revolution
• started in US and now spreading to China, UK, Poland
• IEA (2011) predicts ‘golden age for natural gas’
 Lower gas prices in US
Double edged sword
• Positive: gas replacing coal in US (gradually)
US power generation (IEA, 2013)
Negative effects
a) Immediate risks (groundwater, tremors) 
controversial debates
b) May wipe out renewables investment wave
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
Increasing
Landscape
structuration developments
of activities
in local
practices
Sociotechnical
regime
Specific shock
Markets, user
preferences
Industry
Science
Policy
Culture
Technology
Nichelevel
Time
b. Transformation pathway
Increasing
structuration
of activities
in local practices
Landscape
developments
Landscape pressure
Socio-technical
regime
Adoption of
symbiotic
niche-innovation
Niche level
Time
c. Reconfiguration pathway
Landscape level
Regime/systems
level
Niche level
1) Novelties emerge in technoscientific niches in context
of stable system architecture
2) Diffusion and adoption
of innovations in
existing system
3) Reconfiguration of
elements leads to
new system architecture
d. De-alignment and re-alignment
Increasing
structuration
of activities
in local
practices
Landscape
developments
Markets, user
preferences
Socio- Industry
technical
regime Policy
Science
Culture
Technology
Niche-level
Time
Two pronged policy strategy
1) Niche-level: Stimulate variety/innovation
- Long-term visions + short-term action (projects): learning-bydoing, network building
2) Regime-level: Tighten selection environment
(taxes, regulations, incentives)
Varieties of capitalism: different policy styles
• No single policy recipe for system innovation
• Different policy styles :
a) Liberal Market Economies (e.g. USA, UK, Canada).
b) Coordinated Market Economies (e.g. Germany, Denmark)
c) State-influenced Market Economies (e.g. France, Japan, Korea)
d) State capitalism (China, Russia)
Different policy mixes and instruments
Commandand-control
(top-down
steering)
Market model Policy networks (convening,
(incentivize bottom orchestrating processes)
up agents)
Governance
instruments
Formal rules,
regulations,
laws
Financial
incentives
(subsidies,
taxes)
Foundation
scientific
disciplines
Classic political Neo-classical
science
economics
Learning processes,
projects/experiments,
vision/scenario workshops,
strategic conferences, public
debates, platforms
Sociology, innovation
studies, neo-institutional
political science
Niche-innovation initially carried by local/urban
projects
Global niche-level
(e.g. the emerging
field of PV solar cells)
… is carried by
projects in different
local practices
Sequence of projects enables niche
development trajectories (Geels/Raven, 2006)
Global level
(community,
field)
Shared rules (problem agendas, search heuristics,
expectations, abstract theories, technical models)
Framing,
coordinating
Local projects,
carried by local
networks,
characterised
by local variety
Aggregation,
learning
Emerging
technological
trajectory
Dynamic model of niche development
(relations between mechanisms)
Accepted visions and expectations (on
functionality) form agenda of emerging field
Global level
(emerging field)
Adjust
expectations
Cognitive, formal and normative rules
(knowledge, regulations, behavioural norms)
Learning,
articulation
aggregation Global network of actors
(emerging community)
Enrol more actors
Resources + requirements
(finance, protection,
specifications)
Outcomes and new
promises by local actors
Local practices
Artefact-activity: Projects in local practices
(R&D projects, pilot projects)