Refine
Document Type
- Article (2)
- Master's Thesis (1)
Language
- English (3)
Is part of the Bibliography
- yes (3) (remove)
Keywords
- energy transition (3) (remove)
Institute
Energy system models are advancing rapidly. However, it is not clear whether models are becoming better, in the sense that they address the questions that decision-makers need to be answered to make well-informed decisions. Therefore, we investigate the gap between model improvements relevant from the perspective of modellers compared to what users of model results think models should address. Thus, we ask: What are the differences between energy model improvements as perceived by modellers, and the actual needs of users of model results? To answer this question, we conducted a literature review, 32 interviews, and an online survey. Our results show that user needs and ongoing improvements of energy system models align to a large degree so that future models are indeed likely to be better than current models. We also find mismatches between the needs of modellers and users, especially in the modelling of social, behavioural and political aspects, the trade-off between model complexity and understandability, and the ways that model results should be communicated. Our findings suggest that a better understanding of user needs and closer cooperation between modellers and users is imperative to truly improve models and unlock their full potential to support the transition towards climate neutrality in Europe.
There are considerable differences in the pace and underlying motivations of the energy transition in the different geographical contexts across Europe. The European Union's commitment to climate neutrality by 2050 requires a better understanding of the energy transition in different contexts and scales to improve cooperation of involved actors. In this article, we identify critical issues and challenges of the European energy transition as perceived by stakeholders and investigate how these perceptions vary across geographical contexts. To do so, we couple a policy document analysis with research based on stakeholder engagement activities in three different scales, national (Greece), regional (Nordic Region) and continental scale (European Union). Our findings show that stakeholder perspectives on the energy transition depend on contextual factors underlying the need for policies sensitive to the different transition issues and challenges in European regions. They also reveal cross-cutting issues and challenges among the three case studies, which could lead to further improvement of the cross-country collaboration to foster the European energy transition.
The present work is a case study contributing to the major planning project “Suedlink”. It is structured as follows: first, in a theoretical part, mandatory theories of social acceptance (Wüstenhagen et al., 2007), steps of participation (Münnich, 2014), and the governance theory (Benz and Dose, 2011) are elaborated. Secondly, the relevant methods are discussed. Thirdly, in a qualitative analytical part, the information that were gathered from the expert interviews are analyzed with the use of the aforementioned theories. In the fourth place, an empirical quantitative analysis of data regarding the public acceptance towards Suedlink is presented.
In this case study, with the use of qualitative and quantitative methods, two questions are answered: first, which governance aspects were relevant for the priority use of underground cables for the construction of high voltage direct current transmission lines? For this question, intensive document analysis and different expert interviews were conducted. Secondly, the central question of the present work addresses the question whether local or/and individual factors affect the public acceptance towards SüdLink. Here, in particular, it is interesting to analyze if the priority use of underground cables affected the people’s acceptance towards SuedLink. In order to respond to both questions, an online survey was conducted among citizen initiatives, district administrators, and individuals in social media during March till July 2016. Thereafter, the data was analyzed with the use of descriptive quantitative methods. The data shows, that underground cables not necessarily increase public acceptance (see also Menges and Beyer, 2013). On the contrary, individual and local criteria were relevant for the survey respondents. For example criteria such as the quality of participation, distance between home and transmission lines, and the additional financial burden (taxes, higher prices for electricity) were important for the evaluation. In addition, survey respondents who participated in citizen initiatives were more critical against the priority use of underground cables and SuedLink in general. Likewise, residential homeowners rejected every form of transmission lines.