Table Of Content

ENERGY DEMOCRACIES FOR SUSTAINABLE FUTURES ENERGY DEMOCRACIES FOR SUSTAINABLE FUTURES Foreword by Benjamin Sovacool Edited by Majia Nadesan School of Social and Behavioral Sciences, Arizona State University, Glendale, AZ, United States Martin J. Pasqualetti School of Geographical Sciences and Urban Planning, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ, United States; Senior Global Futures Scientist, Julie Ann Wrigley Global Future Laboratory, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ, United States Jennifer Keahey School of Social and Behavioral Sciences, Arizona State University, Glendale, AZ, United States Academic Press is an imprint of Elsevier 125 London Wall, London EC2Y 5AS, United Kingdom 525 B Street, Suite 1650, San Diego, CA 92101, United States 50 Hampshire Street, 5th Floor, Cambridge, MA 02139, United States The Boulevard, Langford Lane, Kidlington, Oxford OX5 1GB, United Kingdom Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher. Details on how to seek permission, further information about the Publisher’s permissions policies and our arrangements with organizations such as the Copyright Clearance Center and the Copyright Licensing Agency, can be found at our website: www.elsevier.com/permissions. This book and the individual contributions contained in it are protected under copyright by the Publisher (other than as may be noted herein). Notices Knowledge and best practice in this field are constantly changing. As new research and experience broaden our understanding, changes in research methods, professional practices, or medical treatment may become necessary. Practitioners and researchers must always rely on their own experience and knowledge in evaluating and using any information, methods, compounds, or experiments described herein. In using such information or methods they should be mindful of their own safety and the safety of others, including parties for whom they have a professional responsibility. To the fullest extent of the law, neither the Publisher nor the authors, contributors, or editors, assume any liability for any injury and/or damage to persons or property as a matter of products liability, negligence or otherwise, or from any use or operation of any methods, products, instructions, or ideas contained in the material herein. ISBN 978-0-12-822796-1 For information on all Academic Press publications visit our website at https://www.elsevier.com/books-and-journals Publisher: Charlotte Cockle Acquisitions Editor: Graham Nisbet Editorial Project Manager: Andrae Akeh Production Project Manager: Kiruthika Govindaraju Cover Designer: Vicky Pearson Esser Typeset by STRAIVE, India List of figures FIG. 7.1 An interactive framework to depict accelerating, movement-based energy-society transformation. 62 FIG. 16.1 Top: Karachi overview map for orientation. Bottom left: Energy consumption map. Bottom right: Energy losses map. 154 FIG. 17.1 Youth and community members participated in small-group workshops, facilitated by university students. 161 FIG. 17.2 Outcomes of the workshops were discussed with village audiences. 162 FIG. 19.1 A map of power plants in Puerto Rico by fuel type. It should be noted that while there are numerous solar plants, their overall generation is low compared to petroleum and natural gas. Map made by author with data from the US Energy Information Administration. 174 FIG. 19.2 Topographical map of the archipelago of Puerto Rico. The eastern side of the island is wetter than the southwestern side of the island, which has more arid conditions. Map made by author using ArcGIS Online. 175 FIG. 21.1 Areas identified for the Asa Branca and Jangada offshore wind farms, Ceará state, Brazil. 186 FIG. 21.2 Synthesized and aggregated results of participatory cartography workshops conducted in fishing colônias (associations or guilds) Z-3, Z-18, and Z-19. 189 FIG. 24.1 Location of lithium projects and Indigenous communities in the Argentine Puna (left). Location of the two projects selected for the case study: (A) Salar de Olaroz; (B) Fénix (right). 227 FIG. 25.1 Turkey’s energetic metabolism by subsectors, supply and imports (in TJ) coupled with socio-economic indicators. 236 FIG. 28.1 Map of wind energy in Mexico. 272 FIG. 28.2 Map of wind farms in the Isthmus of Tehuantepec. 274 FIG. 32.1 Global renewable supply necessary for limiting warming to 1.5 degrees. 302 FIG. 32.2 Percentage change in renewable supply required per generation. 303 FIG. 32.3 IPCC climate projections to 2300 [12]. 304 FIG. 32.4 Total GDP loss per generation due to the electricity and heating sector. 306 FIG. 32.5 Intergenerational trends in energy transition financial burdens, current and delayed action. 307 xi List of tables TABLE 9.1 Key political power dynamics in the electricity sector. 85 TABLE 14.1 Overview of ownership type, legal structures, and governance models. 134 TABLE 14.2 Anonymized identifier system for research participants. 141 TABLE 15.1 Cooperative principles. 145 TABLE 15.2 Continuum of participatory governance practices among cooperatives. 147 TABLE 18.1 Justice dimensions of India’s energy transition. 169 TABLE 24.1 Lithium projects currently in operation in Argentina. 228 TABLE 24.2 Codes and types of documents used in this study. 229 TABLE 26.1 Comparison of benefits and hazards of nuclear energy production when focusing on nuclear power plant explosion in Chernobyl, in 1986. 244 TABLE 28.1 Renewables under the scheme of self-supply (1992–2013). 270 TABLE 28.2 Wind farms in the Isthmus of Tehuantepec and main consumers of electricity. 275 TABLE 32.1 Distribution of energy transition costs per generation. 304 TABLE 32.2 Total GDP and GDP losses due to energy transition and global warming per generation. 305 TABLE 35.1 Examples of citizen/consumer participation in the energy system. 329 xiii Conclusion: A call to action, toward an energy research insurrection Alexander Dunlap The Centre for Development and the Environment, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway 1 Introduction Energy Democracies for Sustainable Futures has 36 chapters discussing the challenges, proposals, and hopes for cultivating energy transition and democracy. The book confronts the realities of “top-down” socio-technical design, but also the possibilities for reconfiguring these relationships by democratizing energy development. The book’s introduction frames the present socio-ecological situation within the history of hydrocarbon and nuclear development, before discussing the onset of renewable energy. This includes recognizing the expan- sive concerns related to participation, the possibilities for creating global energy transitions as well as the limitations of local politics. The book covers a wide breadth of topics. Part I examines the possibilities created by imagining energy systems differently. Karen Hudlet-Vazquez and colleagues remind us that community energy systems “can reproduce neoliberal values in relation to the roles of the state, the individual and participation,” noting that “utopian” futures “can therefore have unexpected consequences.” Karen Hudlet-Vazquez and colleagues, however, do not deny an endless amount of alternative energy system possibilities. Rudy Khsar and Ry Brennan demonstrate how decentralization is crucial to forming energy democracies. Brennan apply- ing the bioregional concept to energy infrastructure shows how localizing energy production and consumption into “technoregions” can decrease dependence on decaying wildfire-prone high-tension power lines, meanwhile improving energy efficiency and decreasing consumption. This includes authors reimagining energy systems through social movements, expanded democratic and community governance practices. Part II explores solar transition in India, community adaptations of micro grids in Puerto Rico, and, as Caroline Wright shows, the dif- ficult, but important energy justice possibilities held by energy cooperatives. Demonstrating the transparency, judicial and procedural challenges for offshore wind energy development in Brazil, Thomas Xavier and colleagues outline comprehensive procedural, participatory, and monitoring pathways to improve democratic processes and work toward energy justice. Taking another step toward critical engagement, Part III looks at the “insecurities” and “constraints” of energy democracy. Bidtah Becker and Dana Powell reveal how resource extractivism and energy development collide with CoVID-19 in Navajo territory, with the latter exaggerating existing “disconnection, intergenerational trauma, and infrastructural precar- ity.” Following this is a look into the Argentinian side of the “lithium triangle,” examining the impact of lithium mining necessary for the production of lithium-ion batteries instrumental for facilitating the so-called “green” energy transition. The chapters here turn to examine 339 340 Conclusion: A call to action, toward an energy research insurrection authoritarian energy governance systems, the politics of nuclear energy, wind energy development, and even, as Peta Ashworth and Kathy Witt show, the “psychic numbing” underlin- ing political apathy, inadequate environmental policy and, consequently, prolongs the onset of climate catastrophe. More still, energy security framings, high-consumption practices, and energy democracy are further unpacked. The findings from Ekaterina Tarasova and Harald Rohracher investigating “smart grids” in Sweden convey a reoccurring message across many of the chapters: the current “course of sustainability transitions” are intensifying old “in- equalities and injustice,” meanwhile potentially creating new ones. Energy Democracies remains an impressive collection of thoughtful contributions that will prepare readers to confront the organizational, operational, and environmental justice challenges inherent with the energy transition, decarbonization, and, of course, energy democracy. In the tradition of Energy Democracies critical outlook, this conclusion seeks to widen further this critical discussion. Highlighting areas for investigation, the conclusion briefly discusses five areas in need of greater attention and care. This includes challenging further: (1) The “fossil fuels versus renewable energy dichotomy” and related supply-webs; (2) quantitative data collection and energy models; (3) the normative language in energy research; (4) greater engagement with degrowth literature; and (5), in line with the book, further un- packing and questioning democracy. By further unraveling these areas, the conclusion seeks to indicate doorways toward an insurrection of energy research, challenging—if not over- throwing—existing conceptions, methodologies, terminology, economic and political forms of organization, and, consequently, research. 2 Toward an energy research insurrection Democratizing energy systems will make social and, potentially, ecological improvements, becoming indispensable for creating real energy transitions. On the other hand, taking into account the assemblage of production and enmeshed socio-political factors, the book demon- strates well that democratization is “not enough.” The roots of techno-capitalism, its epistemology, concepts, forms of organization, and organizational structure have normalized various types of violence, making the infrastructural harms emanating from them appear in- visible to people who are not directly and “quickly”—as opposed to “slowly” [1]—impacted by them. Locating reoccurring gaps in the literature, this conclusion seeks to increase critical pressure and precision to begin a process of real energy transition. Firstly, an insurrection in energy research situates itself in recognizing that “energy transition,” as it currently stands, is a myth or hope and not a historical fact [2,3]. Unfortunately, as the introduction to this book outlined, the only energy transition in the process—operating on a planetary scale— started over 200 years ago and it is a transition in the wrong direction: from renewable and low-energy technologies to industrialized systems dependent on increasing energy and material intensive computational technologies. This conclusion wants to widen the research agenda, pushing readers to go deeper with their assessment of energy infrastructural development and transition. This necessitates questioning all the little Latourian “black boxes” that operate within energy research. The themes discussed below, we can call, in popular parlance, research pathways toward decolonizing energy transition [4] or, thinking of Foucault’s [5] “insurrection of subjugated knowledges,” Conclusion: A call to action, toward an energy research insurrection 341 providing projectiles for an “insurrection in energy research.” Thinking of the history of “social acceptance,” outlined by Susana Batel [6], which traditionally conceptualized “local oppo- sition as deviant and something to understand only in order to be overcome.” Insurrectionary energy research responds by privileging dissenting perspectives within research areas— stakeholders opting to question the ideologies of economic growth, technological progress, and reject project development entirely—to create space for often under representative re- calcitrant and so-called “insurgent” voices.a This opens space for experiences, knowledge, and perspectives about the socio-ecological realities of energy infrastructures to come to the foreground within public and policy discourses. Aside from privileging dissenting voices, the remainder of this section will present five areas in need of greater consideration, in hopes to ferment an insurrection in energy research. This entails widening the focus and taking more holistic—and embedding a (non-modeling) life cycle-oriented—approaches within the energy and infrastructural research. Implicitly, this contends that by recognizing the depth of the “energy problem” people can create stronger foundations for institutional change, meanwhile charting creative pathways for potential solutions—making rebellious and ecologically sustainable dreams lived realities. While not complete in any way, the following offers five noticeable blind spots in need of greater uptake, acknowledgment, and research. 2.1 Fossil fuels vs renewables: Participatory inclusion for invisibilizing supply-webs The resource extractive reality behind so-called “renewable energy” and “lower-carbon” supply-webs is underestimated and largely ignored. In the book’s collection, the introduction references the issues of rare earth mining, meanwhile, Melisa Escosteguy and colleagues reveal the realities behind securing lithium-ion batteries for electric vehicles and other lower- carbon infrastructures. This also includes Lourdes Alonso-Serna and Edgar Talledos-Sánchez noting the multi-dimensional extractive reality behind wind turbines. The issue of energy supply-webs remains largely neglected in the discipline, gaining popularity only recently in reports and social science research [7–11]. The severity—even calamity—related to mining, processing, and manufacturing for “energy democracy” remains generally under- acknowledged. The socio-ecological issues relating to the impacts of energy infrastructure supply-webs makes or break the concepts of “transition,” “clean,” “renewable,” and “green” energy. This dimension deserves further attention and inclusion within research, remembering that behind every operational site of energy infrastructure is extensive mining and manufacturing supply-webs. Consider these conservative estimates. The World Bank [10], based on ambitious global temperatures scenarios, explains: “[D]emand for aluminum, indium, and silver are expected to increase by more than 300% by 2050 from the [2018] base scenario, while the demand for copper, iron, lead, neodymium, and zinc is expected to increase by more than 200per- cent” (emphasis added). The situation, however, is radically underestimated. In the EU alone, a These voices and concerns are, in fact, normal and reasonable, yet are implicitly understood “deviant,” “wrong” and, when taking direct action, “insurgent” from statist and capitalist developmentalist perspectives. 342 Conclusion: A call to action, toward an energy research insurrection demand for lithium, dysprosium, cobalt, neodymium, and nickel increase by up to 600% in 2030 and up to 1500% in 2050. Batteries for electric vehicles and low-carbon technologies will drive the 2030 demand for lithium up by 1800% and cobalt by 500%, and in 2050 demand will increase by almost 6000% for lithium and 1500% for cobalt [12]. These approxima- tions, however, still do not take into account distributional, or “secondary,” infrastructures (e.g., transformers, power lines), e-bikes, scooters, and “smart grid” technologies. Nor does this anticipate unexpected increases in electric vehicle demand currently in process in Norway. The extractive statistics above are limited, having missing data and reductive by meth- odological nature, which is discussed more below. Yet importantly, these numbers do not discuss mineral processing (leaching, etc.), smelting, transportation, manufacturing, and corresponding socio-ecological conditions. A recent study by Andrea Brock and colleagues [13] is insightful, revealing the complications and problems related to solar manufacturing. The article reminds us once again that so-called renewables are deeply integrated with and dependent on the global economy and other toxic industries, which—of course—necessitate fossil fuels. Supply-webs reveal the harsh reality that fossil fuels and renewable energy are deeply intertwined and dependent on each other [7,14]. Every machine—electric, digitalized or not—in mining sites, processing plants, manufacturing facilities, and the transportation sector relies on hydrocarbons. So-called renewable energy infrastructures are dependent on hydrocarbons in every single phase of their existence, from their conception to decommis- sioning into landfills [9]. This is why fossil fuel + is a more accurate term for “renewable energy,” because every aspect of wind, solar, and hydrological infrastructures are dependent on extensive—under and unaccounted for—uses of hydrocarbons. Meanwhile, the “+” or “2.0” (in Spanish and Italian) indicates the energy harnessing, or green extractivist character, that absorbs wind, solar, and hydrological kinetic energy into the energy grid and capitalist industries [7,14]. This “plus” or “2.0,” critically, however, does not take into account dis- rupting solar-landscape cycles or wind “velocity deficits” created by wind turbines that are empirically proven to have “statistically significant impacts on near-surface air temperatures and humidity as well as surface sensible and latent heat fluxes” [15]. This results in land dry- ing, stressing water resources, and climatic temperature increases [15], which resonates with ethnographic works [16–18]. The marketed claim of “renewable inexhaustibility” requires sensitivity and greater critical reflection. Furthermore, it should be remembered, as others have pointed out [4,19,20], raw material extractivism and processing remains an issue for community-based energy systems, which intersects with the various issues of environmental justice issues covered within Energy Democracies. This contends, as I have elsewhere [14], that environmental justice and “social acceptance” needs to take place at every point along with a supply web, which stresses the importance of Myles Lennon [4] advocacy for “supply chain solidarity” and other important steps toward trying to make wind, solar, and water infrastructures actually—and really—renewable. 2.2 Epistemology/ontology of quantitative and modeling studies The extractive data referenced above from the World Bank and European Commission (EC) on raw material required for lower-carbon energy infrastructures, like most data of this type, is quantitative and based on models. This, as most researchers know, means there are serious limitations, or reductions, in terms of acknowledging ecosystem toxification, political