ALBERT

Description: There has been increasing scientific evidence related to climate change and its attribution, impacts, and possibilities of mitigation. Yet, climate contrarianism still persists. This paper concentrates on Poland and Norway—two fossil fuel giants that represent essential differences on climate contrarianism. In Norway there is a broad social and political consensus about the attribution and importance of climate change and a motivation to undertake climate change mitigation measures, whereas in Poland the inconvenient truth on anthropogenic climate change remains particularly inconvenient. By taking a qualitative approach, this paper discusses different drivers of climate contrarianism in both countries; provides examples of contrarian attitudes present in society, media, politics, and research; and compares their role in Polish and Norwegian contexts. The findings show the difficulties in defining universal factors determining contrarian attitudes, because their understanding and weight can be different among countries and a more nuanced analysis is needed to scrutinize different national contexts. The conclusion calls for more comparative research, which would combine quantitative and qualitative approaches investigating climate contrarianism.

Description: Citizen-driven Renewable Energy (RE) projects of various kinds, known collectively as community energy (CE), have an important part to play in the worldwide transition to cleaner energy systems. On the basis of evidence from 8 European countries, we investigate CE, over approximately the last 50 years (c.1970–2018), through the lens of Social Innovation (SI). We carry out a detailed review of literature around the social dimension of renewable energy; we collect, describe and map CE initiatives from Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, Poland, Spain, Sweden, and the UK; and we unpack the SI concept into 4 operational criteria which we suggest are essential to recognizing SI in CE. These are: (1) Crises and opportunities; (2) the agency of civil society; (3) reconfiguration of social practices, institutions and networks; (4) new ways of working. We identify three main phases of SI in CE. The environmental movements of the 1960s and the “oil shocks” of the 1970s provided the catalyst for a series of innovative societal responses around energy and self-sufficiency. A second wave of SI relates to the mainstreaming of RE and associated government support mechanisms. In this phase, with some important exceptions, successful CE initiatives were mainly confined to those countries where they were already embedded as innovators in the previous phase. The third phase of CE innovation relates to the societal response to the Great Recession that began in 2008 and lasted most of the subsequent decade. CE initiatives formed around this time were also strongly focused around democratization of energy and citizen empowerment in the context of rising energy prices, a weak economy, and a production and supply system dominated by excessively powerful multinational energy firms. CE initiatives today are more diverse than at any time previously, and are likely to continue to act as incubators for pioneering initiatives addressing virtually all aspects of energy. However, large multinational energy firms remain the dominant vehicle for delivery of the energy transition, and the apparent excitement in European policy circles for “community energy” does not extend to democratization of energy or genuine empowerment of citizens.

Description: 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 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 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.

Description: In this deliverable, we focus on the third and final step of the overall SENTINEL stakeholder engagement strategy and we aim (a). to present stakeholder feedback on the usefulness of the SENTINEL modelling results for the case studies regarding the improvement of stakeholders’ decision-making as well as recommendations for improved integration of model components, and (ii). to produce a final set of results and lessons learnt after further model application within the case study framework. To meet these objectives, we applied a four-tier participatory multi-method approach consisting of stakeholder interactions in 10 events (workshops, conferences, focus groups, bilateral meetings, etc.), in which SENTINEL modelling teams and more than 90 stakeholders participated. We discussed with stakeholders about 12 model applications to the case studies (9 for the ontinental and 3 for the National case study) to examine the usefulness of our models and modelling results as well as identify modelling gaps requiring further improvements. During the different stakeholder engagement activities, modellers had the chance to receive various perspectives from multiple stakeholders. Discussion topics spanned from general issues related to energy system modelling, like model integration and intercomparison as well as its added value and complementarity with other approaches, to more specific ones, focusing on learning curves for technology costs and infrastructural needs, crucial environmental criteria to be considered, or the behavioural change importance for achieving decarbonisation. Stakeholders also provided useful advice in terms of disseminating and further exploiting modelling results. We also present further modelling refinements that SENTINEL modellers have implemented or planned for providing more useful and policy-relevant implications that can be leveraged by policymakers and civil society. Moreover, we elicit key modelling challenges and lessons learnt based on the model application process to the case studies and reflect on further research areas regarding energy system modelling. One important lesson learnt from our work is that modellers need to put more effort into involving non-technical audiences in the energy modelling process by making sophisticated outputs more understandable to them. This can further enable the mainstreaming of energy system modelling, as stakeholders with no background in this area can also provide feedback on the relevance of modelling and their needs. Furthermore, we also find out that stakeholders with technical background pay close attention to how various models were integrated and how modelling outcomes compare to those of other models when using similar scenario specifications and assumptions. We observe that further research and modelling studies should aim at better capturing the effects of fossil-fuel price uncertainty and eliciting strategic choices about a quicker reduction in the reliance on fossil fuels, particularly Russian oil and gas. In addition, stakeholders are interested in learning how citizen-led energy transition pathways can be realised and consider that people-powered storylines should be further disseminated in energy scenario specifications. Finally, we find out that behavioural change is a critical challenge towards achieving the climate neutral goal.

Description: This synthesis report presents the results of the workshop “Models for the European Energy Transition: Your Questions, Your Needs!”, held on the 1st of October 2020. The insights of the workshop will contribute to the development of new and improvements of existing energy system models of SENTINEL. Additionally, the findings will support the development of the SENTINEL platform that will allow a wide range of decision-makers to address their critical energy system design challenges better.

Description: In this deliverable, we aim to (i). identify and specify policy-relevant scenarios, along with the respective energy targets, and qualitative narratives to base modelling runs on, and (ii). identify contextual critical issues and challenges in energy system planning, and specific research questions, to which the SENTINEL models will attempt to provide answers, accounting for particularities of diverge spatial scales. The main research questions of our work are: “What scenarios should we apply in each of the SENTINEL case studies?” and “What are the main challenges and research questions by decision- and policymakers that the SENTINEL models should be able to answer?”

Description: The questionnaire was designed as a collaboration between researchers of the EU H2020 projects SENTINEL and PANDORA to study the impact of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) on the stakeholder engagement in energy and fishery research. We developed it as an explorative, semi-quantitative, self-completion online questionnaire, using the online tool “LimeSurvey”. The study by Süsser et al. (2021) investigates the effects of the COVID-19 crisis on European energy research, in particular the stakeholder work, during the first wave of the coronavirus in spring and summer 2020. The questionnaire presented here has been adapted to the energy research context. We performed an online survey study among people responsible for stakeholder engagement who work in energy research projects across Europe. A similar questionnaire has been adapted and applied for the study by Köpsel et al. (2021) on "Stakeholder engagement vs. social distancing—how does the Covid-19 pandemic affect participatory research in EU marine science projects?".