Advertisement

Energy Efficiency

, Volume 10, Issue 5, pp 1215–1234 | Cite as

Prosumers and smart grid technologies in Denmark: developing user competences in smart grid households

  • Meiken HansenEmail author
  • Bettina Hauge
Original Article

Abstract

This paper explores and describes resident’s experiences from a smart grid project that involved 20 households in a rural area in Denmark and ran from 2014 to 2015. The study is based on qualitative data from the participating households, collected 6, 12 and 18 months after the start of the intervention. Drawing on theories of social practice and the three intertwined elements of a practice: competences, images and materials, the paper contributes with an in-depth analysis of a complex intervention, focusing on how the participants changed energy practices as a result of the installed smart grid technologies. Long-term studies on such comprehensive energy interventions and derived changes in domestic energy practices are exceptional. The results show that people relate to their natural environment in new ways and construct new practices according to the movements of the sun; that they gradually become skilled practitioners and prosumers; and that they also increase consumption and develop expectations towards the energy company, requesting better dialogue on energy consumption and control. The paper concludes with reflections and suggestions on how findings may be relevant to policy and research in the area.

Keywords

Smart grids Energy intervention Prosumers Practice theory Competences 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We are grateful for the chance to work with Insero Live Lab, and we would like to thank the employees from Insero and the informants for taking the time to provide the necessary support and data, respectively. In particular, we would like to thank Munna Hoffmann-Jørgensen for valuable insights in the project setup and knowledge sharing that has been central for the research in this paper. We would also like to thank Eva-Karin Heiskanen, Kaisa Matschoss, Jouni Juntunen and the seven anonymous reviewers for helpful comments to an earlier version of this paper, and chief advisor Stefan Krüger Nielsen, Centre for Climate and Energy Economics, Danish Energy Agency, for comments on our policy suggestions.

Compliance with ethical standards

Funding

This research was funded by the iPower project (The Danish Council for Strategic Research and the Danish Council for Technology). The content of this paper is the sole responsibility of the authors and does not represent the view of the iPower project or involved partners.

References

  1. Akrich, M. (1992). The de-scription of technical objects. In John Law and Wiebe E. Bijker (Eds.) Shaping technology/building society: studies in sociotechnical change. Cambridge and London: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  2. Balcombe, P., Rigby, D., & Azapagic, A. (2013). Motivations and barriers associated with adopting microgeneration energy technologies in the UK. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 22, 655–666.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Balta-Ozkan, N., Amerighi, O., & Boteler, B. (2014). A comparison of consumer perceptions towards smart homes in the UK, Germany and Italy: reflections for policy and future research. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 26(10), 1176–95.Google Scholar
  4. Bergman, N., & Eyre, N. (2011). What role for microgeneration in a shift to a low carbon domestic energy sector in the UK? Energy Efficiency, 4(3), 335–353.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Buchanan, K., Russo, R., & Anderson, B. (2014). Feeding back about eco-feedback: How do consumers use and respond to energy monitors? Energy Policy, 73, 138–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bourdieu, P., & Wacquant, L. J. D. (1992). An invitation to reflexive sociology. An invitation to reflexive sociology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  7. Caird, S., & Roy, R. (2006). Household ecological footprints-demographics and sustainability. Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and Management, 08(04), 407–429.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative analysis. London: SAGE Publications.Google Scholar
  9. Collins, H. M. (2001). In T. R. Schatzki, K. Knorr Cetina, & E. von Savigny (Eds.), What is tacit knowledge? Chapter 7 in. The practice turn in contemporary theory. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  10. Dansk Energi, & Energinet.dk. (2010). Smart grid i Danmark.Google Scholar
  11. Darby, S. (2006). The effectiveness of feedback on energy consumption—a review for Defra of the literature on metering, billing and direct displays. Environmental Change Institute, University of Oxford, Volume, 22(April), 1–21.Google Scholar
  12. Denzin, N., & Lincoln, S. (Eds.). (2000). Handbook of qualitative research (Second ed.). London: SAGE Publications.Google Scholar
  13. Devine-Wright, P. (2007). Energy citizenship: psychological aspects of evolution in sustainable energy technologies. In J. Murphy (Ed.), Governing Technology for Sustainability (pp. 41–62). London: Earthscan. Google Scholar
  14. Dobbyn, J., & Thomas, G. (2005). Seeing the light: the impact of micro-generation on the way we use energy. Qualitative Research Findings.Google Scholar
  15. Energistyrelsen. (2014). ENERGISTATISTIK 2013. Copenhagen.Google Scholar
  16. Fadaeenejad, M., Saberian, A. M., Fadaee, M., Radzi, M. A. M., Hizam, H., & AbKadir, M. Z. A. (2014). The present and future of smart power grid in developing countries. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 29, 828–834.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Fischer, C. (2007). Influencing electricity consumption via consumer feedback. A review of experience. ECEEE 2007 Summer Study, 2007(February), 4–9.Google Scholar
  18. Frondel, M. (2004). Empirical assessment of energy-price policies: the case for cross-price elasticities. Energy Policy, 32(8), 989–1000.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Gardiner, M. E. (2000). Critiques of everyday life. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  20. Geertz, C. (1973). The interpretation of cultures: Selected essays. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  21. Giordano, V., Meletiou, A., Covrig, C. F., Mengolini, A., Ardelean, M., Fulli, G., & Manuel Sánchez Jiménez, C. F. (2013). Smart Grid projects in Europe: lessons learned and current developments 2012 update.Google Scholar
  22. Goulden, M., Bedwell, B., Rennick-Egglestone, S., Rodden, T., & Spence, A. (2014). Smart grids, smart users? The role of the user in demand side management. Energy Research & Social Science, 2, 21–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Gram-Hanssen, K. (2012). Efficient technologies or user behaviour, which is the more important when reducing households’ energy consumption? Energy Efficiency, 6(3), 447–457.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Greening, L. A., Greene, D. L., & Difiglio, C. (2000). Energy efficiency and consumption—the rebound effect—a survey. Energy Policy, 28(6–7), 389–401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Grijalva, S., & Tariq, M. U. (2011). Prosumer-based smart grid architecture enables a flat, sustainable electricity industry. In IEEE PES innovative smart grid technologies conference Europe (pp. 1–6). Torino, Italy: ISGT Europe.Google Scholar
  26. Gundelach, P., Hauge, B., & Nørregaard-Nielsen, E. (2012). Klimaets sociale tilstand. Aarhus: Aarhus Universitetsforlag.Google Scholar
  27. Hadjsaïd, N., & Sabonnadière, J.-C. (2011). Electrical distribution networks. London: Wiley.Google Scholar
  28. Hargreaves, T. (2011). Practiceing behaviour change: applying social practice theory to pro-environmental behaviour change. Journal of Consumer Culture, 11(1), 79–99 Retrieved March 19, 2014.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Hargreaves, T., Nye, M., & Burgess, J. (2013). Keeping energy visible? Exploring how householders interact with feedback from smart energy monitors in the longer term. Energy Policy, 52(2013), 126–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Hauge, B. (2013). The air from outside: getting to know the world through air practices. Journal of Material Culture, 18(2), 171–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Hauge, B. (2015). Lives under the sun: The sensory qualities of daylight in designing the everyday. The Senses and Society, 10(1), 71–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Herring, H., & Roy, R. (2007). Technological innovation, energy efficient design and the rebound effect. Technovation, 27(4), 194–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Hyysalo, S., Juntunen, J. K., Freeman, S. (2013). User innovation in sustainable home energy technologies. Energy Policy, 55, 490–500.Google Scholar
  34. Islam, T. (2014). Household level innovation diffusion model of photo-voltaic (PV) solar cells from stated preference data. Energy Policy, 65, 340–350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Juntunen, J. K. (2014a). Domestication pathways of small-scale renewable energy technologies. Sustainability: Science, Practice & Policy, 10(2), 1–15.MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  36. Juntunen, J. K. (2014b). Prosuming energy–user innovation and new energy communities in renewable micro-generation. Espoo: Aalto University.Google Scholar
  37. Karnouskos, S. (2011). Demand side management via prosumer interactions in a smart city energy marketplace. IEEE PES Innovative Smart Grid Technologies Conference Europe, pp. 1–7.Google Scholar
  38. KEB. (2013). Smart grid strategy—the intelligent energy system of the future.Google Scholar
  39. Keirstead, J. (2007). Behavioural responses to photovoltaic systems in the UK domestic sector. Energy Policy, 35, 4128–4141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Kobus, C. B. A., Mugge, R., & Schoormans, J. P. L. (2013). Washing when the sun is shining! How users interact with a household energy management system. Ergonomics, 56(3), 1–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Kobus, C. B. A., Klaassen, E. A. M., Mugge, R., & Schoormans, J. P. L. (2015). A real-life assessment on the effect of smart appliances for shifting households’ electricity demand. Applied Energy, 147, 335–343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Kvale, S. (2000). InterView. København: Reitzel.Google Scholar
  43. Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Leonard, D., & Sensiper, S. (1998). The role of tacit knowledge in group innovation. California Management Review, 40(3), 112–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Lund, H., Andersen, A. N., Østergaard, P. A., Mathiesen, B. V., & Connolly, D. (2012). From electricity smart grids to smart energy systems—a market operation based approach and understanding. Energy, 42(1), 96–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Martiskainen, M. (2007). Affecting consumer behaviour on energy demand. Retrieved from https://scholar.google.ca/scholar?hl=en&q=edf+customer+behavior&btnG=&as_sdt=1,5&as_sdtp=#3
  47. Mountain, D. C. (2012). Real-time feedback and residential electricity consumption: the Newfoundland and Labrador pilot.Google Scholar
  48. Naus, J., Spaargaren, G., Van Vliet, B. J. M., & Van der Horst, H. M. (2014). Smart grids, information flows and emerging domestic energy practices. Energy Policy, 68, 436–446.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Nyborg, S., & Røpke, I. (2013). Constructing users in the smart grid-insights from the Danish eFlex project. Energy Efficiency, 6, 655–670.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Palm, J., & Tengvard, M. (2011). Motives for and barriers to household adoption of small-scale production of electricity: examples from Sweden. Sustainability: Science, Practice & Policy, 7(7), 6–15.Google Scholar
  51. Polanyi, M. (1966). The logic of tacit inference. Philosophy, 41, 1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Powells, G., Bulkeley, H., Bell, S., & Judson, E. (2014). Peak electricity demand and the flexibility of everyday life. Geoforum, 55, 43–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Reckwitz, A. (2002). Toward a theory of social practices: a development in culturalist theorizing. European Journal of Social Theory, 5(2), 243–263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Schatzki, T. R. (2002). The site of the social. A philosophical account of the constitution of social life and change. Pennsylvania: Pennsylvania State University Press.Google Scholar
  55. Schelly, C. (2014). Residential solar electricity adoption: what motivates, and what matters? A case study of early adopters. Energy Research and Social Science, 2, 183–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Schick, Lea and Christopher Gad. 2015. Flexible and inflexible energy engagements—a study of the Danish smart grid strategy. Energy Research & Social Science.Google Scholar
  57. Shove, E., & Walker, G. (2010). Governing transitions in the sustainability of everyday life. Research Policy, 39(4), 471–476.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Shove, E., Trentmann, F., & Wilk, R. (Eds.). (2009). Time, consumption and everyday life: practice, materiality and culture. Oxford, New York: Berg.Google Scholar
  59. Siero, F. W., Bakker, A. B., Dekker, G. B., Van Den Burg, M. T. C. (1996). Changing organizational energy consumption behaviour through comparative feedback. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 16(3), 235–246.Google Scholar
  60. Skjolsvold, T. M., & Ryghaug, M. (2015). Embedding smart energy technology in built environments: a comparative study of four smart grid demonstration projects. Indoor and Built Environment, 24(7), 878–890.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Snape, R., & Rynikiewicz, C. (2012). Peer effect and social learning in micro-generation adoption and urban smarter grids development? 14, 24–27. Retrieved from http://newsletter.epfl.ch/mir/index.php?module=epflfiles&func=getFile&fid=292&inline=1
  62. Sovacool, B. K. (2014). What are we doing here? Analyzing fifteen years of energy scholarship and proposing a social science research agenda. Energy Research & Social Science, 1, 1–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Spender, J. C. (1996). Making knowledge the basis of a dynamic theory of the firm. Strategic Management Journal.Google Scholar
  64. Späth, P., & Rohracher, H. (2010). Energy regions: the transformative power of regional discourses on socio-technical futures. Research Policy, 39(4), 449–458.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Stedmon, A. W., Winslow, R., & Langley, A. (2012). Micro-generation schemes: user behaviours and attitudes towards energy consumption. Ergonomics, 56(3), 440–450. doi: 10.1080/00140139.2012.723140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Strauss, A. L. (1987). Qualitative analysis for social scientists. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Strengers, Y. (2013). Smart energy technologies in everyday life-smart Utopia? New York: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Timmerman, W., & Huitema, G. (2009). Design of energy-management services—supporting the role of the prosumer in the energy market. In CEUR Workshop Proceedings (vol. 479).Google Scholar
  69. Throndsen, W., & Ryghaug, M. (2015). Material participation and the smart grid: Exploring different modes of articulation. Energy Research & Social Science, 1–9.Google Scholar
  70. Toffler, A. (1980). The third wave. New York: William Morrow.Google Scholar
  71. Vasseur, V., & Kemp, R. (2015). The adoption of PV in the Netherlands: a statistical analysis of adoption factors. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 41, 483–494.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Verbong, G. P. J., Beemsterboer, S., & Sengers, F. (2013). Smart grids or smart users? Involving users in developing a low carbon electricity economy. Energy Policy, 52, 117–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Wallenborn, G., & Wilhite, H. (2014). Rethinking embodied knowledge and household consumption. Energy Research & Social Science, 1(2014), 56–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Wilhite, H., & Ling, R. (1995). Measured energy savings from a more informative energy bill. Energy and Buildings, 22, 145–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Wood, G., & Newborough, M. (2003). Dynamic energy-consumption indicators for domestic appliances: environment, behaviour and design. Energy and Buildings, 35(8), 821–841.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Wolsink, M. (2012). The research agenda on social acceptance of distributed generation in smart grids: renewable as common pool resources. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 16(1), 822–35.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.DTU Management Engineering, MAN-TIMTechnical University of DenmarkKongens LyngbyDenmark
  2. 2.Innovation Fund DenmarkCopenhagenDenmark

Personalised recommendations