Consumers, Society and V2G

  • Lance NoelEmail author
  • Gerardo Zarazua de Rubens
  • Johannes Kester
  • Benjamin K. Sovacool
Part of the Energy, Climate and the Environment book series (ECE)


The current understanding of vehicle-to-grid from a consumer perspective is quite limited, perhaps unsurprising considering the novelty of the technology. This chapter first describes the ambivalence and overall limited awareness that consumers have towards vehicle-to-grid, and then employs three sociotechnical theories to gain a prospective understanding on how consumers will move forward. These three theories, diffusion of innovation, the social construction of technology, and the multi-level perspective, form a foundation for understanding the role of users in a transition to vehicle-to-grid systems. With this conceptualization in mind, the chapter then proffers five means of increasing consumer knowledge and acceptance: encourage user-made innovations and tinkering, accrue user experience, targeted information campaigns, involve users in pilot projects, and finally promoting the social status aspects of vehicle-to-grid.


  1. 1.
    Parsons GR, Hidrue MK, Kempton W, Gardner MP. Willingness to pay for vehicle-to-grid (V2G) electric vehicles and their contract terms. Energy Econ. 2014;42:313–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Pearre NS, Kempton W, Guensler RL, Elango VV. Electric vehicles: how much range is required for a day’s driving? Transp Res Part C Emerg Technol. 2011;19(6):1171–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Noel L, Carrone AP, Jensen AF, Zarazua de Rubens G, Kester J, Sovacool BK. Willingness to pay for electric vehicles and vehicle-to-grid applications: a Nordic choice experiment. Review at Energy Eco. 2018.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Geske J, Schumann D. Willing to participate in vehicle-to-grid (V2G)? Why not! Energy Policy. 2018;120:392–401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Franke T, Krems JF. Interacting with limited mobility resources: psychological range levels in electric vehicle use. Transp Res Part A Policy Pract. 2013;48:109–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Sovacool BK, Noel L, Axsen J, Kempton W. The neglected social dimensions to a vehicle-to-grid (V2G) transition: a critical and systematic review. Environ Res Lett. 2018;13(1):013001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Rogers EM. Diffusion of innovations. 5th ed. New York: Free Press; 2003. p. 551.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Rice RE, Rogers EM. Reinvention in the innovation process. Knowledge. 1980;1(4):499–514.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kline R, Pinch T. Users as agents of technological change: the social construction of the automobile in the rural United States. Technol Cult. 1996;37(4):763.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Oudshoorn N, Pinch T, editors. How users matter: the co-construction of users and technology. MIT Press paperback ed. Cambridge, MA; London: MIT Press; 2005. 340 p. (Inside technology).Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Schot J, Kanger L, Verbong G. The roles of users in shaping transitions to new energy systems. Nat Energy. 2016;1(5):16054.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kanger L, Schot J. User-made immobilities: a transitions perspective. Mobilities. 2016;11(4):598–613.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Geels FW. Technological transitions as evolutionary reconfiguration processes: a multi-level perspective and a case-study. Res Policy. 2002;31(8–9):1257–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Lüthje C, Herstatt C, von Hippel E. User-innovators and “local” information: the case of mountain biking. Res Policy. 2005;34(6):951–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Franz K. Tinkering: consumers reinvent the early automobile. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania; 2011.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Hausman JA. Individual discount rates and the purchase and utilization of energy-using durables. Bell J Econ. 1979;10(1):33.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Wang D, Coignard J, Zeng T, Zhang C, Saxena S. Quantifying electric vehicle battery degradation from driving vs. vehicle-to-grid services. J Power Sources. 2016;332:193–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Stern PC, Aronson E. Energy use: the human dimension [Internet]. Washington, DC: National Academies Press; 1984 [cited 2018 Aug 28]. Available from:
  19. 19.
    Greenberg MR. Energy policy and research: the underappreciation of trust. Energy Res Soc Sci. 2014;1:152–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Kuhn TS, Hacking I. The structure of scientific revolutions, 4th ed. Chicago, London: University of Chicago Press; 2012. 217 p.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Eraut M. Non-formal learning and tacit knowledge in professional work. Br J Educ Psychol. 2000;70(Pt 1):113–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Sexton SE, Sexton AL. Conspicuous conservation: The Prius halo and willingness to pay for environmental bona fides. J Environ Econ Manag. 2014;67(3):303–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Delgado MS, Harriger JL, Khanna N. The value of environmental status signaling. Ecol Econ. 2015;111:1–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Schaefers T. Standing out from the crowd: niche product choice as a form of conspicuous consumption. Eur J Mark. 2014;48(9/10):1805–827.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Noel L, Sovacool BK, Kester J, Zarazua de Rubens G, (2018) Conspicuous diffusion: Theorizing how status drives innovation in electric mobility. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Norsk Elbilforening. Så mange elbiler er det i Norge nå [Internet]. 2013 [cited 2018 Jan 24]. Available from:,
  27. 27.
    Mathiowetz D. Feeling luxury: invidious political pleasures and the sense of touch. Theory Event. 2010;13(4)1–26.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Heffetz O. A test of conspicuous consumption: visibility and income. Rev Econ Stat. 2011;93(4):1101–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Lance Noel
    • 1
    Email author
  • Gerardo Zarazua de Rubens
    • 1
  • Johannes Kester
    • 1
  • Benjamin K. Sovacool
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Business and TechnologyAarhus UniversityHerningDenmark
  2. 2.Science Policy Research Unit (SPRU)University of Sussex UnitFalmerUK
  3. 3.Universiti Tenaga NasionalKajangMalaysia

Personalised recommendations