IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jeners/v14y2020i1p18-d466534.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Storage Technologies for the Electricity Transition: An Analysis of Actors, Actor Perspectives and Transition Pathways in Germany

Author

Listed:
  • Ulrich J. Frey

    (Institute of Engineering Thermodynamics, German Aerospace Center (DLR), 70569 Stuttgart, Germany)

  • Sandra Wassermann

    (ZIRIUS, University of Stuttgart, 70174 Stuttgart, Germany)

  • Marc Deissenroth-Uhrig

    (School of Engineering, University of Applied Science Saarland (htw saar), 66117 Saarbrücken, Germany)

Abstract

This article analyses actors in the storage niche during the German electricity transition. Thus, we develop a more differentiated understanding of actors and their storage activities. For that, we employ the analytical multi-level-perspective (MLP) framework to focus on interactions between old and new storage technologies. Using data from expert interviews, we investigate whether the storage pathway resembles any of the four ideal types of transition pathways for interactions between niche and regime. Through our interviews, we identify five types of actor in the storage market: Big 4 (EnBW, RWE, E.ON, Vattenfall), project developers, innovative municipal utilities, small rural municipal utilities and independent green electricity providers. For each actor, we analyse four main aspects (1) previous orientation and motivation, (2) structural strategies, (3) institutional strategies, and (4) product-related strategies. Parallel to the classification of actors, we also classify available storage technologies according to their primary field of application. We conclude that interactions between regime and niche actors are cooperative, but weak, and no specific actor type currently dominates the niche activities. Hence, applications in the storage niche are not yet ready for a larger market. In sum, our results point to a future system that is characterized by reconfiguration, not substitution or transformation of current market actors.

Suggested Citation

  • Ulrich J. Frey & Sandra Wassermann & Marc Deissenroth-Uhrig, 2020. "Storage Technologies for the Electricity Transition: An Analysis of Actors, Actor Perspectives and Transition Pathways in Germany," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(1), pages 1-19, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jeners:v:14:y:2020:i:1:p:18-:d:466534
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/14/1/18/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/14/1/18/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Smith, Adrian & Raven, Rob, 2012. "What is protective space? Reconsidering niches in transitions to sustainability," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(6), pages 1025-1036.
    2. Jacobsson, Staffan & Lauber, Volkmar, 2006. "The politics and policy of energy system transformation--explaining the German diffusion of renewable energy technology," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 34(3), pages 256-276, February.
    3. Geels, Frank W., 2010. "Ontologies, socio-technical transitions (to sustainability), and the multi-level perspective," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(4), pages 495-510, May.
    4. Geels, Frank W. & Schot, Johan, 2007. "Typology of sociotechnical transition pathways," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(3), pages 399-417, April.
    5. Grünewald, Philipp H. & Cockerill, Timothy T. & Contestabile, Marcello & Pearson, Peter J.G., 2012. "The socio-technical transition of distributed electricity storage into future networks—System value and stakeholder views," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(C), pages 449-457.
    6. Fuenfschilling, Lea & Truffer, Bernhard, 2014. "The structuration of socio-technical regimes—Conceptual foundations from institutional theory," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(4), pages 772-791.
    7. Björn Nykvist & Måns Nilsson, 2015. "Rapidly falling costs of battery packs for electric vehicles," Nature Climate Change, Nature, vol. 5(4), pages 329-332, April.
    8. Ivan Pavić & Zora Luburić & Hrvoje Pandžić & Tomislav Capuder & Ivan Andročec, 2019. "Defining and Evaluating Use Cases for Battery Energy Storage Investments: Case Study in Croatia," Energies, MDPI, vol. 12(3), pages 1-23, January.
    9. Magda M. Smink & Marko P. Hekkert & Simona O. Negro, 2015. "Keeping sustainable innovation on a leash? Exploring incumbents’ institutional strategies," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 24(2), pages 86-101, February.
    10. Geels, Frank W., 2002. "Technological transitions as evolutionary reconfiguration processes: a multi-level perspective and a case-study," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 31(8-9), pages 1257-1274, December.
    11. A. Stephan & B. Battke & M. D. Beuse & J. H. Clausdeinken & T. S. Schmidt, 2016. "Limiting the public cost of stationary battery deployment by combining applications," Nature Energy, Nature, vol. 1(7), pages 1-9, July.
    12. Richter, Mario, 2013. "Business model innovation for sustainable energy: German utilities and renewable energy," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 62(C), pages 1226-1237.
    13. Hess, David J., 2014. "Sustainability transitions: A political coalition perspective," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(2), pages 278-283.
    14. Funcke, Simon & Bauknecht, Dierk, 2016. "Typology of centralised and decentralised visions for electricity infrastructure," Utilities Policy, Elsevier, vol. 40(C), pages 67-74.
    15. Geels, Frank W. & Kern, Florian & Fuchs, Gerhard & Hinderer, Nele & Kungl, Gregor & Mylan, Josephine & Neukirch, Mario & Wassermann, Sandra, 2016. "The enactment of socio-technical transition pathways: A reformulated typology and a comparative multi-level analysis of the German and UK low-carbon electricity transitions (1990–2014)," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(4), pages 896-913.
    16. Müller, Jakob R. & Holstenkamp, Lars, 2015. "Zum Stand von Energiegenossenschaften in Deutschland: Aktualisierter Überblick über Zahlen und Entwicklungen zum 31.12.2014 [On the State of Energy Cooperatives in Germany: Updated Overview of Numb," MPRA Paper 62072, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    17. Genus, Audley & Coles, Anne-Marie, 2008. "Rethinking the multi-level perspective of technological transitions," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(9), pages 1436-1445, October.
    18. James Meadowcroft, 2009. "What about the politics? Sustainable development, transition management, and long term energy transitions," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 42(4), pages 323-340, November.
    19. Taylor, Peter G. & Bolton, Ronan & Stone, Dave & Upham, Paul, 2013. "Developing pathways for energy storage in the UK using a coevolutionary framework," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 63(C), pages 230-243.
    20. Wassermann, Sandra & Reeg, Matthias & Nienhaus, Kristina, 2015. "Current challenges of Germany’s energy transition project and competing strategies of challengers and incumbents: The case of direct marketing of electricity from renewable energy sources," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 76(C), pages 66-75.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Oliver Wagner & Kurt Berlo & Christian Herr & Michael Companie, 2021. "Success Factors for the Foundation of Municipal Utilities in Germany," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(4), pages 1-15, February.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Weigelt, Carmen & Lu, Shaohua & Verhaal, J. Cameron, 2021. "Blinded by the sun: The role of prosumers as niche actors in incumbent firms’ adoption of solar power during sustainability transitions," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(9).
    2. Geels, Frank W., 2020. "Micro-foundations of the multi-level perspective on socio-technical transitions: Developing a multi-dimensional model of agency through crossovers between social constructivism, evolutionary economics," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 152(C).
    3. Svensson, Oscar & Nikoleris, Alexandra, 2018. "Structure reconsidered: Towards new foundations of explanatory transitions theory," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(2), pages 462-473.
    4. Rosenbloom, Daniel & Berton, Harris & Meadowcroft, James, 2016. "Framing the sun: A discursive approach to understanding multi-dimensional interactions within socio-technical transitions through the case of solar electricity in Ontario, Canada," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(6), pages 1275-1290.
    5. Edmondson, Duncan L. & Kern, Florian & Rogge, Karoline S., 2019. "The co-evolution of policy mixes and socio-technical systems: Towards a conceptual framework of policy mix feedback in sustainability transitions," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(10).
    6. Manning, Stephan & Reinecke, Juliane, 2016. "A modular governance architecture in-the-making: How transnational standard-setters govern sustainability transitions," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(3), pages 618-633.
    7. Kvellheim, Ann Kristin, 2017. "The power of buildings in climate change mitigation: The case of Norway," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 110(C), pages 653-661.
    8. Johan Miörner & Jonas Heiberg & Christian Binz, 2021. "Global regime diffusion in space: a missed transition in San Diego’s water sector," GEIST - Geography of Innovation and Sustainability Transitions 2021(08), GEIST Working Paper Series.
    9. Markard, Jochen & Raven, Rob & Truffer, Bernhard, 2012. "Sustainability transitions: An emerging field of research and its prospects," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(6), pages 955-967.
    10. Cheng Wang & Tao Lv & Rongjiang Cai & Jianfeng Xu & Liya Wang, 2022. "Bibliometric Analysis of Multi-Level Perspective on Sustainability Transition Research," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(7), pages 1-31, March.
    11. André Sorensen & Anna-Katharina Brenner, 2021. "Cities, Urban Property Systems, and Sustainability Transitions: Contested Processes of Institutional Change and the Regulation of Urban Property Development," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(15), pages 1-19, July.
    12. Kriechbaum, Michael & Posch, Alfred & Hauswiesner, Angelika, 2021. "Hype cycles during socio-technical transitions: The dynamics of collective expectations about renewable energy in Germany," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(9).
    13. McMeekin, Andrew & Geels, Frank W. & Hodson, Mike, 2019. "Mapping the winds of whole system reconfiguration: Analysing low-carbon transformations across production, distribution and consumption in the UK electricity system (1990–2016)," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(5), pages 1216-1231.
    14. Andersen, Allan Dahl & Markard, Jochen, 2020. "Multi-technology interaction in socio-technical transitions: How recent dynamics in HVDC technology can inform transition theories," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 151(C).
    15. Fuenfschilling, Lea & Binz, Christian, 2018. "Global socio-technical regimes," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(4), pages 735-749.
    16. Pesch, Udo, 2015. "Tracing discursive space: Agency and change in sustainability transitions," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 90(PB), pages 379-388.
    17. Sorrell, Steve, 2018. "Explaining sociotechnical transitions: A critical realist perspective," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(7), pages 1267-1282.
    18. Lenfle, Sylvain & Söderlund, Jonas, 2022. "Project-oriented agency and regeneration in socio-technical transition: Insights from the case of numerical weather prediction (1978–2015)," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(3).
    19. Ford, Rebecca & Walton, Sara & Stephenson, Janet & Rees, David & Scott, Michelle & King, Geoff & Williams, John & Wooliscroft, Ben, 2017. "Emerging energy transitions: PV uptake beyond subsidies," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 117(C), pages 138-150.
    20. Lindberg, Marie Byskov & Markard, Jochen & Andersen, Allan Dahl, 2019. "Policies, actors and sustainability transition pathways: A study of the EU’s energy policy mix," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(10).

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jeners:v:14:y:2020:i:1:p:18-:d:466534. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.