Beyond the subterranean energy regime? Fuel, land use and the production of space

Abstract

In this paper, we argue that energy should be seen as a critical aspect of changing historical regimes in the social production of space. We suggest the common definition of energy as the ‘capacity to do work’ ignores key aspects of the space required for energy in the first place (particularly the concept of power density). Articulating the basic spatial concept of power density with a historical–geographical materialist understanding of energy regimes, we argue that industrial capitalism is defined by an intensive vertical reliance upon subterranean stocks of energy that require relatively little surface land to harness. Previous modes of production were characterised by a more ‘horizontal’ reliance upon extensive territory (e.g. forests) to meet fuel needs. While attentive to the spatialities of overall energy complexes, we focus in particular on how the spatialities of energy sources affect the production of space in major and distinctive ways. Drawing from environmental and economic history, we argue the use of fossil fuels ushered in a ‘subterranean energy regime’ that not only relied on underground stocks of energy, but substantially relieved the societal demand for land‐based and spatially extensive sources of fuel (i.e. wood and other organic sources). The use of subterranean fuel (first coal) not only powered machines, but revolutionised ‘heat‐process’ industries like iron smelting that dramatically expanded the steel and other metal industries; thus, transforming the built environment. We then consider the spatial and land‐use implications of a transition away from this subterranean regime to renewable energy sources (solar and wind). A return to the surface for energy would not be biological as in pre‐industrial times, but industrial in the sense that these systems require industrial production. Moreover, the spatially extensive nature of such energy technologies should raise important political questions about existing land‐use patterns and livelihoods, particularly in rural areas.

Making Space for Wind Farms: Practices of Territorial Stigmatisation in Rural Denmark

“…Energy transition processes are not only characterised by questions of technological changes, but also by questions of spatial restructuration and control over its trajectories. Even if Huber and McCarthy () have recently predicted struggles and claims over capital‐intensive renewable energy deployments in rural areas, sympathetic readers familiar with the growing literature on local responses to renewables should be aware that such discursive and material struggles over the production of new energy landscapes have already become very real (e.g. Cowell ; Woods ; Zografos and Martinez‐Alier ).…”

“…The large‐scale transition to new geographies of energy production leads to new struggles over land and claims on the deployment of energy infrastructures. In particular, land has become a rival resource for harnessing renewable energy and the epicentre of contestation, also raising questions about the access and control over land in post‐carbon energy regimes (Huber and McCarthy ). We have revealed the significance of territorial stigma in struggles over access to land and have outlined how territorial stigma is activated by powerful commercial actors for gaining access to land and clearing space in rural areas for the production of wind energy.…”

“…Such transformations also extend to places and communities that were previously unaffected by energy production infrastructures, whereas rural areas gain particular importance. Most of the deployment of infrastructure for the production of renewable energy takes place in rural areas, as this is where larger areas of cheaper land resources with thinly populated settlements are available (Huber and McCarthy ). Rural places have therefore gradually become sites for the contentious siting of energy facilities which entail both opportunities for development and threats to the identity and livelihood of communities in rural places (Lennon and Scott ).…”

Mutually-Beneficial Renewable Energy Systems

“…Power densities of efficient petroleum and coal sources vary from around 1000-10,000 We/m 2 , while renewables generally range from highs for hydroelectricity of around 0.5-200 We/m 2 , to lower power densities for solar and wind around 0.5-10 and less than 1 We/m 2 for biomass and biofuels (Smil 2015;Capellán-Pérez, de Castro, and Arto 2017). These systems may additionally require new transmissions and inputs of raw materials, including fossil fuels systems during transition, collectively extending spatial demands (Heinberg and Fridley 2016;Capellán-Pérez, de Castro, and Arto 2017;Huber and McCarthy 2017). While only a small fraction of total available planetary surface area (Jacobson and Delucchi 2011), in relative terms these new energy infrastructures may require areas 1 to 3 orders of magnitude larger than existing systems worldwide (Smil 2015), exceeding available land area for many highly industrialized regions (Capellán-Pérez, de Castro, and Arto 2017).…”

“…In a manner not seen since the pre-industrial era (Hornborg 2013), harvesting energy sources at the Earth's surface on a global scale implies a deep restructuring of physical space (Smil 2015;Huber and McCarthy 2017), exacerbating tensions around existing and future use of lands and oceans (Gasparatos et al 2017;Huber and McCarthy 2017). Although continued use of nonrenewable energy sources requires ongoing expansion (Allred et al 2015), compared to these conventional systems, renewable energy technologies require more physical space to deliver the same amount of power (i.e., lower rate of energy flow per unit of surface area) (MacKay 2010;Smil 2015;Capellán-Pérez, de Castro, and Arto 2017).…”