Facing the climate and digital challenge: European energy industry from boom to crisis and transformation

Midttun, Alte; Piccini, Proadpran Boonprasurd

doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2017.05.046

Cited by 47 publications

(22 citation statements)

References 8 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In Germany, in particular, the first attempt was conducted to standardise large-scale energy aggregation agglomerates by combining energy companies, telecommunications companies and research centres through the so called "2008 E" energy programme. This is in accord with the Bloomberg's report on the digitisation of New Energy Systems published in November 2017 that highlighted the growing importance of smart grid technologies, particularly counters, in the global electricity market (Midttun and Piccini, 2017).…”

Section: Management Production Assets Of Electric Power Corporationsupporting

confidence: 79%

Institutional Determinants of Thermal Power Sector Economic Productivity

Lisin¹,

Okley²,

Zielińska³

2019

JIS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Management Production Assets Of Electric Power Corporationsupporting

confidence: 79%

Institutional Determinants of Thermal Power Sector Economic Productivity

Lisin¹,

Okley²,

Zielińska³

2019

JIS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Considering the above current and expected future developments, the entire energy industry is facing even disruptive changes. The role of digitalization in these transitions and transformations ranges from incremental ones (e.g., increasing automation) to even radical structural reconfigurations by for instance digital platform economy [10]. Notably, the electricity technology industry can be seen to encompass not only the equipment manufacturers but also software companies developing smart grid technologies as well as service providers [11].…”

Section: Energy Sector Drivers Opportunities and Challengesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Future smart energy software houses

Kettunen

Mäkitalo

2019

Eur J Futures Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Software is the key enabling technology (KET) as digitalization is cross-cutting future energy systems spanning the production sites, distribution networks, and consumers particularly in electricity smart grids. In this paper, we identify systematically what particular software competencies are required in the future energy systems focusing on electricity system smart grids. The realizations of that can then be roadmapped to specific software capabilities of the different future 'software houses' across the networks. Our instrumental method is software competence development scenario path construction with environmental scanning of the related systems elements. The vision of future software-enabled smart energy systems with software houses is mapped with the already progressing scenarios of energy systems transitions on the one hand coupled with the technology foresight of software on the other hand. Grounding on the Smart Grid Reference Architecture Model (SGAM), it tabulates the distinguished software competencies and attributes them to the different parties-including customers/consumers (Internet of People, IoP)-involved in future smart energy systems. The resulting designations can then be used to recognize and measure the necessary software competencies (e.g., fog computing) in order to be able to develop them inhouse, or for instance to partner with software companies, depending on the future desirability. Software-intensive systems development competence becomes one of the key success factors for such cyber-physical-social systems (CPSS). Further futures research work is chartered with the Futures Map frame. This paper contributes preliminarily toward that by identifying pictures of the software-enabled futures and the connecting software competencebased scenario paths.

show abstract

“…Disruption in business models relate to how value is captured from technologies or services and who the key actors are delivering such value. For example, energy sector business models are changing from simply the provision of energy and heat by large utilities towards bundling of energy services to consumers, e.g., around smart homes (Midttun and Piccini, 2017) and community solar provider models (Burger and Luke, 2017). Such community ownership and consumers' participation in the provision of electricity and heat (prosumers) are examples of how new business models also link to altered ownership structures.…”

Section: The Energy 'Disruption': What's the Added Value?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Multiple dimensions of disruption, energy transitions and industrial policy

Johnstone

Kivimaa

2018

Energy Research & Social Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this perspective article, we critically explore 'disruption' in relation to sustainability transitions in the energy sector. Recognising significant ambiguity associated with the term, we seek to answer the question: What use has 'disruption' for understanding and promoting change towards low carbon energy futures. First, we outline that different understandings and dimensions of 'system disruption' exist with different linkages to institutional and policy change. This variety points out a need to research in more detail the particular effects of differing low-carbon innovations in terms of their disruptive consequences for whole socio-technical systems. Thus, disruption can be utilised as a useful conceptual tool for interrogating in more detail the ways in which energy systems are changing in particular contexts. Second, we reflect on the relationship between 'green industrial policy' and disruption. In some contexts 'energy disruption' has been facilitated by green industrial policy, and it would seem that the profound changes said to be on the horizon in terms of disruption are also a motivator of green industrial policy. New industrial policy can be an important way in which the negative consequences of disruptive change, such as job losses, can be managed and facilitated. 1. The 'Disruption' of everything: just another buzzword? Discussions of 'disruption' have gained increasing traction in policy (European Commission, 2014; Innovate UK, 2017) and academia (e.g Nagy et al., 2015; Sioshani, 2017) alike. The term 'disruptive technology' was initially coined in 1995 (Bower and Christensen, 1995; Christensen and Rosenbloom, 1995) and mainly used in the subsequent years to discuss the renewal of firms in the context of business and organisational studies. However, recently the term has become more prolific than ever, spurred on by apparent momentous changes in a range of sectors. These often interconnected developments include automation in transport, 3D printing, digitalisation, the 'gig economy' and 'smart' energy. Definitions have been used further afield to discuss changes in education and health care (Horn and Staker, 2015; Hwang and Christensen, 2008). In an important online article for the New Yorker, Lepore (2014) cynically observed that today "everyone is either disrupting or being disrupted" and argued that "every era has a theory of rising and falling, of growth and decay…our era has disruption". The ubiquity of the term is seen by many as being problematic, with suggestions that the theory of disruption may be "dead wrong" (Kitroeff, 2015) due to its vagueness and lack of definitional clarity, and that it is time to "retire" disruption, "Silicon valley's emptiest buzzword" (Alexander, 2016). King and Baatartogtokh, (2015) inquire 'how useful is a theory of disruption'?

show abstract

Facing the climate and digital challenge: European energy industry from boom to crisis and transformation

Cited by 47 publications

References 8 publications

Institutional Determinants of Thermal Power Sector Economic Productivity

Institutional Determinants of Thermal Power Sector Economic Productivity

Future smart energy software houses

Multiple dimensions of disruption, energy transitions and industrial policy

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About