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.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
The EU defines the smart grid as an ‘electricity network which intelligently integrates the actions of generators and consumers connected to it in order to efficiently deliver sustainable, economic and secure electricity supplies’, whereas the US Department of Energy provides a more-detailed definition and talks about the active participation of consumers: ‘a smart grid is self-healing, enables active participation of consumers, operates resiliently against attack and natural disasters, accommodates all generations and storage options, enables introduction of new products, services and markets, optimizes asset utilization and operates efficiently, provides power quality for the digital economy’ (Hadjsaïd and Sabonnadière 2011, pp. 471–472). The smart grid is thus an integration of electricity infrastructure.
A brief presentation of the Danish energy context: wind power is a central element in Denmark’s strategy for obtaining a fossil-free energy system and corresponded to 30–40% of the total electricity production in Denmark during 2012–2014 (Energistyrelsen 2014). To comply with the challenges brought about by the large amount of fluctuating energy in the electricity system, the development of smart grids has been a priority on the national level and among leading energy sector actors in the country (Dansk Energi, and Energinet.dk 2010; KEB 2013). The Danish energy sector states that ‘flexible electricity consumption’ is the main purpose of the smart grid in Denmark (Schick and Gad 2015). Denmark has invested considerably in the Smart Grid: a review of European smart grid R&D projects. Reports that Denmark accounts for approximately 10% of the total investments in smart grid projects in Europe, making Denmark the country that invests the most per capita; it also has the highest spending per kilowatt-hour consumed (Giordano et al., 2013).
We have chosen image rather than meaning. In content, we regard them highly similar, but there are some differences. It is well known that practises are regarded as ‘shared’, but in our view, the possibility of sharing meaning is highly problematic (as is also frequently debated by practice theorists). Image, however, is more explicit than meaning, often visual or expressed as a ‘brand’. In our view, ‘meaning’ is more an individual matter and more dynamic, as it depends on the situation. In line with our ethno-oriented approach, the individual is seen as competent, culturally anchored and able (in varying degree) to influence the technology through interaction with it. Hence, we feel ‘image’ more correct in this project, where many elements are visual and a certain image originally expressed text-wise (‘join this project and be an energy innovator’). Image has also been chosen for pragmatic reasons: CIM is easier to say than CMM. See Gram-Hanssen (2012) for a review of key elements in practises in practice theory literature.
‘Practical knowledge’ is not equal to being in possession of information (although it may be an element in the practice performance): people may read some gauge or metre and believe the information even though they have no idea whether the instrument is functioning properly and may thus acquire information, but this is not knowledge. When we refer to knowledge in this paper, it means the type of knowledge gained from performing practises and living our lives in an interaction with the environment, providing us information about the world we live in, information that is embodied and converted to knowledge of the world (Hauge 2013). Such ‘knowledge of the world’ is a sort of knowledge that goes beyond the mere possession of information, and it becomes ‘true’ to people precisely from doing it, from living the practice.
We refer to competences as the overall set of different skills that may be needed for managing the technology. When interviewing residents, we preferred to use the word ‘skills’.
Others have used the concept of rebound effect to ‘explain’ an extended use of energy after an energy saving installation. The rebound effect is ‘the extent of the energy saving produced by an efficiency investment that is taken back by consumers in the form of higher consumption’ (Herring and Roy 2007, p. 3), either in the form of more hours of use or a higher quality of energy service (such as dishwashing more often, using floor heating in more rooms etc.). We will not deal with the types of rebound here.
There were several reasons. Some reported they could not be bothered with it, indicating that they were not interested in more technological gadgets. One family argued that, since the car was in use during the day and therefore at another location than the electricity was cheap, the application was probably not so relevant. Another reported that, since they lived far out in the countryside, the phone connection was not good; if she wanted to turn on the charging while sitting in the living room, it took quite some time to obtain a network connection, so she might as well go out and turn it on manually. One reported that the application did not work and did not insist on having it fixed.
A common way to install electricity in family houses is via three electrical phases. Each electrical output in the house is connected to one of the three phases. The smart metre measures the total consumption and production from the three phases. The EV charger in Insero Live lab was connected to one of the three phases.
References
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Bourdieu, P., & Wacquant, L. J. D. (1992). An invitation to reflexive sociology. An invitation to reflexive sociology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Caird, S., & Roy, R. (2006). Household ecological footprints-demographics and sustainability. Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and Management, 08(04), 407–429.
Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative analysis. London: SAGE Publications.
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.
Dansk Energi, & Energinet.dk. (2010). Smart grid i Danmark.
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.
Denzin, N., & Lincoln, S. (Eds.). (2000). Handbook of qualitative research (Second ed.). London: SAGE Publications.
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.
Dobbyn, J., & Thomas, G. (2005). Seeing the light: the impact of micro-generation on the way we use energy. Qualitative Research Findings.
Energistyrelsen. (2014). ENERGISTATISTIK 2013. Copenhagen.
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.
Fischer, C. (2007). Influencing electricity consumption via consumer feedback. A review of experience. ECEEE 2007 Summer Study, 2007(February), 4–9.
Frondel, M. (2004). Empirical assessment of energy-price policies: the case for cross-price elasticities. Energy Policy, 32(8), 989–1000.
Gardiner, M. E. (2000). Critiques of everyday life. New York: Routledge.
Geertz, C. (1973). The interpretation of cultures: Selected essays. New York: Basic Books.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Gundelach, P., Hauge, B., & Nørregaard-Nielsen, E. (2012). Klimaets sociale tilstand. Aarhus: Aarhus Universitetsforlag.
Hadjsaïd, N., & Sabonnadière, J.-C. (2011). Electrical distribution networks. London: Wiley.
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.
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.
Hauge, B. (2013). The air from outside: getting to know the world through air practices. Journal of Material Culture, 18(2), 171–187.
Hauge, B. (2015). Lives under the sun: The sensory qualities of daylight in designing the everyday. The Senses and Society, 10(1), 71–91.
Herring, H., & Roy, R. (2007). Technological innovation, energy efficient design and the rebound effect. Technovation, 27(4), 194–203.
Hyysalo, S., Juntunen, J. K., Freeman, S. (2013). User innovation in sustainable home energy technologies. Energy Policy, 55, 490–500.
Islam, T. (2014). Household level innovation diffusion model of photo-voltaic (PV) solar cells from stated preference data. Energy Policy, 65, 340–350.
Juntunen, J. K. (2014a). Domestication pathways of small-scale renewable energy technologies. Sustainability: Science, Practice & Policy, 10(2), 1–15.
Juntunen, J. K. (2014b). Prosuming energy–user innovation and new energy communities in renewable micro-generation. Espoo: Aalto University.
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.
KEB. (2013). Smart grid strategy—the intelligent energy system of the future.
Keirstead, J. (2007). Behavioural responses to photovoltaic systems in the UK domestic sector. Energy Policy, 35, 4128–4141.
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.
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.
Kvale, S. (2000). InterView. København: Reitzel.
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Leonard, D., & Sensiper, S. (1998). The role of tacit knowledge in group innovation. California Management Review, 40(3), 112–132.
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.
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
Mountain, D. C. (2012). Real-time feedback and residential electricity consumption: the Newfoundland and Labrador pilot.
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.
Nyborg, S., & Røpke, I. (2013). Constructing users in the smart grid-insights from the Danish eFlex project. Energy Efficiency, 6, 655–670.
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.
Polanyi, M. (1966). The logic of tacit inference. Philosophy, 41, 1–18.
Powells, G., Bulkeley, H., Bell, S., & Judson, E. (2014). Peak electricity demand and the flexibility of everyday life. Geoforum, 55, 43–52.
Reckwitz, A. (2002). Toward a theory of social practices: a development in culturalist theorizing. European Journal of Social Theory, 5(2), 243–263.
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.
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.
Schick, Lea and Christopher Gad. 2015. Flexible and inflexible energy engagements—a study of the Danish smart grid strategy. Energy Research & Social Science.
Shove, E., & Walker, G. (2010). Governing transitions in the sustainability of everyday life. Research Policy, 39(4), 471–476.
Shove, E., Trentmann, F., & Wilk, R. (Eds.). (2009). Time, consumption and everyday life: practice, materiality and culture. Oxford, New York: Berg.
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.
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.
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
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.
Spender, J. C. (1996). Making knowledge the basis of a dynamic theory of the firm. Strategic Management Journal.
Späth, P., & Rohracher, H. (2010). Energy regions: the transformative power of regional discourses on socio-technical futures. Research Policy, 39(4), 449–458.
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.
Strauss, A. L. (1987). Qualitative analysis for social scientists. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Strengers, Y. (2013). Smart energy technologies in everyday life-smart Utopia? New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
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).
Throndsen, W., & Ryghaug, M. (2015). Material participation and the smart grid: Exploring different modes of articulation. Energy Research & Social Science, 1–9.
Toffler, A. (1980). The third wave. New York: William Morrow.
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.
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.
Wallenborn, G., & Wilhite, H. (2014). Rethinking embodied knowledge and household consumption. Energy Research & Social Science, 1(2014), 56–64.
Wilhite, H., & Ling, R. (1995). Measured energy savings from a more informative energy bill. Energy and Buildings, 22, 145–155.
Wood, G., & Newborough, M. (2003). Dynamic energy-consumption indicators for domestic appliances: environment, behaviour and design. Energy and Buildings, 35(8), 821–841.
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.
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.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
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.
Appendix.
Appendix.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Hansen, M., Hauge, B. Prosumers and smart grid technologies in Denmark: developing user competences in smart grid households. Energy Efficiency 10, 1215–1234 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12053-017-9514-7
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12053-017-9514-7