Special Summary of Energy Dynamics Thread

TUE 2:00 PM Special Summary of Energy Dynamics Thread

Full Report:
Boundary Diversity Concerning Scales and Levels
The inherent challenge of energy planning and implementation are multi-scale and multi-level interactions between actors, networks, institutions (e.g. rules guiding the interactions), and the ecological environment as a source and sink of a dynamic, complex system. The strength of system dynamics models are their flexibility as an analytical construct for any system in focus defined by scale- and level-specific boundaries for a specific policy or management purpose. The most obvious scales and levels that come to my mind are presented in the schematic below.

Fig. 1: Schematic illustration of differences in scales and levels of dynamic energy models for planning, management and policy analysis

This strength has the downside that the field of system dynamics energy modeling and research is characterized by heterogeneous models and results that are neither easily comparable nor add straightforwardly to a harmonized body of knowledge bounded by generalized research frontiers. In order to illustrate this observation, I will briefly sketch some selected conference presentations.

Illustrations of Typical Cases
Sorting out energy-related system dynamics contributions within the last few system dynamics conferences poses problems since they can be found in disparate threads. A first attempt shows that system dynamics conferences include about twenty energy-related contributions with one-three plenary presentations, perhaps nine parallel presentations, and ten posters. Most promising signaling words of related contributions are energy, electricity, fuel, power, renewable, climate, and technology.

For the short illustration of the heterogeneity in the present system dynamics energy research, we refer to the Renewable Energies and Energy Efficiency parallel session of the system dynamics conference held in Albuquerque, 2009, which included three typical contributions:

A Countdown towards Solar Power at Grid Parity: Evolution of Price-Performance, by Nitin Joglekar and Eric Graber-Lopez
The Renewable Energy Industry in Massachusetts as a Complex System, by Charles Jones
South African Energy Model: A System Dynamics Approach, by Josephine Musango, Alan Brent, and Andrea Bassi

In the following table, these three cases are characterized along the different scales as indicated in Fig. 1.

Scales and Level	Solar Power & Grid Parity	Renewable Energy Industry in Massachusetts	South African Energy Model
Policy / Management focus	Policy assessment and implementation investment strategies	Policy and strategy analysis	Energy policy planning
Technology boundary	Focused on photovoltaic technology	Focused on photovoltaic technology	Aggregated electricity energy system
Knowledge boundary	Co-evolution of generation capacity, infrastructure and localized marginal prizing, referring to Renewable Portfolio Standard Context specific	Diffusion patterns depending on the strengths of feedback loops Specific and contextual lessons about policies that are robust to change	Policy analysis regarding energy demand – supply balance within a simple T21 framework for South African Specific and contextual lessons
Jurisdictional boundary	US state level organizations	Organizations of the renewable industry at US state level	Nation (South African)
Spatial boundary	US region	US region	African region
Results	Graphs over time Price development and diffusion patterns Sensitivity studies	Graphs over time Policy elasticities (Marketing, Incentive, Installer, Distributor, and Vision)	Graphs over time Scenario analysis concerning demand and supply matches
Deliverables	Policy Implications Method of phase plane analysis	A preliminary behavioral theory of the photovoltaic markets in MA Method of policy specific feedback loop analysis	Energy module for a T21 framework for South Africa Policy recommendations
Data source	Literature	Mental models of experts	Not clear
References to SD work	Considerable to energy dynamics	Few to method, none to energy dynamics	Few to method and energy dynamics

Table 1: Illustrative case comparison concerning scales and levels

This short case illustration highlights how different scales and foci as well as research techniques hamper the accumulation of a general and universal body of knowledge explaining energy dynamics. Although the first two cases seem to have much in common, more research in both cases is needed in order identify common research grounds in terms of similar concepts and comparable result presentations and interpretations. The third case seems to add to an active research stream. However, it is neither clearly indicated how this research builds on research of the existing T21 framework nor do the findings relate to other general and universal insights identified in the T21 modeling approach.

Cornerstones and concepts
The downside of heterogeneity and flexibility in energy dynamics modeling can be overcome, proven by the successful history of the USA National Energy Policy Model. The history shows that outstanding energy dynamics modeling work was chosen as a cornerstone in order to advance and adjust it to new national energy challenges as indicated in Fig. 2. One of the hidden success factors may be the personnel and institutional ownership of the analysis frameworks, allowing refining and adapting previous work to new challenges. Also, the researcher’s mentor and research network may have facilitated the succession of coherent energy dynamics modeling work.

Fig. 2: Illustration of the intellectual lineage of system dynamics energy modeling
http://www.systemdynamics.org/DL-IntroSysDyn/start.htm

However, this specific intellectual lineage of system dynamics energy modeling addressing national energy planning issues may not satisfy all the specific needs in the transition challenge that lies ahead of us. The multitude of the presented case studies indicate the need for an accumulation of further coherent research streams addressing task-specific scales and levels for policy and decision makers involved in the transition task.

Hence, we look forward to the ramifications of the intellectual lineage of energy dynamics modeling characterized by committed researchers following up on promising cornerstones and enriching the energy dynamics community with a succession of refined dynamic concepts and frameworks that make a real change in the world. Only by providing trustworthy and convincing simulation models for the different transition tasks may we be able to inform the mental models of policy makers, managers and citizens in such a way that they effectively jump out of the boiling water as soon as possible.

Silvia Ulli-Beer, Paul Scherrer Institut, Switzerland