Suchergebnisse

The convergent development of (renewable) distributed electricity sources, storage technologies (e.g., batteries), 'big data' devices (e.g., sensors, smart meters), and novel ICT infrastructure matching energy supply and demand (smart grids) enables new local and collective forms of energy consumption and production. This socio-technical evolution has been accompanied by the development of citizen energy communities that have been supported by EU energy governance and directives, adopting a political narrative of placing the citizen central in the ongoing energy transition. But to what extent are the ideals that motivate the energy community movement compatible with those of neoliberalism that have guided EU energy policy for the last four decades? Using a framework inspired by Michel Foucault's idea of governmentality, we analyze the two political forms from three dimensions: ontological, economic and power politics. For the ontological and the economic dimensions, neoliberal governmentality is flexible enough to accommodate the tensions raised by the communitarians. In the dimension of power politics however, the communitarian logic does raise a fundamental challenge to neoliberal governmentality in the sense that it explicitly aims for a redefinition of the 'common good' of society's energy supply based on democratic premises.

In the original article an entire section of text was erroneously repeated. The duplicate section starts on page 3 'Neoliberal EU energy governmentality.…' and ends on page 6 '….sense of increased competition'. The original article has been corrected.

The convergent development of (renewable) distributed electricity sources, storage technologies (e.g., batteries), 'big data' devices (e.g., sensors, smart meters), and novel ICT infrastructure matching energy supply and demand (smart grids) enables new local and collective forms of energy consumption and production. This socio-technical evolution has been accompanied by the development of citizen energy communities that have been supported by EU energy governance and directives, adopting a political narrative of placing the citizen central in the ongoing energy transition. But to what extent are the ideals that motivate the energy community movement compatible with those of neoliberalism that have guided EU energy policy for the last four decades? Using a framework inspired by Michel Foucault's idea of governmentality, we analyze the two political forms from three dimensions: ontological, economic and power politics. For the ontological and the economic dimensions, neoliberal governmentality is flexible enough to accommodate the tensions raised by the communitarians. In the dimension of power politics however, the communitarian logic does raise a fundamental challenge to neoliberal governmentality in the sense that it explicitly aims for a redefinition of the 'common good' of society's energy supply based on democratic premises.

AbstractThis paper aims to open up high-level waste management practices to a political philosophical questioning, beyond the enclosure implied by the normative ethics approaches that prevail in the literature. Building on previous insights derived from mediation theory (in particular the work of Verbeek and Dorrestijn), Foucault and science and technology studies (in particular Jasanoff's work on socio-technical imaginaries), mediation theory's appropriation of Foucauldian insights is shown to be in need of modification and further extension. In particular, we modify Dorrestijn's figure of "technical determination of power relations" to better take into account the (literal and figurative) aspects of imagination, and complement Dorrestijn's work with the figures of techno-scientific mediation, and the inherently political figures of socio-technical and state-technical mediation, both based on Foucault's notion of governmentality. Our analysis implies that the practical implementation of a high-level nuclear waste (HLW) management strategy will require the "stitching together" of these different mediations, which is an inherently political task.

This paper aims to open up high-level waste management practices to a political philosophical questioning, beyond the enclosure implied by the normative ethics approaches that prevail in the literature. Building on previous insights derived from mediation theory (in particular the work of Verbeek and Dorrestijn), Foucault and science and technology studies (in particular Jasanoff's work on socio-technical imaginaries), mediation theory's appropriation of Foucauldian insights is shown to be in need of modification and further extension. In particular, we modify Dorrestijn's figure of "technical determination of power relations" to better take into account the (literal and figurative) aspects of imagination, and complement Dorrestijn's work with the figures of techno-scientific mediation, and the inherently political figures of socio-technical and state-technical mediation, both based on Foucault's notion of governmentality. Our analysis implies that the practical implementation of a high-level nuclear waste (HLW) management strategy will require the "stitching together" of these different mediations, which is an inherently political task.

Tradable Green-power Certificates (TGC) systems resemble greenhouse Emission-permits Trading Systems (ETS). In Europe they both emerged in the period 1999-2001, based on similar beliefs in 'constructed markets solve public policy problems'. In 2001 TGC were launched under impulse of the European Commission (EC). The systems' design, attributes and performance were known in 2005 (start ETS phase 1) and more documented in 2008 (start ETS phase 2). Detailed year-by-year follow-up of the Flanders (Belgium) TGC system, revealed major flaws of the experiment, such as: neglect of proper market segmentation, excessive financial transfers from small electricity consumers to renewable electricity generators, lacking innovation incentives, target fetishism. Instead of evolving to a workable market, the TGC system metamorphosed in assignment of certificates case-by-case, mainly to large-scale RE generation projects set up by influential project promoters. The EU ETS exposes similar flaws. There is no evidence the EC has taken advantage of prolific comparative analysis and advanced comprehension of the TGC market construction trials and failures. The EC – deliberately or unconcernedly – skipped the opportunity of learning.

The EU energy & climate policy requests from all Member States to submit a National Energy & Climate Plan (NECP) over the year 2019, to reach the aggregate goals of energy efficiency, renewable energy supplies and greenhouse gas emissions reductions by 2030. The complicated Belgian context is briefly described. Then the many comments on Belgium's draft NECP are summarized and annotated. Commentators are the European Commission, various statutory advisory councils on energy and climate policies, NGOs, consultants, etc. The draft plan requires significant improvement for meeting the formal standards imposed by the EU framework. More problematic however are the doubts about the actual capability of Belgium to realize the paper & ink commitments. Delving into the draft NECP and the abundant comments created a growing insight that the bureaucratic NECP approach of the European Commission is obsolete and dysfunctional. For addressing the energy & climate challenges, urgent & drastic, i.e. disruptive transformation is requested. Hence, disruptive thinking, novel frameworks and approaches should prevail.

AbstractIn this paper we propose a critical investigation of the epistemological, ontological, and moral foundations for the legitimacy of the (internationally accepted) permanent geological disposal option for high‐level radioactive waste. We do so through a reading of Nietzsche's second untimely meditation, "On the uses and disadvantages of history for life." In particular, we offer an interpretation of some of the central concepts in this text and Nietzsche's work in general—perspectivism, pluralism, active forgetting, etc.—and investigate the effects of the confrontation between these lines of thought and present practices in the management of medium‐ and high‐level long‐lived radioactive waste (categories B and C). Furthermore, we argue that this untimely meditation comes at a timely moment, i.e., at a time when modernity's way of dealing with waste could be undergoing a major transformation. The paper ends with some preliminary reflections on our nuclear inheritance and its link with nuclear power of the future (GenIV).

AbstractThe three-tenet model, which focuses on 'distributional justice', 'procedural justice', and 'justice as recognition', has emerged as the most influential framework in the field of energy justice. Based on critical reviews of the three-tenet model, we identify three challenges that the model currently still faces: (i) a normative challenge on the grounding of the three-tenet model in philosophical theories; (ii) an 'elite' challenge on the justification of the use of power in energy-related decision; and (iii) a practical challenge on the application of the three tenets in situations of conflicting justice demands. In this article, we provide the basic contours of a three-step pluralist and pragmatic dialogue model for questions of energy justice that addresses the three challenges, based on the 'commonwealth model' of Luc Boltanski and Laurent Thévenot. The model proposes to create moral legitimacy in the face of plural demands for energy justice by engaging actors in an inclusive dialogue based on an explicit recognition of Boltanski and Thévenot's commonwealth model. We thereby make three contributions to the existing literature on energy justice. First, the commonwealth model's rootedness in normative political theory provides a stronger philosophical underpinning than was available up till now in the literature (challenge 1). Second, it allows one to go beyond the (almost exclusive) focus on injustices perpetrated on disempowered or marginalised groups, to include questions on the justified exercise of power (challenge 2). Third, the commonwealth model shows us practical ways out of situations where conflicting demands for justice are being made (challenge 3).