CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 30

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Conceptualizations of smart grids -anomalous and contradictory expert paradigms in transitions of the electricity system

Wolsink, Maarten·2024·Energy Research & Social Science
DOI 10.1016/j.erss.2023.103392
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.erss.2023.103392

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Figures

Image 1
CC-BY · From the PDF
Fig. 1 Sequence of steps in research design.
Fig. 1 Sequence of steps in research design.CC-BY · From the PDF
Fig. 2 Most distinguishing statements: the 2 most distinguishing statements for each factor have been included.
Fig. 2 Most distinguishing statements: the 2 most distinguishing statements for each factor have been included.CC-BY · From the PDF

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 2 references

Research works printed but not linked: 194

  1. Jenkins, 2018, Getting to zero carbon emissions in the electric power sector, Joule, 2, 2498, 10.1016/j.joule.2018.11.013 · DOI
  2. Connolly, 2016, Smart energy Europe: the technical and economic impact of one potential 100% renewable energy scenario for the European Union, Renew. Sust. Energ. Rev., 60, 1634, 10.1016/j.rser.2016.02.025 · DOI
  3. Amin, 2001, Toward self-healing energy infrastructure systems, IEEE Comput. Appl. Power, 14, 20, 10.1109/67.893351 · DOI
  4. Amin, 2005, Toward a smart grid, IEEE Pow. Energy M., 3, 34, 10.1109/MPAE.2005.1507024 · DOI
  5. Ipakchi, 2009, Grid of the future, IEEE Pow. Energy M., 7, 52, 10.1109/MPE.2008.931384 · DOI · Paper page
  6. Hossain, 2016, Role of smart grid in renewable energy: an overview, Renew. Sust. Energ. Rev., 60, 1168, 10.1016/j.rser.2015.09.098 · DOI
  7. Alizadeh, 2016, Sheikh-El-Eslami flexibility in future power systems with high renewable penetration: a review, Renew. Sust. Energ. Rev., 57, 1186, 10.1016/j.rser.2015.12.200 · DOI
  8. Wissner, 2011, The smart grid–a saucerful of secrets?, Appl. Energy, 88, 2509, 10.1016/j.apenergy.2011.01.042 · DOI
  9. Dileep, 2020, A survey on smart grid technologies and applications, Renew. Energy, 146, 2589, 10.1016/j.renene.2019.08.092 · DOI
  10. Benigni, 2020, Real-time simulation-based testing of modern energy systems: a review and discussion, IEEE Ind. Electron. Mag., 6, 26
  11. Henderson, 1990, Architectural innovation: the reconfiguration of existing product technologies and the failure of established firms, Adm. Sci. Q., 35, 9, 10.2307/2393549 · DOI
  12. Silvast, 2018, Who ‘uses’ smart grids? The evolving nature of user representations in layered infrastructures, Sustainability, 10, 3738, 10.3390/su10103738 · DOI
  13. Kojonsaari, 2021, Distributed energy systems and energy communities under negotiation, Technol. Econ. Smart Grids Sustain. Energy, 6, 1, 10.1007/s40866-021-00116-9 · DOI
  14. Cajaiba-Santana, 2014, Social innovation: moving the field forward. A conceptual framework, Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change, 82, 42, 10.1016/j.techfore.2013.05.008 · DOI
  15. Wolsink, 2018, Social acceptance revisited: gaps, questionable trends, and an auspicious perspective, Energy Res. Soc. Sci., 46, 287, 10.1016/j.erss.2018.07.034 · DOI
  16. Geels, 2017, Sociotechnical transitions for deep decarbonization, Science, 357, 1242, 10.1126/science.aao3760 · DOI · Paper page
  17. Shove, 2010, Governing transitions in the sustainability of everyday life, Res. Policy, 39, 471, 10.1016/j.respol.2010.01.019 · DOI
  18. Markard, 2018, The next phase of the energy transition and its implications for research and policy, Nat. Energy, 3, 628, 10.1038/s41560-018-0171-7 · DOI
  19. Wolsink, 2012, The research agenda on social acceptance of distributed generation in smart grids: renewable as common pool resources, Renew. Sust. Energ. Rev., 16, 822, 10.1016/j.rser.2011.09.006 · DOI · Paper page
  20. Senyapar, 2023, The research agenda on smart grids: foresights for social acceptance, Energies, 16, 6439, 10.3390/en16186439 · DOI
  21. Joseph, 2020, Energy internet, the future electricity system: overview, concept, model structure, and mechanism, Energies, 13, 4242, 10.3390/en13164242 · DOI
  22. Saleem, 2019, Internet of things-aided smart grid: technologies, architectures, applications, prototypes, and future research directions, IEEE Access, 7, 62962, 10.1109/ACCESS.2019.2913984 · DOI
  23. Strielkowski, 2019, Internet of energy (IoE) and high-renewables electricity system market design, Energies, 12, 4790, 10.3390/en12244790 · DOI
  24. Aliero, 2021, Smart home energy management systems in internet of things networks for green cities demands and services, Environ. Technol. Innov., 22, 10.1016/j.eti.2021.101443 · DOI
  25. Rahimi, 2010, Demand response as a market resource under the smart grid paradigm, IEEE T. Smart Grid, 1, 82, 10.1109/TSG.2010.2045906 · DOI
  26. Mallett, 2018, Smart grid framing through coverage in the Canadian media: technologies coupled with experiences, Renew. Sust. Energ. Rev., 82, 1952, 10.1016/j.rser.2017.06.013 · DOI
  27. Wolsink, 2020, Framing in renewable energy policies: a glossary, Energies, 13, 2871, 10.3390/en13112871 · DOI
  28. Unruh, 2000, Understanding carbon lock-in, Energy Policy, 28, 817, 10.1016/S0301-4215(00)00070-7 · DOI · Paper page
  29. Gui, 2017, Distributed energy infrastructure paradigm: community microgrids in a new institutional economics context, Renew. Sust. Energ. Rev., 72, 1355, 10.1016/j.rser.2016.10.047 · DOI
  30. Zhou, 2021, An energy paradigm transition framework from negative towards positive district energy sharing networks – Battery cycling aging, advanced battery management strategies, flexible vehicles-to-buildings interactions, uncertainty and sensitivity analysis, Appl. Energy, 288, 2
  31. Markusen, 2003, Fuzzy concepts, scanty evidence, policy distance: the case for rigour and policy relevance in critical regional studies, Reg. Stud., 37, 701, 10.1080/0034340032000108796 · DOI · Paper page
  32. McDaniel, 2009, Security and privacy challenges in the smart grid, IEEE Secur. Priv., 7, 75, 10.1109/MSP.2009.76 · DOI
  33. Amin, 2013, The smart-grid solution, Nature, 499, 145, 10.1038/499145a · DOI
  34. Ostrom, 2009, A general framework for analyzing sustainability of social-ecological systems, Science, 325, 419, 10.1126/science.1172133 · DOI · Paper page
  35. Acosta, 2018, Facilitating energy transition through energy commons: an application of socio-ecological systems framework for integrated community energy systems, Sustainability, 10, 366, 10.3390/su10020366 · DOI
  36. Wolsink, 2020, Distributed energy systems as common goods: socio-political acceptance of renewables in intelligent microgrids, Renew. Sust. Energ. Rev., 127, 10.1016/j.rser.2020.109841 · DOI
  37. Lenhart, 2021, Microgrid decision-making by public power utilities in the United States: A critical assessment of adoption and technological profiles, Renew. Sust. Energ. Rev., 139, 10.1016/j.rser.2020.110692 · DOI
  38. Marris, 2008, Upgrading the grid: electricity grids must cope with rising demand and complexity in a changing world, Nature, 454, 570, 10.1038/454570a · DOI
  39. Lund, 2015, Review of energy system flexibility measures to enable high levels of variable renewable electricity, Renew. Sust. Energ. Rev., 45, 785, 10.1016/j.rser.2015.01.057 · DOI
  40. Mohandes, 2019, A review of power system flexibility with high penetration of renewables, IEEE Trans. Power Syst., 34, 3140, 10.1109/TPWRS.2019.2897727 · DOI
  41. Rabiee, 2014, Corrective voltage control scheme considering demand response and stochastic wind power, IEEE T. Power Syst., 29, 2965, 10.1109/TPWRS.2014.2316018 · DOI
  42. Daneshvar, 2022, A fair risk-averse stochastic transactive energy model for 100% renewable multi-microgrids in the modern power and gas incorporated network, IEEE T. Smart Grid, 14, 1933, 10.1109/TSG.2022.3218255 · DOI
  43. Dincer, 2018, Smart energy solutions with hydrogen options, Int. J. Hydrog. Energy, 43, 8579, 10.1016/j.ijhydene.2018.03.120 · DOI
  44. Robbins, 2000, Beyond bias? The promise and limits of Q method in human geography, Prof. Geogr., 52, 636, 10.1111/0033-0124.00252 · DOI
  45. Stephenson, 1935, Technique of factor analysis, Nature, 136, 297, 10.1038/136297b0 · DOI
  46. Sudau, 2022, Application of Q-methodology for identifying factors of acceptance of spatial planning instruments, J. Environ. Plan. Manag. Manag., 66, 1890, 10.1080/09640568.2022.2043259 · DOI
  47. Wolsink, 2004, Policy beliefs in spatial decisions: contrasting core beliefs concerning space-making for waste infrastructure, Urban Stud., 41, 2669, 10.1080/0042098042000294619 · DOI
  48. Vugteveen, 2010, Stakeholder value orientations in water management, Soc. Nat. Resour., 23, 805, 10.1080/08941920903496952 · DOI
  49. Sneegas, 2021, Using Q-methodology in environmental sustainability research: A bibliometric analysis and systematic review, Ecol. Econ., 180, 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2020.106864 · DOI
  50. Armatas, 2017, Understanding social–ecological vulnerability with Q-methodology: a case study of water-based ecosystem services in Wyoming, USA, Sustain. Sci., 12, 105, 10.1007/s11625-016-0369-1 · DOI
  51. Cotton, 2015, Stakeholder perspectives on shale gas fracking: a Q-method study of environmental discourses, Environ. Plan. A, 47, 1944, 10.1177/0308518X15597134 · DOI
  52. Cuppen, 2016, Stakeholder engagement in large-scale energy infrastructure projects: revealing perspectives using Q methodology, Int. J. Project Man., 34, 1347, 10.1016/j.ijproman.2016.01.003 · DOI
  53. Naspetti, 2016, Using visual Q sorting to determine the impact of photovoltaic applications on the landscape, Land Use Policy, 57, 564, 10.1016/j.landusepol.2016.06.021 · DOI
  54. Ellis, 2007, Many ways to say ‘no’, different ways to say ‘yes’: applying Q-methodology to understand public acceptance of wind farm proposals, J. Environ. Plan. Manag., 50, 517, 10.1080/09640560701402075 · DOI
  55. Wolsink, 2010, Contrasting the core beliefs regarding the effective implementation of wind power. An international study of stakeholder perspectives, J. Environ. Plan. Manag., 53, 535, 10.1080/09640561003633581 · DOI
  56. Venus, 2020, The public's perception of run-of-the-river hydropower across Europe, Energy Policy, 140, 10.1016/j.enpol.2020.111422 · DOI
  57. Chang, 2019, Should BIPV technologies be empowered by innovation policy mix to facilitate energy transitions?-Revealing stakeholders' different perspectives using Q methodology, Energy Policy, 129, 307, 10.1016/j.enpol.2019.02.047 · DOI
  58. Ali, 2021, Revealing expert perspectives on challenges to electricity demand-side management in Pakistan: an application of Q-methodology, Util. Policy, 70, 10.1016/j.jup.2021.101216 · DOI
  59. Sandbrook, 2019, The global conservation movement is diverse but not divide, Nat. Sustain., 2, 316, 10.1038/s41893-019-0267-5 · DOI
  60. Zabala, 2018, When and how to use Q methodology to understand perspectives in conservation research, Conserv. Biol., 32, 1185, 10.1111/cobi.13123 · DOI
  61. Barry, 1999, Seeking sustainability discourses with Q methodology, Ecol. Econ., 28, 337, 10.1016/S0921-8009(98)00053-6 · DOI
  62. Basak, 2012, A literature review on integration of distributed energy resources in the perspective of control, protection and stability of microgrid, Renew. Sust. Energ. Rev., 16, 5545, 10.1016/j.rser.2012.05.043 · DOI
  63. Darby, 2010, Smart metering: what potential for householder engagement?, Build. Res. Inf., 38, 442, 10.1080/09613218.2010.492660 · DOI
  64. Li, 2021, Optimal coordination strategy for multiple distributed energy systems considering supply, demand, and price uncertainties, Energy, 227, 10.1016/j.energy.2021.120460 · DOI
  65. Kondziella, 2016, T, flexibility requirements of renewable energy based electricity systems - a review of research results and methodologies, Renew. Sust. Energ. Rev., 53, 10, 10.1016/j.rser.2015.07.199 · DOI
  66. Soroudi, 2013, Decision making under uncertainty in energy systems: state of the art, Renew. Sust. Energ. Rev., 28, 376, 10.1016/j.rser.2013.08.039 · DOI
  67. Jakubovskis, 2017, Strategic facility location, capacity acquisition, and technology choice decisions under demand uncertainty: robust vs. non-robust optimization approaches, Eur. J. Oper. Res., 260, 1095, 10.1016/j.ejor.2017.01.017 · DOI
  68. Monroe, 2020, Agent-based model of a blockchain enabled peer-to-peer energy market: application for a neighborhood trial in Perth, Australia, Smart Cities, 3, 1072, 10.3390/smartcities3030053 · DOI
  69. Lasseter, 2010, Microgrids and distributed generation, Intel. Autom. Soft Co., 16, 225, 10.1080/10798587.2010.10643078 · DOI
  70. Hatziargyriou, 2007, Microgrids, IEEE Pow. Energy M., 5, 78, 10.1109/MPAE.2007.376583 · DOI
  71. García Vera, 2019, Energy management in microgrids with renewable energy sources: a literature review, Appl. Sci., 9, 3854, 10.3390/app9183854 · DOI
  72. Barra, 2020, A survey on adaptive protection of microgrids and distribution systems with distributed generators, Renew. Sust. Energ. Rev., 118, 10.1016/j.rser.2019.109524 · DOI
  73. Khan, 2022, Energy management systems using smart grids: an exhaustive parametric comprehensive analysis of existing trends, significance, opportunities, and challenges, Int. T. Electr. Energy Syst., 2022
  74. Justo, 2013, AC-microgrids versus DC-microgrids with distributed energy resources: a review, Renew. Sust. Energ. Rev., 24, 387, 10.1016/j.rser.2013.03.067 · DOI
  75. Planas, 2015, AC and DC technology in microgrids: a review, Renew. Sust. Energ. Rev., 43, 726, 10.1016/j.rser.2014.11.067 · DOI
  76. Irmak, 2015, Digital transformation of microgrids: a review of design, operation, optimization, and cybersecurity, Energies, 16, 4590
  77. Cupelli, 2019, Data-driven adaptive control for distributed energy resources, IEEE Trans. Sustain. Energ., 10, 1575, 10.1109/TSTE.2019.2897661 · DOI
  78. Wu, 2019, A two-layer distributed cooperative control method for islanded networked microgrid systems, IEEE T. Smart Grid, 11, 942, 10.1109/TSG.2019.2928330 · DOI
  79. Darby, 2020, Demand response and smart technology in theory and practice: customer experiences and system actors, Energy Policy, 143, 10.1016/j.enpol.2020.111573 · DOI
  80. Wolsink, 1987, Wind power for the electricity supply of houses, Neth. J. Housing Environ. Res., 2, 195, 10.1007/BF02497872 · DOI
  81. Shove, 2014, What is energy for? Social practice and energy demand, Theor. Cult. Soc., 31, 41, 10.1177/0263276414536746 · DOI
  82. Gellings, 2017, Evolving practice of demand-side management, J. Mod. Power Syst. Clean Energy, 5, 10.1007/s40565-016-0252-1 · DOI
  83. Stenner, 2017, Willingness to participate in direct load control: the role of consumer distrust, Appl. Energy, 189, 76, 10.1016/j.apenergy.2016.10.099 · DOI
  84. Adams, 2021, Social license to automate: a critical review of emerging approaches to electricity demand management, Energy Res. Soc. Sci., 80, 10.1016/j.erss.2021.102210 · DOI
  85. Parag, 2016, Electricity market design for the prosumer era, Nat. Energy, 1, 1, 10.1038/nenergy.2016.32 · DOI
  86. Robison, 2023, A. Shifts in the smart research agenda? 100 priority questions to accelerate sustainable energy futures, J. Clean. Prod., 419, 10.1016/j.jclepro.2023.137946 · DOI
  87. Vardakas, 2015, A survey on demand response programs in smart grids: pricing methods and optimization algorithms, IEEE Comm. Surv. Tutor., 17, 152, 10.1109/COMST.2014.2341586 · DOI
  88. Breukers, 2020, Mind the gap when implementing technologies intended to reduce or shift energy consumption in blocks-of-buildings, Energy Environ., 31, 613, 10.1177/0958305X19881361 · DOI
  89. Palensky, 2011, Demand side management: demand response, intelligent energy systems, and smart loads, IEEE T. Ind. Inform., 7, 381, 10.1109/TII.2011.2158841 · DOI
  90. Siano, 2014, Demand response and smart grids—a survey, Renew. Sust. Energ. Rev., 30, 461, 10.1016/j.rser.2013.10.022 · DOI · Paper page
  91. Wang, 2017, Review and prospect of integrated demand response in the multi-energy system, Appl. Energy, 202, 772, 10.1016/j.apenergy.2017.05.150 · DOI
  92. Li, 2018, Networked microgrid stability through distributed formal analysis, Appl. Energy, 228, 279, 10.1016/j.apenergy.2018.06.038 · DOI
  93. Mehdinejad, 2022, Designing a robust decentralized energy transactions framework for active prosumers in peer-to-peer local electricity markets, IEEE Access, 10, 26743, 10.1109/ACCESS.2022.3151922 · DOI
  94. Liu, 2017, Energy-sharing model with price-based demand response for microgrids of peer-to-peer prosumers, IEEE Trans. Power Syst., 32, 3569, 10.1109/TPWRS.2017.2649558 · DOI
  95. Moncecchi, 2020, A game theoretic approach for energy sharing in the Italian renewable energy communities, Appl. Sci., 10, 8166, 10.3390/app10228166 · DOI
  96. Ableitner, 2020, User behavior in a real-world peer-to-peer electricity market, Appl. Energy, 270, 10.1016/j.apenergy.2020.115061 · DOI
  97. Tushar, 2021, Peer-to-peer energy systems for connected communities: a review of recent advances and emerging challenges, Appl. Energy, 282, 10.1016/j.apenergy.2020.116131 · DOI
  98. Zhou, 2018, Evaluation of peer-to-peer energy sharing mechanisms based on a multiagent simulation framework, Appl. Energy, 222, 993, 10.1016/j.apenergy.2018.02.089 · DOI
  99. Ryu, 2019, What and how are we sharing? A systematic review of the sharing paradigm and practices, Sustain. Sci., 14, 515, 10.1007/s11625-018-0638-2 · DOI
  100. Ritzel, 2022, Prosuming alone or together: a bisectoral approach to conceptualizing the commons prosumer, Int. J. Commons, 16, 295, 10.5334/ijc.1185 · DOI
  101. Aitzhan, 2018, Security and privacy in decentralized energy trading through multi-signatures, blockchain and anonymous messaging streams, IEEE T. Depend. Secure Comp., 15, 840, 10.1109/TDSC.2016.2616861 · DOI · Paper page
  102. Wolsink, 2018, Co-production in distributed generation: renewable energy and creating space for fitting infrastructure within landscapes, Landsc. Res., 43, 542, 10.1080/01426397.2017.1358360 · DOI
  103. Tröndle, 2020, Trade-offs between geographic scale, cost, and infrastructure requirements for fully renewable electricity in Europe, Joule, 4, 1929, 10.1016/j.joule.2020.07.018 · DOI
  104. McKenna, 2022, Exploring trade-offs between landscape impact, land use and resource quality for onshore variable renewable energy: an application to Great Britain, Energy, 250, 10.1016/j.energy.2022.123754 · DOI
  105. Inês, 2020, Regulatory challenges and opportunities for collective renewable energy prosumers in the EU, Energy Policy, 138, 10.1016/j.enpol.2019.111212 · DOI
  106. Espe, 2018, Prosumer communities and relationships in smart grids: a literature review, evolution and future directions, Energies, 11, 2528, 10.3390/en11102528 · DOI
  107. Minuto, 2022, Energy-sharing mechanisms for energy community members under different asset ownership schemes and user demand profiles, Renew. Sust. Energ. Rev., 168, 10.1016/j.rser.2022.112859 · DOI
  108. Neska, 2022, Conceptual design of energy market topologies for communities and their practical applications in EU: a comparison of three case studies, Renew. Sust. Energ. Rev., 169, 10.1016/j.rser.2022.112921 · DOI
  109. Dinesha, 2022, Conceptualization of blockchain enabled interconnected smart microgrids, Renew. Sust. Energ. Rev., 168, 10.1016/j.rser.2022.112848 · DOI
  110. Alanne, 2006, Distributed energy generation and sustainable development, Renew. Sust. Energ. Rev., 10, 539, 10.1016/j.rser.2004.11.004 · DOI
  111. Bouffard, 2008, Centralised and distributed electricity systems, Energy Policy, 36, 4504, 10.1016/j.enpol.2008.09.060 · DOI
  112. Ostrom, 2010, Beyond markets and states: polycentric governance of complex economic systems, Am. Econ. Rev., 100, 641, 10.1257/aer.100.3.641 · DOI · Paper page
  113. Sovacool, 2011, An international comparison of four polycentric approaches to climate and energy governance, Energy Policy, 39, 3832, 10.1016/j.enpol.2011.04.014 · DOI · Paper page
  114. Anderies, 2013, Robustness of social-ecological systems: implications for public policy, Policy Stud. J., 41, 513, 10.1111/psj.12027 · DOI
  115. Mengelkamp, 2018, Designing microgrid energy markets: a case study: the Brooklyn microgrid, Appl. Energy, 210, 870, 10.1016/j.apenergy.2017.06.054 · DOI
  116. Lezama, 2019, Local energy markets: paving the path toward fully transactive energy systems, IEEE T. Power Syst., 34, 4081, 10.1109/TPWRS.2018.2833959 · DOI
  117. Adeyemi, 2020, Transactive energy markets for managing energy exchanges in power distribution systems, Electr. J., 33, 10.1016/j.tej.2020.106868 · DOI
  118. Xiao, 2020, Transactive energy based aggregation of prosumers as a retailer, IEEE T. Smart Grid, 11, 3302, 10.1109/TSG.2020.2976130 · DOI
  119. Sousa, 2019, Peer-to-peer and community-based markets: a comprehensive review, Renew. Sust. Energ. Rev., 104, 367, 10.1016/j.rser.2019.01.036 · DOI
  120. Hua, 2020, A blockchain based peer-to-peer trading framework integrating energy and carbon markets, Appl. Energy, 279, 10.1016/j.apenergy.2020.115539 · DOI
  121. Kumari, 2022, Blockchain-based peer-to-peer transactive energy management scheme for smart grid system, Sensors, 22, 4826, 10.3390/s22134826 · DOI
  122. Siano, 2019, A survey and evaluation of the potentials of distributed ledger technology for peer-to-peer transactive energy exchanges in local energy markets, IEEE Syst. J., 13, 3454, 10.1109/JSYST.2019.2903172 · DOI
  123. Aklilu, 2021, Survey on blockchain for smart grid management, control, and operation, Energies, 15, 193, 10.3390/en15010193 · DOI
  124. Press, 2009, Constraints on sustainable energy consumption: market system and public policy challenges and opportunities, J. Pub. Policy Market., 28, 102, 10.1509/jppm.28.1.102 · DOI
  125. Kabalci, 2016, A survey on smart metering and smart grid communication, Renew. Sust. Energ. Rev., 57, 302, 10.1016/j.rser.2015.12.114 · DOI
  126. Andoni, 2019, Blockchain technology in the energy sector: a systematic review of challenges and opportunities, Renew. Sust. Energ. Rev., 100, 143, 10.1016/j.rser.2018.10.014 · DOI · Paper page
  127. Utz, 2023, From ambivalence to trust: using blockchain in customer loyalty programs, Int. J. Inf. Manag., 68, 10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2022.102496 · DOI
  128. Zhang, 2019, Blockchain-based decentralized and secure keyless signature scheme for smart grid, Energy, 180, 955, 10.1016/j.energy.2019.05.127 · DOI
  129. Bugden, 2021, Unfulfilled promise: social acceptance of the smart grid, Environ. Res. Lett., 16, 10.1088/1748-9326/abd81c · DOI
  130. Kaufmann, 2013, Customer value of smart metering: explorative evidence from a choice-based conjoint study in Switzerland, Energy Policy, 53, 229, 10.1016/j.enpol.2012.10.072 · DOI
  131. Toft, 2014, The importance of framing for consumer acceptance of the smart grid: a comparative study of Denmark, Norway and Switzerland, Energy Res. Soc. Sci., 3, 113, 10.1016/j.erss.2014.07.010 · DOI
  132. van Veelen, 2018, What is energy democracy? Connecting social science energy research and political theory, Energy Res. Soc. Sci., 46, 19, 10.1016/j.erss.2018.06.010 · DOI
  133. Szulecki, 2018, Conceptualizing energy democracy, Environ. Polit., 27, 21, 10.1080/09644016.2017.1387294 · DOI
  134. Eklund, 2023, Understanding the community in community microgrids: a conceptual framework for better decision-making, Energy Res. Soc. Sci., 104, 10.1016/j.erss.2023.103260 · DOI
  135. Agnew, 2015, Effect of residential solar and storage on centralized electricity supply systems, Nat. Clim. Chang., 5, 315, 10.1038/nclimate2523 · DOI
  136. DiMaggio, 1983, The iron cage revisited: institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields, Am. Sociol. Rev., 147-160
  137. Hewitt, 2019, Social innovation in community energy in Europe: a review of the evidence, Front. Energy Res., 7, 31, 10.3389/fenrg.2019.00031 · DOI
  138. Wüstenhagen, 2007, Social acceptance of renewable energy innovation: an introduction to the concept, Energy Policy, 35, 2683, 10.1016/j.enpol.2006.12.001 · DOI
  139. Kenney, 2016, The rise of the platform economy, Issues Sci. Technol., 32, 61
  140. Khani, 2015, Transmission congestion relief using privately owned large-scale energy storage systems in a competitive electricity market, IEEE T. Power Syst., 31, 1449, 10.1109/TPWRS.2015.2414937 · DOI
  141. Arteaga, 2021, Energy storage as a service: optimal sizing for transmission congestion relief, Appl. Energy, 298, 10.1016/j.apenergy.2021.117095 · DOI
  142. Joos, 2018, Short-term integration costs of variable renewable energy: wind curtailment and balancing in Britain and Germany, Renew. Sust. Energ. Rev., 86, 45, 10.1016/j.rser.2018.01.009 · DOI
  143. Pal, 2016, MATCH for the prosumer smart grid; the Algorithmics of real-time power balance, IEEE Trans. Parallel Distrib. Syst., 2 M, 3532, 10.1109/TPDS.2016.2544316 · DOI
  144. Das, 2018, Overview of energy storage systems in distribution networks: placement, sizing, operation, and power quality, Renew. Sust. Energ. Rev., 91, 1205, 10.1016/j.rser.2018.03.068 · DOI
  145. Mengelkamp, 2017, A blockchain-based smart grid: towards sustainable local energy markets, Comp. Science Res. Dev., 33, 207
  146. Wang, 2018, Distributed energy and microgrids (DEM), Appl. Energy, 210, 685, 10.1016/j.apenergy.2017.11.059 · DOI
  147. Abdi, 2023, Brief review of microgrid surveys, by focusing on energy management system, Sustainability, 15, 284, 10.3390/su15010284 · DOI
  148. Guo, 2018, On robust tie-line scheduling in multi-area power systems, IEEE T. Power Syst., 33, 4144, 10.1109/TPWRS.2017.2775161 · DOI
  149. Zia, 2018, Microgrids energy management systems: A critical review on methods, solutions, and prospects, Appl. Energy, 222, 1033, 10.1016/j.apenergy.2018.04.103 · DOI
  150. Soland, 2018, Acceptance among residential electricity consumers regarding scenarios of a transformed energy system in Switzerland—a focus group study, Energ. Effic., 11, 1673, 10.1007/s12053-017-9548-x · DOI
  151. Goldthau, 2014, Rethinking the governance of energy infrastructure: scale, decentralization and polycentrism, Energy Res. Soc. Sci., 1, 134, 10.1016/j.erss.2014.02.009 · DOI
  152. Murillo, 2017, When the sharing economy becomes neoliberalism on steroids: unravelling the controversies, Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change, 125, 66, 10.1016/j.techfore.2017.05.024 · DOI · Paper page
  153. Burke, 2018, Political power and renewable energy futures: A critical review, Energy Res. Soc. Sci., 35, 78, 10.1016/j.erss.2017.10.018 · DOI
  154. Blarke, 2013, SuperGrid or SmartGrid: competing strategies for large-scale integration of intermittent renewables?, Energy Policy, 58, 381, 10.1016/j.enpol.2013.03.039 · DOI
  155. Lindberg, 2019, Policies, actors and sustainability transition pathways: A study of the EU’s energy policy mix, Res. Policy, 48, 10.1016/j.respol.2018.09.003 · DOI
  156. Haslett, 1981, The capacity credit of wind power: a theoretical analysis, Sol. Energy, 26, 391, 10.1016/0038-092X(81)90218-8 · DOI
  157. Chicco, 2009, Distributed multi-generation: A comprehensive view, Renew. Sust. Energ. Rev., 13, 535, 10.1016/j.rser.2007.11.014 · DOI
  158. Kessels, 2016, Fostering residential demand response through dynamic pricing schemes: a behavioural review of smart grid pilots in Europe, Sustainability, 8, 929, 10.3390/su8090929 · DOI
  159. Richter, 2012, Utilities’ business models for renewable energy: a review, Renew. Sust. Energ. Rev., 16, 2483, 10.1016/j.rser.2012.01.072 · DOI
  160. Skjølsvold, 2015, Ambivalence, designing users and user imaginaries in the European smart grid: insights from an interdisciplinary demonstration project, Energy Res. Soc. Sci., 9, 43, 10.1016/j.erss.2015.08.026 · DOI
  161. von Wirth, 2018, Distributed energy systems on a neighborhood scale: reviewing drivers of and barriers to social acceptance, Renew. Sust. Energ. Rev., 82, 2618, 10.1016/j.rser.2017.09.086 · DOI
  162. Gram-Hanssen, 2018, “Home is where the smart is”? Evaluating smart home research and approaches against the concept of home, Energy Res. Soc. Sci., 37, 94, 10.1016/j.erss.2017.09.037 · DOI
  163. Blasch, 2021, New clean energy communities in polycentric settings: four avenues for future research, Energy Res. Soc. Sci., 82, 10.1016/j.erss.2021.102276 · DOI
  164. Krug, 2022, Mainstreaming community energy: is the renewable energy directive a driver for renewable energy communities in Germany and Italy?, Sustainability, 14, 7181, 10.3390/su14127181 · DOI
  165. Hoicka, 2021, Implementing a just renewable energy transition: policy advice for transposing the new European rules for renewable energy communities, Energy Policy, 156, 10.1016/j.enpol.2021.112435 · DOI
  166. Grimley, 2023, “Cooperative is an oxymoron!”: A polycentric energy transition perspective on distributed energy deployment in the upper Midwestern United States, Energy Policy, 172, 10.1016/j.enpol.2022.113328 · DOI · Paper page
  167. Juntunen, 2015, Renewable micro-generation of heat and electricity—review on common and missing socio-technical configurations, Renew. Sust. Energ. Rev., 49, 857, 10.1016/j.rser.2015.04.040 · DOI
  168. Norouzi, 2022, A review of socio-technical barriers to smart microgrid development, Renew. Sust. Energ. Rev., 167, 10.1016/j.rser.2022.112674 · DOI
  169. Rahimiyan, 2015, Strategic bidding for a virtual power plant in the day-ahead and real-time markets: A price-taker robust optimization approach, IEEE T. Power Syst., 31, 2676, 10.1109/TPWRS.2015.2483781 · DOI
  170. Dong, 2022, Decentralized peer-to-peer energy trading strategy in energy blockchain environment: a game-theoretic approach, Appl. Energy, 325, 10.1016/j.apenergy.2022.119852 · DOI
  171. Shi, 2022, A comprehensive review of standards for distributed energy resource grid-integration and microgrid, Renew. Sust. Energ. Rev., 170, 10.1016/j.rser.2022.112957 · DOI
  172. Palm, 2021, Exploring limited capacity in the grid: actors, problems, and solutions, Front. Energy Res., 9
  173. Zame, 2018, Smart grid and energy storage: policy recommendations, Renew. Sust. Energ. Rev., 82, 1646, 10.1016/j.rser.2017.07.011 · DOI
  174. Hansen, 2020, Smart technology needs smarter management: disentangling the dynamics of digitalism in the governance of shared solar energy in Australia, Energy Res. Soc. Sci., 60, 10.1016/j.erss.2019.101322 · DOI
  175. Goulden, 2014, Smart grids, smart users? The role of the user in demand side management, Energy Res. Soc. Sci., 2, 21, 10.1016/j.erss.2014.04.008 · DOI
  176. Kojonsaari, 2023, The development of social science research on smart grids: a semi-structured literature review, Energy Sustain. Soc., 13, 1, 10.1186/s13705-023-00381-9 · DOI · Paper page
  177. Ostrom, 2011, Background on the institutional analysis and development framework, Policy Stud. J., 39, 7, 10.1111/j.1541-0072.2010.00394.x · DOI · Paper page
  178. McGinnis, 2011, An introduction to IAD and the language of the Ostrom workshop: a simple guide to a complex framework, Policy Stud. J., 39, 169, 10.1111/j.1541-0072.2010.00401.x · DOI
  179. Lammers, 2019, Watt rules? Assessing decision-making practices on smart energy systems in Dutch city districts, Energy Res. Soc. Sci., 47, 233, 10.1016/j.erss.2018.10.003 · DOI
  180. Bovaird, 2007, Beyond engagement and participation: user and community coproduction of public services, Public Adm. Rev., 67, 846, 10.1111/j.1540-6210.2007.00773.x · DOI
  181. Ryghaug, 2018, Creating energy citizenship through material participation, Soc. Stud. Sci., 48, 283, 10.1177/0306312718770286 · DOI
  182. Fragniere, 2023, 2023 IEEE Renewable Energy and Sustainable E-Mobility Conference (RESEM), Bhopal, India, 1
  183. Ostrom, 2008, Institutions and the environment, Econ. Aff., 28, 24, 10.1111/j.1468-0270.2008.00840.x · DOI
  184. Hall, 2015, Social licence to operate: understanding how a concept has been translated into practice in energy industries, J. Clean. Prod., 86, 301, 10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.08.020 · DOI
  185. Bidwell, 2023, Uneasy tensions in energy justice and systems transformation, Nat. Energy, 8, 317, 10.1038/s41560-023-01217-8 · DOI
  186. Bauwens, 2022, Conceptualizing community in energy systems: a systematic review of 183 definitions, Renew. Sust. Energ. Rev., 156, 10.1016/j.rser.2021.111999 · DOI
  187. Lang, 2012, Transdisciplinary research in sustainability science: practice, principles, and challenges, Sustain. Sci., 7, 25, 10.1007/s11625-011-0149-x · DOI · Paper page
  188. Sovacool, 2018, Promoting novelty, rigor, and style in energy social science: towards codes of practice for appropriate methods and research design, Energy Res. Soc. Sci., 45, 12, 10.1016/j.erss.2018.07.007 · DOI · Paper page
  189. Wolsink, 2019, Social acceptance, lost objects, and obsession with the ‘public’—the pressing need for enhanced conceptual and methodological rigor, Energy Res. Soc. Sci., 48, 269, 10.1016/j.erss.2018.12.006 · DOI
  190. York, 2019, Energy transitions or additions?: why a transition from fossil fuels requires more than the growth of renewable energy, Energy Res. Soc. Sci., 51, 40, 10.1016/j.erss.2019.01.008 · DOI
  191. Cui, 2019, A two-stage robust energy sharing management for prosumer microgrid, IEEE T. Ind. Inform., 15, 2741, 10.1109/TII.2018.2867878 · DOI
  192. Boche, 2022, Understanding microgrid sustainability: a systemic and comprehensive review, Energies, 15, 2906, 10.3390/en15082906 · DOI
  193. Lesk, 2022, Mitigation and adaptation emissions embedded in the broader climate transition, Proc. Nat. A. Sci. USA, 119
  194. Thacker, 2019, Infrastructure for sustainable development, Nat. Sustain., 2, 324, 10.1038/s41893-019-0256-8 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Wolsink, M.
Venue
Energy Research & Social Science
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2024-03
Volume
109
Pages
103392
ISSN
2214-6296
DOI
10.1016/j.erss.2023.103392
Cited by
30
References
2
Language
en
Licence

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review