IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ecolec/v219y2024ics0921800924000260.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Renewing the Subterranean Energy Regime? How Petroculture Obscures the Materiality of Deep Geothermal Energy Technology in Sweden

Author

Listed:
  • Roos, Andreas

Abstract

Social visions to replace fossil fuels with renewable energy sources have motivated unprecedented growth in global renewable energy manufacturing. Previous literature shows that people committed to realizing such visions have difficulties reconciling with the negative social-ecological impacts of this mass production even if it presents a formidable challenge to a socially just and ecologically sustainable energy transition. This study contributes to a better understanding of how stakeholders view the promises and perils of large-scale renewable energy development. It draws on the petroculure literature to understand how stakeholder viewpoints of deep geothermal energy technology may be a product of the historically unparalleled energy throughput since the mid-20th century. The study relies on Q-methodology for identifying viewpoints among stakeholders in deep geothermal energy in Sweden. The results demonstrate a notable influence of petrocultural assumptions, which helps to explain how stakeholders obfuscate the materiality of renewable energy technologies. This suggests that social visions to replace fossil fuels with technologically sophisticated renewable energy systems could themselves be cultural products of the fossil era inclined to reproduce it.

Suggested Citation

  • Roos, Andreas, 2024. "Renewing the Subterranean Energy Regime? How Petroculture Obscures the Materiality of Deep Geothermal Energy Technology in Sweden," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 219(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:ecolec:v:219:y:2024:i:c:s0921800924000260
    DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2024.108129
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921800924000260
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2024.108129?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Nadkarni, Kabir & Lefsrud, Lianne M. & Schiffner, Daniel & Banks, Jonathan, 2022. "Converting oil wells to geothermal resources: Roadmaps and roadblocks for energy transformation," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 161(C).
    2. Cuppen, Eefje & Breukers, Sylvia & Hisschemöller, Matthijs & Bergsma, Emmy, 2010. "Q methodology to select participants for a stakeholder dialogue on energy options from biomass in the Netherlands," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(3), pages 579-591, January.
    3. Laura J. Sonter & Marie C. Dade & James E. M. Watson & Rick K. Valenta, 2020. "Renewable energy production will exacerbate mining threats to biodiversity," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 11(1), pages 1-6, December.
    4. Hähnlein, Stefanie & Bayer, Peter & Ferguson, Grant & Blum, Philipp, 2013. "Sustainability and policy for the thermal use of shallow geothermal energy," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 59(C), pages 914-925.
    5. Roos, Andreas, 2022. "Global asymmetries in the rise of solar power: An LCA-based account of ecologically unequal exchange between Germany and China 2002–2018," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 199(C).
    6. Aljoša Slameršak & Giorgos Kallis & Daniel W. O’Neill, 2022. "Energy requirements and carbon emissions for a low-carbon energy transition," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 13(1), pages 1-15, December.
    7. Hermelingmeier, Verena & Nicholas, Kimberly A., 2017. "Identifying Five Different Perspectives on the Ecosystem Services Concept Using Q Methodology," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 136(C), pages 255-265.
    8. Turhan, Ethemcan, 2016. "Value-based adaptation to climate change and divergent developmentalisms in Turkish agriculture," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 121(C), pages 140-148.
    9. Olasolo, P. & Juárez, M.C. & Morales, M.P. & D´Amico, Sebastiano & Liarte, I.A., 2016. "Enhanced geothermal systems (EGS): A review," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 56(C), pages 133-144.
    10. Hake, Jürgen-Friedrich & Fischer, Wolfgang & Venghaus, Sandra & Weckenbrock, Christoph, 2015. "The German Energiewende – History and status quo," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 92(P3), pages 532-546.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Huaranca, Laura Liliana & Iribarnegaray, Martín Alejandro & Albesa, Federico & Volante, José Norberto & Brannstrom, Christian & Seghezzo, Lucas, 2019. "Social Perspectives on Deforestation, Land Use Change, and Economic Development in an Expanding Agricultural Frontier in Northern Argentina," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 165(C), pages 1-1.
    2. Späth, Leonhard, 2018. "Large-scale photovoltaics? Yes please, but not like this! Insights on different perspectives underlying the trade-off between land use and renewable electricity development," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 122(C), pages 429-437.
    3. Nhem, Sareth & Lee, Young Jin, 2019. "Using Q methodology to investigate the views of local experts on the sustainability of community-based forestry in Oddar Meanchey province, Cambodia," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 106(C), pages 1-1.
    4. Romanov, D. & Leiss, B., 2022. "Geothermal energy at different depths for district heating and cooling of existing and future building stock," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 167(C).
    5. Anderson, Austin & Rezaie, Behnaz, 2019. "Geothermal technology: Trends and potential role in a sustainable future," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 248(C), pages 18-34.
    6. Grimsrud, Kristine & Graesse, Maximo & Lindhjem, Henrik, 2020. "Using the generalised Q method in ecological economics: A better way to capture representative values and perspectives in ecosystem service management," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 170(C).
    7. Aramendia, Emmanuel & Brockway, Paul E. & Taylor, Peter G. & Norman, Jonathan B., 2024. "Exploring the effects of mineral depletion on renewable energy technologies net energy returns," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 290(C).
    8. Roos, Andreas, 2022. "Global asymmetries in the rise of solar power: An LCA-based account of ecologically unequal exchange between Germany and China 2002–2018," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 199(C).
    9. Röös, E. & Wood, A. & Säll, S. & Abu Hatab, A. & Ahlgren, S. & Hallström, E. & Tidåker, P. & Hansson, H., 2023. "Diagnostic, regenerative or fossil-free - exploring stakeholder perceptions of Swedish food system sustainability," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 203(C).
    10. Anand, R.S. & Li, Ang & Huang, Wenbo & Chen, Juanwen & Li, Zhibin & Ma, Qingshan & Jiang, Fangming, 2024. "Super-long gravity heat pipe for geothermal energy exploitation - A comprehensive review," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 193(C).
    11. Rivera, Jaime A. & Blum, Philipp & Bayer, Peter, 2015. "Ground energy balance for borehole heat exchangers: Vertical fluxes, groundwater and storage," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 83(C), pages 1341-1351.
    12. Setiawan, Andri D. & Cuppen, Eefje, 2013. "Stakeholder perspectives on carbon capture and storage in Indonesia," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 61(C), pages 1188-1199.
    13. Buckwell, Andrew & Fleming, Christopher & Muurmans, Maggie & Smart, James & Mackey, Brendan, 2020. "Revealing the dominant discourses of stakeholders towards natural resource management in Port Resolution, Vanuatu, using Q-method," 2020 Conference (64th), February 12-14, 2020, Perth, Western Australia 305231, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    14. Bordt, Michael, 2018. "Discourses in Ecosystem Accounting: A Survey of the Expert Community," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 144(C), pages 82-99.
    15. Hasret Sahin & A. A. Solomon & Arman Aghahosseini & Christian Breyer, 2024. "Systemwide energy return on investment in a sustainable transition towards net zero power systems," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 15(1), pages 1-15, December.
    16. Hu, Xincheng & Banks, Jonathan & Wu, Linping & Liu, Wei Victor, 2020. "Numerical modeling of a coaxial borehole heat exchanger to exploit geothermal energy from abandoned petroleum wells in Hinton, Alberta," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 148(C), pages 1110-1123.
    17. Emblemsvåg, Jan, 2022. "Wind energy is not sustainable when balanced by fossil energy," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 305(C).
    18. Rentier, Gerrit & Lelieveldt, Herman & Kramer, Gert Jan, 2019. "Varieties of coal-fired power phase-out across Europe," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 132(C), pages 620-632.
    19. Baudry, Gino & Delrue, Florian & Legrand, Jack & Pruvost, Jérémy & Vallée, Thomas, 2017. "The challenge of measuring biofuel sustainability: A stakeholder-driven approach applied to the French case," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 69(C), pages 933-947.
    20. Daina Paulikas & Steven Katona & Erika Ilves & Saleem H. Ali, 2022. "Deep‐sea nodules versus land ores: A comparative systems analysis of mining and processing wastes for battery‐metal supply chains," Journal of Industrial Ecology, Yale University, vol. 26(6), pages 2154-2177, December.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:ecolec:v:219:y:2024:i:c:s0921800924000260. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/ecolecon .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.