126,99 €
Mehr erfahren.
- Herausgeber: John Wiley & Sons
- Kategorie: Wissenschaft und neue Technologien
- Sprache: Englisch
Energy autonomy is an emerging concept that is, as yet, poorly identified in France. It can mean taking ownership of certain issues related to energy, its production, or, indeed, becoming self-sufficient, and it can apply equally to individuals, communities and buildings.
While there are numerous new developments – renewable energies, smart grids and self-consumption – it is becoming difficult to know what this idea of “autonomy” covers, just as it is difficult to define “independence” and “self-sufficiency”, which are often associated with it. However, these three concepts are key to thinking about the energy system and deciding its future. Covering distinct ideas, they are often reduced to economic and productive factors. This ambiguity in their meanings is responsible for the misunderstandings, delusions and obstacles that hamper the implementation of the energy transition.
This book deconstructs the common idea of autonomy in favor of a set of more operational concepts. It demonstrates that these ideas are not interchangeable but rather represent practical and constructive tools for action. The world of energy is changing, and therefore we must rethink energy autonomy.
Sie lesen das E-Book in den Legimi-Apps auf:
Seitenzahl: 399
Veröffentlichungsjahr: 2022
Ähnliche
Table of Contents
Cover
Title Page
Copyright Page
Introduction
PART 1: Self-Sufficiency, an Operational Concept:
1 The Two Autonomies
1.1. An old political and technical project
1.2. Autonomy of individuals
2 New Perspectives on Production and Consumption
2.1. More numerous and “local” means of production
2.2. Improved energy efficiency and new levers to control demand
3 Distinguish Between Self-Sufficiency and Self-Consumption
3.1. Self-sufficiency: a layered concept
3.2. Self-consumption, a convergence of technology and economics
3.3. Vehicle autonomy and self-sufficiency
4 Measuring Self-Sufficiency and Self-Consumption
4.1. Satisfying one’s needs
4.2. Measuring, easy to say…
5 Self-Sufficiency on a Territorial Scale
5.1. A network organization
5.2. An interconnected set
6 Self-Sufficiency as an Analytical Tool
6.1. Knowing the level of self-sufficiency, a prerequisite
6.2. Calculation of self-sufficiency
PART 2: The Energy Autonomy of Territories, a Legal Issue
7 Local Authorities Territories, Framework of the New Energy System
7.1. From territory to territories: the perimeter transition
7.2. The territory of local authorities, a consistent perimeter
8 Energy, a “New” Competence
8.1. Competences for omnipresent local authorities
8.2. A broad spectrum of intervention
9 Autonomy Seen Through Positive Energy Territories
9.1. TEPOS: deciding and doing things “locally”
9.2. Regionalization and “nationalization” of positive energy territories
10 “Autonomy”, from Slogan to Instrument
10.1. The local authority as a coordinator and catalyst
10.2. Autonomy as a means of communication and development
11 Energy Autonomy: Local Authorities Within a Sovereign State
11.1. Autonomy and free administration
11.2. The issue of financing
12 The Value of a Legal Perspective
12.1. Coexistence of autonomous territories
12.2. A pragmatic approach
13 Territorial Energy Independence: A State Issue and a Nonsense for a Community
13.1. Autonomy and independence
13.2. Specific issues of independence
Conclusion
References
Index
Other titles from iSTE in Energy
End User License Agreement
List of Tables
Chapter 4
Table 4.1.
Key determinants of energy self-sufficiency at the residential
...
Chapter 5
Table 5.1.
Physical electricity exchange flows in MW for January 1, 2020, at the hourly tim...
Chapter 11
Table 11.1.
Prerogatives of the State and local authorities
List of Illustrations
Chapter 3
Figure 3.1.
Theoretical diagram of the four technical configurations of se
...
Figure 3.2.
Example of self-consumption and corresponding self-generation
...
Chapter 4
Figure 4.1.
Final energy consumption by use (source: ADEME 2018). For a co
...
Chapter 5
Figure 5.1.
Fruges in the interconnected network – the 400 Kv lines in red
...
Figure 5.2.
Synchronized zones (source: ENTSO-E). For a color version of t
...
Figure 5.3.
Map of the Western European network in 2019 (source: ENTSO-E).
...
Figure 5.4.
The high voltage network of France (source: ENTSO-E). For a co
...
Figure 5.5.
Generation-consumption ratio (source: RTE 2019a). For a color
...
Figure 5.6.
Monthly evolution of electricity exports from the Centre-Val d
...
Figure 5.7.
Monthly changes in electricity exports from the Île-de-France
...
Figure 5.8.
Evolution of hydraulic production between April 2016 and April
...
Figure 5.9.
2016 balance sheet for electricity production and consumption
...
Figure 5.10.
Balance of electricity exchanges between the Occitanie region
...
Figure 5.11.
The connection of Corsica and Sardinia to the continental Eur
...
Chapter 6
Figure 6.1.
Main components of a Smart Grid (© Adobe Stock). For a color v
...
Chapter 13
Figure 13.1.
Hierarchy of norms
Chapter 14
Figure C.1.
The concepts around energy autonomy, summary diagram. For a colo
...
Guide
Cover Page
Title Page
Copyright Page
Introduction
Table of Contents
Begin Reading
WILEY END USER LICENSE AGREEMENT
Pages
iii
iv
ix
x
xi
xii
xiii
xiv
xv
xvi
xvii
xviii
xix
1
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
97
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
196
197
198
199
200
201
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
226
226
227
228
229
Series Editor
Alain Dollet
Energy Autonomy
From the Notion to the Concepts
Benoit Boutaud
First published 2022 in Great Britain and the United States by ISTE Ltd and John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Apart from any fair dealing for the purposes of research or private study, or criticism or review, as permitted under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, this publication may only be reproduced, stored or transmitted, in any form or by any means, with the prior permission in writing of the publishers, or in the case of reprographic reproduction in accordance with the terms and licenses issued by the CLA. Enquiries concerning reproduction outside these terms should be sent to the publishers at the undermentioned address:
ISTE Ltd
John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
27-37 St George’s Road
111 River Street
London SW19 4EU
Hoboken, NJ 07030
UK
USA
www.iste.co.uk
www.wiley.com
© ISTE Ltd 2022The rights of Benoit Boutaud to be identified as the author of this work have been asserted by him in accordance with the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.
Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author(s), contributor(s) or editor(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of ISTE Group.
Library of Congress Control Number: 2022936273
British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication DataA CIP record for this book is available from the British LibraryISBN 978-1-78630-834-4
Introduction
This is the story of a marginal concept that has become essential thanks to a new value system and a new technical and economic context. Energy autonomy, which is what we are talking about here, has recently imposed itself in a sector where, until now, there has been little talk of it. We are now talking more and more about autonomous territories, autonomous regions, autonomous municipalities, autonomous buildings, autonomous consumers and autonomous cars. It is now everywhere, in the media, in politics, in research, in the economic world, in public institutions and in associations. When questioned, three out of four French people express a very strong appetite for the idea of becoming self-sufficient (autonomous) in terms of energy1. It has made its entry into urban planning documents and public energy policy, which seemed so alien only a few years ago. Autonomy has also entered the imagination of all energy stakeholders, often positively, sometimes less so, to the point of becoming almost unavoidable for some of them when it comes to acting or thinking about the future. The press echoes this with articles whose tone is often the same. The vocabulary is positive, dynamic, combative and sometimes even messianic and divine. It is a “bet”; it is “aimed”; it is “up and running”; we are “on the way” to it or “in search of it”; it “brings together” rural and urban spaces; those who adopt it “show the way”; it is a “fight”; a “battle”; even a way to access “paradise”2.
In the not-so-distant past, autonomy was a confidential subject. Let us remember the novelty that the first eco-neighborhoods represented – only 10 years ago – and their desire to achieve “energy autonomy” by making maximum use of the neighborhood’s internal resources, by implementing a high level of energy performance, or by encouraging economical consumption behaviors. Since then, many changes have taken place in energy production, flow management, urban planning and architecture3. The transition is now taking place everywhere, and autonomy is certainly one of its most emblematic concepts, to the point of becoming a real operating myth4. This observation was made in the early 2010s during a research project on the emergence of a new energy model in France5. Autonomy gradually appeared as a notion that would become unavoidable on the social, technical, political and legal levels6.
However, while these profound changes were taking place, a discrepancy and inconsistencies quickly appeared between this “old theme of the future” and the field of possibilities that it implied in practice7. Indeed, the materiality and organization of the energy sector today show a very different face from what it was in the past. What is called “energy autonomy of buildings” has long been a matter of speculation or an exercise in architectural and urban planning style. However, this aspect of autonomy has lost its virtuality to enter the realm of concreteness for all stakeholders in the building industry, from construction professionals to scientists and policy-makers8. In recent months, the pace of developments related to autonomy has even increased, driven by recent legislative changes (e.g. the law on energy transition for green growth, loi relative à la transition énergétique pour la croissance verte, LTECV), technical innovations in all directions or the emergence of a dynamic that can be described as insularization9: development of so-called “self-consumption” offers, dissemination of storage and individual consumption management tools, deployment of new electricity and gas meters, increase in the use of renewable energies (REs; or RE&R, for “recovery”) in the mix, smart grids, regulation that is becoming more organized at the territorial level of local authorities, etc. On the basis of these changes, buildings as well as other larger scale areas have emerged as “islands” within larger ensembles, constituting a small revolution in French energy culture.
Because of the vigor of these changes, we have also come to think quickly of “new” with “old”, putting under the same term “autonomy” not only technical processes often vaguely evoking the idea of consuming “one’s own energy’, but also other more organizational processes such as the fact that an individual or a group of individuals takes ownership of the energy issue. Thus, islands aim at achieving autonomy, “positive energy territories” aim at autonomy; a consumer who installs photovoltaic (PV) panels becomes autonomous; a building that produces more energy than it consumes is autonomous; an electric car has a certain degree of automation and can also be autonomous if it drives itself; a community that invests heavily in the field of energy develops its autonomy; a home that is “self-consuming” is autonomous; a building that seeks to disconnect from the grid also aims to be autonomous, etc. There are surely too many different elements and scales here for a single concept.
It is said that the Inuit have developed several words to designate snow. They must be able to express its different states – in the air, on the ground, as a flake, etc. – in order to live and act optimally in their environment. Unlike the Inuit and snow, French people only have one way to designate a plurality of different configurations and processes that are and will be essential to govern and act in energy. The concept of energy autonomy is certainly “irresistible” and “with a promising future”, as historian Fanny Lopez reminds us in the conclusions of her historical work devoted to disconnection projects (Lopez 2014, p. 283)10. But what it implies has not yet been theorized in light of the many changes that have occurred in recent years.
A few questions suffice to measure the weakness and poverty of our semantic foundations for thinking about the energy system and its wealth. Is a single-family home disconnected from the electricity grid but connected to the gas network energy self-sufficient (autonomous)? In this same disconnected house lives a household using three thermal vehicles consuming a total of 5,000 liters of fossil fuel per year. Is this household energy autonomous? The couple and their two children who live there move out, a new couple comes in. Is the household or the house autonomous? Is a consumer who sells all of his PV production and buys all of his needs from a supplier energy autonomous? The owner of a house equipped with a PV installation charges his electric car every day at his workplace equipped with a PV shade disconnected from the grid. What about its autonomy? How do you qualify the shade? Take a house with four people. Put in enough PV panels and an oversized battery. Those four people are using electricity like crazy, heating with the window open, and leaving all the lights on. Are they really autonomous? It is easy to see from these configurations that one expression is not enough.
Things become more complicated when we introduce scalar parameters. For a territory (territoire), what does it mean to be autonomous11? Producing the equivalent of its energy consumption? Yes, but then, some territories are already autonomous, such as those hosting very high power plants. Would this mean producing 100% RE? But some territories hosting hydroelectric or wind power plants can also boast of having reached and exceeded this level for a long time. What about this autonomy when these plants are shut down? And besides, who produces? The personified territory (the territory “produces” and “consumes” × MWh)? The companies? The inhabitants? The local authority perhaps?
As we can see, not thinking about energy autonomy quickly leads to a dead end. The sector takes on the air of a Tower of Babel, and the debate, failing to rise to the level of the issues involved in the transition, suffers from not seeing the exact terms of the problem intelligibly posed to its actors. The richness of such a notion, the diversity of the objects it mobilizes, the processes it describes and the scales to which it can be applied today generate unfortunate misunderstanding12. “Defended, criticized, fantasized, rejected, autonomy with all its technical and symbolic complexities, appears as one of the most polemical axes of the energy transition”, wrote Fanny Lopez (Lopez 2019, p. 105). For example, we can attribute a political character to objects that are devoid of it. Installing PV panels on one’s roof or opting for self-consumption is no longer really an “anti-system” act. In the same way, a strong appropriation, including political, of “one’s” energy does not necessarily require the purchase of a turnkey PV kit. Elementary remarks that apply as much to a consumer as to an institution. Often, the discourse makes energy production the essence of energy autonomy despite obvious limitations that we will address. It can even be the opposite of the idea of autonomy itself by its capacity to substitute technical elements (infrastructures) and an acquisition reflex for the behavioral responsibility of the individual without which it will be more difficult, if not impossible, to achieve the energy transition.
It is from this observation that the idea of this essay was born, the objective of which is to initiate the unavoidable renovation of “words to say”, which are also “words to do”. On many occasions, among several categories of energy actors (civil servants, elected officials, engineers, suppliers, researchers, network managers and associations) from different disciplines that I have been given to work with, I have noticed that the expression and understanding of these different processes that have become essential were compromised because they were all grouped under the single notion of energy autonomy. Observing the evolution of the energy system for several years, I came, like others, to be unable to express and explain reality, or to no longer understand the meaning of the words of my interlocutors when they spoke to me about autonomy.
Paradoxically, this autonomy is increasingly brandished and placed at the heart of the energy transition without this discrepancy having been the subject of an in-depth analysis. That a notion is imprecise is a constant in the human sciences. It is not a constant that its essence is not discussed again when the objects to which it is linked are being profoundly modified. The stakes in terms of finding an energy system that is both coherent and rational from a social and environmental point of view are too high. These stakes are also becoming increasingly subtle, complicated and complex. The multiplicity of configurations has become one of the main characteristics of our energy system, due to numerous technological solutions, stakeholders with very different profiles, or a profusion of “territories” serving as frameworks for their implementation. For these reasons, it seems inconceivable to avoid a reflection on energy autonomy and to be satisfied with thinking about this magma with tools from the previous century where everything could seem so “simple” and homogeneous when seen from today. The following development is, therefore, an invitation to share some observations and to update the representations of the energy system, which will allow us to embrace all the finesse of the processes of which we are the contemporaries and, hopefully, the future beneficiaries.
Academic work very often uses autonomy in a vernacular sense as do most other energy actors. Other authors focus more on research objects that fall within this common definition of autonomy and, therefore, rely on more precise or detailed assumptions (Lopez 2014, 2019; Landel et al. 2015; Debizet 2016; Dobigny 2016, 2019; Nadaï et al. 2016; Lagurgue 2018; Barles 2019; Coutard 2019). Some of them, for example, emphasize the dual character of autonomy, both “the ability of a group to define its own rules” and also referring to “metabolic” and “sociotechnical” issues (Lopez et al. 2019, pp. 4–5). At the scale of a territory, autonomy will appear as a dynamic that goes beyond the simple technical balance between production and consumption but extends to more political considerations and the capacity of its actors to act (Landel et al. 2015; Dobigny 2016, 2019; Nadai et al. 2016; Lepesant 2018; Coutard 2019). We will note in other authors a more or less strong invitation to caution when it comes to using this notion (Lagurgue 2018; Barles 2019; Vidalenc 2019b). For them, the meaning of autonomy raises questions in a context where solidarity must be preserved, where powers are shared, and quite simply in which territories as well as individuals are constantly interacting with their close or distant environment.
This work has already contributed a great deal over the last 10 years or so to its history, to the way in which certain types of actors get involved, alone or in groups, to carry out projects that are identified as autonomous. However, their ambition was not to focus on clarifying its definition itself, to discuss the different notions associated with it, with the aim of making it a more operational instrument that would be useful to the maximum number of actors. With the exception of the small emerging community of researchers working on the question of autonomy that has just been mentioned, what it covers remains to be clarified for many other actors, evoking the production of energy, often electricity, to satisfy one’s “own needs”, to which may be added a more or less pronounced political and/or social tinge. Within the same publication, the same newspaper article, the uses of autonomy alternate. All that it implies seems finally to be self-evident, since it is not necessary to define it in depth, with the exception of some attempts inscribed in specific disciplines or pursuing a precise objective (militancy). However, it is precisely the opposite that is at stake. Energy autonomy as a concept is not self-evident.
The objective of this work will, therefore, be to question the vernacular notion of energy autonomy and its related terms both in English and French – self-sufficiency (autosuffisance), self-consumption (autoconsommation), independence (independence) – in the light of a singular context marked by technical, social and economic changes, some of which are radial in nature13. What do we mean by energy autonomy? Should we consider autonomy, self-sufficiency, self-consumption and independence on an equal footing? Is there one or more forms of autonomy? To whom does the “self” (auto, autos in Greek) of autonomy lead? What kind of autonomy are we talking about at the scale of a “territory”? Should we think of it in the same way on a small or large scale, that of these “territories” that we are constantly talking about? Does producing one’s own energy mean being an autonomous individual in one’s choices and consequently a “citizen” consumer?
The following elaboration will not aim to discuss the advantages and disadvantages raised by the concepts mentioned or the effects they may have on current challenges (climate change, energy transition, etc.). It will not be a question of listing all the projects that can be linked to it, nor will it be a question of giving the whole panel of technological solutions, all the regulations, or the different positions of each category of actor on the issue. In any case, events follow one another at such a frenetic pace that they make it difficult to keep up with the news and the examples quickly become outdated. This rhythm is not specific to techniques (digital, electrical), but concerns other dimensions such as legislation, regulation, governance, the economy or the modalities of interaction between individuals and categories of actors. The objective is not to look for the historical roots of autonomy, but rather to show how it is – and will be – increasingly, along with self-sufficiency and independence, at the center of the operational implementation of the energy transition. Finally, there will be a lot of discussion about electricity, an energy vector on which a good part of the questions related to autonomy are concentrated and whose share is expected to increase in the energy mix as well as in the uses. “The electricity sector is witnessing its most dramatic transformation since its birth more than a century ago”, says the International Energy Agency. Electricity is becoming the “fuel of choice” in economies that are more focused on light manufacturing, services and digital technologies. The share of electricity in global final energy consumption is close to 20% and is expected to increase further14 (IEA 2018).
The general public, like most of the actors who have to intervene at one time or another in the energy sector, are not obliged to become specialists in the debates and quarrels that animate this small universe, which has certainly been expanding over the last 10 years. We cannot, for lack of time, go into detail on each of the society’s themes. Let us take the territory, which will be discussed later15. For the great majority of these actors, who must have in mind an operative definition at the end of a short investigation, it will be neither possible nor relevant to know all the analyses formulated around this notion in the human and social sciences (geography, sociology, anthropology, ethology, political science, etc.). Above all, once the reader has plunged into this literature – which is, otherwise, of high quality and fascinating – he or she is likely to be lost in the maze of interpretations and nuances formulated. That is not the issue. The point is to adopt conceptual tools with a level of detail that is useful for reflection and action. This is why the approach favored in this book is to provide reference points, simple or new elements of understanding to find one’s way in the field of energy, which is affected by the sophistication of techniques, the complexity of organizational processes and interactions. Like all landmarks, they do not necessarily give the exact position but orientate, both in time and in space, in order to move forward. They imply making choices and renunciations in order to avoid the pitfall mentioned above with regard to the territory, and their operability is based on their capacity to stimulate an exploratory approach, to be appropriated and discussed by the increasing number of actors who are interested in energy.
The book is divided into two parts that approach the issue from two different perspectives, with a bias toward self-sufficiency and energy autonomy of territories, for the simple reason that the issue of autonomy raises too many questions. The first part is technical (Chapters 1–7). It is devoted to self-sufficiency and, to a lesser extent, to self-consumption, which are two elements of energy system management. The second perspective is political-administrative (Chapters 8–13). It deals with energy autonomy applied to territories by opting for the political-legal angle, which is the only one capable of making intelligible the complementary but distinct issues raised by the energy autonomy of local authorities and the energy independence of the State.
Chapter 1 deals with introductory and general considerations relating to energy autonomy. The notion evokes, in turn or simultaneously, two major themes. The first is marked by a certain vision of the world and of the individual, with a strong political content, and is often positioned in opposition to the evolutions that societies have known during the second half of the 20th century (centralization, neo-liberalism). It is synonymous with individual fulfillment in a “convivial” society, to use the famous expression of Ivan Illich (2014). The second is to achieve technical goals that will enable an individual or a group of individuals to satisfy their own energy needs by themselves (self-sufficiency). For the sake of understanding, I will start from the premise that this notion corresponds less to material devices than to a responsibility that lies with each of us, and that it belongs essentially to the realm of human behavior more than to that of technology.
Chapters 2–7 examine, from a technical point of view, two topics related to autonomy, namely, self-sufficiency and self-consumption. For some time now, the self-sufficiency of a building under classical conditions of use has gone from fiction to reality under the effect of the democratization of low power production means (e.g. PV solar), of the evolutions of the building (e.g. instrumentation and energy performance) and of new techniques, some of which are digital (software).
This possibility is linked to self-consumption, a new configuration that also echoes self-sufficiency. While these two very operational concepts may seem similar, we will see that there are differences between them that are difficult to ignore.
By going into the details of the self-sufficiency of objects such as houses or vehicles, the singularity of autonomy as a notion that must be linked to individuals and not to technical elements is also highlighted (e.g. in the case of the autonomous car). Self-sufficiency is an operational and accounting approach, and the examination of this approach reveals several degrees of self-sufficiency for which a calculation is rather complicated if we take into account energy as a whole – not only electricity – and all the uses of consumers. The perimeters taken into account are also a crucial point. They are expanding under the effect of changes in practices and techniques (collective self-consumption, blockchain or smart grids) until they extend to administrative territories (e.g. regions). This expansion has consequences for the way we understand self-sufficiency, given the influence of the scale and the nature of the infrastructure.
Chapters 8–13 address the issue of energy autonomy from a legal perspective. The “territories” have become the privileged framework through which in France the energy system and the actions that are carried out in it are represented. This is a consequence of technical-economic (liberalization, RE), social (“locotropism”16, promotion of “proximity”) and political (administrative decentralization, new modes of governance) changes, which have been occurring for sometimes three or four decades, but whose intensity has increased considerably.
In energy, they correspond to the space jointly administered by the State and by local authorities, which are upstream actors in charge of implementing the transition and, more globally, of part of the system’s regulation (local decisions, planning, support, etc.). Through dynamics such as the positive energy territories (territoires à énergie positive), energy autonomy has become a goal for local authorities, closely linked to the idea of territorial development and the affirmation of local power. This evolution has come up against the vagueness of this notion, which, depending on the context and the actors involved, refers to energy self-sufficiency and independence.
At the territorial level, however, we will see that there is no doubt about the appreciation we should have of the concepts of autonomy and energy independence, which both refer to distinct actors, scales and prerogatives.
Acknowledgments
The author would like to thank Marie Dégremont, Éric Vidalenc, Yannick Gérig and Vincent Briat for their valuable comments. The statements made in this book are the sole responsibility of the author.
Notes
1
They are 73% for energy autonomy and 65% for food autonomy (Obsoco
et al.
2019).
2
See in this regard Roux-Goeken (2008), Verdier (2008), Talpin (2009), Salles (2011), Huord (2012), Kempf (2013), Chauvel (2014), Cherki (2014), Lavocat (2014), Le Moniteur (2017), Moreau (2017), Pialot (2017), Thomas (2017), Parisien (2018) and Pochet (2019). A few articles mention the difficulties of achieving energy autonomy due to the efforts to be made in terms of energy conservation and efficiency (Barbaux 2018). Some also question the “utopian” side of this goal (Rantech 2018).
3
The book by Ariella Masboungi, Florian Dupont and Franck Boutté offers an excellent overview of these changes, which concern citizen involvement, the corporate sector, design offices, planning professionals, communities or the state (Masboungi
et al.
2018).
4
On the notion of energy transition, see Boutaud (2017). When asked about six models for the evolution of the city, the French project themselves in the “natural city”, followed closely by the “self-sufficient city” surrounded by an agricultural green belt able to feed its population, and the “city of short distances” (Obsoco & Chronos 2017).
5
I take up and develop here some conclusions formulated in a PhD thesis defended at the Université Paris Est carried out under the direction of Olivier Coutard at the Laboratoire techniques, territoires et sociétés, LATTS (Boutaud 2016).
6
It is thus sometimes considered – and rightly so in certain specific cases, as we shall see – as the corollary of decentralization. There is much to be said for this notion and that of centralization, in particular the fact that they express little about the nature of the processes or configurations they are supposed to describe. We will use it in its current sense.
7
Energy autonomy, at least as it is commonly understood, is not a novelty (see
Chapter 1
).
8
For example, two study days were devoted to this issue in 2016 (Blanchard
et al.
2016; Coutard
et al.
2016). A cluster was also launched in 2016 by the Hauts-de-France region.
9
Insularization describes a way of representing the energy system (see Part 1).
Insularization
means considering a perimeter – a plot of land, a building, a neighborhood, a city and a geographical or administrative perimeter – as finite, while often ignoring or relativizing the interdependencies maintained with its surroundings – territories, infrastructures, resources, etc. – whose existence is necessary to its functioning.
10
The book deciphers the origins, motivations and imaginaries of energy autonomy projects – understood as disconnection projects – and their designers throughout the 20th century.
11
Concerning the notion of “territoire” in the French context, see
Chapter 7
in particular.
12
Local energy autonomy is “ambivalent” according to socio-economist Olivier Coutard (2019) and the term “tricky” according to urbanist and geographer Sabine Barles (2019, p. 357).
13
Like Jacques Ellul, we should prefer to speak of
technique
rather than technology, except in exceptional cases – information and communication technologies (ICT), for example. Technology is the “discourse on technique” as sociology is the discourse, and by extension science (
logos
), on social relations (Ellul 2010, p. 25).
14
Electricity is the vector par excellence of the second half of the 20th century. It will be even more so in the 21st century. In 1945, about 450 TWh were consumed worldwide. Today, however, this is only the consumption of 67 million French people. According to the
World Energy Outlook
published by the International Energy Agency (IEA), demand is expected to increase by 60% between now and 2040, due in particular to compensation for the decline in the use of fossil fuels, the emergence of new uses or their development (electric mobility, digital technology, etc.) and growing consumption on the Asian and African continents. Moreover, let us recall that in collective representations and in the imaginary of energy, electricity often dominates (Beltran 2017, p. 306).
15
See
Chapter 7
, section 7.2.
16
There are different forms of tropism, the most well known of which is heliotropism. The neologism of “locotropism” is the fact of tending toward the local. This force is exercised simultaneously or in opposition to other structuring dynamics of society such as globalization.
PART 1Self-Sufficiency, an Operational Concept
1The Two Autonomies
1.1. An old political and technical project
The idea of autonomy in the energy sector is relatively old. Fanny Lopez has shown its path and the related “dream of disconnection” at the building scale, since the rise of electricity at the dawn of the 20th century (Lopez 2014, 2016). By schematizing, we can make a twofold distinction that cannot cover the subtleties and depth of its historical trajectory but is useful for understanding energy autonomy today.
The first corresponds on the one hand to a secessionist autonomy that was expressed, for example, within the framework of the American counterculture that began in the 1960s and spread rapidly to Europe. This movement advocated a closed economy, radical independence, and isolationism in response to the affirmation of modern capitalism. It was marked by the desire for “societal resignation and decentralization (political, economic, energy)” (Lopez 2014, p. 179). Elements more or less tinged with autarky, a form whose objective is to rely only on its own forces – material and economic – and to close itself to any external influence. Fanny Lopez identified, on the other hand, a cooperative autonomy, which is more architectural and academic, putting forward mainly mutualization and local interactions from the 1970s. The second distinction reveals, on the one hand, a political autonomy, referring to the capacity of an individual or a group of individuals to define its energy project and its governance modalities, and, on the other hand, a material autonomy, i.e. the coverage of needs through production.
From a chronological point of view, it is the development of large-scale networks and changes in the supply of energy resources that will give autonomy its full meaning, and also make its duality apparent. In the case of electricity, the first users in the second half of the 19th and early 20th centuries were perfectly “autonomous”: a power station for one application, like the tramway. Soon, transmission and interconnection, which consists of using infrastructure (e.g. power lines) to link different production and consumption equipment in a network, became the rule. Until the First World War, many Parisian industrialists even preferred “self-production” (autoproduction) instead of having recourse to the network, as the historian Alain Beltran (1985) recalled. Some also acquired boilers or steam engines for economic reasons or to cope with social unrest (strikes). The end of this period corresponds to the rapid development of the interconnection between this multitude of networks from the 1930s until the 1960s, with the development of the consumer society. From then on, energy autonomy will take on the double meaning that we know, mixing more or less the material and political aspects according to the approaches. The search for autonomy often translates simply into a few projects that are above all technical utopias aiming to cover all energy needs – often electricity – through in situ production. The specificity of this search for a “disconnected” autonomy is that it remained an ambition throughout the 20th century, despite a few initiatives, including that of Thomas Edison himself. The development of a political autonomy as an alternative to the large technical systems that were triumphant at the time had little effect, despite the oil crisis and the economic reversals. No more than before, the period which begins from the 1970s will see the generalization of these projects. The autonomous house nevertheless attained the status of “icon” while the ambitions, which originally concerned “habitable units”, sometimes extended to the city (Lopez 2014, p. 152).
Autonomy is notably thought in opposition to the urban, then in strong growth (Lopez 2011). Beyond the ever-present idea of disconnection from the great networks (see Alexander Pike’s project), which are undergoing spectacular development, the broader question of the very organization of society and the place of the individual arises. This period marks the beginning of an awareness that consists of objectifying a relationship between this individual and the system of production, which had been reduced to its simplest expression since the rise of the large networks that accompanied the massification of consumption in the developed countries. These networks – gas, electricity, water and railroads – were marked by a strong ambivalence.
On the one hand, consumers benefited from better living conditions and new margins of freedom thanks to them. They allowed consumers to avoid wasting too much energy in trying to produce what was useful to them on a daily basis, and to use the time thus freed up to devote to other activities, including working more. In fact, the “dream of disconnection” of the 20th century mentioned above coexisted with a “dream of connection” which was for a long time disproportionately more powerful, and which allowed for the realization of people’s desires for emancipation from their basic needs (heating, lighting, power, etc.). This is why the character of the network – interconnected and centralized – has dominated since the beginning of the urban revolution in the middle of the 19th century. The objective was to improve living conditions and to control an environment whose harshness was quickly forgotten in a few decades of comfort. The disconnection can still be perceived not as a “dream” but as a “nightmare” depending on the region of the world where one is.
On the other hand, the exponential increase in energy consumption that has been possible thanks to these networks, particularly fossil fuels, has not given rise to a parallel awareness of the impacts that this consumption has had on the environment. For this reason, the centralized, uniform and unidirectional (top-down, i.e. consumer) network is now being challenged in its ability to represent, as it did in the past, the ultimate model for providing collective services (Coutard 2009; Coutard & Rutherford 2013).
Part of the dynamic that puts forward energy autonomy today stems from this criticism of the large networks that have formed a key part of the organization of society throughout the previous century and have in turn influenced its development (Mayntz 1995). Several authors have each in their own way denounced the developments of this post-industrial society, which in their view called into question the individual and collective autonomy without which there is no “ideal” society. From the 1970s onward, political autonomy in particular became inseparable from techno-criticism, as historian François Jarrige has shown in his book tracing the evolution of this thought (Jarrige 2014, p. 265). Jacques Ellul, Ivan Illich as well as others such as Martin Heidegger, Lewis Mumford, Günther Anders, André Gorz, Bernard Charbonneau or Cornelius Castoriadis criticized the post-industrial society and the capitalist economy that reduce individual freedom. Technique and the autonomy that have begun to acquire since the 20th century are even the “issue of the century”, to use the expression of Jacques Ellul’s essential work. Since 1954 and the publication of his essay, Ellul has tried to alert his contemporaries to the change in the state of technology, which has gone from being a means used by humans to develop in their environment to a system with a self-nomination. By its logic – the search for optimization and efficiency – it comes to subjugate an outdated and passive human (Ellul 2010). They all speak out against the excesses of organization, technocracy, the reign of efficiency or the generalization of conformism. All of them also propose to make autonomy – in various forms – a cardinal virtue and the basis of a new society, a “convivial society” for Ivan Illich or an “ecological society” for André Gorz.
More recently, Hermann Scheer has helped to popularize the notion of autonomy, but this time with energy as a central concern. This German politician is one of the architects of the law on renewable energies (REs) (Erneuerbare Energien Gesetz, EEG) which marked the beginning of the Energiewende, the “energy turn” in Germany. His vision, very much focused on REs, is opposed to conventional energies, in particular nuclear and hydrocarbons. He is especially opposed to the system of actors – the “jailers of the current system” – linked to these energies, which, according to him, has integrated REs without really having the objective of developing them (Scheer 2007, pp. 170–171). In this context, autonomy appears to be the empowerment of consumers, which begins with an emancipation from traditional “schools of thought”, as Hermann Scheer pointed out:
Those who break with these ways of thinking must learn to handle their freedom. The question then is who should and who wants to lead this rise of renewable energies. So far, there are too few players, and too many of us are making others assume our political responsibility. […] A real upsurge in renewable energies can only take place if more and more people fully deploy their technical potential in society. This will unleash a flood of private initiatives, which will upset all the plans and scenarios developed for energy by those who have been the major players until now. (Scheer 2007, p. 171)
Hermann Scheer advocated, in particular, the re-municipalization of electricity and gas networks, a dynamic that has been observed since 2010 in Europe and in particular in Germany (Jeannot & Coutard 2016, Chapter 5). With the growing appropriation of production by individuals, a mass of private initiatives will, according to him, call into question the scenarios still foreseen at the beginning of the 2000s. As the jurist Anaïs Guerry explains:
[…] it was not renewable energies for their own sake that interested Hermann Scheer, but their subversive potential, which he gathered under the umbrella of the concept of “energy autonomy”. (Guerry 2018, p. 72)
Nevertheless, its design synthesizes individual responsibility and energy production as close as possible to the place of consumption or on site.
Locally produced REs have the specificity of being charged with representations linked to decentralization and individual autonomy, whereas traditional power plants, including hydroelectric, photovoltaic (PV) or high-powered wind power plants, are sometimes associated with centralization and heteronomy. The semiologist Ferenc Fodor, on the occasion of an analysis of the putting into words and images of conflicts and consensus in the media discourse around the installation of wind farms, shows the existence of an imaginary of autonomy and proximity. By specifying, however, that if the tone is of a dysphoric nature when it comes to industrial installations, it is, on the other hand, euphoric in the context of participatory and citizen projects, with sometimes a “kind of fantastical narrative of energy to oneself” (Fodor 2016). This representation can also be explained by the history of RE development. Aurélien Evrard, who has put into perspective the different trajectories of RE in Europe, writes that:
The 1970s marked the “discovery” of renewable energies, in a context of social, environmental, economic, and energy crisis. The environmental and anti-nuclear movements as well as a certain type of experts seize the issue, integrate these new energies into their alternative project, thus initiating the passage towards a “counter-culture”, that is to say with a reforming ambition, which proposes to change the energy system. (Evrard 2013, p. 81)
We find here the notion of autonomy considered as a search for an alternative to the big technical systems aiming at giving a new place to the individual in the society. However, while in Europe as in France, RE represented a political alternative, he or she deplores that this one was captured by the dominant regime, that is to say the one constituted by the big private groups and the State. Indeed, the strength of this alternative may appear to be less than the potential it represented in the 1970s. However, in parallel with the fairly classic reactions of the dominant regime in favor of the status quo, one cannot underestimate the importance of other factors, particularly of a technical nature, which have also influenced the trajectory of RE.
First of all, these are neither decentralized by nature, nor do they emerge in medias res. Certain technical and economic determinants favor concentration, while political logic can in turn favor centralizing dynamics. To begin with, REs have been developing since the 2000s in a historical, economic and social context that places them more or less in opposition to the dominant regime and its actors, who are reluctant to change the system. For most people, this system, although perfectible, was working well (price, quality of supply). The interest in change is, therefore, not obvious and comes at the same time as the opening to competition advocated by the European neoliberal dogma, the usefulness of which seemed even less obvious. As soon as the pressure became too great, this regime appropriated the alternatives – wind power and PV in particular – by developing new forms of control, in the case of the State, or turned them into a growth relay, in the case of the large private players. Second, decentralized means of production have taken time to find their place in society.
