Thomas Hoppe (TU Delft) Michiel Fremouw (TU Delft) … · 2020. 9. 16. · TU Delft UEI lecture // 15-09-2020 // Thomas Hoppe // Michiel Fremouw // Fionnguala Sherry-Brennan THE OVERALL

Thomas Hoppe (TU Delft)Michiel Fremouw (TU Delft)Fionnghuala Sherry-Brennan(University of Exeter)

TU Delft UEI lecture // 15-09-2020 // Thomas Hoppe // Michiel Fremouw // Fionnguala Sherry-Brennan

Sustainable Heating: Implementation ofFossil-Free Technologies

Introduction


Content

• Introduction SHIFFT

• Common Approach for municipalities

• Co-creation



THE CHALLENGE

• 90 Mt/yr CO2 emissions from household heating in the 2Seas region

• Lack of awareness and knowledge amongst home owners• High investment costs

Introduction


THE OVERALL OBJECTIVE

• To Accelerate market adoption of sustainable heatingsolutions in the 2 Seas area

• To Reduce CO2 emissions by reducing fossil fuels for heating in existing household and community buildings

• To achieve a measurable impact from pilots included in theproject

Introduction



• 4 pilot investments, demonstrating sustainable heatingtechnologies

• 6 co-creation pilots, to trigger investments in sustainableheating solutions

• Guidance for other local authorities and community actors

Main outputs of SHIFFT



Alternative heating solutions for the built environment

Infrared & electrical heaters

Heat pumps

Hot waterGreen gas ElectricityBiomass

Resources:

Ind

ivid

ual

Co

llect

ive

Energycarriers:

Hydrogen

Sabine Jansen TUDelft 2018


SHIFFT Work Packages

• Three technical Work Packages:

– WP1: develops city strategies for four municipalities as well as producing general guidance for cities (Lead: City of Mechelen).

– WP2: develops strategies for the fullest possible inclusion of communities in co-developing and co-creating low carbon heating strategies at the local level (co-creation pilots; Lead: TU Delft).

– WP3: delivery of exemplar community low carbon heating projects (investment projects; Lead: Places for People).


Partner cities

2Seas regionUK – FR – BE – NL

SHIFFT cities

Middelburg

Bruges

Mechelen

Fourmies


THE MAIN OUTPUTS

• 4 pilot investments, demonstrating sustainable heatingtechnologies

• 6 co-creation pilots, to trigger investments in sustainableheating solutions

• Guidance for other local authorities and community actors

The Common Approach (part of WP1)



“Local authorities are not capable of taking up a leading role in the heat transition”

The Common Approach

Photo: Ighor Van de Vyver


The Common Approach

• Barriers for local authorities :

– Lack of capacity (funds, staff)

– Lack of skill (technical expertise, experience)

– Lack of support within the administration (e.g. departments focus on their domain only)

– Lack of political willingness

They CAN take up a leading role, but there is a strong need for GUIDANCE and SUPPORT


The Common Approach

Common approach =

“a framework AND approach that support you how to decide what –decarbonising - heating system to select and how to implement it“

– Not only for municipalities but other actors involved (project developers, homeowners,… (different levels))

– implementation is not only technical, also including planning, stakeholder involvement etc.


SHIFFT Common framework

Three angles:

1. Technical-financial (technology)

2. Governmental (policy)

3. Societal (stakeholders)

Not linear but parallel tracks


The common approach


The common approach

Review existing initiatives

Identify relevant expertise and obvious stakeholders

Political will, personnel, governing capacity, financial resources


The common approach

Goals, availability, scale, options

Objectives, narratives, resources

Vertical and horizontal analyses, visions and implications, steps to take


The common approach

Energy supply chain, local mapping, missing data?

Co-benefits, drivers and barriers, public engagement

Buildings & planning, health & social care, energy & carbon, economy & jobs, environment, policy gaps


The common approach

Scale of action, technologies, views of stakeholders

People’s preferences, optimal approach, co-creation platform

Existing and new policies, stakeholder support, identify examples


The common approach

Sustainable heat technologies, KPIs, targets

Priorities, technical characteristics, socio-political dynamics, transition scenarios

Deployment policy, efficiency standards regulation, pilot zones, partnership initiatives


The common approach

Evaluate strategies vs baseline using KPIs

Stakeholders’ views on strategies, find common ground

Stimulating policies, direction setting, regulation, value and appropriateness, facilitating


The common approach

Develop and discuss initial plans based on technology pathway(s)

Co-implement with citizens, monitor adaptation rate, adjust if necessary

Adjust existing strategies, replicate best practice, devise new policies if required


Flexibility in application

?

~

?

~

?

?

~

?

?

?

?

?

?

?





Top-down : from strategy to implementation

Bottom-up : strategy based on in-field experience

Example: RES – TVW – PAW The Netherlands

Example:Urban renewalprojects as anaccelerator forheating transition


What’s next?

• Application of the Common Approach v1.0 in the partner cities

• Incorporate lessons learned into v2.0

• Also from follower cities

• Monitor the impact of the pilot sites (WP3)


Full report available at SHIFFTproject.eu

Citizen Engagement and Co-creation

SHIFFT WP2Fionnguala Sherry-Brennan

Thomas HoppeAnatol Itten

Why co-creation with sustainable heating?

• Heating is a fundamental aspect of the human need for shelter in temperate climates

• The sustainable heating transition is complex and involves disruptive change

• Co-creation provides space for citizens, politicians, and stakeholders to manage change

• Co-creation offers the potential for unravelling supply and demand challenges of sustainable heat

Challenges for sustainable heating

• Variable heat demand in buildings• Climate, building fabric, occupancy,

behaviour

• Wider issues• Health, comfort, cost, convenience,

hospitality

• Compared to gas, new heating technologies are perceived to have no, or limited, additional benefits

• High up-front costs, complex and fragmented heat markets, considerable path dependencies

Why co-creation?

• Residents and homeowners can be difficult to reach

• Limited reach of government policies in homes

• Research on the active involvement of citizens and stakeholders in the work of governments has become widespread

• Better understanding of what heating means to communities and stakeholders

Definitions of co-creation

• Co-creation has evolved as the goal to include citizens in decision-making has increased

• Different terms are used to express different concepts which vary on the role of citizens and organisations

• Co-creation is citizens and professionals sharing power and responsibility to work together in equal, reciprocal, and caring relationships

• Based on trust; not about persuasion

Defining the vocabulary

Citizens in co-creation

• In co-creation citizens take over tasks traditionally delegated to organisations

• Citizens are considered as a valuable and critical partners in projects

• Working together means:• focusing on outcomes

• exploring how sharing power and responsibility can help technology development

Understanding context

• Co-creation acknowledges the connection between society, technology and culture

• Provides a means of exploring shared responsibilities for change

• Aim to understand the priorities of those involved which means a greater focus on topics needing attention, and increasing the likelihood of solutions being adopted

Risks in co-creation

1. The Expectations Gap• Different agendas and definitions inform

expectations. These need to be discussed openly.

2. Power• Power is shifted in terms of resources and/or

knowledge.• Unequal shifts in power risks disempowering

citizens and stakeholders

3. Values• What do different groups value?

Limits in co-creation

• Validity – weighing perspectives.

• What do we mean when we say that a fact or opinion is valid?

• Multiple and different perspectives arise through co-creation

• Role of stakeholders is to stay objective

• Pragmatism – what’s practical?

• Organisations have limited capacity for co-creation

• What is ‘good enough’ to be acceptable?

• What compromises have to be made?

Co-creation guidelines

•Level of application: Individual, collective, shared solutions; project, policy

•Process: Joint fact-finding, co-initiating, co-designing, management

•Community: Exploring co-benefits, community building, responsibilities

•Methods: Storytelling, customer journeys, online tools, visualisations

•Evaluation: Impact, embedding


Sustainable heating technologiesTechnology Level and site/location Actors Implications

Heat pumpsSolar thermalGeothermalBiogas, biomassInsulation

Individual (home and building owners)Co-designing customer journeys

Private homeownersLocal businessesElectriciansLocal media

• Increasing trust in novel technical solutions

• Voluntary installation may complement, not replace, existing system sub-optimal system

Shared storageElectric or pump solutions

Shared (owners and tenants)Co-writing feasibility studies

InvestorsDevelopersHousing contractors

• Complex model of actors and aligning interests

District heating networks Collective (urban, city, neighbourhood)Co-initiating thematic workshops

Energy utilitiesLocal politiciansDistribution system operator

• Freedom of choice reduced if there is a mandatory connection requirement

Monitoring and evaluation

• Co-creation is not a one-size-fits-all approach. An iterative approach is needed

• Monitoring and evaluation are ongoing aspects of co-creation

• Some or all of the parties involved participate in designing, doing, and interpreting evaluation

– Interviews with stakeholders to find out how they feel about the process and their involvement

– High-level snapshot of what’s happening and compare it to objectives

Evaluating co-creatively

• Asking questions in three areas:

1. Experience:• How are participants liking the

overall experience?2. Motivation:• What motivates people to

participate?3. Suggestions for improvement:• What kinds of improvements

would they prefer if they were to participate again?

• Was the setting ok or would something else be preferable?

In conclusion …

• Integrating visions and promoting equity between citizens and authorities means co-creation must start early in projects

• A just distribution of co-benefits is required

• Creates opportunities for stakeholders to build trust with citizens, letting them define what is important to them

• Effective co-creation must strike a balance between enabling heat transitions and minimising any negative side-effects


Full report available at SHIFFTproject.eu

20190618 SHIFFT questions for meeting day 2, London | Sabine Jansen 43

Next SHIFFT webinar: 1 October 2020

Register here: https://tudelft.zoom.us/meeting/register/tJAlduGoqzMjE9SEr7Z6zGxirl4p_o9ripar

SHIFFT website:https://shifftproject.eu/

https://tudelft.zoom.us/meeting/register/tJAlduGoqzMjE9SEr7Z6zGxirl4p_o9ripar

https://shifftproject.eu/

Documents

Thomas Hoppe (TU Delft) Michiel Fremouw (TU Delft) … · 2020. 9. 16. · TU Delft UEI lecture // 15-09-2020 // Thomas Hoppe // Michiel Fremouw // Fionnguala Sherry-Brennan THE OVERALL