Social tipping dynamics in the energy system

Alkemade, Floor; de Bruin, Bart; El-Feiaz, Amira; Pasimeni, Francesco; Niamir, Leila; Wade, Robert

doi:https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-15-485-2024

Articles | Volume 15, issue 2

https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-15-485-2024

© Author(s) 2024. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

Special issue:

Tipping points in the Anthropocene

https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-15-485-2024

© Author(s) 2024. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

Articles | Volume 15, issue 2

Review

|

26 Apr 2024

Review |

| 26 Apr 2024

Social tipping dynamics in the energy system

Floor Alkemade, Bart de Bruin, Amira El-Feiaz, Francesco Pasimeni, Leila Niamir, and Robert Wade

Download

Final revised paper (published on 26 Apr 2024)
Preprint (discussion started on 02 Aug 2023)

Interactive discussion

Status: closed

RC1:
'Comment on esd-2023-25', Anonymous Referee #1, 04 Sep 2023

The paper is a welcome addition to the necessary and timely discussion around adding more socio-economic and socio-political flesh and structure to the study of energy transitions. The paper as it stands is an interesting read, and contains many interesting points and arguments, but can be improved with a number of (relatively) small edits. The first issue (to me) is a certain overuse of System Dynamics terminology (feedback loops etc), when a) it does not always add to the narrative or worse can dilute it and b) System dynamics/Systems thinking are not mentioned as methods used in the paper, the diagrams are not presented as what they are (causal loop diagrams), and there’s no explanation on how to read the figures. Second, I would consider (this is just a potential suggestion though) re-orientating the narrative and title more strongly towards how energy communities can drive transitions (by helping to unlock some identified systems patterns). There’s for now a larger emphasis on tipping points but these do not always translate clearly throughout the manuscript.

Detailed comments:
*Abstract: very short, is that due to journal’s constraints? The economic tipping points referred to could be more detailed from the start. And potentially more details on the methods?
*Line25, is it the only accepted definition of social tipping points? Is there a definition also related to, as in climate, points beyond which there is no return?
*Maybe add refs for lines 40 to 45 (e.g. analogue to diffusion of innovations curve that drives further feedbacks)?
*Throughout the manuscript e.g. lines 46 onwards or 58-61 there’s a lot of System Dynamics terminology (reinforcing and balancing feedbacks mechanisms…). Is this terminology commonly understood by a non-SD audience? While I welcome strongly more paper using SD, we also must be careful of not losing the meaning of the terms.
*The paper reads well and is an important and well-informed piece. But in several parts, it can also read more like a web article for a broad audience. Maybe because too many complex and interdisciplinary topics are evoked at the same time? There are also many concrete examples, which is very welcome, but it’s not always clear how they are connected to the main problematic. A simple re-read of the text may help to improve some of the flow/avoid repetitions/clarify a few sentences
*l.84 “reinforce that social tipping dynamics are tipping dynamics rather than tipping points” this is a very important point but I am not sure it was taken into account before – wasn’t tipping point used strongly even in abstract?
*Not sure 90-91 is correct, or what is meant exactly “This aligns with views from system dynamics, where leverage points focusing on single feedback loops have a smaller effect on the transformation of the system than leverage points that focus on the goals and paradigm of the system”. Systems in system dynamics are composed of several interconnected feedback loops, so an action on a single loop can definitely drive the entire system in a different direction. I think the sentence is correct but may be taken out of its initial/full context?
*92-92 a very interesting point on bridging levels of actions, that could maybe have been discussed as one of the aims of the paper earlier on? Edit: not sure this is addressed later in the paper. Potential to leave for discussions?

*103: “In some contexts, cost-parity has been reached in energy generation for wind and solar, making them
cheaper than fossil generation.” Check if up to date, solar and wind may be way cheaper than fossil depending on country
*111 “as well as the integration of wind technologies into the generation
process of “green” hydrogen.” Does this illustrate the statement before? Wind can simply be used to generate the electricity used for producing hydrogen, in place of using electricity that is generated by fossil fuels. Does it require a special technology to use wind for electricity used in electrolysis?
*124 “The political sphere can also be seen as a tipping element itself” does this statement really add to the argument – the same can be said of any group/institution/organisation that is part of the transition system
*163-164 “When low carbon, sustainable, heat sources are available, this may be a preferred option. However, when this is not the case,[…] heat pumps” aren’t heat pump just one such option? Maybe review sentence

*The paper discusses an enormous number of elements, which can be normal for such a complex interdisciplinary topic. But as a result, it may seem to touch only rapidly many topics and without a clearly defined link. (e.g. 172 consider either removing reference to solar home systems in the global south and misfit with local communities or on the contrary delve a bit deeper into it?)
*Figure 2 is not correct. It features the main loop presented in figure 1, but this time with polarities (why not including the polarities in the first figure?), but the polarities show a balancing loop. The polarities in this main loop should both be (-) (increase in cost of solar PV leads to less, not more adoption of solar PV). The causality between these variables is negative. An odd number of (-) signs makes a balancing loop. An even number of (-) signs makes it a reinforcing loop. Consider providing the reader with an explanation to read the loops. The diagram is a causal loop diagram (CLD). Edit: the polarities are correctly represented in figure 3.

*Figure 2 is not mentioned or detailed in the text. Why does more solar PV adoption lead to more HP adoption?
*241. “For this reason, avoiding opinion polarisation is crucial in
climate-related issues to foster cohesion for effective government action (Badullovich 2023, Mayer & Smith 2023).” This is a key point, likely to be at the forefront of sustainable transitions very soon
*Figure 3 is not mentioned in the text either
*291 “isolated tipping dynamics” can this term make sense in the context of this paper?
*314-15 “Interestingly, energy communities can strengthen the reinforcing feedbacks discussed above, while balancing feedbacks are weak or absent.” I would suggest removing sentences that do not add much and do not capture fully the connection with other parts of the study. Balancing feedbacks are not necessarily bad.
*336 “Financial constraints is one of the main factors increasing the willingness to participate in an energy community” I find it surprising, is it country specific? + review sentence that follows
*Consider renaming discussion section as is very small. But preferably should be expanded to provide more details on the very important linkages/leveraging points that indeed can stem from an increase in energy communities to drive the energy transition system forward.

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-2023-25-RC1
- AC1:
  'Reply on RC1', Floor Alkemade, 24 Oct 2023
  Dear editors, dear reviewer,
  On behalf of the authoring team, I would like to thank the reviewers for their constructive feedback. Both reviewers provide general suggestions regarding the overall line of argumentation and more detailed comments.
  Regarding the general feedback, the paper is currently submitted as a review paper. In a revision, we would make our approach to this method more clear. In short, we review the sustainability transitions literature for interactions that may contribute to feedback loops, or for feedback loops. We also aim to present empirical evidence for individual interactions. In some cases this empirical material comes from case studies in the sustainability transition literature, but in some cases also from more controlled experiments in environmental psychology. We indeed use a conceptual system dynamics approach to organise and evaluate these feedback loops. In the revision, we will make this approach more explicit, distinguishing more clearly between interacting processes and feedback loops.
  Regarding the suggestion of the first reviewer, the revision will seek to strengthen the argumentation towards energy communities, although, given the review character of this paper, we also refer to future work on this topic.
  In addition to these main points, we provide a more detailed response to the numbered reviewer comments below.
  Detailed comments:
  Abstract – we will update the abstract to better fit the revised methods and provide additional detail.
  
  Regarding the definition of social tipping points – we aim to use harmonized definitions throughout the papers in this special section. But we will elaborate a bit on the choices in definition and will especially follow up the reviewer’s suggestion to explicitly address any differences with the use of tipping point in climate science. This indeed especially pertains to the potential irreversibility (less final in social processes) but also to the timescales.
  
  Following the suggestion of the reviewer we would add the following references in the revised paper:
  Söderholm, P., Klaassen, G. Wind Power in Europe: A Simultaneous Innovation–Diffusion Model. Environ Resource Econ 36, 163–190 (2007).
  
  Way, R., Ives, M. C., Mealy, P., & Farmer, J. D. (2022). Empirically grounded technology forecasts and the energy transition. Joule, 6(9), 2057-2082.
  
  In the revised version we would add a methods section that more clearly explains our approach to this review and our conceptual use of system dynamics to structure the outcomes of the review. This will include a short description of the main terms including references.
  
  Thank you for pointing this out. We will carefully revise the paper to address this.
  
  Thank you for pointing this out. In the revision we will explicitly address the difference between tipping points and tipping dynamics.
  
  This sentence is indeed better placed elsewhere. We will include the discussion on leverage points in the general part of the paper where we describe how we use system dynamics concepts to study tipping dynamics.
  
  Similarly to point 7, we will include this point in the main conceptual and methods part and will explicitly refer back in some of the examples and the section on energy communities.
  
  We propose to rephrase to “In some contexts, cost-parity in energy generation for wind and solar has been reached or even exceeded, making them cheaper than fossil generation.”
  
  This is indeed confusing, we propose to revise to “The increasing attention for floating solar (Gonzalez-Sanchez et al. 2021, Jin et al. 2023)”
  
  We propose to revise to “The political sphere can also be seen as a tipping element itself, as it not only can trigger social tipping but can also tip itself into a new state, generating a tipping cascade (Stadelmann-Steffen et al. 2021, Eder & Stadelmann-Steffen 2023). Indeed, the same applies to any group, organisation or institution that is part of the socio-technical system. For example, civil society could also be a key element in energy system tipping dynamics.”
  
  We will review the sentence clearly distinguishing between electrification of heating and other sustainable heating solutions.
  
  We will remove the mention of solar home systems in the global south and revise to connect smaller elements more clearly to the overall argumentation.
  
  Thank you for pointing this out, we will carefully revise the figures, captions and their referencing in the text
  
  Thank you for pointing this out, we will carefully revise the figures, captions and their referencing in the text
  
  We will elaborate a bit on this point in the revision
  
  Thank you for pointing this out, we will carefully revise the figures, captions and their referencing in the text
  
  This is indeed inconsistent, we propose to remove ‘isolated’
  
  We agree and will revise accordingly
  
  Here we will elaborate a bit more on the financial and non-financial motives for people to join energy communities and add references
  
  We will include discussion in the conclusion section and also add a paragraph on leverage points.
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-2023-25-AC1
- AC2:
  'Reply on RC1', Floor Alkemade, 24 Oct 2023
  Dear editors, dear reviewer,
  On behalf of the authoring team, I would like to thank the reviewers for their constructive feedback. Both reviewers provide general suggestions regarding the overall line of argumentation and more detailed comments.
  Regarding the general feedback, the paper is currently submitted as a review paper. In a revision, we would make our approach to this method more clear. In short, we review the sustainability transitions literature for interactions that may contribute to feedback loops, or for feedback loops. We also aim to present empirical evidence for individual interactions. In some cases this empirical material comes from case studies in the sustainability transition literature, but in some cases also from more controlled experiments in environmental psychology. We indeed use a conceptual system dynamics approach to organise and evaluate these feedback loops. In the revision, we will make this approach more explicit, distinguishing more clearly between interacting processes and feedback loops.
  Regarding the suggestion of the first reviewer, the revision will seek to strengthen the argumentation towards energy communities, although, given the review character of this paper, we also refer to future work on this topic.
  In addition to these main points, we provide a more detailed response to the numbered reviewer comments below.
  Detailed comments:
  Abstract – we will update the abstract to better fit the revised methods and provide additional detail.
  
  Regarding the definition of social tipping points – we aim to use harmonized definitions throughout the papers in this special section. But we will elaborate a bit on the choices in definition and will especially follow up the reviewer’s suggestion to explicitly address any differences with the use of tipping point in climate science. This indeed especially pertains to the potential irreversibility (less final in social processes) but also to the timescales.
  
  Following the suggestion of the reviewer we would add the following references in the revised paper:
  Söderholm, P., Klaassen, G. Wind Power in Europe: A Simultaneous Innovation–Diffusion Model. Environ Resource Econ 36, 163–190 (2007).
  
  Way, R., Ives, M. C., Mealy, P., & Farmer, J. D. (2022). Empirically grounded technology forecasts and the energy transition. Joule, 6(9), 2057-2082.
  
  In the revised version we would add a methods section that more clearly explains our approach to this review and our conceptual use of system dynamics to structure the outcomes of the review. This will include a short description of the main terms including references.
  
  Thank you for pointing this out. We will carefully revise the paper to address this.
  
  Thank you for pointing this out. In the revision we will explicitly address the difference between tipping points and tipping dynamics.
  
  This sentence is indeed better placed elsewhere. We will include the discussion on leverage points in the general part of the paper where we describe how we use system dynamics concepts to study tipping dynamics.
  
  Similarly to point 7, we will include this point in the main conceptual and methods part and will explicitly refer back in some of the examples and the section on energy communities.
  
  We propose to rephrase to “In some contexts, cost-parity in energy generation for wind and solar has been reached or even exceeded, making them cheaper than fossil generation.”
  
  This is indeed confusing, we propose to revise to “The increasing attention for floating solar (Gonzalez-Sanchez et al. 2021, Jin et al. 2023)”
  
  We propose to revise to “The political sphere can also be seen as a tipping element itself, as it not only can trigger social tipping but can also tip itself into a new state, generating a tipping cascade (Stadelmann-Steffen et al. 2021, Eder & Stadelmann-Steffen 2023). Indeed, the same applies to any group, organisation or institution that is part of the socio-technical system. For example, civil society could also be a key element in energy system tipping dynamics.”
  
  We will review the sentence clearly distinguishing between electrification of heating and other sustainable heating solutions.
  
  We will remove the mention of solar home systems in the global south and revise to connect smaller elements more clearly to the overall argumentation.
  
  Thank you for pointing this out, we will carefully revise the figures, captions and their referencing in the text
  
  Thank you for pointing this out, we will carefully revise the figures, captions and their referencing in the text
  
  We will elaborate a bit on this point in the revision
  
  Thank you for pointing this out, we will carefully revise the figures, captions and their referencing in the text
  
  This is indeed inconsistent, we propose to remove ‘isolated’
  
  We agree and will revise accordingly
  
  Here we will elaborate a bit more on the financial and non-financial motives for people to join energy communities and add references
  
  We will include discussion in the conclusion section and also add a paragraph on leverage points.
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-2023-25-AC2
RC2:
'Comment on esd-2023-25', Anonymous Referee #2, 27 Sep 2023
This manuscript reviews the feedback mechanisms that potentially underlie social tipping dynamics in the energy system. The manuscript specifically aims to focus on the feedbacks that accelerate renewable energy consumption ad those that reduce fossil fuel consumption, taking both positive and negative feedback loops into account.
The delineation of feedback loops that could tip the energy transition is a useful and important contribution, and the manuscript provides a rich overview of different social, technical, economic and political dynamics in the energy system. However, I have two main suggestions for improving the current version of this manuscript: First, it falls short on delivering the promise of explaining why fossil fuel demand is not decreasing even though renewable energy consumption increases. The paper does not touch upon the lock-in feedbacks on the fossil fuel side of the energy system at all. I suggest either expanding those, or reformulating the abstract and introduction. Second, while capturing the main feedback loops based on the literature review, the manuscript does not present a structured methodology, and the diagrams do not fully reflect the richness of the information presented in the text. For instance, what feedback loops are formed or amplified by the energy communities?
Other concerns and suggestions:
The abstract presents the persistent fossil fuel demand as the complication in the current situation, but then it is not consistent what is actually presented in the paper. I suggest rewrite the abstract to clarify the objective of the manuscript.

Lines 58-61, “…four different feedback loops and their interactions need to be aligned” : reinforcing and balancing feedback loops about the persistent fossil fuel demand is emphasized, but not addressed in the paper, hence creating a confusion. A reinforcing feedback loop does not always work in the desired direction and it might lead to collapse. Similarly, a balancing feedback loop could sometimes help to avoid a collapse. Therefore, “strengthening reinforcing feedback loops for renewables” may not be what we need in every case for social tipping. So, it is about whether a reinforcing loop works in the desirable direction or not.

Figure 1: missing polarity signs. A legend would be useful for the readers who are not familiar with the causal loop notation.

Lines ~ 130 : This paragraph discusses the persistence of fossil fuel consumption, hence can be used for delineating the feedback mechanisms.

In Figure 2, the polarity sign of the cost – adoption link is wrong, even though it is corrected later in Figure 3.

Section 5 on energy communities is useful as an alternative agent that can tip the energy system. It is not visibly linked to the rest of the manuscript, though, since the feedbacks are not delineated and depicted. I suggest to expand Figure 3 to highlight the role of energy communities. The feedback mechanisms invoked by decentralized energy systems (and fossil fuel persistence) in social tipping is also discussed in this report (https://pure.iiasa.ac.at/id/eprint/17955/) and in this preprint (https://arxiv.org/abs/2309.14964).
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-2023-25-RC2
- AC3:
  'Reply on RC2', Floor Alkemade, 24 Oct 2023
  Dear reviewer, dear editor,
  On behalf of the authoring team, I would like to thank the reviewers for their constructive feedback. Both reviewers provide general suggestions regarding the overall line of argumentation and more detailed comments.
  Regarding the general feedback, the paper is currently submitted as a review paper. In a revision, we would make our approach to this method more clear. In short, we review the sustainability transitions literature for interactions that may contribute to feedback loops, or for feedback loops. We also aim to present empirical evidence for individual interactions. In some cases, this empirical material comes from case studies in the sustainability transition literature, but in some cases also from more controlled experiments in environmental psychology. We indeed use a conceptual system dynamics approach to organise and evaluate these feedback loops. In the revision, we will make this approach more explicit, distinguishing more clearly between interacting processes and feedback loops.
  Regarding the suggestion of the first reviewer, the revision will seek to strengthen the argumentation towards energy communities, although, given the review character of this paper, we also refer to future work on this topic.
  In addition to these main points, we provide a more detailed response to the numbered reviewer comments below.
  Detailed comments:
  As the focus of the paper is indeed on the reinforcing feedback loops in renewables supply and not on demand reduction in fossil, we will follow the suggestions of the reviewer to rewrite the abstract.
  
  In the revised version we would add a methods section that more clearly explains our approach to this review and our conceptual use of system dynamics to structure the outcomes of the review. This will include a short description of the main terms including references.
  
  Thank you for pointing this out, we will carefully revise the figures, captions and their referencing in the text
  
  Thank you for this suggestion which we will adopt in the revision
  
  Thank you for pointing this out, we will carefully revise the figures, captions and their referencing in the text
  
  Thank you for this suggestion, we will include it in the revised version and follow up on the suggested references
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-2023-25-AC3

Peer review completion

AR: Author's response | RR: Referee report | ED: Editor decision | EF: Editorial file upload

ED: Reconsider after major revisions (26 Nov 2023) by Steven R. Smith

AR by Floor Alkemade on behalf of the Authors (19 Jan 2024) Author's response Author's tracked changes Manuscript

ED: Publish as is (21 Feb 2024) by Steven R. Smith

AR by Floor Alkemade on behalf of the Authors (01 Mar 2024)

Short summary

The fast growth in renewables has led to an economic tipping point for the adoption of renewables. This paper reviews how the cost tipping point in renewables can initiate other social tipping dynamics in the energy transition, and it presents energy communities as a promising and fast-growing niche environment that can exploit and foster such tipping dynamics.