muscos -modeling transitions eth...
TRANSCRIPT
The paper
• Modelling transitions towards resource-efficient
and service-oriented infrastructure operation
• Liz Varga, Christof Knoeri, Julia K. Steinberger, • Liz Varga, Christof Knoeri, Julia K. Steinberger,
Katy Roelich, Stephen Varga
• The problem:
• What end-user supplier configurations
lead to more resource-efficient
configurations?
Utility infrastructure dependencies
operational interdependencies between common infrastructure systems
Little, 2005
The current system issues
• Separate and parallel delivery of different
infrastructure streams
• Unmanaged demand• Unmanaged demand
• Current design and operation do not integrate the
end-users, in terms of their crucial role in selecting
and using technological options, and the variety of
their wants and behaviours
Gas example: demand push
Chaudry et al (2012). A focus on gas
MUSCos – integrated utility services
• This project represents a fundamental paradigm shift in
the interactions between suppliers, providers and
consumers of infrastructure services.
• The principal goal of the project is to investigate the • The principal goal of the project is to investigate the
potential for a change in infrastructure operation away
from supply of unmanaged demand towards resource-
efficient service delivery.
• This will be done for multiple infrastructure streams; by
identifying a range of possible alternative configurations of
service contracts.
Smart Grid
Bruckner et al (2004)
End users and technologies
• The most cost-effective and efficiency enhancing technologies are
usually found on the end-user/demand side
• End-users (culture, behaviours, personal resources, etc) are barriers
to adoption of technologiesto adoption of technologies
• Contextual factors, such as supplier-user arrangements, lack of
information, etc. limit the potential of technology exploitation
Unruh, 2002, Carbon Lock-in
Fossil vs renewables;Focus on service
A focus on bio-energy (Steubing et al, 2012)
Systems and low carbon society
Nakata et al (2010). Low carbon society
Complex Adaptive Systems, Cognitive Agents and Distributed Energy(CASCADE
UKERC 2012))
Current systemLotM briefing (2012)
The MUSCOs perspective
• The end user is the
point of integration and
delivery of service, e.g.
ambient heating, ambient heating,
mobility, which require a
combination of different
utility infrastructures
• New technologies co-
evolve with user
behaviours, and with
organizational networks
Coevolutionary transitions
Chappin & Dijkema, 2010.
Energy Infrastructure Transitions
Foxon, 2011. Coevolutionary
framework for transition to low
carbon economy Geels, 2006, On-going energy transition
Utility markets –product based
• Contracts based on
known technologies
• Contracts for single
utility productsutility products
• Contracts do not
reward resource-
efficiency
Emergence
• MUSCOs are emergent
configurations providing
cross-cutting contracts using
service-based models to shift service-based models to shift
resource use from a profit
centre to a cost centre,
facilitating infrastructure
integration and improved
resource efficiency through
the focus of the point of sale
Quality and information
• We observe that service delivery may have levels
of quality, such as limited availability, limited
quantity, which aid resource efficiency and overall quantity, which aid resource efficiency and overall
system performance (such as peak demand).
• Interconnected systems require smart
technologies and the provision of information for
automation and demand response assisting the
consumer to behave and be rewarded in line with
a contract for services.
ABM typology
Chappin & Dijkema, 2010
Policy/institutional measures – transition variables
• Regulation, legislation,
incentives, grants, tax
breaks, etc. amount to
incentives to change
behavioursbehaviours
• Examples:
• Carbon Act and low
carbon targets
• Localism Act and the
desire for self-
sufficiency
• But policy changes can have
rebound effects so feedback
in the system needs to be
understood!
http://www.itrc.org.uk/wordpress/wp-
content/FTA/ITRC-FTA-Executive-summary.pdf p9
Emergence
TUCP - conceptualizing technology conversion into service
Model description language
• The ICOM syntax is borrowed from IDEF0 methodology where controls
and mechanisms are defined as:
• Controls: are forms of input, but which are used to direct the activity
in the process. There is some degree of uncertainty as to whether
an item is an input or a control. A simple way of distinguishing these an item is an input or a control. A simple way of distinguishing these
is that inputs get transformed or changed in some way in order to
create the outputs, whilst controls are seldom or very slowly
changed. Standards, regulations, legislation are all forms of control.
• Mechanisms: are the resources and tools that are required to
complete the process. This includes machines and other tools but
may also include people with particular skills.
• Controls and mechanisms can be abstracted as regulations, legislations
or standards, that is, as technologies or skills underlying each of the four
activities.
Example
Example...
Zooming inExample...
Zooming in further
Example...
Conceptual levels
• This conceptualization is
flexible enough to represent a
the use of technology to
provide services at any level provide services at any level
of description
• We can even imagine
alternatives for the service
‘Wash clothes’ such as
‘laundry services’ which might
require mobility to collect and
deliver clean clothes, and a
bulk washing service by a
third party.
Prioritizing input resources
• Inputs and outputs are resources (types of water, power, waste, etc) with
different potentials
• For example, arranging potentialities according to their increasing carbon
footprint:
• Type 0: sun energy, biomass, wind, tide energy, wave energy, • Type 0: sun energy, biomass, wind, tide energy, wave energy,
geothermal;
• Type 1: electricity, water, and heat;
• Type 2: gas, coal, nuclear;
• Type 3: waste (water, solid, nuclear, heat)
• Outputs may also be for final consumption are services.
• Key activities (the methods in the model) process input resources through the
user-technology-need interactions based on contracts and create outputs.
• Key activities are constrained by policy measures (legislation, regulation, etc).
• This conceptualization may lead to novelty and innovation in our model.
Service innovation opportunities Any of the inputs, outputs, regulations, and
technologies or their combination, can be a focus for innovation.
Data - initial conditions
• Technology types
• Technology scales - to provide an amount of
serviceservice
• Efficiencies (quantity of resources)
• Waste (CO2, dirty water, etc.)
• Skills needed
• Policy options having an impact
• Contract types
• For utility products initially
Data – scenarios and policy measures
• Household/office/industry descriptions and user
needs (demand profiles) (quarterly) includes mobility
• Tabulation of how needs are met by services• Tabulation of how needs are met by services
• Availability of primary resources
• Policy measures (rules and incentives)
Fitness functions and outputs
• A function of resource efficiency, carbon emissions,
economics and system resilience
• New contracts emerge based on input data • New contracts emerge based on input data
(household, availability of resources, policy
measures)
• New technologies emerge if the model detects the
gap in technology
• Outputs are resource consumption, waste, efficiency
and resilience
MUSCOs project
