Development of New Models

Experience with the dynamic operation of large and time-varying sustainable energy systems is limited, so the need for a theoretical framework is significant. Research institutions and companies have developed detailed and comprehensive frameworks for the research and development of complex electrical systems.

Model of the Technical University of Eindhoven

Figure 8 (TUE, 2012) illustrates the structure of the electrical engineering programme at the Technical University of Eindhoven. The diagram shows three levels of complexity: society and politics, multidisciplinary business platforms, and multidisciplinary technical research.


Figure 8. Fan example of a university framework to address  engineering research and Development

At first sight, this model seems to be quite complete. It involves technology (first layer), business models (second layer) and society (third layer). However, on further inspection the model shows a lot of shortcomings. Let's first focus on the technological layer. It shows a lot of different electrical systems that focus on the micro grids (local system), smart grids (regional systems) and super grids (international systems). However, this layer does not include any traditional or sustainable energy sources. The model seems to express the idea that these sources are unproblematic and do not have to be taken into account. In addition, it presents a view of technology from within. The view of engineers on technology and the view of society on technology are not highlighted.

Business models come in on the second layer, which describes the technological aspects of business platforms. The model suggests that for an engineer only the technological aspects have to be taken into account and that the business aspects can be ignored. But every technological product has to serve customers and has its price. The model does not invite engineers to think about these elements.

In the third layer society is addressed. It specifies a connecting world, care and cure, and the idea of a smart and sustainable sector. In the first place, the explicit attention for these societal sectors ought to be welcomed. The ideas of a connecting, healthy and sustainable society are key to guiding the development of a technological society. However, the model is both too abstract and too general to consider many of the complexities of an electric grid design and operation. It covers general ideas but does not give the engineer enough information to identify which parties are relevant and what interests are justified. It does not address the fact that society consists of quite different actors who have different interests. In addition, it does not address different dimensions of sustainable energy and smart grids, or social, legal and ethical considerations.

In conclusion, the model presented in figure 8 accurately reflects the technical and systemic world of the engineer and needs further development to fully account for the complexity and normativity of sustainable energy and smart grids. In other words, this model shows engineers working with reduced models in which they address a reduced reality.

Model of the European Commission

Figure 9 presents the model developed by the Reference Architecture Working Group of the European Commission. This model spans three dimensions: domains, zones and interoperability layers. The domains cover the complete energy conversion chain from energy generation to the end users. The zones represent the hierarchical levels of the power system management. The interoperability layers highlight the interoperability between components and systems. In this simplified model five different layers are distinguished. The advantage of this model is that it urges engineers to take into account the whole energy conversion chain, the whole power system and the relationship with business models. This model has a technological and economical spirit.


Figure 9. The model developed by the reference architecture working group of the European commission

Triple I model

A quite different model has been given by Ribeiro et al., shown in figure 10. This model states that designers have to use three different perspectives to specify new technologies: integrality, inclusiveness and idealism. The idea of integrality refers to the different aspects that have to be taken into account; the idea of inclusiveness to the different stakeholders whose interests are at issue; and the idea of idealism to the ideals, value systems, or basic beliefs that underpin the development of smart grids. This model is based on the ontology as developed by the philosopher Dooyeweerd and the practice model developed by the philosophers Hoogland, Jochemsen, Glas, Verkerk and others.


Figure 10. Societal plurality (triple 1 model). Model developed by Ribeiro et al.

The first 'I' refers to the different aspects that have to be analyzed. In total fifteen different aspects are identified, varying from the numerical, physical, social, economic and juridical to the moral dimension (see figure 11). Each aspect has its own nature, dynamics and normativity. Consequently, these different aspects cannot be regarded in isolation but every aspect has to be analyzed in detail.

ASPECTS ELECTRIC GRID SMART GRID
ARITHMETIC NUMBERS MEASURABLE QUANTITIES: VOLTAGE, CURRENT AND POWER
SPATIAL USE OF SPACE
 TRANSMISSION AND DISTRIBUTION NETWORK
KINEMATIC
 USE OF SPACE
 ROTATING GENERATORS, ENERGY FLOW
PHYSICAL
 MATERIALS AND PROPERTIES
 CABLES, TRANSFORMERS, GENERATORS
BIOTIC
 INFLUENCE ON ANIMALS, HUMAN BODIES, ENVIRONMENT INFLUENCE OF ELECTROMAGNETIC FIELDS AND WAVES ON LIFE
PSYCHIC FEELINGS OF SAFETY INTERMITTENT RENEWABLE SOURCES LEAD TO FEELINGS OF UNCERTAINTY
ANALYTICAL DISTINCTION BETWEEN DIFFERENT TYPES OF GRIDS DIFFERENT TYPES OF GRIDS: MICRO, NATIONAL, SUPER, SMART
FORMATIVE
 CONTROL CONTROL OF POWER GENERATION, DISTRIBUTION AND CONSUMPTION, SMART METERS
LINGUISTIC MEANING OF TERMINOLOGY TERM "SMART" CHOSEN TO PROMOTE TECHNOLOGY? SHOULD IT BE "SMARTER"?
SOCIAL INFLUENCE ON HUMAN BEHAVIOR LEADS TO MORE SUSTAINABLE HUMAN BEHAVIOR?
ECONOMIC COPE WITH SCARCITY OF ENERGY AND
HIGHER DEMAND		 PRICE DIFFERENTIATION DEPENDING ON MOMENTARY SUPPLY AND DEMAND
AESTHETIC AESTHETICS OF BUILDINGS & SYSTEM BEAUTIFUL V2G CONNECTION POINTS?
JURIDICAL LIABILITY, OWNERSHIP OF NETWORKS
 WHO IS LIABLE FOR A FAILING SMART GRID?
MORAL CARE FOR THE ENVIRONMENT, HUMANS AND ANIMALS
 HOW DO SMART GRIDS HELP IN CARING FOR HUMANS?
BELIEF TRUST IN SYSTEMS SOME PEOPLE TRUST THAT SMART GRIDS WILL IMPROVE LIFE

Figure 11. Overview of the different aspects of systems design for smart grids

Different aspects or dimensions

The second 'I' refers to the different stakeholders and their justified inter- ests. Based on a philosophical analysis Ribeiro et al. argue that the interests of stakeholders are different. For example, this comes to the fore when we analyze how different stakeholders will cope with a widespread blackout of the electrical system. Industrial enterprises will balance the risks, potential losses and prevention costs on economic grounds, hospitals will always choose back-up installations to prevent harming patients, and citizens will accept the risks as long as their normal life is not unduly hampered. So, "inclusiveness" requires the analysis of the interests of all the stakeholders. In this analysis the lists of interests will be very helpful.

The third 'I' refers to the ideals, values and basic beliefs that underpin the search for sustainable sources and the design of the energy system of the future. It has to be noted that in Western culture different value systems are present. Some people believe that economic considerations have to be dominant (the neoliberal approach), others believe that the present system can be adapted to meet environmental and sustainability requirements ("shallow ecology"), while others state that we not only need technological innovations but also radical societal reforms ("deep ecology"). It is important to make this third 'I' explicit in order to discuss the "why" of sustainable energy and smart grids and to prevent these fundamental questions being suppressed by technological and economical perspectives.

The approach of Ribeiro et al. is summarized in figure 12. It shows that for every (sub-) technology an extensive analysis of the three I's is required. On the one hand, it is a tough job to do this kind of analysis, especially because engineers will run into many "we don't knows" that will urge them to do additional research. On the other hand, failures in this field are so costly that no organization or institution can permit them.


Figure 12. Overview of the approach of Ribeiro et al.

Comparison of models

The model of the TUE – as concluded above – faces a lot of shortages and is dominated by the technological perspective. The model of the European Commission supports engineers to think over the whole energy conversion chain, hierarchy of power systems and relation with business models. This model is dominated by a technological and economical spirit. The Triple I model is quite different because it highlights technological and non-technological aspects, the different interests of various stakeholders and the ideals or values that underpin the design of the electrical system of the future. We conclude that a combination of the model of the European Commission and the Triple I model will be most fruitful.