Chemical Energy Storage

Robert Schlögl, Robert Schlögl

• Publisher: De Gruyter
• Year: 2022
• ISBN:
  9783110608595
• Edition: 2
• Topic: Technology & Engineering
• Subtopic: Materials Science
• Index: Technology & Engineering

Energy – in the headlines, discussed controversially, vital. The use of regenerative energy in many primary forms leads to the necessity to store grid dimensions for maintaining continuous supply and enabling the replacement of fossil fuel systems. Chemical energy storage is one of the possibilities besides mechano-thermal and biological systems. This work starts with the more general aspects of chemical energy storage in the context of the geosphere and evolves to dealing with aspects of electrochemistry, catalysis, synthesis of catalysts, functional analysis of catalytic processes and with the interface between electrochemistry and heterogeneous catalysis. Top-notch experts provide a sound, practical, hands-on insight into the present status of energy conversion aimed primarily at the young emerging research front.

1 General

1 Energy and Society: Toward a Socio-ecological Foundation for Research on Energy Transformations

Ortwin Renn

IASS Potsdam, Institute for Advanced Sustainability Studies e.V., (IASS), Potsdam, Germany

1.1 Introduction

At first glance, energy research appears to be a topic primarily for the engineering and natural sciences, which can be enriched, at best, by social science studies. However, the study of the physical consequences of energy production, transportation, and consumption cannot only be related to the effects of human interventions on nature and society, but must start with the investigation of the social and cultural causes that have triggered these interventions in the first place. Humans make decisions based on mental models of what they would like to accomplish. These models are framed by social and cultural aspirations, values, and norms [1, 2, 3, 4]. Based on this broader perspective, three areas of overlap can be identified that link the biophysical with the cultural world [59, 5, 6]:

–Basic human needs and demands with respect to resources from the natural environment (in particular energy)

–The consequences of human interventions for natural cycles, processes, and structures, including biological changes in and among humans (such as new lifestyles, new health risks)

–The feedback of these interventions on cultural self-image, social structures, and social processes (cultural identity)

Undoubtedly, all three dimensions are closely and inevitably associated with insights from the natural sciences. Without sufficient knowledge of the structure and dynamics of natural systems, the estimation of anthropogenic causes and consequences of energy supply systems remains speculative. Interactions arise from the energetic, material or communicative exchanges between humans and the natural environment. However, the natural science perspective is not sufficient to understand the interactions between society and energy.

Traditional energy research is largely based on the ideal of a value-free exploration of the physical resources, their efficient use, and their sustainability to meet human needs. This concept of energy research is problematic for two reasons [7, 8]: First, the choice of what people need is already culturally influenced. The postulated assumptions about correlations between the use of the physical resources and their utilization for human purposes are determined by preconceived cultural frames, which require their own explanation and questioning. Secondly, the supposed chain of knowledge and action falls short [9]. Knowledge alone does not change behavior. Although knowledge is a prerequisite for motivating action, it does not replace the necessity of having normative priorities when weighing the consequences for the biophysical environment against other positive or negative impacts on the economy and society [10]. At the same time, the balancing of these processes itself is dependent on social preferences. For example, the political scientist Aaron Wildavsky concluded that the U.S. environmental legislation and regulatory practices systematically hide the true environmental impact when damage is distributed widely and evenly, while pollution that affects socially prominent groups is targeted by the media and triggers more regulatory action [60].

In conclusion, energy research has to combine both components: the consequences of human behavior on the natural and socio-cultural environment as well as the reflexive perception, assessment, and evaluation of human behavior when experiencing transformations in energy supply systems [11]. Such an integrative approach includes five key objectives [5, 12, 13]:

• To gain systematic understanding of the processes of knowledge generation and of value formation regarding human interventions into nature and society, and, from these findings, contribute to a better understanding of the human–environment–nature relationship and the cultural patterns for selecting options to meet energy demands.
• To gain better knowledge of processes and procedures that shape or enlighten the social discourse(s) about the right balance between different options of meeting energy service demand and, consequently, about ethically justifiable degrees of interventions into the natural environment on the basis of comprehensible and politically legitimate criteria.
• To investigate institutional processes and organizational structures that review, revise, and regulate individual and collective energy-related decisions.
• To identify patterns of technology development and transformations with the goal of identifying and understanding potential impacts of energy systems and their organizational environment.
• To investigate obstacles and barriers, but also opportunities and incentives, which affect energy transitions at both individual and collective levels, and to systematically explore and develop constructive suggestions for resolving conflicts about priorities for designing and legitimizing energy policies.

The following sections will demonstrate how a socio-ecological approach to energy systems analysis can be designed to meet these five objectives. Given the limitation of space and the main interest of the readers of this volume to get practical advice on how social science can assist transformations toward climate-neutral energy supply, the main focus of the remaining sections will be placed on the fifth objective. In which way can social science insights contribute to overcoming obstacles and barriers to a successful transformation of energy systems? We will argue that citizen empowerment, deliberative reasoning, and targeted communication are a key to facilitate energy transformations in democratic societies.

1.2 Characteristics of a Socio-ecological Approach to Energy Research

The main proposition of the social–ecological approach is that knowledge can only advance in the area of energy research by reflecting on the interaction between the social processes of knowledge generation and their interpretation based on language, research tools, and cultural contexts. This task of establishing relationships between human observers and nonhuman environments by means of interventions thus stands at the beginning of any socio-ecological research process. Social–ecological risk research is self-reflexive and self-critical of its knowledge claims. This allows one to look beyond the confines of relativism and allows selected interactions between nature, environment, and culture to be intersubjectively validated [12, 14, 15, 16].

The second essential characteristic of the social–ecological approach to understand energy transformations is the combination of knowledge and values [17, 18]. In addition to cultural selection and interpretation regarding energy selection and policy making, knowledge needs to be supplemented by a culture of values and moral principles in order to derive meaningful and responsible decisions. Decision-making includes two components: assessment of likely consequences of each decision option (the knowledge component), and evaluation of these consequences according to personal or collective desirability and ethical acceptability (the value component).

Classic risk research has been adopting a value-free approach. Research questions are normally phrased as “What if …?” By not abiding to one scenario, many researchers felt that they were able to represent the plurality of societal values. This approach, however, blends out the fact that each of these “if–then” questions represents but one of many possible scenarios and that a selection must be made. Furthermore, even the most scientific scenario construction will be limited to potential consequences that researchers think will or should matter to society [19].

The perspective of social ecology can no longer rely on neutrality. Valuations not only creep into the factual process of consideration of what could be researched but are already incorporated into the design of assessment processes [20]. The catalytic function of science, part of the five requirements mentioned in the section above, is based on normative foundations, such as that all those who could be affected should also be considered in the analysis or that the factual findings of appraisal processes should be made available to all parties [21, 22]. That these normative standards must be made explicit should be considered as self-evident.

The third component of social–ecological research includes the methodological approach, often referred to in the literature as transdisciplinary [23, 24, 25, 26, 27]. This term includes, despite all the differences in respective positions, the following key aspects:

• Methodological approach based on using multiple methods employed by different disciplines...

Table of contents

• Title Page
• Copyright
• Contents
• 1 General
• 2 Electrochemical
• 3 Thermochemical
• 4 Biobased
• Index