• Energy Research

To better allocate funds in the new EU research framework programme Horizon Europe, an assessment of current and past efforts is crucial. In this paper we develop and apply a multi-method qualitative and computational approach to provide a catalogue of climate crisis mitigation technologies on the EU level between 2014 and 2020. Using the approach, we observed no public EU-level funding for multiple technologies prioritised by the EU, such as low-carbon production and use of cement and chemicals, electric battery, and a number of industrial decarbonisation processes. We observed a rising trend in the funding of solar power and onshore wind, the adjacent to them power-to-X technology, as well as recycling. At the same time, the shares of funding into fuel cell, biofuel, demand-side energy management, microgrids, and waste management show a decline trend. With note of the exploratory character of the present paper, we propose that the EU Horizon 2020 funding of clean technologies only partially reflected the expectations of key institutionalised EU actors due to the existence of many non-funded prioritised technologies.

Article Abstract To better allocate funds in the new EU research framework programme Horizon Europe, an assessment of current and past efforts is crucial. In this paper we develop and apply a multi-method qualitative and computational approach to provide a catalogue of climate crisis mitigation technologies on the EU level between 2014 and 2020. Using the approach, we observed no public EU-level funding for multiple technologies prioritised by the EU, such as low-carbon production and use of cement and chemicals, electric battery, and a number of industrial decarbonisation processes. We observed a rising trend in the funding of solar power and onshore wind, the adjacent to them power-to-X technology, as well as recycling. At the same time, the shares of funding into fuel cell, biofuel, demand-side energy management, microgrids, and waste management show a decline trend. With note of the exploratory character of the present paper, we propose that the EU Horizon 2020 funding of clean technologies only partially reflected the expectations of key institutionalised EU actors due to the existence of many non-funded prioritised technologies.

Literature on technological decline and related concepts is growing. We aim to advance theorizations of the dynamics of technological decline by mobilizing the concept of sociotechnical configuration and a metaphor of its “unraveling.” We take as a case study the declined Soviet computer series Ural. Ural was once among the top three most used computers in the former Soviet Union, but went into decline and got lost even before the dissolution of the country. We find that technological decline is not a trivial process, it is not guaranteed to be gradual but can feature sudden shifts. These shifts can be drops of production and loss of knowledge, as well as efforts to push back. Policy could make use of ongoing processes of decline and try to replicate the effect of the decline of Ural via cessation of access to materials and competences and delegitimation of the technology.

Abstract Opening up the dynamics of phase-outs is important to advance the knowledge about how to navigate phase-outs, how to speed them up and how to ensure justice, all pressing topics in energy transitions. I revisit the case of the incandescent light bulb phase-out in Europe and investigate what processes were involved after the phase-out regulation entered into force (2000–2020). The present study deviates in approach and analytical focus from prior studies of the light bulb phase-out. I use ‘technologies-in-practice’ as heuristic to trace technology as a processual phenomenon, i.e. as an outcome of processes of co-evolving materiality, meanings, activities and skills integral to them. I find that intentional push for a destabilising meaning (energy inefficiency) of the light bulb, resonant with powerful larger discourse (climate change), and imitation of existing technology by a group of stakeholders was key in the process of light bulb’s downscaling. The attachment of new, reinforcing the stability of the configuration, meanings to the light bulb (nostalgic lamp, rough-service lamp) by another group of stakeholders prevented a complete phase-out. I contribute to the existing theoretical literature by offering to put more emphasis on studying the later stages of the technological trajectory, and discussing the winners and losers of the phasing-out.