Energy systems, socio-spatial relations, and power: the contested adoption of district heating with combined heat and power in Sweden, 1945-2011
Bibliographic record
Abstract
District heating (DH) and combined heat and power (CHP) are often considered complementary green technologies (DH-CHP) that can reduce greenhouse gas emissions. They are, however, complex given their operation at the intersection of shifting socio-spatial relations and political power struggles. We investigate the political processes behind the diffusion (and blocked diffusion) of DH and CHP in Sweden from 1945 until 2011, considered through the lens of Jessop, Brenner and Jones’ (2008) Territory, Place, Scale and Networks (TPSN) framework. Foregrounding the socio-spatial constitution of policy decisions, we examine Sweden’s changing patterns of DH and CHP adoption. First, we present the TPSN framework that considers space as simultaneously a structuring principle, enabling and constraining action, as well as a field of operation in which agency is exercised. Second, we examine the socio-spatial structuration of energy systems. Third, we analyse how the changing socio-spatial constitution of each socio-technical system affects key actors’ interests and actions, including the spatial strategies they develop to advance their interests. District heating rapidly diffused across Swedish municipalities in large part because it was considered to be urban infrastructure aligned with the mission of municipalities and was not in direct competition with other actors supplying heat. CHP electricity generation, on the other hand, was initially seen as a benefit to municipal utilities, but was later considered a threat to the interests of large-scale utilities and blocked, only to gain favour again when changing sociospatial conditions made CHP an asset to large-scale utilities. Our analysis suggests that technological diffusion and blockage is far from a straightforward matter. It requires examination of the dynamics of multi-level governance and overlapping socio-technical systems. Socio-technical regimes are in constant evolution and actors struggle to adapt to new circumstances. Socio-technical systems are not merely material systems, but an expression of dynamic power relations and adaptation strategies.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".