In Good-by-Devicing inquires are made in valuation struggles where some end in valuation devices while others are marginalised. valuation devices hrough the project inquires valuation devices. The aim of this work package is to shed light on inclusion/exclusion processes and compare how translation trajectories differ across different types of concerns.
Good-by-Devicing examines how various tools and methods determine which concerns matter in designing the energy transition. Governments primarily combat climate change by promoting renewable energy, trying to ensure economic growth through cost-efficient renewables (Daggett 2019). Influential tools in this process include energy scenario evaluations, digital twins, and procurement instruments—all based in techno-economic expert networks that make the energy transition attractive for investment. Meanwhile, alternative expert networks struggle to translate social values into these evaluation tools, which mainly consider quantitative values while marginalizing qualitative concerns. My research traces how marginalized concerns are (or aren't) incorporated into the three key evaluation tools, while also examining alternative methods (like artwork or social movement demonstrations). I compare how different concerns gain the ability to be translated into evaluation tools, while analyzing how different evaluation methods vary in their openness to broader social concerns.
Social values can possibly be reconnected with evaluation tools. Here, it is essential to gain a deeper understanding of how Energy Island Bornholm has created conflicts between different expert networks over what should (not) matter in designing the "fossil-free future". Evaluation tools can in the future be redisgned based on this understanding of how energy technologies come to be valued as good. Being open to alternative ways of valuing the energy transition, including broader social concerns, creates an opportunity to develop a more comprehensive critique of current evaluation practices with the potential to reintegrate broader social considerations.
A deeper understanding of the way in which Energy Island Bornholm has caused a valuation struggle between different networks of expertise over what should (not) matter in the devicing of the ‘fossil-free future’ is critical for thinking about future potential re-devicing. Being open to how the energy transition could be valued otherwise renders the opportunity for a more general conceptualisation and critique of today’s valuation practices.
New spaces can be experimented with in order to potentially re-couple broader social concerns and question the expertise deciding on what the 'good' fossil-free economy should be. This is the the goal for Work package 04.