Digital technologies in the transition to a sustainable energy system:knowledge-related challenges from everyday life

Digital technologies in the transition to a sustainable energy system: knowledge-related challenges from everyday life Ana Horta Matthias Gross 11. 278 the diverse worlds of sustainability introduction Over the last decade digital technologies have developed very quickly and their widening use is fuelling visions of networks of intelligent objects, all connected to facilitate everyday life and give feedback to users, providers, and officials, so that resources are used more efficiently, and citizens in some Western countries feel engaged, willing to take more active roles as consumers, and thus enabling creative and smart solutions for current sustainability problems (Verbong et al. 2013, Beaulieu et al. 2016, Hyysalo and Juntunen 2018). A transition to energy-efficient and low-carbon systems is one of the most pressing of these problems, as it would help to reach climate change goals, as well as improve the security and reliability of energy supply. A wide range of information and communication technologies, from smart grids to smartphones and “smart building solutions”, are expected to enable energy savings and reduce carbon emissions. However, this transition poses many challenges, the needs for government agencies, utilities, and companies to engage individuals being some of them. Since the growing pervasiveness of these technologies raises questions regarding privacy and individual rights, and possible consequences are difficult to foresee, the increasing acceptance and adoption of digital technologies are uncertain. Moreover, although digital technologies may empower citizens, their complexity is likely to widen the divide between groups – between those with and without the skills to use these technologies (in the ways prescribed by developers), and also those who ignore such technologies. Individuals’ knowledge is thus a critical issue, which has been considered even more important than access to technology. Notwithstanding the relevance of social inequities in access to digital technologies, several authors have argued for the need to go beyond the study of access in order to capture nuances to the digital divide that are related to the ways in which individuals use technologies (Ragnedda and Muschert 2013). This seems even more pertinent regarding rich Western societies, which are the focus of this chapter. Research on the forms of knowledge related to individuals’ dispositions to interact with information and communication technologies is needed. However, the mainstream view on the role of digital technologies in the transition to sustainable energy systems is based on the assumption that individuals need more knowledge about these technologies (Hargreaves et al. 2013), in accordance with the long-standing supposition that the public is digital technologies in the transition to a sustainable energy system 279 ignorant of science and technology and therefore needs to be informed (Irwin and Michael 2003). That is, given more information, and with the appropriate skills, individuals would be more likely to engage and take personal action toward sustainable solutions. This view does not account for the diversity of ways that knowledge is part of individuals’ everyday lives. In accordance with recent strands of research that emphasize the need to investigate forms of knowledge that go beyond traditional sociological standpoints, this chapter explores how individuals deal with these technologies in their everyday life and, in particular, how they deal with what they do not know, do not want to know, as well as how they strategically use ignorance in the pursuit of benefits unanticipated by developers and policy-makers. Thus understood, this chapter is part of the emerging field of ignorance studies that does not treat ignorance or nonknowledge as the mere absence of knowledge, but as a realm with a social and political life of its own (Gross and McGoey 2015). The chapter starts by presenting the mainstream view of how digital technologies can contribute to a sustainable energy transition, with a focus on the role attributed to householders’ information about these technologies and how this has been narrowly discussed as a deficit of knowledge. Technological determinism and rational choice are influential frameworks in the mainstream discourse on the topic, but have led to a utopian perspective on energy transition. The chapter deconstructs this utopia by referring to the complexity of relations between users and technologies, focusing in particular at the household level. The concept of non-knowledge is then presented as a necessary element in understanding individuals’ involvement with these technologies. Not knowing does not necessarily mean a barrier to social acceptance of digital technologies – it points to the uncertainty and unpredictability of ways users can deal with these objects. By presenting several empirical examples of different forms of non-knowledge of digital technologies, as well as diverse types of information and communication technologies (not just the so called “smart energy technologies”), the chapter contributes to an understanding of how interactions with these technologies take the forms they do in order to shed light on the challenges that may hinder the transition to a sustainable energy system. 280 the diverse worlds of sustainability digital technologies as key in a sustainable energy transition: from utopia to users’ real world Energy has become an essential element in discourses about sustainability. Although implicitly until the 1960s industrialized western countries had policies based on the assumption that their economic growth depended on access to cheap and abundant energy, debates around the limits of growth and peaks in oil production, beyond which oil would be scarcer and extracting it would be more expensive, have questioned this “cheap and abundant” energy paradigm. In recent years several problems have contributed to put the energy system and its sustainability in political agendas. Besides geopolitical and economic issues – including increasing global energy demand and insecurity about access – combined with concern over climate change, growing investments in renewable sources of energy have also been pressuring the conventional models of energy distribution. The idea of a transition toward a sustainable energy system has become appealing, as it announces a process of gradual change in which political decision-makers, with the involvement of key stakeholders, steer sociotechnical shifts along desirable visions of the future (Meadowcroft 2009). In the European Union, for example, “the clean energy transition” is envisioned as a way to modernize the economy, speed growth, and create jobs, as well as lower carbon intensity. It is also expected that this transition will benefit all consumers, who “should feel involved” (European Commission 2016, 3). These goals are to be achieved through more energy efficiency, investment in renewable sources, and empowerment of consumers - by providing them better information about the energy market and thus “enable them to be more in control of their choices” (European Commission 2016, 10). As part of this transition toward a low-carbon economy, the European Union has been promoting a greater integration of new information and communication technologies (icts) in the economy. Also, energy companies have been increasingly investing in digital electricity infrastructure and software as these facilitate management and monitoring (iea 2017). Along these lines, widespread integration of digital technologies in home appliances, services, or energy grids is considered key to enhance energy efficiency through remote control and automation, as well as by allowing utilities to adjust to energy demand in real time through smart meters. Information and communication technologies are also expected to enhance a digital technologies in the transition to a sustainable energy system 281 more active role of consumers, including as “prosumers” of renewable energy. Smart energy technologies – such as meters that monitor energy usage in real time, sensors embedded in devices throughout buildings that predict how much lighting is needed, or programmable thermostats that preheat the home before occupants arrive – are being developed rapidly. Together with artificial intelligence, ambient computing, the Internet of Things, automation, and the electrification of vehicles, these innovations are expected to be implemented at large scale soon. Overall, in mainstream discourses these developments are expected to enable a smarter future. Based on this scenario, digital technologies have been considered a crucial feature in the transition to sustainable energy systems. As an illustration of this thinking, the Global e-Sustainability Initiative, which includes over 30 world leading ict companies, argues that “ict can help break the link between economic development and resource depletion, with emissions savings close to ten times those generated by the ict sector itself” (gesi 2015, 4). The transition to a sustainable energy system is thus taken for granted. However, the possibilities offered by these new technologies depend on the adoption and actual modes of use by individuals, as well as on the sociotechnical contexts in which these technologies are embedded. By itself, having access to digital technologies does not necessarily mean use, or meaningful use, or engagement (Selwyn 2004). The technological determinism according to which new technologies unleash changes in society has been refuted and shown to be oversimplistic by science and technology studies as well as sociology. Indeed, there are important processes of appropriation of technical objects, and although technologies define frameworks of action in which they are supposed to act, users can redefine them (Akrich 1992). Furthermore, the processes of how digital technologies are appropriated and integrated into everyday life are subject to constant negotiation, as socio-technical contexts are dynamic (Berker et al. 2006). Besides influences from wider socio-technical contexts, such as technological infrastructures and policies, economic models and multinational marketing strategies or cultural frameworks, embodied dispositions and micro-interactions between people, as well as between humans and materials, either at households, workplaces or other settings, also have a critical role in shaping the ways technologies are integrated in everyday life. Meaningful use and engagement with digital technologies thus depend on multiple processes and cannot be considered straightforward. 282 the diverse worlds of sustainability Yet, although acknowledging the relevance of consumers, a common assumption in discourses on smart energy technologies is the idea that by providing access to information on individuals’ own energy consumption (through smart meters, for example), consumers will engage in the potential of these technologies and take control of their energy use in a rational and efficient way, without compromising their lifestyle expectations (Strengers 2015). Indeed, these mainstream discourses expect that the integration of digital technologies in everyday life will enhance the active participation of individuals in the energy system. The Global e-Sustainability Initiative, for example, states in its 2015 report that in order to realize the potential of the ict-enabled world, “consumers have to take an active role”, and what they “should do” is: pressure governments to have access to reliable broadband infrastructure; mass-purchase ict-related products and services; and adopt “a mind-set that recognizes the opportunities the digital economy can bring to them” (gesi 2015, 98). Also, the Smart London Plan set out as first priority for the future citizen engagement in the development of digital services (Mayor of London 2016). Only some kinds of social possibilities are examined in these visions. As in other writings that can also be considered technological utopianism, here digital technologies are the central enabling element of a vision of the future that is presented as desirable for everyone. In this genre of discourse, important possibilities that are likely are not discussed (Kling 1996). Utopian views around information and communication technologies are not new (May 2003). However, in recent years this vision is becoming increasingly central in the thinking on the transition to energy sustainability as if there were no alternative, this pathway could not fail, no unintended outcomes were foreseeable, or there were no contradictions in the relationships people establish with technology. As noted by Yolande Strengers (2015), the assumptions underlying this “smart utopia” have not been sufficiently problematized. The consumer envisioned in these discourses is “a data-driven, informationhungry, technology-savvy home energy manager, who is interested in and capable of making efficient and rational resource management decisions” (Strengers 2015, 51). Yet, social science research on energy consumption has shown that approaches focused on individuals as if their actions were driven only by information and feedback on their energy use, are not able to fully explain actual practices (Shove 2010; Buchanan et al. 2015; Frederiks et al. 2015; Horta 2018). Even among “early adopters” of smart meters with displays that provide real-time feedback on energy consumption, only some of them digital technologies in the transition to a sustainable energy system 283 are motivated by a desire to gain more information, and many face numerous issues that limit their ability to change their home energy consumption, including the relevance certain appliances have for them or discussions between household members (Hargreaves et al. 2010, 2013). Indeed, as these technologies enter the private sphere of the home, household dynamics and cultures shape a variety of ways how technologies are appropriated. In accordance with household’s values, interests, daily practices, and the meanings of these objects, technologies are continuously negotiated and redefined in the domestic sphere. However, information and communication technologies pose specific problems since (unlike many other objects) they provide links between the household, individual members of the household, and the world outside – and this is problematic because it may challenge the household’s sense of security and control (Silverstone, Hirsch, and Morley 1992). Furthermore, the fact that information and communication technologies can be used to provide detailed information on how individual members of the household use energy (whether, when, or for how long they turn on specific appliances, for example) may be quite problematic since energy use is critical for individuals’ comfort and well-being (e. g. room temperature, lighting, or entertainment, for instance), but its cost is often considered a significant burden for the household, and thus subject to control and discussion. The connection between information and communication technologies and energy use thus raises privacy issues – not just between household members, but also between the household and whoever might have access to data on householders’ practices. These concerns have been considered one of many obstacles in the path to realizing the benefits of widespread digitalization in buildings (iea 2017). While those mainstream visions on digital technologies take too narrow a view of social reality, a possible unplanned consequence of this pathway may be the emergence of “energy-intensive ‘smart’ lifestyles” (Strengers 2015, 3). In fact, a historical perspective shows that earlier rounds of integration of icts into everyday life led to higher electricity consumption (Røpke et al. 2010). As admitted in a recent report by the International Energy Agency (2017), rebound effects from automation and further electrification in the transport sector could result in more travel and therefore more than double current energy use. With regard to buildings, since smart devices and appliances need to maintain their connectivity, energy consumption in standby mode can increase significantly (iea 2017). In fact, the sum of electricity consumption 284 the diverse worlds of sustainability of communication networks, personal computers, and data centres has been growing at a rate of nearly 7% per year (van Heddeghem et al. 2014). Even the environmental impact of devices designed to monitor and help manage domestic energy consumption may not be positive, since the energy saved through home energy management systems may not outweigh the overall energy needed for production, use, and disposal of these devices (van Dam et al. 2013). It has also been observed that current policies at the base of the ongoing transition to broadband internet need to focus more on the development of long-term sustainability (Røpke 2012). Thus, not only have the assumptions around individuals’ relationships with these technologies been overly simplified, as pointed out by Andrés Luque and colleagues (2014), the possible consequences of smart technologies have not been sufficiently scrutinized and, as often in the past, claims made for the potential of “smart”, instead of being realized, may actually reinforce business as usual. Given the complexity of the range of actors involved and framework conditions governing technological innovation toward societal change, transition processes to sustainable energy systems can be considered realworld experiments, which in many respects means that outcomes cannot be anticipated precisely (Gross and Mautz 2015). In spite of the relevance of understanding how different actors help to socially construct the many unknowns in this process of energy transition, in this chapter we focus on householders. These are often blamed for their “ignorance” or passivity, although actually having limited autonomy (Southerton et al. 2004) and nonknowledge may be among their simplest resources. In the following sections we focus on knowledge-related challenges affecting the adoption and use of digital technologies, as both energy consuming devices and as “smart energy technologies”, i.e. objects designed to provide feedback on energy use and facilitate demand side management. We start by referring to the theoretical background of ignorance studies, which is a novel approach to this area and, we propose, allows us to further understand the new digital unknowns. not knowing about digital technologies Although not named as such, ignorance studies is a relatively old field that extends back to at least the 19th century, if not indeed to the well-known digital technologies in the transition to a sustainable energy system 285 saying attributed to Socrates: I know that I know nothing. In 2002 the terms known and unknown unknowns received some media attention via Donald Rumsfeld’s statement about evidence (or lack thereof) of weapons of mass destruction owned by the state of Iraq. Indeed, the concepts of known and unknown unknowns existed long before Rumsfeld, since much scientific research has been conceptualized as investigating known unknowns or, as Robert Merton (1987) called it, “specified ignorance.” In this spirit Michael Smithson’s now classic monograph Ignorance and Uncertainty (1989) showed that deliberately imposed unknowns can be understood as socially constructed in both ordinary action as well as strategic manipulations. Nevertheless, for the most part, the topic of ignorance has suffered from a lack of scholarly attention. It is only relatively recently that academics have begun to rediscover some of the classical concepts related to ignorance and have addressed it as a subject worthy of investigation in its own right as well as regarding its relationship to decision making in everyday life. However, as with other terms, streams of ignorance studies have their own conceptual frameworks that are discipline based and therefore often in opposition or completely unrelated to one another (Smithson 2015). In the following we focus on notions of ignorance that we render important toward a better understanding of the way digital technologies in the transition to sustainable energy systems in everyday life are handled. In so doing our approach departs from the view that ignorance must necessarily be rendered as something negative in order to deliver an understanding of how ignorance can serve as a productive resource. In order to be able to act, actors need to agree on what is not known and take this into account for future planning. They often decide to act in spite of (sometimes) well-defined ignorance – or what has more recently been called nonknowledge, a term used to refer to knowledge of what we do not know (Gross 2012). Unlike the term ignorance, nonknowledge points to symmetry between accepted positive knowledge and ignorance that is adequately well-defined. Whereas the term ignorance has many meanings – with connotations ranging from actively ignoring something to not even knowing that something is unknown – nonknowledge is a specified form of the unknown, and it is this greater precision that makes it more suited to the task of analysing decisions. As a generic term, ignorance can be defined as knowledge about the limits of knowing in a certain area; but it can also include unknown knowledge gaps that actors recognize only with hindsight. The latter can be referred to as nescience, which constitutes 292 the diverse worlds of sustainability the skills to manage their phone battery. These skills included, for example, estimating how much power would be needed until they could recharge the battery, curtailing unnecessary uses (like listening to music whilst walking), turning off functions and features (e. g. Wi-Fi) that were not necessary at the time, or turning on applications that allowed power saving (by lowering the brightness of the screen, for instance). Others always carried a charger with them so that they could charge the phone’s battery anytime (e. g. at the school) or used another device (computer or mp3 player) that could provide the same services as the smartphone (checking social media or listening to music, for instance). In this way they were able to keep their smartphone on so that they could still use it to make important phone calls or send and receive messages, for example. However, their concern was solely to avoid draining the battery, not to save energy per se. For this reason some interviewees said they often used their smartphones while the devices were charging – from their point of view, in this way they were not running down the battery. Thus, although ignoring formal or technical knowledge about the energy consumption of smartphones and the functioning of batteries (which they could search for in instruction manuals or specialized websites, for instance), they had acquired practical knowledge about managing their batteries. Secretly, however, as some admitted in the interviews conducted, not having well-grounded knowledge about battery use was a strategy for shortening their smartphones’ batteries due to wearing out. Rapid product innovations together with marketing strategies have been leading to continuous releases of newer and improved smartphones and software. In addition, peer dynamics, and often also family, promote the rapid replacement of current devices by new ones. “To be updated” is very valued, not just by teenagers. And thus smartphones tend to be considered obsolete very quickly – even when they are still working well. Yet, most parents can be reluctant to buy a new smartphone if their child’s is still in good condition – but not if it is broken (and not necessarily by accident) or the battery is worn out. This forced obsolescence (Horta et al. 2015) seems to correspond to a case of active/positive nonknowledge in which ignorance can be used in the pursuit of benefits, as not knowing how batteries should be handled allows teenagers to increase the speed of replacement of their current smartphones by more fashionable ones. digital technologies in the transition to a sustainable energy system 293 conclusions In this chapter we argued that strategic as well as accidental nonknowledge can be understood as a critical dimension to analysing novel forms of energy consumption. Since such an approach to energy consumption would allow us to understand the emergence and development of diverse forms of not knowing about energy use, and how these are socially, culturally, and materially embedded they also deliver insights into how they translate into everyday decision-making and action. A possible way forward is to take ignorance of digital technologies and of energy consumption for granted and investigate the socio-technical conditions and transformations that contribute to it. Especially the case discussed of knowingly bracketing out sources of knowledge is a case in point that not knowing is not a detrimental state per se. We thus suggest that strategic nonknowledge should be used as an analytical device to frame user behaviour and everyday practices in such a way that the known and unknown are closely linked to each other. Even more so, when conceptualizing strategic nonknowledge as part of everyday life, it also invokes making some form of sacrifice in the present to hope for a gain in the future, i.e., to have newer smartphones despite not knowing how to take care of batteries. In short, the reflections presented above imply that additional areas of research can be informed and enriched by analyses of different layers of knowns and unknowns. ____________________________________ ana horta Instituto de Ciências Sociais, Universidade de Lisboa Av. Prof. Aníbal Bettencourt 9 — 1600-036 Lisboa, Portugal ana.ho[email protected]oa.pt orcid.org/0000-0002-2921-039x ____________________________________ matthias gross Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research – ufz and University of Jena (Germany) ma[email protected] orcid.org/0000-0002-3716-7512 ____________________________________ 294 the diverse worlds of sustainability references akrich, M. 1992. “The de-Scription of technical objects”. In Shaping Tecnology/Building Society: Studies in Sociotechnical Change, ed. W. Bijker and J. Law. Cambridge: mit Press, 205-224. andorno, R. 2004. “The right not to know: an autonomy based approach”. Journal of Medical Ethics 30: 435-439. attari, S. Z., et al. 2010. “Public perceptions of energy consumption and savings.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 107 (37), 16054-16059. bauer, M. 1995. “Resistance to new technology and its effects on nuclear power, information technology and biotechnology”. In Resistance to New Technology. Nuclear Power, Information Technology and Biotechnology, ed. M. Bauer. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1-41. beaulieu, A., J. de W., Jacquelien, M. A. Scherpen, eds. 2016. Smart Grids from a Global Perspective: Bridging Old and New Energy Systems. Springer. berker, T., et al, eds. 2006. Domestication of Media and Technology. New York: Open University Press. buchanan, K., R. Russo, and B. Anderson. 2015. “The question of energy reduction: the problem(s) with feedback”. Energy Policy, 22: 89-96. burgess, J., M. Nye. 2008. “Re-materialising energy use through transparent monitoring systems”. Energy Policy, 36, 4454-4459. cotton, D., et al. 2016. “Knowledge, agency and collective action as barriers to energy-saving behavior”. Local Environment, 21 (7): 883-897. european commission. 2016. Communication on ‘Clean energy for all Europeans’. com(2016) 860 final. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/resource.html?uri=cellar:fa6ea15bb7b011e6-9e3c-01aa75ed71a1.0001.02/DOC_1&format=PDF. frederiks, E. R., K. Stenner, and E. V. Hobman. 2015. “The socio-demographic and psychological predictors of residential energy consumption: a comprehensive review”. Energies, 8: 573-609. gesi. 2015. #smarter2030. ict Solutions for 21st Century Challenges, Brussels: Global e-Sustainable Initiative. goldblatt, D. L. 2005. Sustainable Energy Consumption and Society. Personal, Technological, or Social Change? Dordrecht: Springer. gross, M. 2012. “ ‘Objective Culture’ and the development of nonknowledge: Georg Simmel and the reverse side of knowing”. Cultural Sociology 6 (4): 422-437. gross, M. 2016. “Risk as zombie category: Ulrich Beck’s unfinished project of the nonknowledge society”. Security Dialogue 47 (5): 386-402. gross, M., L. McGoey, eds. 2015. Routledge International Handbook of Ignorance Studies. London: Routledge. gross, M., R. Mautz. 2015. Renewable Energies. Abingdon: Routledge. hargreaves, T., M. Nye, and J. Burgess. 2010. “Making energy visible: a qualitative field study of how householders interact with feedback from smart energy monitors”. Energy Policy, 28: 6111-6119. hargreaves, T., M. Nye, and J. Burgess. 2013. “Keeping energy visible? Exploring how householders interact with feedback from smart energy monitors in the longer term”. Energy Policy, 52: 126-134. hess, D. J., J. S. Coley. 2014. “Wireless smart meters and public acceptance: The environment, limited choices, and precautionary politics”. Public Understanding of Science, 23 (6): 688-702. digital technologies in the transition to a sustainable energy system 295 hyysalo, S., J. K. Juntunen. 2018. “User innovation and peer assistance in small-scale renewable energy technologies”. In The Oxford Handbook of Energy and Society, eds. D. Davidson and M. Gross. Oxford, uk: Oxford University Press, 361-389. horta, A. 2018. “Energy consumption as part of social practices: the alternative approach of practice theory”. In Energy and Society Handbook, eds. D. Davidson and M. Gross. Oxford, uk: Oxford University Press, 31-44. horta, A. et al. 2015. “The coolest waste: teenagers, electronic media, energy consumption and the problem of e-waste”. Paper presented at the 12th Conference of the European Sociological Association, Prague. horta, A. et al. 2016. “Mobile phones, batteries and power consumption: an analysis of social practices in Portugal”. Energy Research & Social Science, 13: 15-23. (iea) international energy agency. 2017. Digitalization & Energy. oecg/iea. irwin, A., M. Michael. 2003. Science, Social Theory and Public Knowledge. Maidenhead: Open University Press. kempton, W., L. L. Layne. 1994. “The consumer’s energy analysis environment”. Energy Policy, 22 (10): 857-866. kling, R. 1996. “Hopes and horrors: technological utopianism and anti-utopianism in narratives of computerization”. In Computerization and Controversy: Value Conflicts and Social Choices, ed. R. Kling. San Diego: Morgan Kaufmann, 40-58. luque, A., C. McFarlane, and S. Marvin. 2014. “Smart urbanism. Cities, grids and alternatives?”. In After Sustainable Cities?, eds. M. Hodson and S. Marvin. London: Routledge, 74-90. may, C., ed. 2003. Key Thinkers for the Information Society. London: Routledge. mayor of london. 2016. The Future of Smart. Harnessing Digital Innovation to Make London the Best City in the World. Update Report of the Smart London Plan (2013). London: Greater London Authority. meadowcroft, J. 2009. “What about the politics? Sustainable development, transition management, and long term energy transitions”. Policy Science, 42: 323-340. merton, R. K. 1987. “Three fragments from a sociologist’s notebooks: establishing the phenomenon, specified ignorance, and strategic research materials”. Annual Review of Sociology, 13: 1-29. naus, J., et al. 2014. “Smart grids, information flows and emerging domestic energy practices”. Energy Policy, 68: 436-446. pierce, J., D. Schiano, and E. Paulos. 2010. “Home, habits and energy: examining domestic interactions and energy consumption”. In Proceedings of chi Conference on Human Factors in Computer Systems. chi ‘10. New York: acm Press. ragnedda, M., G. W. Muschert. 2013. “Introduction”. In The Digital Divide. The Internet and Social Inequality in International Perspective, eds. M. Ragnedda and G. W. Muschert. Abingdon: Routledge, 1-14. røpke, I., T. H. Christensen, and J. O. Jensen. 2010. “Information and communication technologies – A new round of household electrification”. Energy Policy, 38: 1764-1773. røpke, I. 2012. “The unsustainable directionality of innovation – The example of the broadband transition”. Research Policy, 41: 1631-1642. selwyn, N. 2004. “Reconsidering political and popular understandings of the digital divide”. New Media & Society, 6 (3): 341-362. silverstone, R., E. Hirsch, and D. Morley. 1992. “Information and communication technologies and the moral economy of the household”. In Consuming Technologies. Media and Information in Domestic Spaces, eds. R. Siverstone and E. Hirsch. London: Routledge, 15-31. 296 the diverse worlds of sustainability shove, E. 2003. “Converging conventions of comfort, cleanliness and convenience”. Journal of Consumer Policy, 26: 395-418. shove, E. 2010. “Beyond the abc: climate change policy and theories of social change”. Environment and Planning A, 42: 1273-1285. shove, E., M. Pantzar, and M. Watson. 2012. The Dynamics of Social Practice. Everyday Life and How it Changes. London: Sage. smithson, M. 1989. Ignorance and Uncertainty: Emerging Paradigms. Dordrecht: Springer. smithson, M. 2015. “Ignorance studies: interdisciplinary, multidisciplinary, and transdisciplinary”. In Routledge International Handbook of Ignorance Studies. eds. M. Gross and L. McGoey. London: Routledge, 385-399. southerton, D. 2009. “Re-ordering temporal rhythms. Coordinating daily practices in the uk in 1937 and 2000”. In Time, Consumption and Everyday Life. Practice, Materiality and Culture, eds. E. Shove, F. Trentmann and R. Wilk. Oxford: Berg, 49-64. southerton, D., A. Warde, and M. Hand. 2004. “The limited automony of the consumer: implications for sustainable consumption”. In Sustainable Consumption: Implications of Changing Infrastructures of Provision, eds. D. Southerton, H. Chappells and B. van Vliet. Manchester: Edward Elgar, 1-17. strengers, Y. 2015. Smart Energy Technologies in Everyday Life. Smart Utopia? New York: Palgrave Macmillan. touraine, A. 1995. “The crisis of ‘progress’ ”. In Resistance to New Technology. Nuclear power, Information Technology and Biotechnology, ed. M. Bauer. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 45-55. van dam, S. S., C. A. Bakker, and J. C. Buiter. 2013. “Do home energy management systems make sense? Assessing their overall lifecycle impact”. Energy Policy, 63: 398-407. van heddeghem, W., et al. 2014. “Trends in worldwide ict electricity consumption from 2007 to 2012”. Computer Communications, 50: 64-76. verbong, G. P. J., S. Beemsterboer, and F. Sengers. 2013. “Smart grids or smart users? Involving users in developing a low carbon electricity economy”. Energy Policy, 52: 117-125. vyas, C., B. Gohn. 2012. Smart Grid Consumer Survey. Preferences and Attitudes About Smart Meters, Home Energy Management, Demand Response Programs, and Smart Appliances. Research report. Pike Research. wilhite, H., et al. 1996. “A cross-cultural analysis of household energy-use behavior in Japan and Norway”. Energy Policy, 24 (9): 795-803. wilhite, H., et al. 2000. “The legacy of twenty years of demand side management: ee know more about individual behavior but next to nothing about demand”. In Society, Behaviour and Climate Change Mitigation, eds. E. Jochem, J. Sathaye and D. Bouille. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic, 109-126. cite this chapter as: horta, A., M. Gross.2018. “Digital technologies in the transition to a sustainable energy system: knowledge-related challenges from everyday life”. In Changing Societies: Legacies and Challenges. Vol. iii. The Diverse Worlds of Sustainability, eds. A. Delicado, N. Domingos and L. de Sousa. Lisbon: Imprensa de Ciências Sociais, 277-296. https://doi.org/10.31447/ics9789726715054.11