Finally, a methodological disclaimer: We investigated 495 source documents published since the dawn of time until Q1 2021. 400 were associated with EJ and 105 with ED, including 11 documents that related to both concepts.

If they use a reference to signal their understanding of EJ, they go to Jenkins et al. 2016, Sovacool and Dworkin 2015, McCauley et al. 2013, or Sovacool and Dworkin 2014. Cluster analysis resulted in no specific pattern how the authors select their conceptualization.

Of the papers that explicitly mention EJ or ED in their titles, 7% and 13% respectively do not provide any definition. Why is that? ▪️ Authors either see the concepts as common-sensical or... ▪️ Use them to position their (related) research

▪️ EJ pays little attention to women ▪️ ED pays no attention to low income individuals

▪️ Both fields focus primarily on renewable energy. ▪️ Biomass and LPG, the tech sometimes associated with energy poverty studies, largely missing. ▪️ Both fields practically silent on nuclear waste.

▪️ ED literature has a stronger emphasis on social movements

Specifically: ▪️ EJ mainly looks at the US and UK ▪️ ED also adds Germany

New in #ERSS! With @KacperSzulecki and @jenk2021 we traced the development of #energyjustice and #energydemocracy research fields, asking which countries, topics, tech, and social groups are reflected, and how EJ and ED are defined. doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2023.…

Nejjednodušší a nejlevnější je samozřejmě obchod. Potom je to směsice dílčích opatření, co se budou podporovat: demand response, odložené nabíjení EV, baterie. Pro delší období stále plyn nebo vodík. Když se těch OZE postaví dost, pak těch deficitů nebude tolik a budou krátké.

The energy crisis made this year's course on energy investment modelling at @CENERScz especially interesting. Thanks James Henderson of @OxfordEnergy for stopping by again!