Many bioenergy actors in Norway are under the impression that the Norwegian public has a poor perception of bioenergy. Basically the sentiment seems to be that the products they push have an image problem. Compared to other “new” renewable energy technologies there seems to be substance in this. In a recent representative survey, bioenergy – together with on-shore wind power was the least popular of all renewables, while (very) preliminary results from an ongoing survey amongst members of parliament and venture capitalists seems to indicate the same. In other words – we don’t like it very much.

Some sources claims that Norwegian end-users perceive it as an old fashion technology, a high-maintenance technology, and an environmentally un-sound solution, while others have pointed to the fact that as technologies mature and become commercially available, potential problems of the technology become more tangible. In the case of bioenergy this could represent nasty things like smoke, smell, dirt and de-forestation. The media (and the enviromental movement)have also been given their share of the blame, focusing on potential problems, and giving more  attention to other, more “sexy” types of futuristic energy technologies.

So far, however, Norwegians have little to fear since bioenergy only represents around six percent of the nation’s energy consumption, and most of this is traditional firewood. Thus, the distaste for it seems to rest on an assumption that more of it would somehow deteriorate future quality of life.

Zoom out, scroll a few clicks east, and zoom in on Sweden. Our neighbours use a lot more bioenergy than us; in fact it represents around 30% of their energy consumption – one of the highest rates in Europe (if not the highest). Like the Norwegians, the Swedes think their product have an image problem. Their problem, however, is of a different character than “ours” – the Swedish Jane and John Doe haven’t got a clue about the fact that they use this much bioenergy. In fact, a recent representative survey [1] shows that your average Swede thinks this number is less than 10%. The Swedish bioenergy business sees this as a problem, but in an odd way this should be cheering news for the Norwegians. In a setting were bioenergy is widely utilized it is not seen as a time-consuming, environmentally damaging, smelly, ugly, unsexy, weird problem – it is simply there, and it works to such an extent that people forgets that it is there.

For the Swedish case this is all a bit anecdotal, and based on very little, of course – but certainly something I’ll investigate when I’m there – because image might be everything – right, André Agassi?

[1] Gosh, two representative surveys in one blog post. Positivism here I come!

Relevant agencies in Norway and Sweden recently released some interesting statistics concerning the countries use of energy. I won’t go into any detail on this, but I thought that the two agencies (Statistics Norway and The Swedish energy agency) introduction to their chapters on district heating was quite revealing in terms of illustrating at least one dimension where the two differ significantly.  Statistics Norway say:

The consumption of district heating in 2008 was 2 917 GWh. This represents a 5,8 percent increase from 2007 and a doubling from 2000 levels.

In other words; not bad, Norway. You get a pat on your back and an honorable mention.  As in the winter Olympics, however, the Swedes have us beat:

During 2008 the consumption of biofuels for district heating amounted to 46,2 TWh[1] (excluding electricity production)(…). The consumption of woodfuels in the district heating sector have increased five-fold since 1990.

In other words, our neighbors have us beat by around 16 times, also illustrated by the fact that district heating represents around 20 percent of net domestic energy consumption in Sweden, but just over one percent in Norway. I have plenty of ideas about why this could be so, but I won’t bother the internet with that today. I’m going to Sweden to study our peculiar neighbors in a months time, though, so watch out for reports from this promised bio-land..

[1] Yes – Terra

Yesterday I made a guest apperance in the radioshow “Uillustrert vitenskap” at the local station “Radio revolt”. The theme of the show was “disputed” science, particularly focusing on climate science.  I’ve listened to it, shivered in horror at some of the things I said, but my inner masochist still sort of wants to show it off. The show can be read about here, and listened to here.

…or you can watch this muppets re-enactment of queens bohemian rhapsody in stead:

Whatever one thinks of Pierre Bourdieu, watching the documentary “sociology is a martial art” is time well spent. Youtube is your friend, even though the end of the documentary is missing…

Part 1:

Part 2:

Part 3:

Part 4:

Part 5:

Part 6:

Part 7:

What types of exams are best suited for your students? The answer to the question will probably depend on a number of variables. The psychology department at my university, for example, have few problems with their first-year students being evaluated based on multiple-choice tests. With a turnover at around 1000 students every year, this is probably a question of economy as much as anything else.  A possible consequence for the students might be  the memorization of useless facts rather than deeper understanding of the matter, something that might be indicated by the popularity of books like “the multiple choice guide” (muliple choice guiden). Other departments at NTNU have been considering the same, but I think the most common tool in the humanities and social sciences are still the exams where you sit at one location and write for a number of hours.

The last few days I’ve been grading final exams of a third type.  The students taking a course in globalization theory at our department have been asked to complete an essay-style home exam, a task they had four days to complete. This kind of exam is great, I think, – it provides time for reflection. The students are given a real chance to mobilize the understanding they have gained through the course, instead of mindlessly regurgitating memorized facts from books. They can discuss, problematize, and bring their own experiences to the table, something they frequently do – and are rewarded for!

However, this type of exam also provides rather obvious challenges. For instance, access to the all-knowing internet represents a temptation, potentially hard to resist for those who seek to impress. This isn’t a challenge only for those writing the papers, but also for those grading it. How do you know that the impressive argument you consider giving an “A” isn’t just a mindless excercise in ctrl+c / ctrl+v? And once you’ve found one or two instances of this, how do you avoid becoming paranoid, thinking they’re all cheaters?

On the first question: basically, you don’t. For me these essays have been accompanied by an unsubstantiated creepy feeling of something being ‘off’ resulting in a Google query, again resulting in direct hits in journal articles or books. The worst example I’ve come across was a mash-up between an old article by Arjun Appadurai, and a new article in journal of economic ans social research. I know we live in a time of remix-culture, but for the cheaters out there: at least change a few words, huh? I mean, all people grading exams aren’t old men in beards, reading scrolls on how to perfect morse-tecnique. We know Google, for Gods sake, the cat’s out of the bag.

On the paranoia: just forget it, most of them aren’t cheaters, I think it’s that simple!