‘We talk a great deal about what is technically possible. But what is politically possible, socially desirable and actually feasible is far more complex,’ says Tor Håkon Jackson Inderberg, Research Professor at the Fridtjof Nansen Institute.

Engineers and technologists are continuously developing new solutions to slow climate change. Yet such innovations are of limited value if they cannot be translated into policies and implemented in practice. Examples include controversial technologies such as artificial clouds to cool the planet, large-scale solar parks that encroach on nature, or digital systems that raise privacy concerns.

There are many reasons why new technologies do not translate into new policies and regulations. What is needed for broader implementation? The researchers in the FEASIBILITY project aim to find out.

World-leading research at the frontier

The award comes through the Research Council of Norway’s TOPPFORSK call, part of the FRIPRO scheme for independent, investigator-driven research. The total budget is NOK 45 million (approximately EUR 3.9 million), including co-financing. Of this, NOK 18 million (approximately EUR 1.6 million) goes to the Fridtjof Nansen Institute.

‘This is blue-sky research with very high quality requirements. We have considerable academic freedom, but we must operate at the international research frontier – and ideally advance it,’ says Inderberg.

TOPPFORSK is among the Research Council’s most prestigious funding schemes, supporting projects with ambitions to be groundbreaking internationally.

‘This will be world-leading research in which several strong research environments collaborate,’ says Siddharth Sareen, Research Professor at the Fridtjof Nansen Institute.

The host institution is NTNU. The project is led by Tomas Moe Skjølsvold at NTNU, with Siddharth Sareen and Tor Håkon Jackson Inderberg at the Fridtjof Nansen Institute as equal Principal Investigators, alongside Marianne Zeyringer at the Department of Technology Systems at the University of Oslo.

The project brings together four academic traditions that approach transition from different angles:

• Science and Technology Studies (STS), which examines how knowledge, technology and expertise gain authority, and how this shapes what appears possible;
• Human geography, which analyses how transitions unfold differently across places and regions – the socio-spatial aspects of energy policy;
• Political science, which studies politics, power and institutions;
• Energy modelling, which calculates technical and economic pathways within energy systems.

‘If we are to understand what is feasible, we must examine technology, politics, economics and how measures work locally and regionally,’ says Sareen.

What does “feasibility” really mean?

Feasibility refers to what can realistically be implemented – politically, institutionally and in practice.

The researchers will investigate what kinds of policy development and regulatory implementation are experienced as legitimate and realistic.

The concept of valuation is central to the project. It refers to how we assess what is important, realistic and desirable in the transition.

‘When someone says “this is not feasible”, there are always underlying assessments,’ says Sareen. ‘Is it too expensive? Politically risky? Is the technology immature? Or does it face local resistance?’

Valuation highlights that such assessments are not neutral. They are shaped by interests, power relations and the criteria that are given decisive weight.

What counts

‘Energy models often place the greatest emphasis on costs, efficiency and technological maturity. But power, justice, acceptance and interests also influence what appears possible,’ says Sareen.

Skjølsvold has previously noted that ‘such models play an important role in policy formulation, but often fail to capture political conflicts, social inequalities or local conditions’.

The project therefore asks: What are we counting – and what are we not counting – when we say that something is feasible?

‘We are not only investigating what is technically possible, but how different actors justify what is possible, and for whom,’ says Sareen.

The arguments at stake are not solely economic. They may concern employment in peripheral regions, energy security, or control over critical infrastructure.

A concrete example is the City of Oslo’s carbon budget. Ten years ago, Oslo began governing its climate policy through a defined carbon budget for how much emissions the city could allow. Emissions were treated much like financial resources: something to be allocated and kept within a fixed framework.

It was not obvious that this approach would succeed. The municipality had to develop new governance tools and test the boundaries of existing regulation. Yet by assigning emissions a clear value – and making them measurable and politically binding – Oslo also shifted perceptions of what was possible.

‘When actors dare to implement measures that initially seem unrealistic, they can move the boundaries of what others consider feasible,’ says Inderberg.

Several other municipalities have since adopted similar approaches.

Two closely linked transitions

The project is framed around what is often referred to as the twin transitions: decarbonisation and digitalisation.

Decarbonisation involves phasing out fossil fuels, expanding renewable energy, electrifying transport and developing new industrial solutions.

Digitalisation refers to the increasing reliance on digital systems across society. In the energy sector, this includes smart grids, sensors, flexible market arrangements and automation.

‘The green transition cannot function without digital systems,’ says Inderberg. ‘More wind and solar require advanced management. Electric transport requires smart charging. Industrial transition relies on data-driven solutions.’

‘At the same time, digitalisation raises questions about who owns the data, who exercises control, who bears the risks and who pays the costs,’ he adds.

This is where the link between feasibility and valuation becomes particularly significant.

Europe as a laboratory

The project will study Norway, Germany, the United Kingdom and Portugal – countries with different energy systems and distinct relationships to the European Union.

Germany is a major industrial economy within the EU. The United Kingdom is outside the EU’s energy cooperation but remains closely connected to European energy markets. Norway is deeply integrated into EU energy policy without being a member state. Portugal, like Norway, has significant renewable energy resources but is an EU member.

The researchers will engage with stakeholders in electricity, transport, industry and public authorities at local, regional and national levels in all four countries.

The project also includes six leading international scholars: Stefan Bouzarovski and James Price (United Kingdom), Miranda Schreurs (Germany), Johannes Schmidt (Austria), and Susana Batel and Sofia Simões (Portugal). The collaboration strengthens long-term partnerships with leading research environments across Europe.

‘Europe has taken the lead on the green transition politically, and it makes sense that we are also doing it analytically. FNI is very proud to be part of this,’ says FNI Director Iver B. Neumann.

A puzzle across institutions

‘When we speak of outstanding research environments nationally, it is often about a single institution. In this project, however, we depend on one another,’ says Sareen.

The project has been developed in close collaboration between the participating institutions. NTNU serves as host, but the partners are academically equal.

‘We work across institutions like a puzzle with many pieces,’ says Sareen.

Four doctoral fellows will be recruited, two of them at the Fridtjof Nansen Institute. They will work across methods and countries, contributing to the development of new interdisciplinary expertise.

‘These fellows will not be isolated,’ says Inderberg with a smile. ‘They will collaborate closely with one another and with us.’