Academia.eduAcademia.edu
Journal of Geography in Higher Education ISSN: 0309-8265 (Print) 1466-1845 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cjgh20 Introduction: teaching energy geographies Autumn Thoyre & Conor Harrison To cite this article: Autumn Thoyre & Conor Harrison (2016) Introduction: teaching energy geographies, Journal of Geography in Higher Education, 40:1, 31-38, DOI: 10.1080/03098265.2016.1132539 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03098265.2016.1132539 Published online: 02 Mar 2016. Submit your article to this journal View related articles View Crossmark data Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=cjgh20 Download by: [Autumn Thoyre] Date: 03 March 2016, At: 16:28 Journal of GeoGraphy in hiGher education, 2016 Vol. 40, no. 1, 31–38 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03098265.2016.1132539 JGHE SYMPOSIUM Introduction: teaching energy geographies Autumn Thoyrea and Conor Harrisonb department of Geography, colgate university hamilton, uSa; bdepartment of Geography and environment and Sustainability program, university of South carolina columbia, uSa Downloaded by [Autumn Thoyre] at 16:28 03 March 2016 a In his introduction to the 2011 special issue on energy of the Annals of the Association of American Geographers, Karl Zimmerer argues that “Geography is central to understanding and addressing the current energy dilemmas” (2011, p. 705). He further states that the ability of geographers to efectively unpack systems of resource production, distribution, and consumption, as well as the ways in which these are intertwined with socioecological systems and relations, makes geographers uniquely qualiied to understand the shiting global energy landscape. he special issue of the Annals is but one piece of evidence of the recent increase in energy scholarship by geographers. he number of sponsored sessions by the Energy and Environment Specialty Group at the annual AAG conference has more than doubled since 2011 (Elvin Delgado,1 personal communication). he formation of the Energy Geography Working Group by the RGS-IBG in 2011 crystallized growing energy research by UK geographers, evidenced by recent increases in the number of sponsored sessions at the RGS-IBG annual meetings (Stefan Bouzarovski,2 personal communication). How has this increase in energy research activity translated into university classrooms? he collection of papers that make up this symposium issue represent four ways that energy geographies are being taught, as well as some of the challenges that emerge in their teaching. In what follows, we irst briely touch on the history of teaching energy in geography classes, and place shits in its pedagogy within larger disciplinary and societal changes. Next, we focus on the importance of bringing geographical perspectives to the teaching of energy, particularly, perspectives from critical geography. Because these perspectives link theory and practice in critical, relexive ways, energy geographers oten ind active learning approaches useful in their teaching. Finally, we introduce the collection of papers, a group that aims to share best practices and key challenges for conducting engaged, critical energy pedagogy – a growing area of interest for both researchers and students alike. A history of teaching energy in geography classes While recent years have seen a rise in interest among geographers researching energy, there has been relatively little written recently that explicitly discusses teaching energy geographies. In fact, other than a surge in interest in the late 1970s/early 1980s, little about teaching energy in geography courses has been published. his void partially stems from a historic dearth of geographers focusing on energy. Writing in 1978, Fitzsimmons and CONTACT autumn thoyre © 2016 taylor & francis authoyre@gmail.com Downloaded by [Autumn Thoyre] at 16:28 03 March 2016 32 A. THOYRE AND C. HARRISON Walton (1978) noted the lack of faculty in geography graduate programs that identiied energy as a specialty: only 8 out of 1300 surveyed faculty. Further, they found that only 17 articles about energy were published in 19 diferent geography journals between 1965 and 1973. Over the next decade, a signiicant change occurred. Similar to contemporary times, a series of crises related to energy in the 1970s brought its study and teaching to the forefront among geographers. he emergence of OPEC and related oil shocks, questions about long-term supply and demand, an increase in concerns about the environmental and economic sustainability of fossil fuel and nuclear power use, and new thinking about the regulation and pricing of energy resources all produced considerable interest in teaching energy courses. By 1985, a survey of the Energy Specialty Group of the AAG indicated that at least 28 US geography departments ofered at least one energy course at both the undergraduate and graduate level (Pryde, 1985). Yet, despite this increased interest in teaching energy in geography classrooms, publications on the subject rapidly came to a halt. With global oil prices rapidly dropping and administrations in the USA and Britain hostile to analyzing conventional energy systems, interest in energy issues was already on the decline by 1985 (Pryde, 1985). he decline in teaching energy in geography departments during the 1980s meant that energy concerns were largely let outside of the Marxist, feminist, postmodern, and other critical turns of the 1980s and 1990s (Livingstone, 1993), and as a result, these perspectives on energy were largely let of the teaching curricula at many universities. For example, a search for energy-related articles in the Journal of Geography in Higher Education and the Journal of Geography between 1975 and 19903 returned eight articles, most of which focused on helping students understand the basic distributions of energy resources using maps and charts (e.g. Beer, 1982; Fitzsimmons & Walton, 1978). However, one article attempted to link spatial distributions of energy to developing spatial and critical thinking (Allen & Lahart, 1981), while another sought to introduce instructors to new concepts that could yield a better understanding of household energy use and conservation (McColl, 1978). Somewhat relective of the rise of feminist geography during the 1980s, one lesson introduced students to the “other” global energy crises, most notably the scarcity of fuelwood in the global South and its disproportionate impact on women (Branson, 1983). However, despite wider acknowledgment by geographers that energy played a crucial role in global political and economic geographies (Cook, 1976; Harper, 1966) of the literature reviewed, only Pryde (1978) indicates how political economic processes shape the sorts of energy geographies being taught. In his review of an energy teaching resource developed by the state of Texas, Pryde links Texas’ important role in fossil fuel production to the scant attention paid in the teaching resource to energy conservation and alternative energy production. The need for teaching energy in geography classes Although interest in teaching energy geographies declined ater the 1970s energy crises, matters of energy have continued to be taught on university campuses, and their importance has risen with concerns about global climate change. Kandpal and Broman (2014), reviewing worldwide renewable energy pedagogies, found that energy courses tend to be taught primarily in engineering, architecture, and physics curricula (see also Karabulut, Gedik, Keçebaş, & Alkan, 2011). he inding that energy tends to be taught mainly as a matter of techniques and technologies was backed up by a search we conducted on the literature on Downloaded by [Autumn Thoyre] at 16:28 03 March 2016 JOURNAL OF GEOGRAPHY IN HIGHER EDUCATION 33 teaching energy resources beyond-(but-including)-geography.4 When they do engage with non-technical aspects, such pedagogies primarily have focused on neoclassical economic concepts. For example, several scholars have suggested ways to better teach electricity markets to engineering students (Guevara-Cedeno, Palma-Behnke, & Uribe, 2012; Ibrahim, 2008; Madrigal & Flores, 2004). Scholarship on teaching conventional energy sources (fossil fuels and nuclear) is sparse, while sharing strategies for teaching renewable energy technologies are more common. No relevant literature on teaching coal or natural gas concepts was found, and only one article on teaching oil was found, focusing on teaching Canadian oil sands to a geology class by partnering with regional industries (Dudley & Doram, 1999). Courses in renewable energy in particular rose in popularity following the oil crises of the 1970s and were resurgent in the 2000s with concerns about climate change (Kandpal & Broman, 2014). Such courses have tended to focus on alternative energy technologies, aiming to train new generations of students to use and consume them as members of the public, sustainability practitioners, policymakers, engineers, architects, and others (Jennings, 2009; Kandpal & Broman, 2014). Our search showed that scholars have focused mainly on teaching technologies like wind and solar to engineers (e.g. Martinez, Herrero, & de Pablo, 2011; Reis et al., 2014) or to natural scientists (e.g. van Sark, 2007); no pedagogical scholarship on hydropower or biomass was found, nor cases of teaching non-technical aspects of these renewable energy technologies. Overwhelmingly, however, this energy teaching was being couched in the realm of sustainability. Energy is an excellent vehicle for thinking about sustainability issues, since it is imbricated in so many current environmental problems at multiple scales: climate change, air and water pollution, overconsumption, geopolitics, among others. Because energy is tied to people’s everyday lives, it is also a key way to bring those larger sustainability issues “home” to students. Understanding the techniques and technologies of energy – whether they are conventional energy sources, unconventional fossil fuels, renewables, energy eiciency, or conservation – are important parts of energy literacy for students who go on to become active members of the public, business owners, researchers, activists, policymakers, sustainability practitioners, and others (c.f. van der Horst et al., 2016). Yet, geographers ofer additional perspectives that are also important to students’ energy thinking which are sometimes not found in other disciplinary approaches to energy pedagogies. Building on the critical turns of the 1980s and 1990s, the resurgence of energy concerns in geography particularly brings to the fore new perspectives on energy. Energy geographers oten follow the tradition of resource geographers in assuming that resources have both physical and social aspects (Bridge, 2009) and that, like any technologies, energy technologies are adopted in the context of political, economic, and social forces (Huber, 2013; Nye, 1998). his means that to understand how fossil fuels have become dominant in contemporary societies, as well as what barriers alternative energy resources face, requires an understanding of both where minerals and energy lows are physically located and consumed but also how these resources it into larger political, economic, and social contexts. his perspective also emphasizes that what is considered a “resource” changes over time and space, because resources are things that people value (Bridge, 2009). From this perspective, greater knowledge of the facts and techniques of renewable energy are important but not necessarily suicient to facilitating a larger societal transition away from fossil fuels. Downloaded by [Autumn Thoyre] at 16:28 03 March 2016 34 A. THOYRE AND C. HARRISON Energy geographers also emphasize issues of inequality and social justice in their research, from both environmental justice and critical political economy standpoints. Drawing out the implications of diferent energy regimes for communities who have difering amounts of power in larger political economic and social systems are in many ways fundamentally geographical concerns. Energy geographies are ripe for students to practice asking of the world around them, “who beneits (and where?), who loses (and where?), and how?” questions that will better equip them for thinking of sustainability as including but beyond the “natural” world. Energy geographers are, for example, currently asking important questions about the relationships between energy and geopolitics (Le Billon, 2012; Watts, 2012) and energy and citizenship (Valdivia, 2008), as well as about energy eiciency in state policies (hoyre, 2015), energy landscapes (Pasqualetti, 2001; van der Horst & Vermeylen, 2012), energy vulnerability and resilience (Bouzarovski, 2007; Graybill, 2013), the social dynamics of energy demand (Walker, 2014), energy and neoliberalism (Huber, 2013), and the energetic political economies of power and control (Bridge & Le Billon, 2013; Harrison, 2013). his body of research points to the fact that student understandings of energy should be based on more than just understanding technologies and neoclassical economics. Rather, students of energy geographies should understand that energy seeps into our political, economic, cultural, and social lives at a variety of scales and in ways that are geographically uneven. hus, as energy courses, minors, and concentrations within larger geography, environmental studies, physics, engineering, and other programs are developed, there is a need to include perspectives like that of geography alongside these other disciplinary approaches. Teaching energy geographies through active learning techniques In large part because they center constructivist and social justice perspectives, many energy geographers, including those in this collection, use active learning approaches in their teaching, emphasizing critical thinking, relection, and transformation as pedagogical goals. Active learning is oten contrasted with traditional lecturing approaches to teaching, and is focused on students developing critical thinking skills as well as mastery of content (Bonwell & Eison, 1991; Hanson & Moser, 2003). Such “learning by doing” (e.g. Scheyvens, Griin, Jocoy, Liu, & Bradford, 2008) can be used for a class period or for a course-length project and can act as a complement to or replacement for traditional lectures (Scheyvens et al., 2008). Active learning techniques ofer a range of beneits for geography students. Students in active learning environments are oten more motivated and interested in course material than in traditional lectures (Bonwell & Eison, 1991; Hanson & Moser, 2003). A recent meta-analysis of active learning techniques in STEM courses showed that students master content better in such environments, as seen in higher test scores and lower failure rates (Freeman et al., 2014). “Learning by doing” especially activates “higher-order” critical thinking skills, honing students’ skills in analysis, synthesis, evaluation, and creativity (Anderson & Krathwohl, 2001; Bonwell & Eison, 1991; Hanson & Moser, 2003). Such techniques enhance learning for students from multiple learning styles (Bonwell & Eison, 1991; Healey & Jenkins, 2000), making them useful for interdisciplinary geography courses. he techniques and perspectives of active learning are particularly useful for teaching energy geographies from critical perspectives by linking student’s lives with theory in politically engaged ways. Geographers have long used such techniques to help students connect their everyday lives with local, regional, and global issues and patterns (e.g. Hanson & JOURNAL OF GEOGRAPHY IN HIGHER EDUCATION 35 Downloaded by [Autumn Thoyre] at 16:28 03 March 2016 Moser, 2003). Energy is all around students both inside and outside the classroom – including through their interactions with lightbulbs, microwaves, cell phones, cars, trees, and food – making student lives bursting with possibilities for linking theory with everyday in energy geography courses. hrough active learning, students oten link their experiences with theory through relection (as in Kolb’s theory of experiential thinking, cited in Healey & Jenkins, 2000). By emphasizing relection and positionality, critical energy geographers can use such techniques to help students practice the methods and political engagements relected in the wider sub-discipline, helping students to also make the Marxist, feminist, relational, and post-modern turns that the study of energy in geography itself has taken. In addition, many critical geographers have called for geography to become a more inclusive discipline (e.g. Gilmore, 2002; Pulido, 2002; Woods, 2002), and active learning techniques have been shown to help students from historically underrepresented groups (Freeman et al., 2014) as well as to make classrooms themselves more inclusive (Davis, 2009). Teaching energy geographies: successful approaches he papers in this collection were irst developed in response to a panel held at the 2014 AAG conference called “Teaching energy geographies: Successful approaches.” In the panel, we asked participants to present teaching interventions they have used to teach energy geography concepts and theories in their courses. Emerging from this panel was a diverse set of activities and interventions that examine energy at a variety of scales and locations using engaged pedagogical techniques. hree of the papers emerged directly from the panel (Huber’s, Delgado’s, and Graybill’s), while a fourth (van der Horst et al.’s) was later added to the collection. While varying in their topics and approaches, the papers are united by their commitment to encouraging critical approaches to the study of energy through the use of active learning techniques. Delgado’s (2016) intervention relects the shit towards using political economic concepts in the study of energy geographies. He uses concepts of the spatial ix, scarcity, and the second contradiction of capitalism to encourage students to think critically about how contemporary energy issues are related to political economies. He also uses his own research as an empirical example of the theories, engaging students with the speciics of Venezuelan petrochemical processing. An in-class activity and critical response paper encourage students to practice deepening their knowledge of these concepts and in the process rethink energy technologies. While Delgado’s active learning intervention spans the length of a single class meeting, Graybill (2016) engages students with Arctic and urban spaces of energy through a semester-long video project. he project encourages students to make the shit from consumers of knowledge to producers. By producing 3–5 min video clips, students learn the technical skills of ilmmaking while also critically thinking about the relations between texts and images. Such an approach, which is oriented toward a more public scholarship model of class projects, encourages students to think critically about the content they are producing, and by sharing these videos on social media, students are more motivated to produce high quality outputs. Delgado’s and Graybill’s interventions encourage students to think globally about energy, while connecting to students’ everyday experiences, as van der Horst et al. (2016) does, is another way to engage students in critical energy analyses. Recent energy research has also Downloaded by [Autumn Thoyre] at 16:28 03 March 2016 36 A. THOYRE AND C. HARRISON pointed to the roles of positionality and self-relection, as well as the importance of energy literacy, in addressing the harms that come from current patterns of energy production and consumption. he intervention from van der Horst et al. does this by shiting the scale of energy analysis, focusing on energy consumption in the home. Making use of relatively inexpensive energy monitoring devices, students assess their household energy use over a period of several weeks. his activity encourages students to relect on the link between their social practices and energy consumption, and is aimed at ultimately enabling students to compare energy consumption across the globe. All of these active learning pedagogies can foster students’ critical thinking. However, empowering students inside and outside of the classroom is also unpredictable. Like Delgado, Huber (2016) uses energy – particularly oil – as an empirical focus for students to understand broader critical geography concepts. Yet Huber also confronts this issue of student political engagement and empowerment head on, describing how the complexity of energy geographies presents pedagogical challenges. In his teaching about oil, for example, Huber notes the diiculty students ind in moving beyond the what and where of oil to the why and how. Further, Huber has also found that highlighting the centrality of fossil fuels to American life oten leaves students delated, overwhelmed, and sapped of environmentalist vigor – results that are at cross purposes with critical scholarship and active learning. As climate change once again brings concerns over energy to the fore, research and teaching on energy by geographers is on the rise. his collection of papers is one attempt to begin sharing the best practices and innovative methods being developed to teach energy geographies, but also the challenges that such an undertaking presents. Other resources are also becoming available. An upper level textbook for teaching energy geography is currently being written (Gavin Bridge, personal communication), and an online repository for energy-related syllabi are also available (Energy teaching in GEES 20145). his collection of papers highlights the need to continue developing energy pedagogies that not only inform, but also encourage students to take action. Our hope is that this work serves as inspiration for sustained and future teaching of the geographies of energy. Notes 1. Past chair, AAG Energy and Environment Specialty Group. 2. Past secretary, RGS Energy Geography Speciality Group. 3. Conducted by searching the homepages of the Journal of Geography (http://www.tandfonline. com/toc/rjog20/current#.VFuBU8kxpzQ) and the Journal of Geography in Higher Education (http://www.tandfonline.com/toc/cjgh20/current#.VFuBp8kxpzQ) using the search terms: “energy,” “electricity,” “renewable energy,” “solar,” “wind,” “hydroelectric,” “hydroelectricity,” “dam,”, “oil,” “coal,” “natural gas,” and “nuclear,” in November 2014. 4. Conducted by searching the Web of Science database for journal articles using title words “teach” + the following search terms: “energy,” “electricity,” “renewable energy,” “solar,” “wind,” “hydroelectric,” “hydroelectricity,” “dam,” “biomass,” “oil,” “coal,” “natural gas,” “fracking,” “hydraulic fracturing,” “hydrofracking,” and “nuclear,” in October 2014. 5. http://energygees.wikispot.org/, accessed 11 June 2014. Disclosure statement No potential conlict of interest was reported by the authors. JOURNAL OF GEOGRAPHY IN HIGHER EDUCATION 37 Downloaded by [Autumn Thoyre] at 16:28 03 March 2016 References Allen, R. F., & Lahart, D. E. (1981). Critical thinking skills and energy: Using energy error cards in geography class. Journal of Geography, 80, 64–70. Anderson, L. W., & Krathwohl, D. R. (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing (abridged ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson Education, Allyn and Bacon. Beer, D. D. (1982). Energy education. Journal of Geography, 81, 66–67. Bonwell, C. C., & Eison, J. A. (1991). Active learning: Creating excitement in the classroom. Washington, DC: Association for the Study of Higher Education. Bouzarovski, S. (2007). Energy poverty in Eastern Europe: Hidden geographies of deprivation. London: Ashgate. Branson, M. S. (1983). Building map skills: he other energy crisis. Journal of Geography, 82, 30–33. Bridge, G. (2009). Material worlds: Natural resources, resource geography and the material economy. Geography Compass, 3, 1217–1244. Bridge, G., & Le Billon, P. (2013). Oil. Cambridge: Polity Press. Cook, E. (1976). Man, energy society. San Francisco, CA: W.H. Freeman and Company. Davis, B. G. (2009). Tools for teaching (2nd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Delgado, E. (2016). Energy geographies: hinking critically about energy issues in the classroom.Journal of Geography in Higher Education, 40, 38–53. Dudley, J. S., & Doram, T. (1999). Oil sands geologists in an industry–school partnership: A resource and teaching opportunity. Geoscience Canada, 26, 39–43. Fitzsimmons, A. K., & Walton, K. J. (1978). Toward a geography of energy: A review of basic sources and literature. Journal of Geography, 77, 61–66. Freeman, S., Eddy, S. L., McDonough, M., Smith, M. K., Okoroafor, N., Jordt, H., & Wenderoth, M. P. (2014). Active learning increases student performance in science, engineering, and mathematics. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111, 8410–8415. Gilmore, R. (2002). Fatal couplings of power and diference: Notes on racism and geography. The Professional Geographer, 54, 15–24. Graybill, J. (2013). Imagining resilience: Situating perceptions and emotions about climate change on Kamchatka, Russia. GeoJournal, 78, 817–832. Graybill, J. (2016). Teaching energy geographies via videography,Journal of Geography in Higher Education, 40, 54–65. Guevara-Cedeno, J. Y., Palma-Behnke, R., & Uribe, R. (2012). Experimental economics for teaching the functioning of electricity markets. IEEE Transactions on Education, 55, 466–473. Hanson, S., & Moser, S. (2003). Relections on a discipline-wide project: Developing active learning modules on the human dimensions of global change. Journal of Geography in Higher Education, 27, 17–38. Harper, R. A. (1966). he geography of world energy consumption. Journal of Geography, 65, 302–315. Harrison, C. (2013). “Accomplished by methods which are indefensible”: Electric utilities, inance, and the natural barriers to accumulation. Geoforum, 49, 173–183. Healey, M., & Jenkins, A. (2000). Kolb’s experiential learning theory and its application in geography in higher education. Journal of Geography, 99, 185–195. Huber, M. (2013). Lifeblood. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Huber, M. (2016). Teaching energy geography? It’s complicated. Journal of Geography in Higher Education, 40, 76–82. Ibrahim, D. (2008). Teaching the principles of modern electricity metering. International Journal of Engineering Education, 24, 1163–1169. Jennings, P. (2009). New directions in renewable energy education. Renewable Energy, 34, 435–439. Kandpal, T. C., & Broman, L. (2014). Renewable energy education: A global status review. Renewable & Sustainable Energy Reviews, 34, 300–324. Karabulut, A., Gedik, E., Keçebaş, A., & Alkan, M. A. (2011). An investigation on renewable energy education at the university level in Turkey. Renewable Energy, 36, 1293–1297. Le Billon, P. (2012). Wars of plunder: Conflicts, profits and the politics of resources. New York, NY: Hurst and Columbia University Press. Downloaded by [Autumn Thoyre] at 16:28 03 March 2016 38 A. THOYRE AND C. HARRISON Livingstone, D. (1993). The geographical tradition: Episodes in the history of a contested enterprise. Oxford: Blackwell. Madrigal, M., & Flores, M. (2004). Integrated sotware platform to teach diferent electricity spot market architectures. IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, 19, 88–95. Martinez, F., Herrero, L. C., & de Pablo, S. (2011). Project-based learning and rubrics in the teaching of power supplies and photovoltaic electricity. IEEE Transactions on Education, 54, 87–96. McColl, R. W. (1978). Some basics for teaching and evaluating energy conservation in the home. Journal of Geography, 77, 94–99. Nye, D. E. (1998). Consuming power: A social history of American energies. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Pasqualetti, M. (2001). Wind energy landscapes: Society and technology in the California Desert. Society and Natural Resources, 14, 689–699. Pryde, P. R. (1978). A review of a teacher’s handbook on energy. Journal of Geography, 77, 39. Pryde, P. R. (1985). Energy courses in American geography departments. Journal of Geography, 84, 154–157. Pulido, L. (2002). Relections on a white discipline. The Professional Geographer, 54, 42–49. Reis, A., da Costa, F. H., Xavier, G. L., Alvarenga, E. B., de Oliveira, J. C., & Guimarães, G. C. (2014). A comparative performance analysis of a controlled d.c. and a.c. motor which emulates wind turbines for teaching and research purposes. International Journal of Electrical Engineering Education, 51, 146–161. Scheyvens, R., Griin, A. L., Jocoy, C. L., Liu, Y., & Bradford, M. (2008). Experimenting with active learning in geography: Dispelling the myths that perpetuate resistance. Journal of Geography in Higher Education, 32, 51–69. hoyre, A. (2015). Energy eiciency as a resource in state portfolio standards: Lessons for more expansive policies. Energy Policy, 86, 625–634. Valdivia, G. (2008). Governing relations between people and things: Citizenship, territory, and the political economy of petroleum in Ecuador. Political Geography, 27, 456–477. van der Horst, D., & Vermeylen, S. (2012). Ownership claims, valuation practices, and the unpacking of energy-landscape conlicts. International Review of Sociology, 22, 429–445. van der Horst, D. (2016). Improving energy literacy through student-led ieldwork - at home. Journal of Geography in Higher Education, 40, 66–75. van Sark, W. G. H. H. M. (2007). Teaching the relation between solar cell eiciency and annual energy yield. European Journal of Physics, 28, 415–427. Walker, G. (2014). he dynamics of energy demand: Change, rhythm and synchronicity. Energy Research and Social Science, 1, 49–55. Watts, M. (2012). A tale of two gulfs: Life, death, and dispossession along two oil frontiers. American Quarterly, 64, 437–467. Woods, C. (2002). Life ater death. The Professional Geographer, 54, 62–66. Zimmerer, K. S. (2011). New geographies of energy: Introduction to the special issue. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 101, 705–711.