The energy transition is not merely a technological shift – it is a spatial and political reconfiguration of land, infrastructure, and governance. As nations race towards net-zero targets, the question of how and where energy is produced, stored, and distributed has become central. This issue of ICE Energy brings together four papers that, while diverse in scope – focusing on offshore energy production and decentralised energy production in communities – share two common concerns. The first is how space should be best used for energy. The second is the tension between market-driven deployment and planned development.
Guo et al. (2025) present a fuzzy analytic hierarchy process to evaluate offshore wind power projects in China, integrating construction feasibility and profitability metrics. Their model is applied to two case studies – one in the East China Sea and another in the South China Sea – revealing that construction conditions, not just economic returns, are decisive in project viability. This paper exemplifies the challenges of spatial planning in marine environments, where seabed geology, cable access, and military zones intersect with energy ambitions.
At first sight, the offshore wind sector is an example of the free-market approach to energy infrastructure: developers seek high-yield sites, often competing for limited marine space. Yet, Guo et al.’s work underscores the need for structured evaluation frameworks that go beyond profit maximisation. Their methodology could inform national planning systems, helping governments mediate between private investment and public interest in marine spatial planning.
Megías and García-Román (2025) focus on the Canary Islands, where long-period swells from the Southern Hemisphere contribute modestly – just 6.6% – to the region’s wave energy potential. While these swells are often overlooked due to their low height, the authors argue for their strategic value in hybrid systems co-located with offshore wind farms. Their analysis, based on buoy and hindcast data, reveals that these swells are predictable and compatible with existing infrastructure, offering a pathway to maximise energy yield from shared marine space.
This paper highlights an important tension: while the market might ignore such marginal resources, planned systems can find value in them through integration. The authors advocate for a hybrid approach that leverages spatial synergies, suggesting that marine energy planning should not be siloed by technology type. Instead, coordinated development – potentially led by public agencies – could unlock underutilised energy flows and reduce spatial conflict.
Hansen and Xydis (2025) examine long-term thermal energy storage systems for district heating in Silkeborg, Denmark, home to Northern Europe’s largest solar thermal plant. Their comparative analysis of four storage technologies – TTES, PTES, ATES, and borehole thermal energy storage (BTES) – finds that BTES offers the highest efficiency and lowest heat loss, albeit with significant geological and capital constraints.
One of the challenges of providing renewable heating is that solar output peaks in summer while heating demand peaks in winter. Without storage, excess energy is wasted. Hansen and Xydis propose a planned solution – thermal storage infrastructure embedded in local energy systems – to overcome this mismatch. Yet, such systems require upfront investment, long-term planning, and coordination across sectors. The market alone is unlikely to deliver them at scale. Their work reinforces the argument for decentralised, place-based energy planning. By aligning energy production with local demand and spatial conditions, thermal storage can enhance resilience and reduce reliance on centralised grids. However, this requires governance frameworks that prioritise long-term public benefit over short-term market returns.
Mohd Radzuan and Umar (2025) offer a compelling synthesis of energy poverty, land use conflict, and energy justice. With over 34 000 brownfield sites in England – many in deprived urban areas – the authors argue that these underutilised lands could host community-led renewable energy projects. Using the PRISMA framework, they align brownfield redevelopment with the three pillars of energy justice: distributive, procedural, and recognition.
This paper is a direct challenge to the market-led model of energy deployment. Brownfields are often ignored by developers due to contamination, regulatory complexity, and limited profitability. Yet, as the authors show, planned interventions – such as policy reform, community ownership models, and digital mapping tools – can transform these sites into engines of equity and sustainability.
Their call for a national brownfield-to-energy strategy is timely. It reflects a broader shift towards spatial justice in energy planning, where land is not merely a commodity but a platform for inclusive development. The paper also critiques the fragmented governance of land use in the UK, advocating for integrated systems that align energy, housing, and environmental goals.
Together, these four papers illuminate the spatial politics of the energy transition. They reveal that land and marine space are not neutral canvases but contested terrains shaped by market forces, planning regimes, and community aspirations. The tension between free-market deployment and planned systems is not merely theoretical – it manifests in the siting of wind farms, the viability of thermal storage, the integration of marginal swells, and the reclamation of urban brownfields.
The papers in this issue offer tools, frameworks, and visions that can contribute to an energy transition that is spatially intelligent and socially inclusive and that balances efficiency with equity, innovation with integration, and profit with public purpose.
Energy is pleased to announce the launch of its Link to Early Career Reviewer Board (ECRB)Link to the website of ECRB, designed to support early career researchers by involving them in the journal’s peer review process and providing experience within academic publishing. Successful applicants will be appointed to the ECRB for a two-year term, with the potential to progress to the Editorial Advisory Board. Members will be expected to review three to four manuscripts per year.
For more information and to apply, please visit: Link to emerald publishingLink to the website of emerald publishing.
