The continuous work done in mapping grassroots energy solutions has led us to keep gathering evidence on patterns and insights regarding the relation between energy and the quality of life of worse-off communities. From what we learned in this cycle, we can highlight the following:  - The lack of safe/efficient access to energy poses health risks: Inefficient or risky forms of energy consumption have serious health implications, some with an immediate effect and some with a long-term impact. For example, poor access to means for personal hygiene and exposure to cold can increase susceptibility to diseases. In addition, to be able to clean themselves at a comfortable temperature, many families heat water in jugs or pans, and thus are more exposed to burns; especially if there are minors around. Alternatively, they heat water through electric means, which increases the danger of electrocution or fires. Moreover, smoke inhalation inside homes —caused by the use of firewood— can lead to respiratory problems or cause poisoning if inefficient materials are used.  - Energy poverty equals food poverty: The impact of the former on the latter is evident in many homes in vulnerable situations as, when preparing the meals they will bring to the table, people think about which food cooks faster and thus consumes less energy, for example, from their gas cylinders.  - To adapt or not to adapt: having access to technology does not mean having a solution. Habits and values are equally important for ownership. Taking the example of solar stoves, one could argue that —from an economic point of view— they allow people to save on the high costs of gas. Additionally, having a solar stove could be considered a great advantage for certain communities because it would save them the travel time spent getting firewood, ease the problems associated with carrying it, and mitigate the negative health consequences derived from breathing smoke inside their homes. However, the ownership of this technology involves different cultural adaptations that cannot be taken for granted, including cooking times that may depend on weather conditions, cooking outside their home, etc. For example, in a project studied by Delugan and Torres (1996), community members argued that this type of cooking took longer, that the food did not taste the same, and that they had to synchronize their mealtimes with the solar cycle to ensure they could reach the right temperature to cook.  - Economic and operational sustainability: productive skills and activities. Given the significance of learning how to use and repair the technologies to be promoted, the acquisition of these skills by end users usually has an influence on project sustainability. Training for new technology or processes includes initiatives such as workshops focused on technology construction and assembly, operation, maintenance and repair, handling of elements, and rules and regulations for their use, among others. Working on these types of skills can promote training in trades and green jobs, or the creation of commercialization and/or production activities, allowing new sources of income for family economies or the economic sustainability of projects. The truth is that, while community members may know how to repair the technologies, the cost of parts or materials needed must be met. On multiple occasions, this cost is not considered in the original sources of funding for projects, and it may become a challenge later on.  - Open-source options, a vehicle for replicability: Open-source hardware has been described as the democratizing mechanism of science that helps communities in vulnerable situations access technological innovations, and it represents a great opportunity for developing countries (Ravindran, 2020). The collaborative nature of open-source hardware includes the processes of design and production of technologies. Constant communication and knowledge exchange transform technology into an object of change and adaptation, reflecting the different contextual elements linked to the location and the participants of the solution (Arancio, 2021). This characteristic is key for the development of adaptable and easily replicable solutions. In particular, the interface between renewable energy and open-source hardware is strategic because it could lower costs, encourage innovation, and be implemented in communities in vulnerable situations (Wiener, 2006). Self-build kits or manuals are reproduced and refer to the “do it yourself” (DIY) movement, where both steps and materials are simple. While this approach can work for some technologies, it also poses risks when those technologies need a high degree of precision. For example, as evidenced by one of the interviews, a deformed solar stove —which prevents the light from reaching the bulb— can pose a fire hazard

We have launched a knowledge product containing all the findings (patterns, insights, etc.) and stories related to the solutions mapping. Indeed, we presented our findings at two academic conferences dedicated to renewable energy, and they were very well received. As a result, we are exploring a potential partnership with the Center for Evidence-Based Policy Evaluation (CEPE) at Torcuato Di Tella University. Following this milestone, we aim to promote further networking opportunities with organizations interested in renewable energy. Additionally, we will keep on looking for opportunities for coordination and collaboration with the public sector for the design and implementation of the portfolio of experiments.

Given the satisfactory results we had with the data types applied at the beginning of the cycle, we continued choosing these. Continuing with the solutions mapping that we started when we joined to the “Discovery & Deploy,” the Co_Lab kept interviewing key informants and grassroots project leaders, studied resources created by the very same grassroots initiatives we were mapping, and carried out targeted searches on mass and social media. In a similar way, for the exploration, we continued with the scanning of emerging signals by reviewing reports and specialized publications, report monitoring, and data measuring in real time by energy management agencies.   As we stated at the beginning of this cycle, in Argentina much of the attention regarding the topic of energy goes to large infrastructure projects, the need to attract investors to carry out these projects, and public utility fees. The chosen types of data have helped us to identify and learn from other types of actors and experiences, which is what we were hoping to achieve with our work on renewable energy.

Grassroots solutions are not a priority in the national discussions regarding energy, thus solution mapping appears as a more than suitable method to start unpacking what is happening within the communities, particularly those facing energy deficiencies. At the same time, political instabilities and fast technological advances have added a greater level of uncertainty to the discussions related to energy. Thus, horizon scanning helps to bring clarity to the topic.

The solutions mapping has progressed and valuable information has been gathered; the work cycle has begun, and we have already contacted key informants from different areas of the national government and the subnational governments. As we have seen in our experience, these initial conversations are critical for establishing relationships that will hopefully facilitate the subsequent arrival to the territories for energy experimentation purposes and the possibility of scaling up, either in this instance or in other cycles, in any of the three stages of the loop. We will continue working to strengthen these ties and promote other alliances with the public sector to promote the growth of this learning cycle, and a portfolio of actions aimed at promoting a public debate on this topic —with a “bottom-up ” and prospective approach— or scaling related interventions in Argentina.