IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/enepol/v125y2019icp235-249.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Same or different? Insights on public perception and acceptance of carbon capture and storage or utilization in Germany

Author

Listed:
  • Arning, K.
  • Offermann-van Heek, J.
  • Linzenich, A.
  • Kaetelhoen, A.
  • Sternberg, A.
  • Bardow, A.
  • Ziefle, M.

Abstract

Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) and Carbon Capture and Utilization (CCU) are two CO2-based technologies aiming at mitigating climate change by capturing and either permanently storing CO2 (CCS) or using it as a feedstock (CCU) for commercial products, e.g., chemicals, fuels, or plastic products. Whereas the implementation of CCS has attracted considerable public opposition in Europe and the US, the CCU-technology is still in an early development stage. This research takes a social science perspective and investigates the awareness, general perception and acceptance of CCS in comparison to CCU by applying an online survey in Germany (2017, n = 509). In addition, the risk perception of single steps in the CCU/CCS process chains was explored (CCS: CO2-capturing, CO2-transport, CO2-storage; CCU: CO2-capturing, CO2-transport, temporary CO2-storage, production, product usage, product disposal). Significant differences were found for the perception and acceptance of CCS and CCU: while both technologies were generally accepted, CCU was perceived significantly more positively than CCS. CCS-acceptance was negatively influenced by storage and transport risks; for CCU, disposal and product risks decreased acceptance. Our results contribute to the development of communication concepts for a successful implementation of CO2-based technologies by considering public concerns.

Suggested Citation

  • Arning, K. & Offermann-van Heek, J. & Linzenich, A. & Kaetelhoen, A. & Sternberg, A. & Bardow, A. & Ziefle, M., 2019. "Same or different? Insights on public perception and acceptance of carbon capture and storage or utilization in Germany," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 125(C), pages 235-249.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:enepol:v:125:y:2019:i:c:p:235-249
    DOI: 10.1016/j.enpol.2018.10.039
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421518306931
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.enpol.2018.10.039?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Robert Flynn & Miriam Ricci & Paul Bellaby, 2012. "Ambiguity, complexity and uncertainty surrounding the hazards of hydrogen and public views of emergent risks," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 15(4), pages 373-387, April.
    2. Bruhn, Thomas & Naims, Henriette & Olfe-Kräutlein, Barbara, 2016. "Separating the debate on CO2 utilisation from carbon capture and storage," Environmental Science & Policy, Elsevier, vol. 60(C), pages 38-43.
    3. Olaf Corry & David Reiner, 2016. "It's the Society, Stupid! Communicating Emergent Climate Technologies in the Internet Age," Working Papers EPRG 1606, Energy Policy Research Group, Cambridge Judge Business School, University of Cambridge.
    4. Schweizer-Ries, Petra, 2008. "Energy sustainable communities: Environmental psychological investigations," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(11), pages 4126-4135, November.
    5. Lock, Simon J. & Smallman, Melanie & Lee, Maria & Rydin, Yvonne, 2014. "“Nuclear energy sounded wonderful 40 years ago”: UK citizen views on CCS," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 66(C), pages 428-435.
    6. L׳Orange Seigo, Selma & Dohle, Simone & Siegrist, Michael, 2014. "Public perception of carbon capture and storage (CCS): A review," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 38(C), pages 848-863.
    7. Judith I. M. de Groot & Linda Steg & Wouter Poortinga, 2013. "Values, Perceived Risks and Benefits, and Acceptability of Nuclear Energy," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 33(2), pages 307-317, February.
    8. Bhave, Amit & Taylor, Richard H.S. & Fennell, Paul & Livingston, William R. & Shah, Nilay & Dowell, Niall Mac & Dennis, John & Kraft, Markus & Pourkashanian, Mohammed & Insa, Mathieu & Jones, Jenny & , 2017. "Screening and techno-economic assessment of biomass-based power generation with CCS technologies to meet 2050 CO2 targets," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 190(C), pages 481-489.
    9. Yang, Lin & Zhang, Xian & McAlinden, Karl J., 2016. "The effect of trust on people's acceptance of CCS (carbon capture and storage) technologies: Evidence from a survey in the People's Republic of China," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 96(C), pages 69-79.
    10. Leung, Dennis Y.C. & Caramanna, Giorgio & Maroto-Valer, M. Mercedes, 2014. "An overview of current status of carbon dioxide capture and storage technologies," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 39(C), pages 426-443.
    11. van Heek, Julia & Arning, Katrin & Ziefle, Martina, 2017. "Reduce, reuse, recycle: Acceptance of CO2-utilization for plastic products," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 105(C), pages 53-66.
    12. Boudet, Hilary & Clarke, Christopher & Bugden, Dylan & Maibach, Edward & Roser-Renouf, Connie & Leiserowitz, Anthony, 2014. "“Fracking” controversy and communication: Using national survey data to understand public perceptions of hydraulic fracturing," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 65(C), pages 57-67.
    13. Kohko Tokushige & Keigo Akimoto & Toshimasa Tomoda, 2007. "Public acceptance and risk-benefit perception of CO 2 geological storage for global warming mitigation in Japan," Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, Springer, vol. 12(7), pages 1237-1251, August.
    14. Reilly, Anne H. & Hynan, Katherine A., 2014. "Corporate communication, sustainability, and social media: It's not easy (really) being green," Business Horizons, Elsevier, vol. 57(6), pages 747-758.
    15. Niall Mac Dowell & Paul S. Fennell & Nilay Shah & Geoffrey C. Maitland, 2017. "The role of CO2 capture and utilization in mitigating climate change," Nature Climate Change, Nature, vol. 7(4), pages 243-249, April.
    16. Chen, Huijuan & Goswami, D. Yogi & Stefanakos, Elias K., 2010. "A review of thermodynamic cycles and working fluids for the conversion of low-grade heat," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 14(9), pages 3059-3067, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Katja Witte, 2021. "Social Acceptance of Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) from Industrial Applications," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(21), pages 1-29, November.
    2. Arning, K. & Offermann-van Heek, J. & Ziefle, M., 2021. "What drives public acceptance of sustainable CO2-derived building materials? A conjoint-analysis of eco-benefits vs. health concerns," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 144(C).
    3. Dessi, F. & Ariccio, S. & Albers, T. & Alves, S. & Ludovico, N. & Bonaiuto, M., 2022. "Sustainable technology acceptability: Mapping technological, contextual, and social-psychological determinants of EU stakeholders’ biofuel acceptance," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 158(C).
    4. Quarton, Christopher J. & Samsatli, Sheila, 2020. "The value of hydrogen and carbon capture, storage and utilisation in decarbonising energy: Insights from integrated value chain optimisation," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 257(C).
    5. Jiang, Kai & Ashworth, Peta, 2021. "The development of Carbon Capture Utilization and Storage (CCUS) research in China: A bibliometric perspective," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 138(C).
    6. Zhou, Yue & Liu, Zaiqiang & Kato, Takaaki & Shi, Chunyan & Xu, Tongyu & Gao, Weijun, 2024. "Decoding the mechanisms influencing public acceptance of carbon dioxide capture and storage technology in China," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 313(C).
    7. Peter Viebahn & Emile J. L. Chappin, 2018. "Scrutinising the Gap between the Expected and Actual Deployment of Carbon Capture and Storage—A Bibliometric Analysis," Energies, MDPI, vol. 11(9), pages 1-45, September.
    8. Moon, Won-Ki & Kahlor, Lee Ann & Olson, Hilary Clement, 2020. "Understanding public support for carbon capture and storage policy: The roles of social capital, stakeholder perceptions, and perceived risk/benefit of technology," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 139(C).
    9. Carola Braun & Christine Merk & Gert Pönitzsch & Katrin Rehdanz & Ulrich Schmidt, 2018. "Public perception of climate engineering and carbon capture and storage in Germany: survey evidence," Climate Policy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 18(4), pages 471-484, April.
    10. Liang, Ying & Cai, Lei & Guan, Yanwen & Liu, Wenbin & Xiang, Yanlei & Li, Juan & He, Tianzhi, 2020. "Numerical study on an original oxy-fuel combustion power plant with efficient utilization of flue gas waste heat," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 193(C).
    11. Fikru, Mahelet G., 2025. "Policy preference for a net zero carbon economy: Results from a US national survey," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 198(C).
    12. Turaj S. Faran & Lennart Olsson, 2018. "Geoengineering: neither economical, nor ethical—a risk–reward nexus analysis of carbon dioxide removal," International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 18(1), pages 63-77, February.
    13. Wang, Peng-Tao & Wei, Yi-Ming & Yang, Bo & Li, Jia-Quan & Kang, Jia-Ning & Liu, Lan-Cui & Yu, Bi-Ying & Hou, Yun-Bing & Zhang, Xian, 2020. "Carbon capture and storage in China’s power sector: Optimal planning under the 2 °C constraint," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 263(C).
    14. Chang, Yuan & Gao, Siqi & Ma, Qian & Wei, Ying & Li, Guoping, 2024. "Techno-economic analysis of carbon capture and utilization technologies and implications for China," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 199(C).
    15. Tryfonas Pieri & Alexandros Nikitas & Athanasios Angelis-Dimakis, 2023. "Public Acceptance and Willingness to Pay for Carbon Capture and Utilisation Products," Clean Technol., MDPI, vol. 5(1), pages 1-15, March.
    16. Jiang, Kai & Ashworth, Peta & Zhang, Shiyi & Hu, Guoping, 2022. "Print media representations of carbon capture utilization and storage (CCUS) technology in China," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 155(C).
    17. Koytsoumpa, E.I. & Magiri – Skouloudi, D. & Karellas, S. & Kakaras, E., 2021. "Bioenergy with carbon capture and utilization: A review on the potential deployment towards a European circular bioeconomy," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 152(C).
    18. Lena Mikhelkis & Venkatesh Govindarajan, 2020. "Techno-Economic and Partial Environmental Analysis of Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) and Carbon Capture, Utilization, and Storage (CCU/S): Case Study from Proposed Waste-Fed District-Heating Inciner," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(15), pages 1-18, July.
    19. Cheng Cao & Hejuan Liu & Zhengmeng Hou & Faisal Mehmood & Jianxing Liao & Wentao Feng, 2020. "A Review of CO 2 Storage in View of Safety and Cost-Effectiveness," Energies, MDPI, vol. 13(3), pages 1-45, January.
    20. Carola Braun, 2017. "Not in My Backyard: CCS Sites and Public Perception of CCS," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 37(12), pages 2264-2275, December.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:enepol:v:125:y:2019:i:c:p:235-249. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/enpol .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.