IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/enepol/v143y2020ics0301421520303268.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Assessing public acceptance of the life cycle of CO2-based fuels: Does information make the difference?

Author

Listed:
  • Offermann-van Heek, Julia
  • Arning, Katrin
  • Sternberg, André
  • Bardow, André
  • Ziefle, Martina

Abstract

Reducing the high CO2 emissions from the transportation sector requires alternatives to current fossil-based power trains. One possible approach is the development of alternative fuels produced from CO2, water, and renewable energy. Besides technological feasibility of required process steps (CO2 capture, CO2 transport, fuel production infrastructure), a successful adoption requires acceptance of alternative CO2-based fuels and their infrastructure. This study focuses on public acceptance of CO2-based fuels' life cycle by laypeople (N = 325) using conjoint analysis. The laypeople evaluated life cycle scenarios consisting of diverse options regarding CO2 capture, transport, and production infrastructure. To analyze the impact of information on acceptance evaluations, all respondents received information on energy efficiency and environmental impact of the process step options (2nd evaluation stage). The results revealed that CO2 source and transport are most relevant for participants' decisions. Significant impacts of information were found: higher levels of information changed extremely the evaluation of the CO2 capture options (e.g., air capture, chemical plant). The results highlight the importance of investigating laypeople's evaluations of life cycle scenarios, emphasize the relevance of providing adequate information to laypeople, and enable to derive information recommendations to reach a sustained public adoption of alternative fuels and their life cycle.

Suggested Citation

  • Offermann-van Heek, Julia & Arning, Katrin & Sternberg, André & Bardow, André & Ziefle, Martina, 2020. "Assessing public acceptance of the life cycle of CO2-based fuels: Does information make the difference?," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 143(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:enepol:v:143:y:2020:i:c:s0301421520303268
    DOI: 10.1016/j.enpol.2020.111586
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421520303268
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.enpol.2020.111586?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. Christian Oltra & Roser Sala & Àlex Boso, 2012. "The influence of information on individuals' reactions to CCS technologies: results from experimental online survey research," Greenhouse Gases: Science and Technology, Blackwell Publishing, vol. 2(3), pages 209-215, June.
    3. Jeff Tollefson, 2018. "Sucking carbon dioxide from air is cheaper than scientists thought," Nature, Nature, vol. 558(7709), pages 173-173, June.
    4. Wustenhagen, Rolf & Wolsink, Maarten & Burer, Mary Jean, 2007. "Social acceptance of renewable energy innovation: An introduction to the concept," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(5), pages 2683-2691, May.
    5. Hackbarth, André & Madlener, Reinhard, 2016. "Willingness-to-pay for alternative fuel vehicle characteristics: A stated choice study for Germany," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 85(C), pages 89-111.
    6. Claudia Kemfert, 2019. "Green Deal for Europe: More Climate Protection and Fewer Fossil Fuel Wars," Intereconomics: Review of European Economic Policy, Springer;ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics;Centre for European Policy Studies (CEPS), vol. 54(6), pages 353-358, November.
    7. Lucia Savadori & Stefania Savio & Eraldo Nicotra & Rino Rumiati & Melissa Finucane & Paul Slovic, 2004. "Expert and Public Perception of Risk from Biotechnology," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 24(5), pages 1289-1299, October.
    8. Devine-Wright, Patrick & Batel, Susana & Aas, Oystein & Sovacool, Benjamin & Labelle, Michael Carnegie & Ruud, Audun, 2017. "A conceptual framework for understanding the social acceptance of energy infrastructure: Insights from energy storage," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 107(C), pages 27-31.
    9. Connolly, D. & Mathiesen, B.V. & Ridjan, I., 2014. "A comparison between renewable transport fuels that can supplement or replace biofuels in a 100% renewable energy system," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 110-125.
    10. Götz, Manuel & Lefebvre, Jonathan & Mörs, Friedemann & McDaniel Koch, Amy & Graf, Frank & Bajohr, Siegfried & Reimert, Rainer & Kolb, Thomas, 2016. "Renewable Power-to-Gas: A technological and economic review," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 85(C), pages 1371-1390.
    11. Vithala R. Rao, 2014. "Applied Conjoint Analysis," Springer Books, Springer, edition 127, number 978-3-540-87753-0, December.
    12. Yetano Roche, María & Mourato, Susana & Fischedick, Manfred & Pietzner, Katja & Viebahn, Peter, 2010. "Public attitudes towards and demand for hydrogen and fuel cell vehicles: A review of the evidence and methodological implications," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(10), pages 5301-5310, October.
    13. Linzenich, Anika & Arning, Katrin & Bongartz, Dominik & Mitsos, Alexander & Ziefle, Martina, 2019. "What fuels the adoption of alternative fuels? Examining preferences of German car drivers for fuel innovations," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 249(C), pages 222-236.
    14. Soland, Martin & Steimer, Nora & Walter, Götz, 2013. "Local acceptance of existing biogas plants in Switzerland," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 61(C), pages 802-810.
    15. Savvanidou, Electra & Zervas, Efthimios & Tsagarakis, Konstantinos P., 2010. "Public acceptance of biofuels," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(7), pages 3482-3488, July.
    16. Munkejord, Svend Tollak & Hammer, Morten & Løvseth, Sigurd W., 2016. "CO2 transport: Data and models – A review," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 169(C), pages 499-523.
    17. Grégory Claeys & Simone Tagliapietra & Georg Zachmann, 2019. "How to make the European Green Deal work," Policy Contributions 33125, Bruegel.
    18. John Haldi & David Whitcomb, 1967. "Economies of Scale in Industrial Plants," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 75(4), pages 373-373.
    19. Sharifzadeh, Mahdi & Wang, Lei & Shah, Nilay, 2015. "Integrated biorefineries: CO2 utilization for maximum biomass conversion," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 47(C), pages 151-161.
    20. Busse, Maria & Siebert, Rosemarie, 2018. "Acceptance studies in the field of land use—A critical and systematic review to advance the conceptualization of acceptance and acceptability," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 76(C), pages 235-245.
    21. 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.
    22. Bongartz, Dominik & Doré, Larissa & Eichler, Katharina & Grube, Thomas & Heuser, Benedikt & Hombach, Laura E. & Robinius, Martin & Pischinger, Stefan & Stolten, Detlef & Walther, Grit & Mitsos, Alexan, 2018. "Comparison of light-duty transportation fuels produced from renewable hydrogen and green carbon dioxide," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 231(C), pages 757-767.
    23. 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.
    24. Brynolf, Selma & Taljegard, Maria & Grahn, Maria & Hansson, Julia, 2018. "Electrofuels for the transport sector: A review of production costs," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 81(P2), pages 1887-1905.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Nikolaos Koukouzas & Marina Christopoulou & Panagiota P. Giannakopoulou & Aikaterini Rogkala & Eleni Gianni & Christos Karkalis & Konstantina Pyrgaki & Pavlos Krassakis & Petros Koutsovitis & Dionisio, 2022. "Current CO 2 Capture and Storage Trends in Europe in a View of Social Knowledge and Acceptance. A Short Review," Energies, MDPI, vol. 15(15), pages 1-30, August.
    2. Linzenich, Anika & Arning, Katrin & Ziefle, Martina, 2021. "Acceptance of energy technologies in context: Comparing laypeople's risk perceptions across eight infrastructure technologies in Germany," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 152(C).
    3. Corinna E. Drexler & Lutz M. Hagen, 2023. "Quality of Media Depictions of Mobility in Transition—An Experts’ Assessment of News Coverage in Germany," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(5), pages 1-19, March.
    4. Katja Witte, 2021. "Social Acceptance of Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) from Industrial Applications," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(21), pages 1-29, November.

    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. 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).
    2. Linzenich, Anika & Arning, Katrin & Bongartz, Dominik & Mitsos, Alexander & Ziefle, Martina, 2019. "What fuels the adoption of alternative fuels? Examining preferences of German car drivers for fuel innovations," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 249(C), pages 222-236.
    3. 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).
    4. Gordon, Joel A. & Balta-Ozkan, Nazmiye & Nabavi, Seyed Ali, 2022. "Beyond the triangle of renewable energy acceptance: The five dimensions of domestic hydrogen acceptance," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 324(C).
    5. Stefan Arens & Sunke Schlüters & Benedikt Hanke & Karsten von Maydell & Carsten Agert, 2020. "Sustainable Residential Energy Supply: A Literature Review-Based Morphological Analysis," Energies, MDPI, vol. 13(2), pages 1-28, January.
    6. Bellocchi, Sara & De Falco, Marcello & Gambini, Marco & Manno, Michele & Stilo, Tommaso & Vellini, Michela, 2019. "Opportunities for power-to-Gas and Power-to-liquid in CO2-reduced energy scenarios: The Italian case," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 175(C), pages 847-861.
    7. Sonnberger, Marco & Ruddat, Michael, 2017. "Local and socio-political acceptance of wind farms in Germany," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 51(C), pages 56-65.
    8. Bongartz, Dominik & Doré, Larissa & Eichler, Katharina & Grube, Thomas & Heuser, Benedikt & Hombach, Laura E. & Robinius, Martin & Pischinger, Stefan & Stolten, Detlef & Walther, Grit & Mitsos, Alexan, 2018. "Comparison of light-duty transportation fuels produced from renewable hydrogen and green carbon dioxide," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 231(C), pages 757-767.
    9. Mikulčić, Hrvoje & Ridjan Skov, Iva & Dominković, Dominik Franjo & Wan Alwi, Sharifah Rafidah & Manan, Zainuddin Abdul & Tan, Raymond & Duić, Neven & Hidayah Mohamad, Siti Nur & Wang, Xuebin, 2019. "Flexible Carbon Capture and Utilization technologies in future energy systems and the utilization pathways of captured CO2," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 114(C), pages 1-1.
    10. Timmerberg, Sebastian & Kaltschmitt, Martin, 2019. "Hydrogen from renewables: Supply from North Africa to Central Europe as blend in existing pipelines – Potentials and costs," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 237(C), pages 795-809.
    11. Stančin, H. & Mikulčić, H. & Wang, X. & Duić, N., 2020. "A review on alternative fuels in future energy system," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 128(C).
    12. Antoine Boche & Clément Foucher & Luiz Fernando Lavado Villa, 2022. "Understanding Microgrid Sustainability: A Systemic and Comprehensive Review," Energies, MDPI, vol. 15(8), pages 1-29, April.
    13. Mengelkamp, Esther & Schönland, Thomas & Huber, Julian & Weinhardt, Christof, 2019. "The value of local electricity - A choice experiment among German residential customers," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 130(C), pages 294-303.
    14. Van Dael, Miet & Lizin, Sebastien & Swinnen, Gilbert & Van Passel, Steven, 2017. "Young people’s acceptance of bioenergy and the influence of attitude strength on information provision," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 107(C), pages 417-430.
    15. Gordon, Joel A. & Balta-Ozkan, Nazmiye & Nabavi, Seyed Ali, 2022. "Homes of the future: Unpacking public perceptions to power the domestic hydrogen transition," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 164(C).
    16. Iva Ridjan Skov & Noémi Schneider & Gerald Schweiger & Josef-Peter Schöggl & Alfred Posch, 2021. "Power-to-X in Denmark: An Analysis of Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(4), pages 1-14, February.
    17. Zhang, Yong & Yu, Yifeng & Zou, Bai, 2011. "Analyzing public awareness and acceptance of alternative fuel vehicles in China: The case of EV," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(11), pages 7015-7024.
    18. Cousse, Julia, 2021. "Still in love with solar energy? Installation size, affect, and the social acceptance of renewable energy technologies," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 145(C).
    19. Venturini, Giada & Pizarro-Alonso, Amalia & Münster, Marie, 2019. "How to maximise the value of residual biomass resources: The case of straw in Denmark," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 250(C), pages 369-388.
    20. Knoblauch, Theresa A.K. & Trutnevyte, Evelina & Stauffacher, Michael, 2019. "Siting deep geothermal energy: Acceptance of various risk and benefit scenarios in a Swiss-German cross-national study," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 128(C), pages 807-816.

    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:143:y:2020:i:c:s0301421520303268. 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.