IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/enepol/v70y2014icp106-114.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Public perceptions of CO2 transportation in pipelines

Author

Listed:
  • Gough, Clair
  • O׳Keefe, Laura
  • Mander, Sarah

Abstract

This paper explores the response by members of the lay public to the prospect of an onshore CO2 pipeline through their locality as part of a proposed CCS development and presents results from deliberative Focus Groups held along a proposed pipeline route. Although there is a reasonable level of general knowledge about CO2 across the lay public, understanding of its specific properties is more limited. The main concerns expressed around pipelines focused on five areas: (i) safe operation of the pipeline; (ii) the risks to people, livestock and vegetation arising from the leakage of CO2 from the pipeline; (iii) the innovative and ‘first of its kind׳ nature of the pipeline and the consequent lack of operational CO2 pipelines in the UK to demonstrate the technology; (iv) impacts on coastal erosion at the landfall site; and (v) the potential disruption to local communities during pipeline construction. Participants expressed scepticism over the motivations of CO2 pipeline developers. Trust that the developer will minimise risk during the route selection and subsequent construction, operation and maintenance of the pipeline is key; building trust within the local community requires early engagement processes, tailored to deliver a variety of engagement and information approaches.

Suggested Citation

  • Gough, Clair & O׳Keefe, Laura & Mander, Sarah, 2014. "Public perceptions of CO2 transportation in pipelines," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 70(C), pages 106-114.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:enepol:v:70:y:2014:i:c:p:106-114
    DOI: 10.1016/j.enpol.2014.03.039
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421514002067
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.enpol.2014.03.039?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. McLachlan, Carly, 2009. "'You don't do a chemistry experiment in your best china': Symbolic interpretations of place and technology in a wave energy case," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(12), pages 5342-5350, December.
    2. Lynn J Frewer & Chaya Howard & Richard Shepherd, 1998. "Understanding public attitudes to technology," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 1(3), pages 221-235, July.
    3. Christian Oltra & Paul Upham & Hauke Riesch & Àlex Boso & Suzanne Brunsting & Elisabeth Dütschke & Aleksandra Lis, 2012. "Public Responses to Co2 Storage Sites: Lessons from Five European Cases," Energy & Environment, , vol. 23(2-3), pages 227-248, May.
    4. Huijts, Nicole M.A. & Midden, Cees J.H. & Meijnders, Anneloes L., 2007. "Social acceptance of carbon dioxide storage," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(5), pages 2780-2789, May.
    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. Massol, Olivier & Tchung-Ming, Stéphane & Banal-Estañol, Albert, 2018. "Capturing industrial CO2 emissions in Spain: Infrastructures, costs and break-even prices," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 115(C), pages 545-560.
    2. Pao-Yu Oei and Roman Mendelevitch, 2016. "European Scenarios of CO2 Infrastructure Investment until 2050," The Energy Journal, International Association for Energy Economics, vol. 0(Sustainab).
    3. Gea Hoogendoorn & Bernadette Sütterlin & Michael Siegrist, 2021. "Tampering with Nature: A Systematic Review," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 41(1), pages 141-156, January.
    4. Patange, Omkar S. & Garg, Amit & Jayaswal, Sachin, 2022. "An integrated bottom-up optimization to investigate the role of BECCS in transitioning towards a net-zero energy system: A case study from Gujarat, India," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 255(C).
    5. Olaf Corry & David Reiner, 2016. "It’s the Society, Stupid! Communicating Emergent Climate Technologies in the Internet Age," Cambridge Working Papers in Economics 1610, Faculty of Economics, University of Cambridge.
    6. d'Amore, Federico & Mocellin, Paolo & Vianello, Chiara & Maschio, Giuseppe & Bezzo, Fabrizio, 2018. "Economic optimisation of European supply chains for CO2 capture, transport and sequestration, including societal risk analysis and risk mitigation measures," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 223(C), pages 401-415.
    7. Roman Mendelevitch & Pao-Yu Oei, 2015. "The Impact of Policy Measures on Future Power Generation Portfolio and Infrastructure: A Combined Electricity and CCTS Investment and Dispatch Model (ELCO)," Discussion Papers of DIW Berlin 1521, DIW Berlin, German Institute for Economic Research.
    8. Steffen Fahr & Julian Powell & Alice Favero & Anthony J. Giarrusso & Ryan P. Lively & Matthew J. Realff, 2022. "Assessing the physical potential capacity of direct air capture with integrated supply of low‐carbon energy sources," Greenhouse Gases: Science and Technology, Blackwell Publishing, vol. 12(1), pages 170-188, February.
    9. Chen, Zheng-Ao & Li, Qi & Liu, Lan-Cui & Zhang, Xian & Kuang, Liping & Jia, Li & Liu, Guizhen, 2015. "A large national survey of public perceptions of CCS technology in China," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 158(C), pages 366-377.

    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. Bronfman, Nicolás C. & Jiménez, Raquel B. & Arévalo, Pilar C. & Cifuentes, Luis A., 2012. "Understanding social acceptance of electricity generation sources," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 46(C), pages 246-252.
    2. 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.
    3. Visschers, Vivianne H.M. & Siegrist, Michael, 2012. "Fair play in energy policy decisions: Procedural fairness, outcome fairness and acceptance of the decision to rebuild nuclear power plants," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 46(C), pages 292-300.
    4. Setiawan, Andri D. & Cuppen, Eefje, 2013. "Stakeholder perspectives on carbon capture and storage in Indonesia," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 61(C), pages 1188-1199.
    5. Juliana Martins Ruzante & Valerie J. Davidson & Julie Caswell & Aamir Fazil & John A. L. Cranfield & Spencer J. Henson & Sven M. Anders & Claudia Schmidt & Jeffrey M. Farber, 2010. "A Multifactorial Risk Prioritization Framework for Foodborne Pathogens," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 30(5), pages 724-742, May.
    6. Russell, Aaron & Bingaman, Samantha & Garcia, Hannah-Marie, 2021. "Threading a moving needle: The spatial dimensions characterizing US offshore wind policy drivers," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 157(C).
    7. Visschers, Vivianne H.M. & Keller, Carmen & Siegrist, Michael, 2011. "Climate change benefits and energy supply benefits as determinants of acceptance of nuclear power stations: Investigating an explanatory model," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(6), pages 3621-3629, June.
    8. Barbara A. Knuth & Nancy A. Connelly & Judy Sheeshka & Jacqueline Patterson, 2003. "Weighing Health Benefit and Health Risk Information when Consuming Sport‐Caught Fish," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 23(6), pages 1185-1197, December.
    9. Shuolin Geng & Qi Zhou & Mingjie Li & Dianxing Song & Yanjun Wen, 2021. "Spatial–temporal differences in disaster perception and response among new media users and the influence factors: a case study of the Shouguang Flood in Shandong province," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 105(2), pages 2241-2262, January.
    10. DiMaria, charles-henri, 2024. "ESG principles: the limits to green benchmarking," MPRA Paper 120410, University Library of Munich, Germany, revised 2024.
    11. David Rudolph & Claire Haggett & Mhairi Aitken, 2018. "Community benefits from offshore renewables: The relationship between different understandings of impact, community, and benefit," Environment and Planning C, , vol. 36(1), pages 92-117, February.
    12. Stewart Russell & Nils Markusson & Vivian Scott, 2012. "What will CCS demonstrations demonstrate?," Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, Springer, vol. 17(6), pages 651-668, August.
    13. Minh Ha-Duong & Ana Sofia Campos & Alain Nadaï, 2007. "A survey on the public perception of CCS in France," Working Papers hal-00866557, HAL.
    14. van Os, Herman W.A. & Herber, Rien & Scholtens, Bert, 2014. "Not Under Our Back Yards? A case study of social acceptance of the Northern Netherlands CCS initiative," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 30(C), pages 923-942.
    15. Simone Carr-Cornish & Peta Ashworth & John Gardner & Stephen Fraser, 2011. "Exploring the orientations which characterise the likely public acceptance of low emission energy technologies," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 107(3), pages 549-565, August.
    16. Erdem, Seda & Rigby, Dan, 2011. "Using Best Worst Scaling To Investigate Perceptions Of Control & Concern Over Food And Non-Food Risks," 85th Annual Conference, April 18-20, 2011, Warwick University, Coventry, UK 108790, Agricultural Economics Society.
    17. Nicolás C. Bronfman & Pamela C. Cisternas & Esperanza López-Vázquez & Luis A. Cifuentes, 2016. "Trust and risk perception of natural hazards: implications for risk preparedness in Chile," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 81(1), pages 307-327, March.
    18. Minh Ha-Duong & Michèle Gaultier & Benoît de Guillebon & Gilles Mardon, 2013. "Social aspects of Total's Lacq CCS pilot project," CIRED Working Papers hal-00788427, HAL.
    19. Walsh, Bríd & van der Plank, Sien & Behrens, Paul, 2017. "The effect of community consultation on perceptions of a proposed mine: A case study from southeast Australia," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(C), pages 163-171.
    20. Perlaviciute, Goda & Steg, Linda, 2014. "Contextual and psychological factors shaping evaluations and acceptability of energy alternatives: Integrated review and research agenda," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 35(C), pages 361-381.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    CCS; Deliberative focus groups; CO2 pipeline;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:70:y:2014:i:c:p:106-114. 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.