IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/energy/v313y2024ics0360544224036673.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Public attitudes towards electricity decarbonization and meeting 2035 goals

Author

Listed:
  • Troise, Sarah
  • Morgan, M Granger
  • Abdulla, Ahmed

Abstract

Varying levels of public acceptance of different low-carbon energy technologies can pose a barrier to progress on decarbonizing the electricity grid in the U.S. This study developed a survey system that allowed respondents to design their ideal 100 % low-carbon mix for 2035 by allocating generation across seven low-carbon technologies. Using data from 532 respondents, the authors analyzed overall public preferences and how demographics affect technology preferences. Contrary to what is often assumed, the authors found that approximately 75 % of respondents' ideal portfolios are diverse (5+ technologies), and many included novel technologies, with approximately 90 % including CCS or offshore wind. Regression analysis found that demographic factors affect the amount of a technology that a respondent chose to deploy in their portfolio. Demonstrating the public's willingness to accept a diverse electricity portfolio that includes novel technologies opens the door for energy analysts and energy developers to investigate diverse and creative solutions to achieve electricity decarbonization. Additionally, demographic factors that affect technology preferences create a new layer of consideration for project siting to increase the likelihood of acceptance. Engaging with the public and considering public preferences will be integral to achieving the U.S.’s decarbonization goals.

Suggested Citation

  • Troise, Sarah & Morgan, M Granger & Abdulla, Ahmed, 2024. "Public attitudes towards electricity decarbonization and meeting 2035 goals," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 313(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:energy:v:313:y:2024:i:c:s0360544224036673
    DOI: 10.1016/j.energy.2024.133889
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0360544224036673
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.energy.2024.133889?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

    for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Hank C. Jenkins‐Smith & Carol L. Silva & Matthew C. Nowlin & Grant deLozier, 2011. "Reversing Nuclear Opposition: Evolving Public Acceptance of a Permanent Nuclear Waste Disposal Facility," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 31(4), pages 629-644, April.
    2. Lauren A. Fleishman & Wändi Bruine De Bruin & M. Granger Morgan, 2010. "Informed Public Preferences for Electricity Portfolios with CCS and Other Low‐Carbon Technologies," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 30(9), pages 1399-1410, September.
    3. Thomas Dietz & Linda Kalof & Paul C. Stern, 2002. "Gender, Values, and Environmentalism," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 83(1), pages 353-364, March.
    4. Johanna Höffken & M. V. Ramana, 2024. "Nuclear power and environmental injustice," Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Energy and Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 13(1), January.
    5. Stephen C. Whitfield & Eugene A. Rosa & Amy Dan & Thomas Dietz, 2009. "The Future of Nuclear Power: Value Orientations and Risk Perception," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 29(3), pages 425-437, March.
    6. Adam McBride Lazri & David M. Konisky, 2019. "Environmental Attitudes Across Race and Ethnicity," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 100(4), pages 1039-1055, June.
    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. Abdulla, A. & Vaishnav, P. & Sergi, B. & Victor, D.G., 2019. "Limits to deployment of nuclear power for decarbonization: Insights from public opinion," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 129(C), pages 1339-1346.
    2. Wenling Bao & Yu Chen & Caiyun Cui & Bo Xia & Yongjian Ke & Martin Skitmore & Yong Liu, 2023. "How to Shape Local Public Acceptance of Not-in-My-Backyard Infrastructures? A Social Cognitive Theory Perspective," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(22), pages 1-18, November.
    3. Jaeyoung Lim & Kuk-Kyoung Moon, 2021. "Can Political Trust Weaken the Relationship between Perceived Environmental Threats and Perceived Nuclear Threats? Evidence from South Korea," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(18), pages 1-13, September.
    4. Hung‐Chih Hung & Tzu‐Wen Wang, 2011. "Determinants and Mapping of Collective Perceptions of Technological Risk: The Case of the Second Nuclear Power Plant in Taiwan," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 31(4), pages 668-683, April.
    5. Govindan, Mini & Ram Mohan, M.P., 2021. "Exploring Gender Perceptions of Nuclear Energy in India," IIMA Working Papers WP 2021-11-06, Indian Institute of Management Ahmedabad, Research and Publication Department.
    6. Enzo Loner, 2016. "A new way of looking at old things. An application of Guttman errors analysis to the study of environmental concern," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 50(2), pages 823-847, March.
    7. Mitsch, Frieder & McNeil, Andrew, 2022. "Political implications of ‘green’ infrastructure in one’s ‘backyard’: the Green Party’s Catch 22?," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 115269, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    8. Witkowski, Terrence H. & Reddy, Sabine, 2010. "Antecedents of ethical consumption activities in Germany and the United States," Australasian marketing journal, Elsevier, vol. 18(1), pages 8-14.
    9. Wang, Yu & Gu, Jibao & Wu, Jianlin, 2020. "Explaining local residents’ acceptance of rebuilding nuclear power plants: The roles of perceived general benefit and perceived local benefit," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 140(C).
    10. Measham, Thomas G. & Zhang, Airong, 2019. "Social licence, gender and mining: Moral conviction and perceived economic importance," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 61(C), pages 363-368.
    11. Rios, Vicente & Barba, Izaskun & Gianmoena, Lisa & Pascual, Pedro, 2024. "Clearing the smog ceiling: The impact of women’s political empowerment on air quality in European regions," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 85(C).
    12. Umaerus, Patrik & Högvall Nordin, Maria & Lidestav, Gun, 2019. "Do female forest owners think and act “greener”?," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 99(C), pages 52-58.
    13. Wang, Fan & Gu, Jibao & Wu, Jianlin, 2020. "Perspective taking, energy policy involvement, and public acceptance of nuclear energy: Evidence from China," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 145(C).
    14. Morioka, Rika, 2014. "Gender difference in the health risk perception of radiation from Fukushima in Japan: The role of hegemonic masculinity," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 107(C), pages 105-112.
    15. Xexakis, Georgios & Hansmann, Ralph & Volken, Sandra P. & Trutnevyte, Evelina, 2020. "Models on the wrong track: Model-based electricity supply scenarios in Switzerland are not aligned with the perspectives of energy experts and the public," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 134(C).
    16. Awaworyi Churchill, Sefa & Smyth, Russell & Trinh, Trong-Anh, 2025. "Gender norms and solar panel energy adoption in Australia: Evidence from a natural experiment," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 141(C).
    17. Bart Vyncke & Tanja Perko & Baldwin Van Gorp, 2017. "Information Sources as Explanatory Variables for the Belgian Health‐Related Risk Perception of the Fukushima Nuclear Accident," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 37(3), pages 570-582, March.
    18. Stephen C. Whitfield & Eugene A. Rosa & Amy Dan & Thomas Dietz, 2009. "The Future of Nuclear Power: Value Orientations and Risk Perception," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 29(3), pages 425-437, March.
    19. Gülbanu Kaptan & Arnout R.H. Fischer & Lynn J. Frewer, 2018. "Extrapolating understanding of food risk perceptions to emerging food safety cases," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 21(8), pages 996-1018, August.
    20. Roman Seidl & Corinne Moser & Michael Stauffacher & Pius Krütli, 2013. "Perceived Risk and Benefit of Nuclear Waste Repositories: Four Opinion Clusters," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 33(6), pages 1038-1048, June.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    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:energy:v:313:y:2024:i:c:s0360544224036673. 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.journals.elsevier.com/energy .

    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.