IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jeners/v16y2023i3p1280-d1046133.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A Decision Support Tool for Social Engagement, Alternative Financing and Risk Mitigation of Geothermal Energy Projects

Author

Listed:
  • Anastasia Ioannou

    (James Watt School of Engineering, University of Glasgow, Glasgow G12 8QQ, UK)

  • Gioia Falcone

    (James Watt School of Engineering, University of Glasgow, Glasgow G12 8QQ, UK)

  • Christina Baisch

    (Vulcan Energy Subsurface Solutions GmbH, 76227 Karlsruhe, Germany)

  • Georgie Friederichs

    (CrowdfundingHub BV, 1064 NW Amsterdam, The Netherlands)

  • Jan Hildebrand

    (Institute for Future Energy and Material Flow Systems, 66115 Saarbrücken, Germany)

Abstract

This paper presents a decision support tool for promoters/investors of geothermal energy projects, based on a decision tree (DT) structure. The DT aims to assist stakeholders to select public engagement strategies, alternative financing solutions and risk mitigation measures (or options) for geothermal energy projects. Public engagement is necessary for the successful development and operation of geothermal projects. Available studies (including toolkits and protocols) commonly list a set of practices for social engagement without providing information on the factors which render certain options more suitable than others. The presented tool offers a transparent framework to how relevant decisions could be managed by providing a sequence of questions that focus on social, environmental, resource risk, and financial influencing factors and to realise community engagement into geothermal projects. This work is part of the Horizon 2020 CROWDTHERMAL project, which aims at empowering the public to directly participate in the development of geothermal projects through social engagement tools and alternative financing schemes, like crowdfunding.

Suggested Citation

  • Anastasia Ioannou & Gioia Falcone & Christina Baisch & Georgie Friederichs & Jan Hildebrand, 2023. "A Decision Support Tool for Social Engagement, Alternative Financing and Risk Mitigation of Geothermal Energy Projects," Energies, MDPI, vol. 16(3), pages 1-25, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jeners:v:16:y:2023:i:3:p:1280-:d:1046133
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/16/3/1280/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/16/3/1280/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Tso, Geoffrey K.F. & Yau, Kelvin K.W., 2007. "Predicting electricity energy consumption: A comparison of regression analysis, decision tree and neural networks," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 32(9), pages 1761-1768.
    2. Pellizzone, Anna & Allansdottir, Agnes & De Franco, Roberto & Muttoni, Giovanni & Manzella, Adele, 2015. "Exploring public engagement with geothermal energy in southern Italy: A case study," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 85(C), pages 1-11.
    3. Cousse, Julia & Trutnevyte, Evelina & Hahnel, Ulf J.J., 2021. "Tell me how you feel about geothermal energy: Affect as a revealing factor of the role of seismic risk on public acceptance," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 158(C).
    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. Kubota, Hiromi & Hondo, Hiroki & Hienuki, Shunichi & Kaieda, Hideshi, 2013. "Determining barriers to developing geothermal power generation in Japan: Societal acceptance by stakeholders involved in hot springs," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 61(C), pages 1079-1087.
    6. Colla, Martin & Ioannou, Anastasia & Falcone, Gioia, 2020. "Critical review of competitiveness indicators for energy projects," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 125(C).
    7. Amel Barich & Alicja W. Stokłosa & Jan Hildebrand & Ottó Elíasson & Tamás Medgyes & Gauthier Quinonez & Ana C. Casillas & Isabel Fernandez, 2021. "Social License to Operate in Geothermal Energy," Energies, MDPI, vol. 15(1), pages 1-21, December.
    8. Mott, A. & Baba, A. & Hadi Mosleh, M. & Ökten, H.E. & Babaei, M. & Gören, A.Y. & Feng, C. & Recepoğlu, Y.K. & Uzelli, T. & Uytun, H. & Morata, D. & Yüksel, A. & Sedighi, M., 2022. "Boron in geothermal energy: Sources, environmental impacts, and management in geothermal fluid," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 167(C).
    9. Simone Carr-Cornish & Lygia Romanach, 2014. "Differences in Public Perceptions of Geothermal Energy Technology in Australia," Energies, MDPI, vol. 7(3), pages 1-21, March.
    10. Huo, Yuchong & Bouffard, François & Joós, Géza, 2021. "Decision tree-based optimization for flexibility management for sustainable energy microgrids," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 290(C).
    11. Leimeister, Mareike & Kolios, Athanasios, 2018. "A review of reliability-based methods for risk analysis and their application in the offshore wind industry," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 91(C), pages 1065-1076.
    12. Mattheus Goosen & Hacene Mahmoudi & Noreddine Ghaffour, 2010. "Water Desalination Using Geothermal Energy," Energies, MDPI, vol. 3(8), pages 1-20, August.
    13. Dowd, Anne-Maree & Boughen, Naomi & Ashworth, Peta & Carr-Cornish, Simone, 2011. "Geothermal technology in Australia: Investigating social acceptance," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(10), pages 6301-6307, October.
    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. 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.
    2. Baek, Haein & Chung, Ji-Bum & Yun, Gi Woong, 2021. "Differences in public perceptions of geothermal energy based on EGS technology in Korea after the Pohang earthquake: National vs. local," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 172(C).
    3. Cousse, Julia & Trutnevyte, Evelina & Hahnel, Ulf J.J., 2021. "Tell me how you feel about geothermal energy: Affect as a revealing factor of the role of seismic risk on public acceptance," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 158(C).
    4. von Wirth, Timo & Gislason, Linda & Seidl, Roman, 2018. "Distributed energy systems on a neighborhood scale: Reviewing drivers of and barriers to social acceptance," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 82(P3), pages 2618-2628.
    5. Romanach, Lygia & Carr-Cornish, Simone & Muriuki, Grace, 2015. "Societal acceptance of an emerging energy technology: How is geothermal energy portrayed in Australian media?," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 42(C), pages 1143-1150.
    6. Spampatti, Tobia & Hahnel, Ulf J.J. & Trutnevyte, Evelina & Brosch, Tobias, 2022. "Short and long-term dominance of negative information in shaping public energy perceptions: The case of shallow geothermal systems," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 167(C).
    7. Kim, Ju-Hee & Kim, Hee-Hoon & Yoo, Seung-Hoon, 2022. "Social acceptance toward constructing a combined heat and power plant near people's dwellings in South Korea," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 244(PB).
    8. Kalkbrenner, Bernhard J. & Yonezawa, Koichi & Roosen, Jutta, 2017. "Consumer preferences for electricity tariffs: Does proximity matter?," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 107(C), pages 413-424.
    9. R.V., Rohit & R., Vipin Raj & Kiplangat, Dennis C. & R., Veena & Jose, Rajan & Pradeepkumar, A.P. & Kumar, K. Satheesh, 2023. "Tracing the evolution and charting the future of geothermal energy research and development," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 184(C).
    10. Kubota, Hiromi & Hondo, Hiroki & Hienuki, Shunichi & Kaieda, Hideshi, 2013. "Determining barriers to developing geothermal power generation in Japan: Societal acceptance by stakeholders involved in hot springs," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 61(C), pages 1079-1087.
    11. Aaen, Sara Bjørn & Kerndrup, Søren & Lyhne, Ivar, 2016. "Beyond public acceptance of energy infrastructure: How citizens make sense and form reactions by enacting networks of entities in infrastructure development," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 96(C), pages 576-586.
    12. Pellizzone, Anna & Allansdottir, Agnes & De Franco, Roberto & Muttoni, Giovanni & Manzella, Adele, 2015. "Exploring public engagement with geothermal energy in southern Italy: A case study," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 85(C), pages 1-11.
    13. Pellizzone, Anna & Allansdottir, Agnes & De Franco, Roberto & Muttoni, Giovanni & Manzella, Adele, 2017. "Geothermal energy and the public: A case study on deliberative citizens’ engagement in central Italy," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 101(C), pages 561-570.
    14. McComas, Katherine A. & Lu, Hang & Keranen, Katie M. & Furtney, Maria A. & Song, Hwansuck, 2016. "Public perceptions and acceptance of induced earthquakes related to energy development," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 99(C), pages 27-32.
    15. Franziska Steinberger & Tobias Minder & Evelina Trutnevyte, 2020. "Efficiency versus Equity in Spatial Siting of Electricity Generation: Citizen Preferences in a Serious Board Game in Switzerland," Energies, MDPI, vol. 13(18), pages 1-17, September.
    16. Sarrica, Mauro & Biddau, Fulvio & Brondi, Sonia & Cottone, Paolo & Mazzara, Bruno M., 2018. "A multi-scale examination of public discourse on energy sustainability in Italy: Empirical evidence and policy implications," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 114(C), pages 444-454.
    17. Wang, Yuqing & Liu, Yingxin & Dou, Jinyue & Li, Mingzhu & Zeng, Ming, 2020. "Geothermal energy in China: Status, challenges, and policy recommendations," Utilities Policy, Elsevier, vol. 64(C).
    18. Simone Carr-Cornish & Lygia Romanach, 2014. "Differences in Public Perceptions of Geothermal Energy Technology in Australia," Energies, MDPI, vol. 7(3), pages 1-21, March.
    19. Höffken, Johanna I., 2014. "A closer look at small hydropower projects in India: Social acceptability of two storage-based projects in Karnataka," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 34(C), pages 155-166.
    20. Andrew B. Moynihan & Geertje Schuitema, 2020. "Values Influence Public Acceptability of Geoengineering Technologies Via Self-Identities," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(11), pages 1-33, June.

    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:gam:jeners:v:16:y:2023:i:3:p:1280-:d:1046133. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    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.