IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/enp/wpaper/eprg1810.html

A comparison of public preferences for different low-carbon energy technologies: Support for CCS, nuclear and wind energy in the United Kingdom

Author

Listed:
  • Hao Yu

    (State Grid Energy Research Institute Co, LTD, Beijing, China)

  • David M. Reiner

    (Judge Business School, University of Cambridge)

  • Hao Chen

    (Center for Energy and Environmental Policy Research, Beijing Institute of Technology, Beijing, China)

  • Zhifu Mi

    (Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, School of International Development, University of East Anglia, Norwich)

Abstract

Using a representative national survey in the United Kingdom, we investigated public attitudes towards different low-carbon technologies (carbon capture and storage (CCS), wind and nuclear power) and the factors influencing public support. Overall, we found that respondents were far more likely to support wind energy as their preferred means of mitigating climate change. Older people and those of a higher social grade are more supportive of nuclear power, while age and social grade do not significantly affect support for wind energy. Supporters of the Conservative Party were more likely to oppose wind power. Neither attitudes towards climate change nor environmental attitudes were found to influence public support for wind power or nuclear. Trust in information from environmental groups was associated with greater support for wind energy but lower support for nuclear power. Perceived cost and objective knowledge significantly influenced public support for all three technology types, that is, higher perceived costs and the poorer objective knowledge lead to lower public support. However, self-assessed knowledge did not influence public support. Many factors, including most of the tested demographic factors, did not affect support for any of the three technologies.
(This abstract was borrowed from another version of this item.)

Suggested Citation

  • Hao Yu & David M. Reiner & Hao Chen & Zhifu Mi, 2018. "A comparison of public preferences for different low-carbon energy technologies: Support for CCS, nuclear and wind energy in the United Kingdom," Working Papers EPRG 1810, Energy Policy Research Group, Cambridge Judge Business School, University of Cambridge.
    • Handle: RePEc:enp:wpaper:eprg1810
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.jbs.cam.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/eprg-wp1810.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Adebayo, Tomiwa Sunday & AbdulKareem, Hauwah K.K. & Bilal, & Kirikkaleli, Dervis & Shah, Muhammad Ibrahim & Abbas, Shujaat, 2022. "CO2 behavior amidst the COVID-19 pandemic in the United Kingdom: The role of renewable and non-renewable energy development," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 189(C), pages 492-501.
    2. Ho, Shirley S. & Xiong, Rui & Chuah, Agnes S.F., 2021. "Heuristic cues as perceptual filters: Factors influencing public support for nuclear research reactor in Singapore," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 150(C).
    3. Pavel Tcvetkov, 2021. "Climate Policy Imbalance in the Energy Sector: Time to Focus on the Value of CO 2 Utilization," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(2), pages 1-22, January.
    4. Katja Witte, 2021. "Social Acceptance of Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) from Industrial Applications," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(21), pages 1-29, November.
    5. Ehrenstein, Michael & Galán-Martín, Ángel & Tulus, Victor & Guillén-Gosálbez, Gonzalo, 2020. "Optimising fuel supply chains within planetary boundaries: A case study of hydrogen for road transport in the UK," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 276(C).

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    JEL classification:

    • C54 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Econometric Modeling - - - Quantitative Policy Modeling
    • Q42 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Energy - - - Alternative Energy Sources
    • Q54 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics - - - Climate; Natural Disasters and their Management; Global Warming

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:enp:wpaper:eprg1810. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Ruth Newman (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/jicamuk.html .

    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.