Refine
Year of Publication
Document Type
- Report (17)
- Peer-Reviewed Article (8)
- Contribution to Periodical (7)
- Part of a Book (6)
- Conference Object (2)
- Book (1)
Aufgabenstellung des "Folgeprojekts CCS-Kommunikation" war es, die Bedeutung unterschiedlicher Einflussfaktoren und deren Wechselwirkungen für die Akzeptanz mit Hilfe multivariater statistischer Analysen zu untersuchen. Dabei standen folgende zentrale Fragestellungen im Mittelpunkt der Untersuchungen: Welche Faktoren sind ausschlaggebend für die 1. spontane Einstellung zu CCS? 2. Stabilität spontaner Einstellungen zu CCS? 3. Risiko- und Nutzeneinschätzungen von CCS? 4. Akzeptanz der drei CCS-Prozessschritte? Diese Fragestellungen wurden mit unterschiedlichen multivariaten statistischen Verfahren und differenziert für unterschiedliche Ebenen oder Sachverhalte untersucht.
Aufgabenstellung des "Folgeprojekts CCS-Kommunikation" war es, die Bedeutung unterschiedlicher Einflussfaktoren und deren Wechselwirkungen für die Akzeptanz mit Hilfe multivariater statistischer Analysen zu untersuchen. Dabei standen folgende zentrale Fragestellungen im Mittelpunkt der Untersuchungen: Welche Faktoren sind ausschlaggebend für die 1. spontane Einstellung zu CCS? 2. Stabilität spontaner Einstellungen zu CCS? 3. Risiko- und Nutzeneinschätzungen von CCS? 4. Akzeptanz der drei CCS-Prozessschritte?
Diese Fragestellungen wurden mit unterschiedlichen multivariaten statistischen Verfahren und differenziert für unterschiedliche Ebenen oder Sachverhalte untersucht.
Among the factors that decelerate progress of CCS demonstration and deployment is the lack of public acceptance of local projects in Germany as well as in other countries. The study presented here aims to take the issue of public CCS perceptions further by empirically investigating the relevance of different specifications of the three main steps of the CCS chain, i.e. capture, transport and storage. An experimental approach is chosen and applied in an online survey with a representative sample from Germany with 1830 participants. With regard to possible CO2 sources we varied whether the CO2 of a specific setting is captured i) as part of an energy-intensive industry process (e.g. production of steel or cement), ii) from a power plant running on biomass, or iii) a coal-fired power plant. For transport, half of the settings described made reference to transport of CO2 via pipelines, the other half did not provide information about transport. With regard to storage the setting descriptions i) either explained that CO2 can be stored in saline aquifers, ii) can be used to enhance gas production from an emptying natural gas field or iii) can be stored in a depleted natural gas field. We find that overall the average of the ratings for perception of the settings fall into the neutral part of the answering scale. If the source of CO2 is a coal-fired power plant the setting is perceived less positively than if it includes biomass or industry. A significant interaction effect between transport and storage specifications is observed. This points out that storage in saline aquifers is perceived more negatively than a combination with enhanced gas recovery while storage in a depleted natural gas field is rated less positively if a pipeline is mentioned and more positively if no transport option is mentioned.
One of the factors decelerating a further diffusion of the carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology is the public's negative perception of early pilot or demonstration activities in Germany as well as in other countries. This study examined the public perception of CCS in more detail by looking into different options within the CCS chain, i.e. for the three elements capture, transport and storage. This was analyzed using an experimental approach, realized in an online survey with a representative German sample of 1830 citizens. Each participant evaluated one of 18 different CCS scenarios created using three types of CO2 source (industry, biomass, coal), two transport options (pipeline vs. no specification), and three storage possibilities (saline aquifer, depleted gas field, enhanced gas recovery (EGR)).
Overall, we found that the ratings of CCS were neutral on average. However, if the CO2 is produced by a biomass power plant or industry, CCS is rated more positively than in a scenario with a coal-fired power plant. The specifications of transport and storage interacted with each other such that scenarios including EGR or a depleted gas field without mentioning a pipeline were evaluated better than storing it in a saline aquifer or a depleted gas field and mentioning a pipeline as means of transport. Exploratory regression analyses indicate the high relevance of the respective CO2 source in general as well as the perceived importance of this source for Germany.
This paper presents the results of a collaborative project on public acceptance of Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) in Germany, commissioned by the German Federal Ministry of Economics and Technology (BMWi). The project "Socio-economic Research on Acceptance of CCS" (April 2006 to March 2008) analyzed various aspects of public acceptance of CCS mainly in the national context of Germany. It was the first project to handle this subject matter. Public acceptance is one of the crucial factors for the implementation of CCS in the future.
Both focus group discussions and information-choice questionnaires (ICQs) have previously been used to examine informed public opinions about carbon dioxide capture and storage (CCS). This paper presents an extensive experimental study to systematically examine and compare the quality of opinions created by these two research techniques. Depending on experimental condition, participants either participated in a focus group meeting or completed an ICQ. In both conditions participants received identical factual information about two specific CCS options. After having processed the information, they indicated their overall opinion about each CCS option. The quality of these opinions was determined by looking at three outcome-oriented indicators of opinion quality: consistency, stability, and confidence. Results for all three indicators showed that ICQs yielded higher-quality opinions than focus groups, but also that focus groups did not perform poor in this regard. Implications for the choice between focus group discussions and ICQs are discussed.