Elsevier

Energy Policy

Volume 152, May 2021, 112071
Energy Policy

Acceptance of energy technologies in context: Comparing laypeople's risk perceptions across eight infrastructure technologies in Germany

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2020.112071Get rights and content

Highlights

  • CCU risk perception was medium ranging between renewable and conventional energy technologies.

  • Risk judgments for CCU were guided by perceptions of established technologies.

  • User factors had little impact on risk perception of energy technologies and CCU.

Abstract

In Carbon Capture and Utilization (CCU), CO2 captured from industrial processes replaces fossil feedstock used to produce of a variety of products, e.g., plastic products, fuels, or minerals. The roll-out of CCU will depend on the public's acceptance and risk perception. Whereas past studies exclusively focused on CCU risk perception, this study (n = 266) compared CCU to seven other infrastructure technologies (fossil, nuclear, renewable energies) to put the perceived CCU risks into perspective.

The risk perception for CCU was higher than it was for renewables, but lower compared to conventional energy technologies. User factors had limited influence on the risk perception: the perceived risks of CCU were not affected by people's general risk orientation. Instead, risk judgments were guided by the risk evaluations of renewable and conventional energy technologies, indicating that CCU was “neither fish nor fowl” for laypeople. This lack of familiarity with CCU highlights the need for communication concepts which clarify the role of CCU for climate and resource protection.

Introduction

Tackling the challenges of climate change and natural resource depletion requires political measures and new technological solutions which reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and save resources (IRP, 2019; UNEP, 2019). Carbon Capture and Utilization (CCU) can reduce emissions and the use of fossil resources by using CO2 captured at point sources (e.g., power plants) as a substitute for fossil feedstock, e.g., for the production of plastic products or fuels (Kätelhön et al., 2019; Von der Assen and Bardow, 2014). Depending on the application, the possible reductions CCU yields vary (Cuéllar-Franca and Azapagic, 2015). For example, for the production of polyols, which are required for the manufacturing of foam mattresses, 13–16% of fossil resources, and 11–19% of GHG emissions, can be saved by using CO2 as raw material (Von der Assen and Bardow, 2014). However, it has to be noted that the CCU process can require a higher energy input than conventional production processes (Abanades et al., 2017).

The environmental benefits of CCU mainly lie in the saving of fossil resources. As such, CCU needs to be distinguished from the concept of Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS), which aims to mitigate climate change by limiting the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere. In CCS captured CO2-emissions are permanently stored underground, for example, in saline aquifers or depleted oil fields. The amount of CO2 that can be permanently stored by applying CCS considerably exceeds the demand for CO2 in CCU applications (due to limited production capacities and resulting feedstock demands for CCU) (Bui et al., 2018). However, if viewed as a supplement to other low emission technologies with higher GHG reduction potential, such as Power-to-X and electromobility, CCU can help to mitigate climate change as well. If the demand for renewable electricity which these low emission technologies require is met, the surplus energy can be used for CCU, resulting in additional CO2 reductions (Kätelhön et al., 2019).

The successful implementation of CCU technologies does not only rely on their technical and economic feasibility, but also on the public's approval (Jones et al., 2017b). As previous studies in the context of energy infrastructure technologies have shown (e.g., for electricity transmission, Cain and Nelson, 2013; wind power, Langer et al., 2018; nuclear energy, Harris et al., 2018; and CCU, Arning et al., 2019), a technology's acceptance decreases as the concerns about its negative effects increase, thus making it crucial to consider the public's risk perception. Previous research already provided basic insights into the acceptance of CCU and its risk perception (e.g., Arning et al., 2017; Perdan et al., 2017). However, these studies exclusively focused on CCU and did not include a benchmark to other large-scale technologies. Because of this it has been difficult to assess the severity of technology-specific fears as a barrier for the acceptance of CCU. It is therefore important to figure out whether, when evaluated together with a series of established infrastructure technologies, CCU is rated as being harmless, risky, or somewhere in between both extremes. To address this research gap, the present study researches laypeople's perceived risks for CCU compared to seven other infrastructure technologies (fossil, nuclear, and renewable energies). In that way, risks can be put into perspective to assess the relevance of the risk perception as a possible barrier for the roll-out of CCU.

Section snippets

Social acceptance and risk perception of CCU

In this section, an overview of the current state of research on the risk perception for novel infrastructure technologies is provided. First, the basics of risk perception theory and the role of the perceived risks for the acceptance of infrastructure technologies are introduced, as well as the factors that influence the risk perception. Subsequently, the current state of research on the public perception of CCU with special regard to the perceived risks and their impact on the acceptance is

Method

To compare the risk perception for CCU with other infrastructure technologies, an online questionnaire was designed. Before describing the survey sample and the procedure applied for the data analysis, this section first provides a description of the self-assessment of risk perception as a valuable methodology for measuring laypeople's unbiased perspective. In contrast to domain expert's technical description of risks, laypeople's—the ones who will have to accept and adopt novel technologies in

Results

Firstly, risk perceptions for CCU and the seven renewable and conventional energy infrastructure technologies are compared. Moreover, the relationship between the risk evaluations for the three technology fields CCU, conventional, and renewable energy technologies is examined. Finally, the effect of person-related factors on the risk perception is investigated.

Putting CCU risks into perspective (RQ1)

In this section, the results are discussed, methodological limitations are addressed, and recommendations for an information and communication concept for the roll-out of CCU are derived. Additionally, an outlook on the future research follow-up studies should pursue is provided.

The present study found the risk perception for CCU to be at a medium level, which is in line with previous work that revealed concerns to be low to medium (Arning et al., 2018, 2019; Perdan et al., 2017). In the

Conclusion and policy implications

The aim of the present study was to put the perception of risks for CCU into perspective by comparing it to the perceived risks for seven other infrastructure technologies (five renewable and two conventional energy technologies). It was found that the risk perception for CCU was rather low, being perceived as riskier than renewables but less hazardous than conventional energy technologies. The perception of risks for CCU also correlated with that of both conventional and renewable energy

CRediT authorship contribution statement

Anika Linzenich: Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Validation, Visualization, Writing - original draft, Writing - review & editing. Katrin Arning: Conceptualization, Data curation, Investigation, Methodology, Supervision, Validation, Writing - original draft, Writing - review & editing. Martina Ziefle: Funding acquisition, Project administration, Resources, Supervision, Validation, Writing - original draft, Writing - review & editing.

Declaration of competing interest

The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

Acknowledgment

The authors would like to thank Freya Willicks, Lisanne Simons, Mona Frank, Susanne Gohr, Lena Lummertzheim, and Anna Rohowsky for research support. Further thanks go to Luca Liehner for graphics support. We thank the editor Prof. Dr. Carlos Henggeler Antunes and two anonymous reviewers for their valuable suggestions which proved very helpful in improving the paper.

This work was funded by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG, German Research Foundation) under Germany's Excellence Strategy –

References (66)

  • R.M. Cuéllar-Franca et al.

    Carbon capture, storage and utilisation technologies: a critical analysis and comparison of their life cycle environmental impacts

    J. CO2 Util.

    (2015)
  • Y. Hao et al.

    What affects college students' acceptance of nuclear energy? Evidence from China

    J. Clean. Prod.

    (2019)
  • J. Harris et al.

    The demographics of nuclear power: comparing nuclear experts', scientists' and non-science professionals' views of risks, benefits and values

    Energy Res. Soc. Sci.

    (2018)
  • N.M.A. Huijts et al.

    Psychological factors influencing sustainable energy technology acceptance: a review-based comprehensive framework

    Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev.

    (2012)
  • C.R. Jones et al.

    Lay perceptions of Carbon Dioxide Utilisation technologies in the United Kingdom and Germany: an exploratory qualitative interview study

    Energy Res. Soc. Sci.

    (2017)
  • C. Kunze et al.

    Contested deep geothermal energy in Germany—the emergence of an environmental protest movement

    Energy Res. Soc. Sci.

    (2017)
  • K. Langer et al.

    Factors influencing citizens' acceptance and non-acceptance of wind energy in Germany

    J. Clean. Prod.

    (2018)
  • P. Lienert et al.

    Public acceptance of the expansion and modification of high-voltage power lines in the context of the energy transition

    Energy Pol.

    (2015)
  • A. Linzenich et al.

    Uncovering attitudes towards carbon capture storage and utilization technologies in Germany. Insights into affective-cognitive evaluations of benefits and risks

    Energy Res. Soc. Sci.

    (2019)
  • J. Offermann-van Heek et al.

    Assessing public acceptance of the life cycle of CO2-based fuels: does information make the difference?

    Energy Pol.

    (2020)
  • E. Park

    Social acceptance of green electricity: evidence from the structural equation modeling method

    J. Clean. Prod.

    (2019)
  • S. Perdan et al.

    Public awareness and acceptance of carbon capture and utilisation in the UK

    Sustain. Prod. Consum.

    (2017)
  • P. Schweizer-Ries

    Energy sustainable communities: environmental psychological investigations

    Energy Pol.

    (2008)
  • A. Spence et al.

    Framing and communicating climate change: the effects of distance and outcome frame manipulations

    Global Environ. Change

    (2010)
  • J. Thøgersen et al.

    Does green consumerism increase the acceptance of wind power?

    Energy Pol.

    (2012)
  • V.H.M. Visschers et al.

    Find the differences and the similarities: relating perceived benefits, perceived costs and protected values to acceptance of five energy technologies

    J. Environ. Psychol.

    (2014)
  • D.A. Wadley et al.

    Risk hidden in plain sight: explaining homeowner perceptions of electricity transmission infrastructure

    Energy Pol.

    (2019)
  • R. Wüstenhagen et al.

    Social acceptance of renewable energy innovation: an introduction to the concept

    Energy Pol.

    (2007)
  • B.S. Zaunbrecher et al.

    Integrating acceptance-relevant factors into wind power planning: a discussion

    Sustain. Cities Soc.

    (2016)
  • B.S. Zaunbrecher et al.

    What is stored, why, and how? Mental models, knowledge, and public acceptance of hydrogen storage

    Energy Procedia

    (2016)
  • J.C. Abanades et al.

    On the climate change mitigation potential of CO2 conversion to fuels

    Energy Environ. Sci.

    (2017)
  • A.S. Alhakami et al.

    A psychological study of the inverse relationship between perceived risk and perceived benefit

    Risk Anal.

    (1994)
  • Audi AG

    Audi E-Diesel and E-Ethanol

    (2021)
  • Cited by (16)

    • The influence of the public's prior knowledge on their acceptance of risk control method for contaminated sites: A case study in China

      2022, Alexandria Engineering Journal
      Citation Excerpt :

      Hence, investigating the characteristics of the public’s cognition mechanism regarding risk control method is necessary for its implementation in contaminated sites of China. In studies on public’s cognition mechanisms, their risk perception and benefit perception are considered to be important predictors of people's acceptance of a technology or method [11–13]. When the public’s benefit perception is greater than their risk perception, the technology or method tends to be accepted; otherwise, it is rejected [13].

    View all citing articles on Scopus
    View full text