Public acceptance of CO2 capture and storage technologyA survey of public opinion to explore influential factors

Itaoka, Kenshi; Saito, Aya; Akai, Makoto

doi:10.1016/b978-008044704-9/50102-6

Cited by 52 publications

(52 citation statements)

References 2 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In Europe there is a very significant policy interest for CCS, but numerous barriers remain to a widespread deployment of the technology. To overcome them, the ZEP estimates that ten to twelve demonstration projects in Europe are immediately necessary, and that the additional investment needed to build and run those are about 7 to 12 billion euros (Hill 2008). Moreover, the uncertainty about the future carbon cost requires a policy framework making CCS economically sustainable.…”

Section: Leakage From the Business Operator's Point Of Viewmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Zero is the only acceptable leakage rate for geologically stored CO 2 : an editorial comment

Ha-Duong

Loisel

2009

Climatic Change

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Leakage is one of the main concerns of all parties involved with the development of Carbon Capture and Storage. From an economic point of view, van der Zwaan and Gerlagh (2009) suggest that CCS remains a valuable option even with CO 2 leakage rate as high as of a few % per year. But what is valuable is, ultimately, determined by social preferences and parameters that are beyond economic modeling. Examining the point of view of four stakeholder groups: industry, policy-makers, environmental NGOs and the general public, we conclude that there is a social agreement today: zero is the only acceptable carbon leakage rate.

show abstract

Section: Leakage From the Business Operator's Point Of Viewmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…For example, the survey of Itaoka et al (2005) in Japan shows that the two most important factors influencing the public perception are leakage related risks and effectiveness in the long term. But the meaning of "leakage", in the context of public perception, can not be reduced to an annual rate.…”

Section: Public Opinionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Zero is the only acceptable leakage rate for geologically stored CO 2 : an editorial comment

Ha-Duong

Loisel

2009

Climatic Change

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Considerable research has been undertaken on individual and public perceptions of risks associated with both technological and natural hazards (Becker et al, 2008;Fischhoff et al, 2000;Siegrist & Cvetkovich, 2000;Slovic, 2000) and there is growing literature on climate change Brechin, 2003;Lorenzoni & Pidgeon, 2006) and CCS Huijts et al, 2007;Itaoka et al, 2004;Miller et al, 2008;Reiner et al, 2006;Sharp et al, 2006). This literature can provide some insight and context for developing social scientific research in New Zealand on the public's knowledge about and perceptions of climate change and CCS.…”

Section: Community Engagement and Social Science Researchmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Potential for CO2 Storage in the West Coast-Tasman Region, New Zealand

Rattenbury¹,

Begg²,

Doody³

2009

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Oltra et al, 2010;Reiner et al, 2006;Shackley et al, 2005;Upham and Roberts, 2011; see also Itaoka et al 2004). …”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…DOI: 10.1016/j.enpol.2013 3 CCS is not a widely known or understood technology (Curry et al, 2004;EC 2011;Gough et al, 2001Gough et al, , 2002Ha Duong et al, 2009;Huijts et al, 2007;Itaoka et al, 2004;Miller et al, 2007;Reiner et al, 2006;Shackley et al, 2005). Even when self-knowledge of CCS has been judged by respondents to be good, factual cross-checks have shown that people over-estimate their own knowledge of CCS, though the extent of this varies across countries (Curry et al, 2007;de Best-Waldhober and Daamen, 2006;Reiner et al, 2006).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Internet-based public debate of CCS: Lessons from online focus groups in Poland and Spain

Riesch

Oltra²,

Lis

et al. 2013

Energy Policy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract:This paper makes three contributions to the developing literature on public opinion and understanding of CCS. The first is a discussion of online focus groups as a deliberative method in experimental and perhaps consultative contexts. The second is the role of anchoring and associative reasoning in the development of public opinion of CCS, illustrated through the coincidental timing of the investigation with the Fukushima nuclear accident. The third is a discussion of managing public-facing energy messaging in an age of public access to online information. Two multi-day, online focus groups or "dialogue boards" were held, one in Poland and one in Spain, with participants drawn from regions with active CCS development potential. The nature of the groups led to participants being subject to wider social influence through discussion of the topic offline. They were also able to research and present evidence on the topic to the group, deepening debate and allowing the emergence of 'experts'. The study illustrates and affirms the importance of trust in message source, the difficulties of challenging preexisting concerns and opinion and the challenge potentially posed by access to conflicting online information.

show abstract

Public acceptance of CO2 capture and storage technologyA survey of public opinion to explore influential factors

Cited by 52 publications

References 2 publications

Zero is the only acceptable leakage rate for geologically stored CO 2 : an editorial comment

Zero is the only acceptable leakage rate for geologically stored CO 2 : an editorial comment

The Potential for CO2 Storage in the West Coast-Tasman Region, New Zealand

Internet-based public debate of CCS: Lessons from online focus groups in Poland and Spain

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About