Stakeholder acceptance of carbon capture and storage in Germany

Fischedick, Manfred; Pietzner, Katja; Supersberger, Nikolaus; Esken, Andrea; Kuckshinrichs, Wilhelm; Zapp, Petra; Linßen, Jochen; Schumann, Diana; Radgen, Peter; Cremer, Clemens; Gruber, Edelgard; Schnepf, Nathalie; Roser, Annette; Idrissova, Farikha

doi:10.1016/j.egypro.2009.02.304

Cited by 24 publications

(14 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The major concern was the energy penalty associated with CCS and its impact on the long-term supply of coal. The study by Fischedick et al (2009) in Germany concluded that government, industry and energy experts mainly adopt a neutral or positive view of CCS, while most environmental NGOs reject it.…”

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 97%

Experts’ attitudes towards CCS technologies in Spain

Sala

Oltra

2011

International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 97%

Experts’ attitudes towards CCS technologies in Spain

Sala

Oltra

2011

International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Yet despite proponents communicating the potential of CCS, many people worldwide have little-to-no awareness or knowledge of the technology (European Commission 2011). Studies from Australia (Ashworth et al 2009), Canada (IPAC-CO2 2012a, 2012bSharp, Jaccard, andKeith 2009), France (Ha-Doung, Nadaï, andCampos 2009), Germany (Fischedick et al 2009), Japan (Itaoka et al 2009;Itaoka, Saito, and Akai 2005), the Netherlands (de Best-Waldhober, Daamen, and Faaij 2009;de Best-Waldhober et al 2011;de Coninck and Huijts 2005;Paukovic, Brunsting, and de Best-Waldhober 2011), the UK (Reiner et al 2006a), the US (Curry et al 2005;Palmgren et al 2004;Reiner et al 2006b;), Switzerland (Wallquist, Visschers, and Siegrist 2009) and Sweden (Reiner et al 2006a) When engaged on the topic of CCS, community members tend to share similar concerns regarding the technology. Some fear that CO 2 may leak out of the storage site or during transportation, put water sources at risk or hurt property values .…”

Section: Ccs and Industry-community Relationsmentioning

confidence: 97%

A Social Licence for Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage: How Engineers and Managers Describe Community Relations

Dowd¹,

James

2014

Social Epistemology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Although extensive research has been devoted to public perceptions and acceptance of controversial energy innovations, the perspectives of people developing and implementing such technologies are relatively under-examined. Other industries, such as mining, and social researchers have adopted the term "social licence to operate" (SLO) to conceptualise community-industry relationships. Despite its potential applicability to carbon dioxide capture and storage (CCS) technology, SLO has received very little attention in this context, specifically from an engineering and managerial perspective. The internationally contested nature of CCS highlights the importance of examining how engineers and managers discuss and understand the term SLO. Given the central role of engineers and managers in developing CCS technology and contributing to the creation of the contexts in which people relate to it, knowledge of how they understand their connection to communities impacted by the technology is a key area requiring development. Drawing upon semi-structured interviews with engineers and managers from Australian CCS projects, this research considers their opinions of the relationship between CCS projects and the local or national community, and their understandings of the SLO concept. Results suggest that the emerging energy technology of CCS exposes some of SLO's limitations for conceptualising and analysing the community-industry relationship.

show abstract

“…Third, in a country with previous political conflicts over similar issues there is a greater risk that CCS may re-activate old conflict lines and resistance than in one with no such political conflicts (Fischedick 2009). This is difficult to establish objectively, but we asked interviewees to reflect on relevant potential or real issue linkages, leaving them to make connections.…”

Section: Analytical Frameworkmentioning

confidence: 99%

Carbon capture and storage in the UK and Germany: easier task, stronger commitment?

Inderberg

Wettestad

2015

Environmental Politics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A successful carbon capture and storage (CCS) policy and programme is widely considered essential to curbing carbon dioxide emissions. What explains the strikingly different policy outcomes in two key EU political heavyweights and coal economies, the UK and Germany? The UK has decided to contract two specific CCS projects, with explicit timelines for realization; Germany has made no such decisions. From scrutiny of official documents and indepth high-level interviews, we find that the UK has more favourable structural capacity, including offshore storage capacity (which evokes less conflict) and significant oil-industry expertise, and thus an easier task. Moreover, this structural capacity has interacted with a solid political commitment to bring CCS forward in the UK, including specific, multi-stage funding and a high-level drive to develop CCS, especially after 2009. In Germany, by contrast, CCS has encountered increasing local and central opposition since 2009, with the Energiewende and renewables being accorded priority.

show abstract

Stakeholder acceptance of carbon capture and storage in Germany

Cited by 24 publications

References 0 publications

Experts’ attitudes towards CCS technologies in Spain

Experts’ attitudes towards CCS technologies in Spain

A Social Licence for Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage: How Engineers and Managers Describe Community Relations

Carbon capture and storage in the UK and Germany: easier task, stronger commitment?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About