Towards a Low-Carbon Society via Hydrogen and Carbon Capture and Storage: Social Acceptance from a Stakeholder Perspective

Abstract

Transformation concepts towards a low-carbon society often require new technology and infrastructure that evoke protests in the population. Therefore, it is crucial to understand positions and conflicts in society to achieve social acceptance. This paper analyses these positions using the example of implementing hydrogen and carbon capture and storage infrastructure to decarbonise the German energy system. The empirical basis of the study are explorative stakeholder interviews which were conducted with experts from politics, economics, civil society and science and analysed within a discursive and attitudinal framework using qualitative content analysis. These stakeholder positions are assumed to represent dominant social perceptions and reflect chances and risks for acceptance. The results indicate different positions while pursuing the common goal of addressing climate change. The general conflict concerns strategies towards a low-carbon society, especially the speed of phasing-out fossil energies. Regarding the combination of hydrogen and carbon capture and storage as instrument in the context of the energy transition, the stakeholder interviews indicate controversial as well as consensual perceptions. The assessments range from rejection to deeming it absolutely necessary. Controversial argumentations refer to security of supply, competitiveness and environmental protection. In contrast, consensus can be reached by balancing ecological and economic arguments, e.g. by linking hydrogen technologies with renewable and fossil energy sources or by limiting the use of carbon capture and storage only to certain applications (industry, bioenergy). In further decisions, this balancing of arguments combined with openness of technology, transparency of information and citizen participation need to be considered to achieve broad acceptance.

Stakeholders’ Risk Perceptions of Decarbonised Energy System: Insights into Patterns of Behaviour

“…For example, Germany is a relatively hierarchical, highly thrifty society with a high level of uncertainty avoidance: all features that could lead to high-risk perception. The results of discourse analysis on experts and, for instance, Eurobarometer [69], Braun [86] and Glanz and Schönauer [22] support the hypothesis that in Germany, relatively homogenous strong opposition exists among laypeople and experts. For instance, only 23% of German respondents perceived CCS as an effective technology to tackle climate change [69].…”

“…Moreover, 81% of respondents in Germany were worried about the environmental impacts of CCS deployment, the highest percentage amongst countries measured (ibid). Braun [86] and Glanz and Schönauer [22] argue that there are a high-risk perception and 'strong' public opposition against CCS in Germany. In addition, German experts interviewed commonly claim that CCS is not a useful technology.…”

“…Narratives are the construct of "perceptual lenses" of actors whose cultural factors (e.g., values and beliefs) influence these perceptions [40,41]. Glanz and Schönauer [22] (p. 3) state that experts' "positions and conflicts are assumed to be crucial for the formation and progress of social debates and public discourses".…”

“…The localities of the proposed facilities affect the risk perception of CCS, e.g., [82][83][84][85]. Furthermore, the Not In My Backyard (NIMBY) concept is considered as a factor that shapes a local community's risk perception and social acceptance of CCS, e.g., [6,22,64,[86][87][88][89]. Moreover, other factors such as proximity, community compensation and local residents' economic losses or decreases in real estate value are considered influential in CCS risk perception, e.g., [87][88][89][90][91][92][93][94].…”

“…Moreover, it is problematic to assume that it is mainly laypeople having misperceptions or making wrong decisions that consequently hinder the development and deployment of technology. Glanz and Schönauer [22] (p. 3) claim that "experts represent dominant social perceptions and reflect chances and risks for acceptance". In contrast to much of the mainstream research on risk perceptions that mainly use case studies in the realm of environmental and health issues, e.g., [23][24][25], this paper hypothesises that both laypeople and experts are affected by common cultural denominators and therefore might have a fairly similar pattern of risk perceptions vis-à-vis controversial energy systems such as CC(U)S. Comparative studies on CCS risk perceptions between experts and laypeople are scarce.…”