Same or different? Insights on public perception and acceptance of carbon capture and storage or utilization in Germany

• Published in: Energy policy 2019-02, Vol.125, p.235-249
• Main Authors: Arning, K., Offermann-van Heek, J., Linzenich, A., Kaetelhoen, A., Sternberg, A., Bardow, A., Ziefle, M.
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Acceptance; Carbon capture and storage (CCS); Carbon capture and utilization (CCU); Carbon dioxide; Carbon sequestration; Chemicals; Climate change; Conceptual development; Energy policy; Internet; Organic chemistry; Perception; Production; Public acceptance; Public awareness; Public concerns; Public opinion; Public perception; Risk perception; Storage; Survey; Technology; Transport; Transportation
• ISSN: 0301-4215; 1873-6777
• DOI: 10.1016/j.enpol.2018.10.039

Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) and Carbon Capture and Utilization (CCU) are two CO2-based technologies aiming at mitigating climate change by capturing and either permanently storing CO2 (CCS) or using it as a feedstock (CCU) for commercial products, e.g., chemicals, fuels, or plastic products. Whereas the implementation of CCS has attracted considerable public opposition in Europe and the US, the CCU-technology is still in an early development stage. This research takes a social science perspective and investigates the awareness, general perception and acceptance of CCS in comparison to CCU by applying an online survey in Germany (2017, n = 509). In addition, the risk perception of single steps in the CCU/CCS process chains was explored (CCS: CO2-capturing, CO2-transport, CO2-storage; CCU: CO2-capturing, CO2-transport, temporary CO2-storage, production, product usage, product disposal). Significant differences were found for the perception and acceptance of CCS and CCU: while both technologies were generally accepted, CCU was perceived significantly more positively than CCS. CCS-acceptance was negatively influenced by storage and transport risks; for CCU, disposal and product risks decreased acceptance. Our results contribute to the development of communication concepts for a successful implementation of CO2-based technologies by considering public concerns. •Low public awareness of CCS and CCU.•CCU is perceived more positively than CCS.•Perceived risks regarding CO2-storage and -transport decrease CCS acceptance.•Perceived CCU product and disposal risks decrease CCU acceptance.•CCS and CCU communication should convey factual knowledge and trust-enhancing messages.