IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/riskan/v30y2010i9p1399-1410.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Informed Public Preferences for Electricity Portfolios with CCS and Other Low‐Carbon Technologies

Author

Listed:
  • Lauren A. Fleishman
  • Wändi Bruine De Bruin
  • M. Granger Morgan

Abstract

Public perceptions of carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) and other low‐carbon electricity‐generating technologies may affect the feasibility of their widespread deployment. We asked a diverse sample of 60 participants recruited from community groups in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania to rank 10 technologies (e.g., coal with CCS, natural gas, nuclear, various renewables, and energy efficiency), and seven realistic low‐carbon portfolios composed of these technologies, after receiving comprehensive and carefully balanced materials that explained the costs and benefits of each technology. Rankings were obtained in small group settings as well as individually before and after the group discussions. The ranking exercise asked participants to assume that the U.S. Congress had mandated a reduction in carbon dioxide emissions from power plants to be built in the future. Overall, rankings suggest that participants favored energy efficiency, followed by nuclear power, integrated gasification combined‐cycle coal with CCS and wind. The most preferred portfolio also included these technologies. We find that these informed members of the general public preferred diverse portfolios that contained CCS and nuclear over alternatives once they fully understood the benefits, cost, and limitations of each. The materials and approach developed for this study may also have value in educating members of the general public about the challenges of achieving a low‐carbon energy future.

Suggested Citation

  • Lauren A. Fleishman & Wändi Bruine De Bruin & M. Granger Morgan, 2010. "Informed Public Preferences for Electricity Portfolios with CCS and Other Low‐Carbon Technologies," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 30(9), pages 1399-1410, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:riskan:v:30:y:2010:i:9:p:1399-1410
    DOI: 10.1111/j.1539-6924.2010.01436.x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2010.01436.x
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2010.01436.x?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. H. Keith Florig & M. Granger Morgan & Kara M. Morgan & Karen E. Jenni & Baruch Fischhoff & Paul S. Fischbeck & Michael L. DeKay, 2001. "A Deliberative Method for Ranking Risks (I): Overview and Test Bed Development," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 21(5), pages 913-913, October.
    2. Michael Siegrist & George Cvetkovich, 2000. "Perception of Hazards: The Role of Social Trust and Knowledge," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 20(5), pages 713-720, October.
    3. Kaldellis, J. K., 2005. "Social attitude towards wind energy applications in Greece," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 33(5), pages 595-602, March.
    4. Bart W. Terwel & Fieke Harinck & Naomi Ellemers & Dancker D. L. Daamen, 2009. "Competence‐Based and Integrity‐Based Trust as Predictors of Acceptance of Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage (CCS)," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 29(8), pages 1129-1140, August.
    5. Kara M. Morgan & Michael L. DeKay & Paul S. Fischbeck & M. Granger Morgan & Baruch Fischhoff & H. Keith Florig, 2001. "A Deliberative Method for Ranking Risks (II): Evaluation of Validity and Agreement among Risk Managers," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 21(5), pages 923-923, October.
    6. Walawalkar, Rahul & Apt, Jay & Mancini, Rick, 2007. "Economics of electric energy storage for energy arbitrage and regulation in New York," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(4), pages 2558-2568, April.
    7. Firestone, Jeremy & Kempton, Willett, 2007. "Public opinion about large offshore wind power: Underlying factors," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(3), pages 1584-1598, March.
    8. Henry H. Willis & Michael L. DeKay & M. Granger Morgan & H. Keith Florig & Paul S. Fischbeck, 2004. "Ecological Risk Ranking: Development and Evaluation of a Method for Improving Public Participation in Environmental Decision Making," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 24(2), pages 363-378, April.
    9. Huijts, Nicole M.A. & Midden, Cees J.H. & Meijnders, Anneloes L., 2007. "Social acceptance of carbon dioxide storage," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(5), pages 2780-2789, May.
    10. Kathleen L. Purvis‐Roberts & Cynthia A. Werner & Irene Frank, 2007. "Perceived Risks from Radiation and Nuclear Testing Near Semipalatinsk, Kazakhstan: A Comparison Between Physicians, Scientists, and the Public," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 27(2), pages 291-302, April.
    11. מחקר - ביטוח לאומי, 2006. "Summary for 2005," Working Papers 29, National Insurance Institute of Israel.
    12. Gross, Catherine, 2007. "Community perspectives of wind energy in Australia: The application of a justice and community fairness framework to increase social acceptance," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(5), pages 2727-2736, May.
    13. Liu, Qiang & Shi, Minjun & Jiang, Kejun, 2009. "New power generation technology options under the greenhouse gases mitigation scenario in China," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(6), pages 2440-2449, June.
    14. Downs, Julie S. & Murray, Pamela J. & Bruine de Bruin, Wändi & Penrose, Joyce & Palmgren, Claire & Fischhoff, Baruch, 2004. "Interactive video behavioral intervention to reduce adolescent females' STD risk: a randomized controlled trial," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 59(8), pages 1561-1572, October.
    15. Michael Maharik & Baruch Fischhoff, 1992. "The Risks of Using Nuclear Energy Sources in Space: Some Lay Activists’Perceptions," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 12(3), pages 383-392, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Benjamin Evar, 2012. "Framing Co2 Storage Risk: A Cultural Theory Perspective," Energy & Environment, , vol. 23(2-3), pages 375-387, May.
    2. Abdulla, A. & Vaishnav, P. & Sergi, B. & Victor, D.G., 2019. "Limits to deployment of nuclear power for decarbonization: Insights from public opinion," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 129(C), pages 1339-1346.
    3. Nuortimo, Kalle & Härkönen, Janne, 2018. "Opinion mining approach to study media-image of energy production. Implications to public acceptance and market deployment," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 96(C), pages 210-217.
    4. Amanda D Boyd & Jiawei Liu & Jay D Hmielowski, 2019. "Public support for energy portfolios in Canada: How information about cost and national energy portfolios affect perceptions of energy systems," Energy & Environment, , vol. 30(2), pages 322-340, March.
    5. Escribano, Gonzalo & González-Enríquez, Carmen & Lázaro-Touza, Lara & Paredes-Gázquez, Juandiego, 2023. "An energy union without interconnections? Public acceptance of cross-border interconnectors in four European countries," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 266(C).
    6. Alexane Dubois & Simona Holzer & Georgios Xexakis & Julia Cousse & Evelina Trutnevyte, 2019. "Informed Citizen Panels on the Swiss Electricity Mix 2035: Longer-Term Evolution of Citizen Preferences and Affect in Two Cities," Energies, MDPI, vol. 12(22), pages 1-21, November.
    7. Nick Boase & Mathew White & William Gaze & Clare Redshaw, 2017. "Evaluating the Mental Models Approach to Developing a Risk Communication: A Scoping Review of the Evidence," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 37(11), pages 2132-2149, November.
    8. Sharpton, Tara & Lawrence, Thomas & Hall, Margeret, 2020. "Drivers and barriers to public acceptance of future energy sources and grid expansion in the United States," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 126(C).
    9. Adrian Tantau & Simona Irina Goia (Agoston) & Violeta Mihaela Dincă & Carmen Păunescu & Stere Stamule & Tănase Stamule & Anca Bogdan, 2024. "Exploring the Generation Z Attitude towards Energy Efficiency Improvement and Decarbonization through Heat Pumps: An Empirical Study in Romania," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(3), pages 1-18, February.
    10. Xexakis, Georgios & Hansmann, Ralph & Volken, Sandra P. & Trutnevyte, Evelina, 2020. "Models on the wrong track: Model-based electricity supply scenarios in Switzerland are not aligned with the perspectives of energy experts and the public," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 134(C).
    11. Liu, Bingsheng & Xu, Yinghua & Yang, Yang & Lu, Shijian, 2021. "How public cognition influences public acceptance of CCUS in China: Based on the ABC (affect, behavior, and cognition) model of attitudes," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 156(C).
    12. Zhang, Dongcheng & Jiang, Hanchen & Qiang, Maoshan, 2023. "Public attitudes toward hydropower in China: The role of information provision and partisan identification," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 195(C).
    13. Michael Siegrist & Philipp Hübner & Christina Hartmann, 2018. "Risk Prioritization in the Food Domain Using Deliberative and Survey Methods: Differences between Experts and Laypeople," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 38(3), pages 504-524, March.
    14. Wändi Bruine de Bruin & Lauren A. Mayer & M. Granger Morgan, 2015. "Developing communications about CCS: three lessons learned," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 18(6), pages 699-705, June.
    15. Thomas, Gareth & Demski, Christina & Pidgeon, Nick, 2019. "Deliberating the social acceptability of energy storage in the UK," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 133(C).
    16. Stadelmann-Steffen, Isabelle, 2019. "Bad news is bad news: Information effects and citizens’ socio-political acceptance of new technologies of electricity transmission," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 81(C), pages 531-545.
    17. Lacey, Justine & Malakar, Yuwan & McCrea, Rod & Moffat, Kieren, 2019. "Public perceptions of established and emerging mining technologies in Australia," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 62(C), pages 125-135.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Nuortimo, Kalle & Härkönen, Janne, 2018. "Opinion mining approach to study media-image of energy production. Implications to public acceptance and market deployment," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 96(C), pages 210-217.
    2. Nicolás C. Bronfman & Luis Abdón Cifuentes & Michael L. deKay & Henry H. Willis, 2007. "Accounting for Variation in the Explanatory Power of the Psychometric Paradigm: The Effects of Aggregation and Focus," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 10(4), pages 527-554, June.
    3. Henry H. Willis & Michael L. DeKay & Baruch Fischhoff & M. Granger Morgan, 2005. "Aggregate, Disaggregate, and Hybrid Analyses of Ecological Risk Perceptions," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 25(2), pages 405-428, April.
    4. Michael Siegrist & Philipp Hübner & Christina Hartmann, 2018. "Risk Prioritization in the Food Domain Using Deliberative and Survey Methods: Differences between Experts and Laypeople," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 38(3), pages 504-524, March.
    5. Dimitropoulos, Alexandros & Kontoleon, Andreas, 2009. "Assessing the determinants of local acceptability of wind-farm investment: A choice experiment in the Greek Aegean Islands," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(5), pages 1842-1854, May.
    6. Kânoğlu-Özkan, Dilge Güldehen & Soytaş, Uğur, 2022. "The social acceptance of shale gas development: Evidence from Turkey," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 239(PC).
    7. Henry H. Willis & Michael L. DeKay, 2007. "The Roles of Group Membership, Beliefs, and Norms in Ecological Risk Perception," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 27(5), pages 1365-1380, October.
    8. Perlaviciute, Goda & Steg, Linda, 2014. "Contextual and psychological factors shaping evaluations and acceptability of energy alternatives: Integrated review and research agenda," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 35(C), pages 361-381.
    9. Charles Vlek, 2013. "How Solid Is the Dutch (and the British) National Risk Assessment? Overview and Decision‐Theoretic Evaluation," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 33(6), pages 948-971, June.
    10. Klaus, Geraldine & Ernst, Andreas & Oswald, Lisa, 2020. "Psychological factors influencing laypersons’ acceptance of climate engineering, climate change mitigation and business as usual scenarios," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 60(C).
    11. Irving Susel & Trace Lasley & Mark Montezemolo & Joel Piper, 2016. "Augmenting the Deliberative Method for Ranking Risks," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 36(1), pages 49-56, January.
    12. Ribeiro, Fernando & Ferreira, Paula & Araújo, Madalena, 2011. "The inclusion of social aspects in power planning," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 15(9), pages 4361-4369.
    13. Henry H. Willis & Jacqueline MacDonald Gibson & Regina A. Shih & Sandra Geschwind & Sarah Olmstead & Jianhui Hu & Aimee E. Curtright & Gary Cecchine & Melinda Moore, 2010. "Prioritizing Environmental Health Risks in the UAE," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 30(12), pages 1842-1856, December.
    14. Liu, Bingsheng & Xu, Yinghua & Yang, Yang & Lu, Shijian, 2021. "How public cognition influences public acceptance of CCUS in China: Based on the ABC (affect, behavior, and cognition) model of attitudes," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 156(C).
    15. Visschers, Vivianne H.M. & Siegrist, Michael, 2012. "Fair play in energy policy decisions: Procedural fairness, outcome fairness and acceptance of the decision to rebuild nuclear power plants," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 46(C), pages 292-300.
    16. Russell, Aaron & Bingaman, Samantha & Garcia, Hannah-Marie, 2021. "Threading a moving needle: The spatial dimensions characterizing US offshore wind policy drivers," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 157(C).
    17. Haggett, Claire, 2011. "Understanding public responses to offshore wind power," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(2), pages 503-510, February.
    18. Valentine, Scott Victor, 2010. "A STEP toward understanding wind power development policy barriers in advanced economies," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 14(9), pages 2796-2807, December.
    19. Liu, Peng & Xu, Zhigang & Zhao, Xiangmo, 2019. "Road tests of self-driving vehicles: Affective and cognitive pathways in acceptance formation," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 124(C), pages 354-369.
    20. Kontogianni, A. & Tourkolias, Ch. & Skourtos, M. & Damigos, D., 2014. "Planning globally, protesting locally: Patterns in community perceptions towards the installation of wind farms," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 66(C), pages 170-177.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wly:riskan:v:30:y:2010:i:9:p:1399-1410. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1539-6924 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.