Same or different? Insights on public perception and acceptance of carbon capture and storage or utilization in Germany
Abstract
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Other issues related to carbon capture and storage include public acceptance and high deployment costs.
“Other issues related to this technology include public acceptance (Tcvetkov et al. 2019;Arning et al. 2019) as well as the high deployment costs associated (Vinca et al. 2018).”
From Strategies for mitigation of climate change: a review (2020) · cites this paper as Arning et al. 2019
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 55 · Cited by 165
- Authors
- Arning, K., Offermann-van Heek, J., Linzenich, A., Kaetelhoen, A., Sternberg, A., Bardow, A., & Ziefle, M.
- Affiliations
- RWTH Aachen University (DE)
- Corresponding author
- Arning, K.
- Venue
- Energy Policy
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2019-02
- Volume
- 125
- Pages
- 235-249
- ISSN
- 0301-4215 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2901003683
- Semantic Scholar
- a3d01516788c568e0d2c77d13ac0745b27bd00ba
- Cited by
- 165
- References
- 55
- Citations by year
- 2026: 16 · 2025: 34 · 2024: 31 · 2023: 24 · 2022: 20 · 2021: 20 · 2020: 12 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 2
- FWCI
- 22.76
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Energy Policy (publishedVersion)
- RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- European Institute of Technology & Innovation (APSP0004_2017-1.3.5-200_P110-03)
- German federal and state governments
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Social Acceptance of Renewable Energy
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Risk Perception and Management
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Climate Change Communication and Perception
- Keywords
- carbon capture and storage, carbon capture and utilization, public acceptance, public perception, risk perception, CO2 sequestration, CO2 transport, public awareness, climate change mitigation, technology communication, Germany
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review