Cited by 165Social Acceptance of Renewable EnergyRisk Perception and ManagementClimate Change Communication and Perception

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

Arning, K., Offermann-van Heek, J., Linzenich, A., Kaetelhoen, A., Sternberg, A., Bardow, A., Ziefle, M.·2019·Energy Policy

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

Crossref · 10.1016/j.enpol.2018.10.039

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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
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