Public perception of carbon capture and storage: A state-of-the-art overview
Open accessAbstract
Carbon capture and storage (CCS) is a technology enabling to use fossil fuels in a sustainable way. Therefore, it attracts much attention from the industrial sector, government authorities and scientific community. However, public awareness of the technology is extremely low, and the studies of the lay people's opinion have been launched only during the last decade. Taking into account the role of public support during the implementation of CCS projects, the authors would like to present herein their review of materials on this subject published during 2002-2018 (135 articles). As part of our review, we determined 9 key aspects forming the public perception of CCS. For each of the key aspects, we summarized the available results of the studies. Apart from that, we compared the CCS current status in different countries and provided a number of reasons for involving new countries into the fight against global warming. This work shows that most attention is devoted to CO2 storage; whereas its capture and transportation are poorly studied in terms of public perception. Wider development is required for the methodology enabling a transition from global rhetoric concerning global warming issues to the implementation of particular projects, namely, CCS. The issues related to public awareness of CCS are studied rather thoroughly, but no recommendations are provided regarding the establishment of an optimal database for the lay people. Numerous assessments of general public perception have been carried out. However little attention was paid to the regions with active projects, namely, to the factors considered the most important by the local public, and how actual project results meet their expectations. Therefore, despite an extensive scientific base developed over 17 years, further studies should be aimed at filling the existing gaps. This will enable to improve CCS attractiveness for the public, including the cases when it is compared with alternative low-carbon technologies.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
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 Tcvetkov et al. 2019
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 162 · Cited by 185
Research works printed but not linked: 4
- [2]Markusson N. Shackley S. The Social Dynamic of Carbon Capture and Storage: Understanding CCS Representations, Governance and Innovation 2012 Routledge, Taylor and Francis Group EarthScan
- [48]Itaoka K. Saito A. Akai M Public acceptance of CO2 capture and storage technology: a survey of public opinion to explore influential factors Paper Presented for the 7th International Conference on Greenhouse Gas Control Technologies. Canada, Vancouver, September, 5–9 2004
- [109]Huijts N.M.A. Molin E.J.E. Steg L. Psychological factors influencing sustainable energy technology acceptance: a review-based comprehensive framework Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 16 1 2012 525 531
- [161]Wade S. Greenberg S. Social site characterisation: from concept to application A Review of Relevant Social Science Literature and a Toolkit for Social Site Characterisation 2011 80
- Authors
- Tcvetkov, P., Cherepovitsyn, A., & Fedoseev, S.
- Affiliations
- Saint Petersburg Mining University (RU)
- Russian Academy of Sciences (RU)
- Corresponding author
- Tcvetkov, Pavel
- Venue
- Heliyon
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2019-12
- Volume
- 5
- Issue
- 12
- Pages
- e02845
- ISSN
- 2405-8440 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC6906669
- OpenAlex
- W2993389209
- Cited by
- 185
- References
- 162
- Citations by year
- 2026: 24 · 2025: 35 · 2024: 39 · 2023: 28 · 2022: 24 · 2021: 25 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 1
- FWCI
- 3.71
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Heliyon (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
- Funders
- Russian Science Foundation (18-18-00210)
- 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, public perception, public acceptance, public awareness, CO2 sequestration, CO2 capture, CO2 transport, low-carbon technologies, climate change mitigation
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