Dual-track CCS stakeholder engagement: Lessons learned from FutureGen in Illinois

Hund, Gretchen; Greenberg, Sallie E.

doi:10.1016/j.egypro.2011.02.634

Cited by 9 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Moreover, the study finds that both the perceived risks and benefits are important determinants of CCS acceptance in Germany, but that benefit perception is a stronger predictor of acceptance than risk perception. This finding is in line with Hund and Greenberg but contrasts Huijts et al . The study also shows that living close to a CCS site markedly lowers the perceived benefits of CCS, but has only a moderate effect on the perceived risks.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 89%

“…(35)(36)(37)(38)(39)(40) In contrast, the perceived benefits of CCS such as a potential creation of new jobs increase the acceptance of CCS. (36,(40)(41)(42)(43)(44)(45) More generally, the perceived benefits of a technology predict the acceptance of a wide variety of technologies, such as gene technology, nuclear power, or nanotechnology foods. (46)(47)(48)(49) The relative importance of the perceived benefits and risks of CCS vary strongly from country to country and so does the overall public perception of CCS.…”

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…(46)(47)(48)(49) The relative importance of the perceived benefits and risks of CCS vary strongly from country to country and so does the overall public perception of CCS. Hund and Greenberg, (41) for instance, find that respondents in the U.S. state of Illinois perceive the economic benefits of CCS as more important than their potential risks. In contrast, respondents in Europe typically raise concerns about the risks of CCS, but perceptions differ across countries.…”

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Not in My Backyard: CCS Sites and Public Perception of CCS

Braun

2017

Risk Analysis

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Carbon capture and storage (CCS) is a technology that counteracts climate change by capturing atmospheric emissions of CO from human activities, storing them in geological formations underground. However, CCS also involves major risks and side effects, and faces strong public opposition. The whereabouts of 408 potential CCS sites in Germany were released in 2011. Using detailed survey data on the public perception of CCS, this study quantifies how living close to a potential storage site affects the acceptance of CCS. It also analyzes the influence of other regional characteristics on the acceptance of CCS. The study finds that respondents who live close to a potential CCS site have significantly lower acceptance rates than those who do not. Living in a coal-mining region also markedly decreases acceptance.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 89%

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Not in My Backyard: CCS Sites and Public Perception of CCS

Braun

2017

Risk Analysis

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Both of these perspectives have been expressed at the community level and have succeeded in influencing the outcome of proposed CCS facilities. For example, the FutureGen project, a joint venture between the U.S. Department of Energy (US DOE) and a consortium of industry partners, initially moved forward due in part to support from local residents in Illinois, USA who considered the project as an economic opportunity . In other cases—such as in Beeskow, Germany and Barendrecht, Netherlands—strong local opposition has resulted in the abandonment of well‐established plans for CCS deployment .…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“Not in (or Under) My Backyard”: Geographic Proximity and Public Acceptance of Carbon Capture and Storage Facilities

et al. 2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Carbon capture and storage (CCS) is an innovative technical approach to mitigate the problem of climate change by capturing carbon dioxide emissions and injecting them underground for permanent geological storage. CCS has been perceived both positively, as an innovative approach to facilitate a more environmentally benign use of fossil fuels while also generating local economic benefits, and negatively, as a technology that prolongs the use of carbon-intensive energy sources and burdens local communities with prohibitive costs and ecological and human health risks. This article extends existing research on the "not in my backyard" (NIMBY) phenomenon in a direction that explores the public acceptance of CCS. We utilize survey data collected from 1,001 residents of the coal-intensive U.S. state of Indiana. Over 80% of respondents express support for the general use of CCS technology. However, 20% of these initial supporters exhibit a NIMBY-like reaction and switch to opposition as a CCS facility is proposed close to their communities. Respondents' worldviews, their beliefs about the local economic benefits that CCS will generate, and their concerns about its safety have the greatest impact on increasing or decreasing the acceptance of nearby facilities. These results lend valuable insights into the perceived risks associated with CCS technology and the possibilities for its public acceptance at both a national and local scale. They may be extended further to provide initial insights into likely public reactions to other technologies that share a similar underground dimension, such as hydraulic fracturing.

show abstract

“…A way out of this impasse is to opt for voluntary CCS site selection procedures, where negotiations about compensation are part of the site selection process, and compensation is discussed along with other preconditions for siting (cf. the FutureGen project in IL; Hund and Greenberg, 2011;Markusson et al, 2011). Negotiations about compensation at an early stage of the siting process may also have the advantage that local residents have not yet made up their mind about the facility.…”

Section: Host Community Compensation and Ccsmentioning

confidence: 97%