“Nuclear energy sounded wonderful 40 years ago”: UK citizen views on CCS

Lock, Simon J.; Smallman, Melanie; Lee, Maria; Rydin, Yvonne

doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2013.11.024

Cited by 31 publications

(25 citation statements)

References 35 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In a recent study, Bellamy et al [25] used a mixed methods approach, presenting alternative policy scenarios to different groups and assessing perceptions of BECCS using a limited survey and group discussions to understand the differences between the groups. Given the emergent nature of CCS, and lack of familiarity with the technology, analogies have been used for CCS and to explore how people's attitudes are shaped by reference to other technologies e.g., fracking [22,47] and nuclear [18].…”

Section: Methods and Theoretical Contextsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Storage has been shown to be the most contentious part of the CCS chain (e.g., [10,[18][19][20]) whereby people living closer to storage sites express a lower acceptance of CCS [19] and offshore storage is more likely to be seen as acceptable (e.g., [21]). These findings are relevant for BECCS, and acceptance of storage has been shown to depend on national policy contexts, local industry and identity, and perceived risks and benefits (e.g., [18]). The greater support observed for CCU may arise because capture is the most accepted element of the CCS chain.…”

Section: Beccs Is Part Of the Ccs Familymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Whilst research into BECCS is in its infancy and there is limited deployment of the technology, research into CCS highlights the influence of geographical context on the social responses. CCS studies have explored responses in countries where there are already operational CCS projects e.g., Canada [26] and Norway [27], where there is policy interest in CCS e.g., the UK [18,22,[28][29][30], the wider Nordic region [21], and New Zealand [31], and where there has been opposition to CCS projects e.g., The Netherlands [32] and Germany [9,19,33,34]. These studies emphasise the importance of understanding the specific social context for deployment as a dynamic interaction of people, places, and events which drive public perceptions.…”

Section: Geographical Contexts and Place-based Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Beyond Social Acceptability: Applying Lessons from CCS Social Science to Support Deployment of BECCS

Gough¹,

Mander²

2019

Curr Sustainable Renewable Energy Rep

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose of Review This paper assesses social science research relating to BECCS and considers the applicability of research on CCS to BECCS. Recent Findings In recent years, social science research on CCS and BECCS has gone beyond an evaluation of public acceptance to provide a more nuanced analysis of the wider social political, ethical, and governance contexts in which large-scale deployment might be achieved. This raises issues at global, local, and regional scales, requiring a wide array of methods and approaches. Summary Awareness of the scale and urgency needed to act on climate change is growing and the role of BECCS in delivering carbon dioxide removal forms a central argument for the use of this family of technologies. Here, framing becomes a critical factor in how society responds to BECCS technologies and we argue that making the case for BECCS as a means of extending mitigation to make a 'net zero' goal achievable could be the key to its acceptable and sustainable deployment. Keywords CCS. BECCS. Carbon dioxide removal (CDR). Negative emissions. Social responses. Acceptability This article is part of the Topical Collection on Deep Decarbonization: BECCS

show abstract

Section: Methods and Theoretical Contextsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Beccs Is Part Of the Ccs Familymentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Geographical Contexts and Place-based Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Beyond Social Acceptability: Applying Lessons from CCS Social Science to Support Deployment of BECCS

Gough¹,

Mander²

2019

Curr Sustainable Renewable Energy Rep

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Almost all studies of BECCS in our corpus exhibit concerns for social and political acceptability, ranging from reflexive GGR assessments (McLaren, 2012a, 2012b) 12 to bioenergy policy analysis (Dale et al, 2013; Magar, Pelkonen, Tahvanainen, Toivonen, & Toppinen, 2011) to studies of CCS perceptions (Dowd et al, 2015; L'Orange Seigo et al, 2014). A variety of studies highlight the gap between scientific research on BECCS and awareness and understanding among policy‐makers and stakeholder groups (Fridahl, 2017; Lock, Smallman, Lee, & Rydin, 2014; Thomas et al, 2018). The relative nascent stage of BECCS development means that public demonstration projects are likely to play a central role in future innovation process (Kemper, 2015; Markusson et al, 2017; Nemet et al, 2018) and therefore public responses to BECCS are widely acknowledged as important in shaping, and in other ways constraining, the trajectory of technology development and its relation to incumbent fossil‐energy infrastructure (Vergragt, Markusson, & Karlsson, 2011).…”

Section: Three Framings Of Ggr and Its Feasibilitiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Contested framings of greenhouse gas removal and its feasibility: Social and political dimensions

Waller

Rayner

Chilvers

et al. 2020

WIREs Climate Change

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Prospective approaches for large‐scale greenhouse gas removal (GGR) are now central to the post‐2020 international commitment to pursue efforts to limit the global temperature increase to 1.5°C. However, the feasibility of large‐scale GGR has been repeatedly questioned. Most systematic analyses focus only on the physical, technical, and economic challenges of deploying it at scale. However, social and political dimensions will be just as important, if not more so, to how possible futures play out. We conduct one of the first reviews of the international peer‐reviewed literature pertaining to the social and political dimensions of large‐scale GGR, with a specific focus on two predominant approaches: Biomass energy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS) and afforestation/reforestation (AR). Our analysis of 78 studies proposes two important insights. First, it shows how six key social and political dimensions of GGR feasibility–namely economics and incentives; innovation; societal engagement; governance; complexity and uncertainty; and ethics, equity, and justice–are identifiable and are emphasized to varying degrees in the literature. Second, there are three contested ways in which BECCS and AR and their feasibility are being framed in the literature: (a) a techno‐economic framing; (b) a social and political acceptability framing; and (c) a responsible development framing. We suggest this third frame will, and indeed should, become increasingly pertinent to the assessment, innovation, and governance of climate futures. This article is categorized under: The Carbon Economy and Climate Mitigation > Policies, Instruments, Lifestyles, Behavior.

show abstract

“…Deliberative methods of public participation have been used extensively both in policy and academic contexts, involving two-way engagement with a small number of participants over a day or more, to gain a rich picture of public views on a given topic. Such methods have been used as part of forecasting and foresight projects (Bauer and Pregernig, 2013), transition management projects (Hendriks, 2009), policy decisions at a number of levels (Burgess and Chilvers, 2006;Cowell, 2010), and assessments of emerging technologies like carbon capture and storage (Einsiedel et al, 2013;Lock et al, 2014), or fracking (TNS BMRB, 2014). These approaches often aim to bring together those with different perspectives for example by selecting from contrasting demographic groups, bringing together citizens with experts in energy-related topics (Stagl, 2006), or attempting to bridge divides between different domains of thought and action (Callon et al, 2009).…”

Section: Methodological and Empirical Challengesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Energy Democracies and Publics in the Making: A Relational Agenda for Research and Practice

Chilvers

Pallett

2018

Front. Commun.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Mainstream approaches to energy democracy and public engagement with energy transitions tend to adopt specific, pre-given meanings of both "democracy" and "publics." Different approaches impose prescriptive assumptions about the model of participation, the identity of public participants, and what it means to participate well. The rigidity of many existing approaches to energy participation is increasingly being challenged by the ever-multiplying diversity of ways in which citizens participate in energy systems, as consumers in energy markets, protesters against new infrastructures and technologies, as initiators of community energy projects, and as subjects of behavior change interventions, amongst others. This paper is concerned with growing areas of scholarship which seek to understand and explore these emerging energy publics and forms of energy democracy from a relational perspective. Such work, grounded in constructivist and relational ontologies, views forms of participatory democracy and publics as being co-produced, constructed, and emergent through the performance of collective practices. It pays closer attention to power relations, politics, materiality, exclusions, and effects in both understanding and intervening in the making of energy democracy. This in turn shifts the focus from studying discrete unitary forms of "energy democracy" to one of understanding interrelations between multiple diverse energy democracies in wider systems. In this paper, we chart these developments and explore the significant challenges and potential contributions of relational approaches to furthering the theories, methods, and practices of energy democracy and energy public engagement. The paper draws on an expert workshop, and an accompanying review, which brought together leading proponents of contending relational approaches to energy participation in direct conversation for the first time. We use this as a basis to explore tensions between these approaches and set out a relational agenda for energy democracy research in terms of: developing concepts and theories; methodological and empirical challenges; and implications for practices of governance and democratic engagement with energy transitions.

show abstract

“Nuclear energy sounded wonderful 40 years ago”: UK citizen views on CCS

Cited by 31 publications

References 35 publications

Beyond Social Acceptability: Applying Lessons from CCS Social Science to Support Deployment of BECCS

Beyond Social Acceptability: Applying Lessons from CCS Social Science to Support Deployment of BECCS

Contested framings of greenhouse gas removal and its feasibility: Social and political dimensions

Energy Democracies and Publics in the Making: A Relational Agenda for Research and Practice

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About