What's in store: Lessons from implementing CCS

Ashworth, Peta; Bradbury, Judith A.; Wade, Sarah; Feenstra, C.F.J.; Greenberg, Sallie E.; Hund, Gretchen; Mikunda, Thomas

doi:10.1016/j.ijggc.2012.04.012

Cited by 69 publications

(55 citation statements)

References 18 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Energy technologies also present a complex combination of benefits and risks at both the local and global level, for example, there is disparity between local risks and global benefits for nuclear energy [31] and carbon capture and storage [29]. Previous research into public perceptions of geothermal energy in Australia has shown similar results, as concerns about geothermal energy technology are mostly local: water usage and seismic activity instigated by geothermal drilling [14].…”

Section: Perceived Benefits and Risks Of The Technologymentioning

confidence: 96%

“…Likewise, the perceptions of the benefits of energy technologies depend on factors such as individuals' level of trust in institutions [16], their subjective knowledge, values and beliefs [25], and therefore individuals might perceive the same benefits differently. For example, a previous study about societal acceptance of carbon capture and storage found that while some people evaluated the benefits as being greater than the risks, others evaluated those same risks as being greater than the benefits [29]. Similarly, Cacciatore et al [30] found that individuals that could make a link between the concept of nanotechnology and examples of how the technology could be applied were more likely to take risks into account.…”

Section: Perceived Benefits and Risks Of The Technologymentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Differences in Public Perceptions of Geothermal Energy Technology in Australia

Carr-Cornish

Romanach

2014

Energies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract:In Australia, geothermal energy technology is still considered an emerging technology for energy generation. Like other emerging energy technologies, how the public perceive the technology and under what conditions they are likely to accept or oppose the technology, remains relatively unknown. In response, this exploratory research utilised online focus groups to identify: (1) the extent of agreement with geothermal technology before and after information, including media reports focusing on a range of the technology's attributes; and (2) how the characteristics of individuals with different levels of agreement vary. After information, within the sample of 101 participants, fewer reported being unsure, the minority disagreed and the majority agreed. Overall, the preference was for projects to be located away from communities. Participants that disagreed or were unsure, were more likely to report lower subjective knowledge of the technology, lower perceived benefits and higher risks, and were less likely to believe people in their community would have the opportunity to participate in consultation. These characteristics suggest there are advances to be made by analyzing what contributes to different levels of acceptance. The findings also suggest that the location of projects will be an important consideration and that the conditions of acceptance are likely to vary amongst community members.

show abstract

Section: Perceived Benefits and Risks Of The Technologymentioning

confidence: 96%

Section: Perceived Benefits and Risks Of The Technologymentioning

confidence: 99%

Differences in Public Perceptions of Geothermal Energy Technology in Australia

Carr-Cornish

Romanach

2014

Energies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Despite (and perhaps partly because of) this, several practical toolkits and guidelines for public engagement and participation in CCS and/or wider energy infrastructure planning have been prepared over the past decade (Jolivet et al, 2006;IISD, 2007; NETL, 2009;Raven et al, 2009a;Ashworth et al, 2011;WRI, 2010). In the absence of institutions that strongly encourage timely participation in project preparation, design, planning, implementation and management, these toolkits and guidelines are intended to support project developers or consortia that voluntarily adopt more participatory approaches to the planning, design and implementation of CCS projects.…”

Section: Organisational Practice In Public Engagement and Communicationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Generally, planning institutions in European countries do not favour Breukers S, Upham P. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 2013 DOI:10.1080/09640568.2013 4 early engagement and communication -where local stakeholders are involved in the planning and design of projects (Breukers and Wolsink, 2007). Typically, local stakeholders are given the opportunity to respond to ready-made plans without having the chance to discuss and influence project design and location.Despite (and perhaps partly because of) this, several practical toolkits and guidelines for public engagement and participation in CCS and/or wider energy infrastructure planning have been prepared over the past decade (Jolivet et al, 2006;IISD, 2007; NETL, 2009;Raven et al, 2009a;Ashworth et al, 2011;WRI, 2010). In the absence of institutions that strongly encourage timely participation in project preparation, design, planning, implementation and management, these toolkits and guidelines are intended to support project developers or consortia that voluntarily adopt more participatory approaches to the planning, design and implementation of CCS projects.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Organisational aspects of public engagement in European energy infrastructure planning: the case of early-stage CCS projects

Breukers¹,

Upham

2013

Journal of Environmental Planning and Management

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Recent years have witnessed a proliferation of studies on public perceptions of carbon capture and storage (CCS), accompanied by efforts to translate such knowledge into toolkits for public engagement and communication. At the same time, both literature and toolkits have paid little attention to the organisational dynamics and views of project implementers with regard to public engagement. Here we investigate the views of project development consortia employees in five European CCS projects, focusing on their experience of organisational norms and structures relating to engagement. Finding that planning for this engagement has in several cases been hampered by a lack of shared internal vision on engagement and communication within the project consortia, at least initially, we draw upon the socio-technical approach to technology embedment and new institutional theory, to observe that internal organisational alignment is crucial in multi-organisational projects when seeking effective public engagement and communication. We observe that this aspect of internal organisation is not yet reflected in the toolkits and guidelines designed to aid engagement in CCS projects. Engagement guides need to direct the attention of project implementers not only in specific outward directions, but also towards reflexively considering their own internal structures, perspectives, motivations, expectations and aims in relation to engagement and communication practice. The work was begun while at the Tyndall Centre, University of Manchester.Breukers S, Upham P. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 2013 DOI:10.1080/09640568.2013 2 Key words:Public engagement; communication; CCS; organisational dynamics Organisational practice in public engagement and communicationThe literature on public opinion of renewable and low carbon energy infrastructure has variously focussed on the characteristics of the technology involved; the psychological processes of the receiving population; and institutional, planning and governance-related factors ; for reviews see Bell, Gray and Hagget, 2005;Upham et al., 2009 andWhitmarsh et al., 2011;Wolsink, 2006). Reflecting increasingly nuanced understandings of public opinion in this context, energy infrastructure developers in Europe and elsewhere are now typically encouraged towards early public engagement and to obtain an understanding of the social context of planned developments. In pragmatic terms, early public engagement acknowledges that local acceptance may be contingent on situational, highly local circumstances (Renn, 2008) and that a developer would do well to anticipate some of these.In general, then, the focus in the siting literature is on affected populations and their environment in a wide sense. It is much less common to examine public engagement in energy infrastructure developments from the perspective of the organisations promoting the development. Responding to this, here we investigate opinion, dynamics and structures within the boundaries of the firms involved in develo...

show abstract

“…A large number of publications already address public perceptions and the issue of acceptance in relation to the geological storage of CO 2 . These publications highlight the importance of providing factual information and they suggest practical guidelines for successful information dissemination (Ashworth et al 2010;Ashworth et al 2012, and references therein). Open and transparent communication was identified as one of the key prerequisites to opinion forming, and to the eventual building of trust between the various stakeholders in the public debate on CCS projects (Stephens et al 2009;Ashworth et al 2012).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Fact-based communication: the Shale Gas Information Platform SHIP

2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In response to an increasingly expressed need for factual information, a science-based information web portal, the Shale Gas Information Platform SHIP, was developed. At the core of the project is the shale gas expert network. It's an international and interdisciplinary group composed of mainly scientists that share their specific knowledge with the public. With a strong focus on factual information, this initiative also strives to serve the scientific community as a publication and knowledge exchange platform. SHIP relies upon the basic principles of being science-based, transparent and balanced. The GFZ German Research Centre for Geosciences coordinates this initiative.All rational decision-making requires that views are formed based on facts. This is true of the often complex decisions politicians must make; such as decisions on how to move forward towards a sustainable future energy supply. By sustainability, we are referring to economically, ecologically and socially acceptable elements, all of which are crucial components. Individual energy resources have to be evaluated for their advantages and disadvantages in all of the fields relevant to sustainability, and they have to be placed into the larger context of a future energy mix. Shale gas provides a relatively new challenge in this respect, since the technologies needed to produce it economically have only been developed and applied during the last two decades (Montgomery and Smith 2010). Large-scale production only began in the mid-1990s in the U.S., where it completely changed the national energy landscape and influenced gas markets worldwide (Stevens 2012). Large-scale production today is still limited to just the U.S. and Canada, but many nations worldwide are either deliberating about the opportunities and risks, or are about to start exploration activities. Among European governments, different opinions on the development of shale gas prevail. The French government has a clear stance on shale gas, recently banning shale gas exploration (EurActive 2012). On the other hand, Poland and Ukraine are moving forward apace, and testing their shale gas potential. Others, like Germany or the Netherlands, are hesitant about pursuing exploration activities and are still in the process of making decisions. Also E.U. bodies are thinking very carefully about how to develop a unified position on shale gas (Shepherd 2012).Fact-based information about shale gas, especially regarding the potential environmental risks related to its production, was lacking until recently, and this deficiency is one reason behind the often subjective debate. Until recently information was only provided by the media, often with shocking headlines, on the websites of opponents to shale, and on industry websites. These information sources are often biased in the way they present information to the general public, serving their own vested interests. Reports in the media correctly draw attention to environmental concerns; however some of the headlines have grossly exaggerated the fa...

show abstract

What's in store: Lessons from implementing CCS

Cited by 69 publications

References 18 publications

Differences in Public Perceptions of Geothermal Energy Technology in Australia

Differences in Public Perceptions of Geothermal Energy Technology in Australia

Organisational aspects of public engagement in European energy infrastructure planning: the case of early-stage CCS projects

Fact-based communication: the Shale Gas Information Platform SHIP

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About