A Case Study in Public Perceptions of Energy Technologies:

Local and Regional Concerns over CCS Infrastructure in Five EU Countries

David Reiner

University of Cambridge

Presentation to the UK Winter School

12 January 2012

National Projects (EERP funded)

• Implement public and stakeholder surveys in five EU member states which have received EU stimulus package funding for CCS projects

– UK: Hatfield/Don Valley

– Netherlands: Maasvlakte

– Germany: Jaenschwalde

– Spain: Ponferrada

– Poland: Bełchatów

Target Groups • General public (n=200 national, n=200 region)

Regional Stakeholders

• Local and regional politicians/members of planning and environment committees

• Local and regional officials

• NGOs/local community groups

• Journalists

Methods for Collecting Data

• Online Questionnaire targeted key stakeholders in each region and general public in each country (~200 regional and ~200 national) – Pre-test by interviewing at least one member of

each target group per country to assist in better understanding of local contingencies

• Dialogue Boards (qualitative analysis tool)

• Experiment (to test importance of visual communication material)

Demographics • Participants were

surveyed (online) Jan-Feb 11

• Responses from Public survey: 2338; Stakeholders: 170

• Public survey: 51% Male, 49% Female

• Stakeholder survey: 77% Male and 23% female

• ~60% of stakeholders from Germany

Notes: UK - 28 respondents; NL – 22; DE – 103; PL – 12;

ES - 5

Stakeholder survey

Questionnaire Outline 0: Position (public, stakeholders)

1: Background attitudes and knowledge

2: CCS, general

3: Local plans

4. Additional Information on CCS

5. Information sources

6. Local community

7. Procedural Justice

8. Media preferences

9. Sections for different stakeholders

10. Demographics

Survey System - Intro

Questionnaire – Geographic Interface

Distances to Storage and Capture Sites

German Interface (2 storage sites)

Genuine Knowledge of CCS versus Claimed Awareness

Public Stakeholders

UK NL DE PL ES Average DEa Average

No, never heard 56% 23% 46% 42% 49% 43% 2% 3%

A little bit 37% 66% 39% 50% 43% 46% 11% 19%

Yes, quite a bit 7% 12% 15% 8% 9% 10% 87% 78%

N 459 415 518 535 407 2334 102 170

Likely source of information regarding CCS

UK NL DE PL ES

National/international NGOs 34% 40% 52% 44% 35%

Local NGOs/community

groups, residents' associations 33% 42% 51% 42% 27%

Friends, neighbours, family 13% 26% 27% 36% 29%

National media 44% 57% 56% 51% 34%

Local/regional media 47% 57% 55% 48% 34%

National government 48% 61% 37% 35% 28%

Local/regional government 48% 62% 41% 45% 28%

Interactive websites 51% 55% 53% 78% 48%

University scientists 47% 54% 60% 59% 37%

Developers, energy companies 42% 28% 31% 27% 20%

European Union 20% 30% 23% 42% 25%

Likelihood to seek further information about project

Trust to give you impartial information?

Trust to Take Local Concerns Seriously?

Attitudes towards CCS in general and towards the local project

Shift in attitudes towards project after information was provided

Reactions of different groups to information

All groups have a more negative opinion after information, but the effect is strongest among women and less knowledgeable

Mean SD

Genuine

knowledge

No -.35 1.05

Yes -.18 1.11

t value -2.86a

Gender

Male -.19 1.01

Female -.46 1.11

t value 5.54b

Local Project Support versus Distance to Capture Site

Local Project Support versus Distance to Storage Site

Support for Project and Trust in Local Developers

Group Support for the

local project

Trust in the project developers

UK NL DE PL ES

Ma SD Ma SD Ma SD Ma SD Ma SD

1 strongly opposed 1.70 1.34 1.61 1.39 2.02 1.46 2.80 2.17 2.47 2.00

2 - 2.14 1.17 1.84 .85 2.34 1.22 2.67 1.78 1.93 1.22

3 - 2.15 1.26 2.40 1.19 2.56 1.45 2.32 1.18 3.00 1.85

4 neutral 3.13 1.73 2.76 1.35 3.39 1.48 3.20 1.55 3.39 1.58

5 - 3.41 1.57 3.13 1.50 3.50 1.56 3.54 1.63 3.87 1.72

6 - 3.65 1.72 3.25 1.52 4.11 1.52 3.48 1.77 4.48 1.64

7 strongly

supportive

4.84 1.37 4.00 1.85 4.73 2.33 3.49 2.03 5.71 1.61

Support for Project and Perceived Past Treatment of Local Community

Support for Project and Perceived Fairness of Planning Process

Social Capital and Support for CCS

y = 0.19x + 4.57 R² = 0.96

y = 0.25x + 3.82 R² = 0.96

Att

itu

de

s to

war

ds

CC

S (M

EAN

)

How often do you spend time with colleagues from work or your profession outside the workplace?

Attitudes towards CCS in general* Attitudes towards the local project**

Linear (Attitudes towards CCS in general*) Linear (Attitudes towards the local project**)

Survey Open Questions

•Respondents were asked free-text questions on what they perceived as advantages, disadvantages of the project and CCS, and whether they had any further questions.

•The answers were analysed qualitatively for the most frequent themes

Count Advantages Count Disadvantages

818 Reduced CO2 emissions 587 No answer, not sure

434 No answer/don’t know 313 Expensive

329 Good for environment 243 Unforeseen problems; untested tech

98 Creates jobs 212 Safety worries, unspecified or general

53 It's offshore 181 No disadvantages

44 Cuts costs; helps economy 142 Risk of leakage

43 Energy security 141 Bad for environment

38 Provides (clean) energy 79 Not solving the problem

37 Good, undefined 77 Effect on locality

34 Distance 53 Worries over transport

28 Safety; storage is safe 52 Public acceptance

17 Energy efficiency 31 Limits of storage capacity

16 “The storage” 26 Divert attention from alternatives

15 Ozone layer 19 Risk of explosions

10 Not nuclear 8 Information needs

9 Development of new tech 7 Not energy efficient

152 Disadvantages/no advantages

Advantages and Disadvantages

Common questions/statements

Safety worries

Costs

What happens in the long-term?

Risk to the environment

Need more information

We should look to alternatives

Will it work?

Practical questions (when, how, where exactly?)

Dialogue Boards Introduction

•Two “virtual focus groups” were held a month after the survey with around 50 selected survey respondents from Poland and Spain.

•An online dialogue board was run over 2 days. On each day a number of open-ended questions are posed to which respondents respond. The guiding principle was that respondents log on at least twice a day and post their responses average participation of one to two hours a day for each respondent.

•Participants were asked about their opinions on CCS and specific projects, what images or metaphors they associate with it, how it fits into their general attitudes towards climate change, and whether/how the survey itself has influenced their opinions on CCS.

Dialogue Boards: Knowledge, information & participation

• Participants had not generally heard of CCS or the specific projects previously

• Though most participants sought more information after the survey, they were mostly dissatisfied with the available material

• Participants tried to talk to friends, colleagues and neighbours after the survey, but found that generally there was not much interest or knowledge

• The survey and DB were seen as positive experiences by participants who were pleased that their opinions were seen as important

Dialogue Boards: Risks and Safety

• Safety was seen as the most important factor influencing attitudes towards CCS: Even those participants generally in favour were insistent on safety standards being met adequately.

• Risks were also seen as problematic due to the long-term nature of CCS: adequate guarantees of safety cannot be made for an indefinite future – who knows what will happen in 100 years time?

• The DBs were held during the week after the Japanese earthquake: This episode demonstrated to many participants that even the best safety measures can be defeated by unforeseen events.

Dialogue Boards: Costs and Burdens

• Participants saw the economic benefits in terms of job creation and (in Poland) evading EU fines for not meeting emissions targets

• But CCS was also seen as possibly leading to a drop in tourism and driving out the local population which worried about the risks.

• Participants were concerned about who will meet the costs of CCS –seen as either taxpayers or the energy consumers.

• Expectation that politicians and energy companies will profit from CCS, and a general feeling of industry benefiting at the expense of ordinary people.

Summary • Distance matters – Distance to capture and storage sites

have different relationships to support for CCS projects

• Trust matters – Project developers and governments are not only the least trusted, but their information is less likely to be consulted and those with less trust in the planning process or developers and bad past experience are more likely to oppose projects

• Knowledge and information matters – Support for CCS projects tended to erode with more information, but this was most notable among those with lower levels of education and less genuine knowledge. Stakeholders and sensitized publics (Germany and Netherlands) were much more likely to seek information from multiple sources

Credits The NearCO2 team: Kong Chyong, Hauke Riesch, Xi Liang,

Paul Upham, Elisabeth Duetschke, Marjolein de Best-Waldhober, Mariette Pol, Sylvia Breukers, Aleksandra Ola, Christian Oltra, Jane Desbarats, Suzanne Brunsting

Survey instrument design: LinksChina

Survey implementation : TNS-NIPO

Full report and further information can be found at:

http://www.communicationnearco2.eu

Thanks! David M Reiner

Electricity Policy Research Group

Judge Business School

University of Cambridge

Trumpington Street

Cambridge, UK

CB2 1AG

dmr40@cam.ac.uk

+44-1223-339616

Knowledge • 43% of public respondents had never heard of

CCS, and 10% indicated they knew quite a bit. Only 3% of stakeholders claimed never to have heard of CCS and 78% stated knew “quite a bit”.

• Only 19% of all public respondents indicated ‘genuine knowledge’ although this is higher than the 10% claiming to know “quite a bit” about CCS. Whereas 78% of stakeholders claimed to know “quite a bit”, just over half (51%) indicated that CCS only addresses climate.

Attitudes I • The public in all five countries were supportive

of CCS in general (net +51% favourable) ranging from net +72% favourable rating in Poland to +20% in Germany. Stakeholders were more negative (net -20%).

• The relationship between respondent position relative to the capture site and their attitudes towards CCS was found to be less pronounced than their position relative to the storage site.

Attitudes II

• Relative to CCS in general, support for the local project was notably lower (10% lower net favourable rating among the public most dramatically in Germany and 16% lower net favourable score among stakeholders). In the other four countries, there are still large majorities who view the local project favourably (ranging from +38% net favourable in the Netherlands to +66% in Poland).

Information Sources I • Stakeholders were far more likely to consult

different sources and more than half consulted any of six different sources of information.

• In all countries, the least likely sources were the EU, developers and word of mouth.

• Similar to stakeholders, German and Dutch public respondents were much more likely to choose multiple sources and six different sources were listed by over half of respondents.

Information Sources II

• Stakeholders were very likely to seek more information about the project. Among public respondents, only the Dutch were more likely than not to want additional information.

• University scientists scored highest in terms of respondents' trust to give them impartial information about CCS, followed by national/international NGOs; developers, governments and word of mouth scored lowest.