Energy Systems and Technologies for the Coming Century ...

Another study conducted in Japan was based on a questionnaire designed to measure theimportance of five factors on the level of acceptance among university students. Thefactors used for the study were risk perception, benefit perception and trust, along withtwo factors measuring attitudes on human interference to the environment, one of whichwas related to geological storage and the other to global warming. The study found thesefive factors to be rather representative in evaluating acceptance, as they explained morethat 83% of acceptance levels. The most significant factor was benefit perceptionfollowed by risk perception. (Tokushige, 2007)3 Factors of stakeholder perceptionsComparison of the results of acceptance studies is difficult due to the facts that thestakeholders and the questionnaires involved in these studies are not directly comparable.Each study used a questionnaire formulated for the specific research conducted andinvolved different groups of stakeholders and different influential factors. For instance,the study by Itaoka (2009) used a random sample of ordinary citizens, while Anderson(2009) included different groups of stakeholders from the energy industry, local andnational governments and academia.However, most research conducted on public and stakeholder perception finds that thefactors of largest significance in forming these perceptions are how the risks and benefitsof CCS technology are seen, with the concept of benefits meaning the importance ofmitigating climate change and the contribution CCS can provide towards this aim.Another factor that is significant for all stakeholder groups is the cost of electricityfollowing CCS implementation. Additional factors that are important for at least onegroup but not all are fossil fuel dependency, local impacts, reversibility of technicalchoices, Europe’s role in promoting low- carbon technologies (European stakeholders),attitudes on interfering with nature and a sense of responsibility as mankind to respectthe environment. (Anderson, 2007) (Tokushige, 2007) (Itaoka, 2009). Further illustrationon the three most important factors; risks, benefits and costs will draw together some ofthe most significant findings of acceptance studies.3.1 RisksAs was demonstrated by the studies discussed in the section above, risk perception is oneof the most significant factors determining stakeholder acceptance. It is also a factorwhich appears to have significant variation among different stakeholder groups. Both theenergy industry and governments regard the risks of CCS to be small, and the industryfurther considers the risks to be well managed and the technology trustworthy, whilegovernments are somewhat more cautious and wish for additional research.Environmental NGOs have expressed most doubt regarding the risks, pointing touncertainty in the lack of knowledge of possible leakage pathways, the behaviour ofcarbon dioxide in the underground deposits and the appropriate materials for sealing theinjection wells. (Van Alphen, 2007). For the public, the most significant risks areassociated with storage, particularly on-shore (Anderson, 2009), despite the fact thatapproximately 60% report to have very little knowledge regarding storage (Tokushige,2007).The public also constructs their risk perceptions differently. While experts base theirperceptions on scientific findings, the public tends to form their risk perceptions onintuitive judgments using images of the risks and benefits involved, based on theirpersonal values and experiences. This is particularly the case with new, relativelyunknown and complex technologies, such as CCS, and can distort the attitudes of generalpublic in relation to scientific information on the technology. (Slovic, 1985).Nevertheless, there is still evidence that increased knowledge on CCS will increasesupport not only for CCS in general, but also for different storage options, apart from onshorestorage (Itaoka, 2004). This indicates that providing people with information doesRisø International Energy Conference 2011 Proceedings Page 41