Informed public preferences for electricity portfolios with CCS and other low-carbon technologies

Risk Analysis

Volumn 30, Issue 9, 2010, Pages 1399-1410

  Fleishman, Lauren A ^a   De Bruin, Wändi Bruine ^a   Morgan, M Granger ^a  

^a CARNEGIE MELLON UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Carbon capture and sequestration; CCS; electricity generation; low carbon; public risk perception and communication

Indexed keywords

BEFORE AND AFTER; CARBON CAPTURE AND SEQUESTRATIONS; CARBON DIOXIDE EMISSIONS; CCS; COMBINED CYCLE; COMMUNITY GROUP; COSTS AND BENEFITS; ELECTRICITY GENERATION; GENERAL PUBLICS; GROUP DISCUSSIONS; LOW-CARBON; LOW-CARBON TECHNOLOGIES; NUCLEAR POWER; PENNSYLVANIA; PITTSBURGH; PUBLIC PERCEPTION; PUBLIC PREFERENCES; RENEWABLES; SMALL GROUPS;

CARBON DIOXIDE; ENERGY EFFICIENCY; GLOBAL WARMING; RISK ANALYSIS; RISK PERCEPTION; TECHNOLOGY; WIND POWER;

ELECTRIC GENERATORS;

CARBON EMISSION; CARBON SEQUESTRATION; COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS; ELECTRICITY GENERATION; EMISSION CONTROL; ENERGY EFFICIENCY; NATURAL GAS; NUCLEAR POWER; PARTICIPATORY APPROACH; PERCEPTION; POWER PLANT; RENEWABLE RESOURCE; TECHNOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENT; WIND POWER;

PENNSYLVANIA; PITTSBURGH; UNITED STATES;

EID: 77956641633     PISSN: 02724332     EISSN: 15396924     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1539-6924.2010.01436.x     Document Type: Article

References (52)

1. IPCC. Climate change 2007: Mitigation. Pp. 251 322 in Metz B, Davidson OR, Bosch PR, Dave R, Meyer LA (eds). Contribution of Working Group III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge, UK and New York : Cambridge University Press, 2007.
2. 2 Emissions: The Full Portfolio. Pala Alto, CA : EPRI Technology Assessment Center, Electric Power Research Institute Report, 1015461, 2007.
3. Apt J, Lave LB, Pattanariyankool S. A national renewable portfolio standard? Not practical. Issues in Science and Technology, 2008 28(1):53-59.
4. Walawalker R, Apt J, Mancini R. Economics of electric energy storage for energy arbitrage and regulation in New York. Energy Policy, 2007 35 (4 2558 2568.
5. Mouward J. No new refineries in 29 years? There might well be a reason. New York Times, May 9, 2005. Available at : http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/09/ business/09refinery.html, accessed August 28, 2009.
6. Guigni M. Social Protest and Policy Change: Ecology, Antinuclear, and Peace Movements in Comparative Perspective. Lanham, MD : Rowman and Littlefield, 2004.
7. Bradbury J, Ray I, Peterson T, Wade S, Wong-Parodi G, Feldpausch A. The role of social factors in shaping public perceptions of CCS: Results of multi-state focus group interviews in the U.S. Energy Procedia, 2009 1 (1 4665 4672.
8. Firestone J, Kempton W. Public opinion about large offshore wind power: Underlying factors. Energy Policy, 2007 35 (3 1584 1598.
9. Curry TE, Ansolabehere S, Herzog HJ. A Survey of Public Attitudes Towards Climate Change and Climate Change Mitigation Technologies in the United States: Analyses of 2006 Results. Cambridge, MA : Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 2007.
10. Grove-White R, Kearnes M, Macnaghten P, Wynne B. Nuclear futures: Assessing public attitudes to new nuclear power. Political Quarterly, 2006 77 (2 238 246.
11. Poortinga W, Pidgeon NF, Lorenzoni I. Public Perceptions of Nuclear Power, Climate Change and Energy Options in Britain: Summary Findings of a Survey Conducted During October and November 2005. Norwich, UK : Centre for Environmental Risk, 2006.
12. Purvis-Roberts KL, Werner CA, Frank I. Perceived risks from radiation and nuclear testing near Semipalatinsk, Kazakhstan: A comparison between physicians, scientists, and the public. Risk Analysis, 2007 27 (2 291 302.
13. Palmgren CR, Morgan MG, Bruine de Bruin W, Keith DW. Initial public perceptions of deep geological and oceanic disposal of carbon dioxide. Environmental Science and Technology, 2004 38 (24 6441 6450.
14. Ashworth P, Boughena N, Mayhew M, Millar F. An integrated roadmap of communication activities around carbon capture and storage in Australia and beyond. Energy Procedia, 2009 1 (1 4749 4756.
15. Wallquist L, Visschers VHM, Siegrist M. Lay concepts on CCS deployment in Switzerland based on qualitative interviews. International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control, 2009 3 : 652 657.
16. Gross C. Community perspectives of wind energy in Australia: The application of a justice and community fairness framework to increase social acceptance. Energy Policy, 2007 35 (5 2727 2736.
17. Reiner D, Curry T, Figueredo M, Herzog H, Ansolabehere S, Itaoka K, Akai M, Johnsson F, Odenberger M. An international comparison of public attitudes towards carbon capture and storage technologies. Proceedings of the Eighth International Conference on Greenhouse Gas Control Technologies (GHGT-8). Trondheim, Norway. June 22, 2006.
18. 2 capture and storage technologies in the Netherlands. International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control, 2009 3 (3 322 332.
19. Sharp J. Public Attitudes Towards Geological Disposal of Carbon Dioxide in Canada. British Columbia: Simon Frasier University, School of Resource and Environmental Management Report, 384, 2005.
20. Huijts NMA, Midden CJH, Meijnders AL. Social acceptance of carbon dioxide storage. Energy Policy, 2007 35 : 2780 2789.
21. Reiner D, Curry T, Figueiredo M, Herzog H, Ansolabehere S, Itaoka K, Johnsson F, Odenbergeret M. American exceptionalism? Similarities and differences in national attitudes toward energy policy and global warming. Environmental Science and Technology, 2006 40 : 2093 2098.
22. Fishkin J. Strategies of public consultation. Integrated Assessment Journal, 2006 6 (2 57 72.
23. Itaoka K, Okuda Y, Saito A, Akai M. Influential information and factors for social acceptance of CCS: The 2nd round survey of public opinion in Japan. Energy Procedia, 2009 1 (1 4803 4810.
24. Price V, Neijens PC. Opinion quality in public opinion research. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 1997 9 (4 336 360. (Pubitemid 128023105)
25. Reiner DM. A Looming Rhetorical Gap: A Survey of Public Communications Activities for Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage Technologies. Electricity Policy Research Group Working Papers, No. 0801. Cambridge, UK : University of Cambridge, 2008.
26. Morgan MG, Fischhoff B, Bostrom A, Lave L, Atman, CJ. Communicating risk to the public. Environmental Science and Technology, 1992 26 (11 2048 2056.
27. Fischhoff B, Slovic P, Lichtenstein S. Lay foibles and expert fables in judgments about risk. American Statistician, 1982 36 (3 240 255.
28. Bruine de Bruin W. Judgment and decision making in adolescents. In Dhami MK, Schlottmann A, Waldmann M (eds). Judgment and Decision Making as a Skill: Learning, Development, and Evolution. Cambridge, UK : Cambridge University Press, in press.
29. Morgan MG, Fischhoff B, Bostrom A, Atman CJ. Risk Communication: A Mental Models Approach. New York : Cambridge University Press, 2002.
30. Maharik M, Fischhoff B. The risks of using nuclear energy sources in space: Some lay activists' perceptions. Risk Analysis, 1992 12 (3 383 391.
31. Bruine de Bruin W, Fischhoff B, Güvenç Ü, Caruso D, Armstrong C. A model-based scenario approach to communicating the risks of xenotransplantation. Risk Analysis, 2009 29 : 1105 1115.
32. Downs JS, Murray PJ, Bruine de Bruin W, White JP, Palmgren C, Fischhoff B. Interactive video behavioral intervention to reduce adolescent females' STD risk: A randomized controlled trial. Social Science & Medicine, 2004 59 : 1561 1572.
33. Fischhoff B, Bruine de Bruin W, Güvenç U, Brilliant L, Caruso D Analyzing disaster risks and plans: An avian flu example. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 2006 33 : 131 149.
34. Pidgeon NF, Lorenzoni I, Poortinga W. Climate change or nuclear power - No thanks! A quantitative study of public perceptions and risk framing in Britain. Global Environmental Change, 2008 18 (1 69 85.
35. 2 capture and storage technology: A survey of public opinion to explore influential factor. Proceedings of Seventh International Conference on Greenhouse Gas Control Technologies. Cheltenham, UK 2004.
36. Kaldellis JK. Social attitude towards wind energy applications in Greece. Energy Policy, 2005 33 : 595 602.
37. Florig HK, Morgan MG, Morgan KM, Jenni KE, Fischhoff B, Fischbeck PS, DeKay ML. A deliberative method for ranking risks (I): Overview and test bed development. Risk Analysis, 2001 21 (5 913 921.
38. Morgan KM, DeKay ML, Fischbeck PS, Morgan MG, Fischhoff B, Florig HK. A deliberative method for ranking risks (II): Evaluation of validity and agreement among risk managers. Risk Analysis, 2001 21 (5 923 937.
39. Willis HH, DeKay ML, Morgan MG, Florig HK, Fischbeck PS. Ecological risk ranking: Development and evaluation of a method for improving public participation in environmental decision making. Risk Analysis, 2004 24 (2 363 378.
40. PA General Assembly. Senate Bill No. 1030 (Printer's number 1419): Providing for the Sale of Electric Energy Generated from Renewable and Environmentally Beneficial Sources, for the Acquisition of Electric Distribution and Supply Companies and for the Powers and Duties of the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission, March, 15, 2004. Available at : http://www.legis.state.pa. us/cfdocs/legis/home/session.cfm, accessed on January 5, 2009.
41. Presser S, Blair J. Survey pretesting: Do different methods produce different results? Chapter 2 in Marsden P (eds). Sociological Methodology. San Francisco, CA : Jossey-Bass, 1994.
42. Flesch R. A new readability yardstick. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1948 32 (2 221 233.
43. Kincaid JP, Fishburne RP, Rogers RL, Chissom BS. Derivation of New Readability Formulas (Automated Readability Index, Fog Count and Flesch Reading Ease Formula) for Navy Enlisted Personnel. Memphis, TN : Naval Technical Training, U.S. Naval Air Station, 1975.
44. U.S. Census Bureau. Generated by Fleishman LA using American FactFinder, 28 January 2010. Available at : http://factfinder.census.gov, accessed August 5, 2009.
45. Dunlap RE, Van Liere KD, Mertig AG, Jones RE. Measuring endorsement of the new ecological paradigm: A revised NEP scale. Journal of Social Issues, 2000 56 : 425 442.
46. Liu Q, Shi M, Jiang K. New power generation technology options under the greenhouse gases mitigation scenario in China. Energy Policy, 2009 37 (6 2440 2449.
47. CBS News New York Times. American Public Opinion: Today vs. 30 Years Ago. New York. January 11-15, 2009. Available at : http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/ pdf/SunMo-poll-0209.pdf, accessed September 1, 2009.
48. Jones JM. Support for Nuclear Energy Inches Up to New High. Washington, DC : Gallup, 2009. Available at : http://www.gallup.com/poll/117025/support- nuclear-energy-inches-new-high.aspx, accessed September 1, 2009.
49. DeKay ML, Florig HK, Fischbeck PS, Morgan MG, Morgan KM, Fischhoff B, Jenni KE. The use of public risk ranking in regulatory development. Pp. 208 230 in Fischbeck PS, Farrow RS. (eds). Improving Regulation: Cases in Environment, Health, and Safety. Washington, DC : Resources for the Future.
50. Siegrist M, Cvetkovich G. Perception of hazards: The role of social trust and knowledge. Risk Analysis, 2000 20 (5 713 719.
51. 2 storage. Risk Analysis, 2009 29 (5 743 751.
52. Terwel BW, Harinck F, Ellemers N, Daamen DDL. Competence-based and integrity-based trust as predictors of acceptance of carbon dioxide capture and storage (CCS). 2009 29 (8 1129 1140.