Informed Public Preferences for Electricity Portfolios with CCS and Other Low-Carbon Technologies

被引:96
作者
Fleishman, Lauren A. [1 ]
de Bruin, Waendi Bruine [1 ,2 ]
Morgan, M. Granger [1 ]
机构
[1] Carnegie Mellon Univ, Dept Engn & Publ Policy, Pittsburgh, PA 15213 USA
[2] Carnegie Mellon Univ, Dept Social & Decis Sci, Pittsburgh, PA 15213 USA
基金
美国国家科学基金会; 美国安德鲁·梅隆基金会;
关键词
Carbon capture and sequestration; CCS; electricity generation; low-carbon; public risk perception and communication; DELIBERATIVE METHOD; SOCIAL ACCEPTANCE; WIND ENERGY; RISKS; PERCEPTIONS; RANKING; OPINION; STORAGE; TRUST; POWER;
D O I
10.1111/j.1539-6924.2010.01436.x
中图分类号
R1 [预防医学、卫生学];
学科分类号
1004 ; 120402 ;
摘要
Public perceptions of carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) and other low-carbon electricity-generating technologies may affect the feasibility of their widespread deployment. We asked a diverse sample of 60 participants recruited from community groups in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania to rank 10 technologies (e.g., coal with CCS, natural gas, nuclear, various renewables, and energy efficiency), and seven realistic low-carbon portfolios composed of these technologies, after receiving comprehensive and carefully balanced materials that explained the costs and benefits of each technology. Rankings were obtained in small group settings as well as individually before and after the group discussions. The ranking exercise asked participants to assume that the U.S. Congress had mandated a reduction in carbon dioxide emissions from power plants to be built in the future. Overall, rankings suggest that participants favored energy efficiency, followed by nuclear power, integrated gasification combined-cycle coal with CCS and wind. The most preferred portfolio also included these technologies. We find that these informed members of the general public preferred diverse portfolios that contained CCS and nuclear over alternatives once they fully understood the benefits, cost, and limitations of each. The materials and approach developed for this study may also have value in educating members of the general public about the challenges of achieving a low-carbon energy future.
引用
收藏
页码:1399 / 1410
页数:12
相关论文
共 51 条
[11]   Measuring endorsement of the new ecological paradigm: A revised NEP scale [J].
Dunlap, RE ;
Van Liere, KD ;
Mertig, AG ;
Jones, RE .
JOURNAL OF SOCIAL ISSUES, 2000, 56 (03) :425-442
[12]   Public opinion about large offshore wind power: Underlying factors [J].
Firestone, Jeremy ;
Kempton, Willett .
ENERGY POLICY, 2007, 35 (03) :1584-1598
[13]   LAY FOIBLES AND EXPERT FABLES IN JUDGMENTS ABOUT RISK [J].
FISCHHOFF, B ;
SLOVIC, P ;
LICHTENSTEIN, S .
AMERICAN STATISTICIAN, 1982, 36 (03) :240-255
[14]   Analyzing disaster risks and plans:: An avian flu example [J].
Fischhoff, Baruch ;
de Bruin, Wandi Bruine ;
Guvenc, Umit ;
Caruso, Denise ;
Brilliant, Larry .
JOURNAL OF RISK AND UNCERTAINTY, 2006, 33 (1-2) :131-149
[15]  
Fishkin James., 2006, The Integrated Assessment Journal, V6, P57
[16]   A New Readability Yardstick [J].
Flesch, Rudolf .
JOURNAL OF APPLIED PSYCHOLOGY, 1948, 32 (03) :221-233
[17]   A deliberative method for ranking risks (I): Overview and test bed development [J].
Florig, HK ;
Morgan, MG ;
Morgan, KM ;
Jenni, KE ;
Fischhoff, B ;
Fischbeck, PS ;
DeKay, ML .
RISK ANALYSIS, 2001, 21 (05) :913-921
[18]   Community perspectives of wind energy in Australia: The application of a justice and community fairness framework to increase social acceptance [J].
Gross, Catherine .
ENERGY POLICY, 2007, 35 (05) :2727-2736
[19]   Nuclear futures: Assessing public attitudes to new nuclear power [J].
Grove-White, Robin ;
Kearnes, Matthew ;
Macnaghten, Phil ;
Wynne, Brian .
POLITICAL QUARTERLY, 2006, 77 (02) :238-246
[20]  
Guigni M.)., 2004, Social protest and policy change