epubs.surrey.ac.ukepubs.surrey.ac.uk/842358/1/Lay perceptions of Carbon D… · Web viewLay perceptions of Carbon Dioxide Utilisation technologies in the United Kingdom and Germany:

RUNNING HEAD: Lay perceptions of Carbon Dioxide Utilisation (CDU) technologies

Lay perceptions of Carbon Dioxide Utilisation technologies in the United Kingdom and Germany: An exploratory qualitative interview study

Christopher R. Jonesa,*, Barbara Olfe-Kraeutleinb, Daphne Kaklamanouc

a School of Psychology, University of Surrey, Guildford, GU2 7XH, United Kingdom.

Email: [email protected]: 01483 68 2911

b Institute for Advanced Sustainability Studies e.V. (IASS), Berliner Straße 130, 14467 Potsdam, Germany.

Email: [email protected]: +49 (0)331 28822 367

c Department of Psychology, Sociology and Politics, Sheffield Hallam University, Collegiate Crescent, Sheffield S10 2BP, United Kingdom

Email: [email protected]: +44(0)114 225 4801

*Corresponding author

1


Abstract

Carbon Dioxide Utilisation (CDU) technologies convert Carbon Dioxide (CO2) into carbon-

based products. CDU technologies are viewed as a means of helping to address climate

change while creating commodities that can be sold to generate financial revenue. While

technical research and development into CDU options is accelerating, at present there has

been little research into public acceptance of the technology. The current study presents the

findings of a series of 28 exploratory interviews conducted with lay people in the United

Kingdom and Germany. The results show that awareness of CDU is currently very low in

both countries but that there is tentative support for the concept. This support is, however,

caveated by considerations of the techno-economic feasibility of the technology and the

societal consequences that might result from investment. While the thematic content of

discussions was similar in both countries, where appropriate any notable differences are

outlined and discussed. In addition to providing fresh insight into the emerging nature of

public perceptions and acceptance of CDU, it is reasoned that the findings of this research

could help to benefit the design of communication materials intended to engage lay-publics in

debate about the nature and purpose of CDU technologies.

Keywords

Carbon Dioxide Utilisation (CDU); Carbon Capture and Utilisation (CCU); Public

Perception; Technology Acceptance

2


1. Introduction

Carbon Dioxide Utilisation (CDU) technologies—also often referred to as Carbon Capture

and Utilisation (CCU) or Carbon Capture and Reuse (CCR) technologies—convert Carbon

Dioxide (CO2) via physical or chemical processes into saleable carbon-based products (e.g.

polymers, methanol). By making use of waste CO2 released by large point-source emitters

(e.g. fossil-fuel power generation, steel manufacture, etc.) or directly from the air; CDU

technologies are viewed as a means of helping to address climate change—consistent with

emerging national and international policy and legislation (e.g. that precipitating from the

‘Paris Agreement’ at COP21, see United Nations Framework Convention on Climate

Change, 2015)—while broadening the raw material base and creating commodity products

(e.g. chemicals, plastics, cement, fuels, urea) that can be sold to generate economic revenue

(Styring, Quadrelli & Armstrong, 2015).

The concept of CDU is not new and there are already mature markets for CO2-based

products like urea and sodium carbonate; however, there is growing interest in a variety of

new CDU options, including CO2-derived fuels (e.g. methanol, formic acid) and other

chemicals (e.g. acyclic carbonate, polyurethanes), which still remain at various stages of

research, demonstration and feasibility testing (Fraga & Ng, 2015; Wilson et al., 2015).

Crucially, while technical advancement of these options is accelerating, there is currently

little research into the public (and broader social) acceptability of the technologies and related

product options (see Jones, Olfe-Kraütlein, Naims & Armstrong, 2017).

The present study used exploratory semi-structured interviews in order to learn more

about the nature of emerging lay-public opinions of the technology in the United Kingdom

(UK) and Germany. There was a particular focus on the anticipated conceptual, techno-

3


economic and societal risks and benefits of the technology (see Jones et al., 2015). The UK

and Germany present a particularly interesting context for such investigation in Europe, due

to their prominent and advanced technical CDU research and development programmes

(Mennicken, Janz & Roth, 2016; SCOT, 2017; SETIS, 2016).

The remainder of this introduction first outlines the importance of studying the public

acceptance of technological innovation (Section 1.1), before summarizing what is currently

known about public perceptions of CDU (Section 1.2). It ends by outlining the specific aims

and objectives for the current study (Section 1.3).

1.1 Public acceptance of technological innovation

The key role that lay-publics (e.g. in their roles as voting citizens and product

consumers) have in shaping the success of technological innovation at national, local and

household levels (e.g. prospects for investment, the ability to find sites, etc.) (Devine-Wright,

2011; Wüstenhagen, Wolsink & Bürer, 2007; Upham, Oltra & Boso, 2015), has led to calls

for earlier and more participatory engagement of such publics in discussions regarding

technological and policy innovation (Chopyak, 2002; Kurath & Gisler, 2009; Jones & Jones,

2016; Wilsdon & Willis, 2004).

This is of particular importance within Westernised democracies, where policy and

institutional change typically requires the support of individuals and communities (Peterson,

Stevens & Wilson, 2015). Indeed, there are a number of instances where failures within

public engagement and deliberation have led—at least in part—to delays or curtailments to

the introduction of new technologies at both national (e.g. GM agriculture, e.g. Horlick-Jones

et al., 2007) and local levels (e.g. renewable energy technologies, e.g. Devine-Wright, 2011).

If correctly resourced and planned, such engagement activity can yield benefits for

4


proponents of a given innovation (Beierle & Cayford, 2002; Creighton, 2005). Timely and

meaningful engagement can for instance: (a) generate public trust in decision-makers and

promote acceptance (or tolerance) of decisions; and (b) yield key insight into the emerging

subjective perceptions of the technology (e.g. the perceived risks and benefits), which can

make a substantive contribution to decisions being made about the technology (see Stirling,

2008). For example, expert and lay judgments about the type and severity of risk posed by

hazards (including new technologies) can deviate markedly from one another (Sjöberg,

2015). By engaging with affected publics it can be possible to identify areas of divergence,

which can be useful in designing tailored education and communication strategies (Lee,

2016).

As an example, social scientific research into the lay-public perceptions of Carbon

Capture and Storage (CCS) is now fairly mature. CCS technologies capture CO2 emissions

from large point-source emitters (e.g. power plants), allowing for the transportation of the

CO2 to deep-geological storage sites (e.g. depleted oil and gas fields) (Boot-Handford et al.,

2014; Gibbins & Chalmers, 2008). The social scientific studies that have been conducted to

date have yielded key insight into attitudes towards the technology among diverse publics

(e.g. affected populations, nationally representative samples) and other stakeholders in a

number of countries (Johnsson, Reiner, Itaoka, & Herzog, 2010; Shackley et al., 2007;

Upham & Roberts, 2011). In addition to identifying some of the perceived risks and benefits

of CCS (see L’Orange Seigo et al., 2014), this research has provided a basis for the creation

of public-engagement programmes and communication materials designed to prompt more

informed discussion about the processes and principles of the technology (Ashworth et al.,

2012; Ashworth, Boughen, Mayhew, & Millar, 2010; Brunsting et al., 2011).

5


In short, while the ‘public face’ of technological innovation is often an afterthought

(see Apt & Fischhoff, 2006); elucidating and integrating the opinion of lay-publics (alongside

those of other social-stakeholders) into technological design, development and deployment

should be considered a priority.

1.2 Public perception of Carbon Dioxide Utilisation (CDU)

Due to the conceptual and semantic overlaps between CCS and CDU—and the fact

that CDU can be affiliated with CCS operations (Markewitz et al., 2012; Styring et al., 2015)

—it could be tempting to draw inferences about the probable lay-public response to CDU

from the extant literature on CCS. There are, however, limitations to this, not least due to the

inherent differences in the nature and intended purpose of these technologies.

The raison d’être of CCS is to combat climate change and thus public perceptions of

CCS are strongly determined by beliefs in anthropogenic climate change and the perceived

utility of CCS in combating this threat (L’Orange Seigo et al., 2014; Wallquist et al., 2012).

While CDU can also result in net reductions in CO2 emissions, the prospect of also creating

products and generating economic revenue provides a secondary purpose for investment in

the technology. Furthermore, as CDU does not necessitate the geological storage of CO2—a

commonly registered grievance with CCS—it is reasonable to hypothesise that attitudes

towards CDU might differ from those held about CCS (Bruhn, Naims & Olfe-Kräutlein,

2016).

While still at an early stage, initial attempts at conducting systematic assessments of

lay-public perceptions of CDU technologies and product options are beginning to emerge

(e.g. Jones, Kaklamanou, Stuttard, Radford & Burley, 2015; Perdan, Jones & Azapagic,

2017; van Heek, Arning & Ziefle, 2017a, 2017b). For example, Jones et al. (2015) conducted

6


a focus group study with adults and high school children in the UK. In addition to confirming

the low level of existing public awareness about CDU, the research highlighted some of the

emerging themes in lay-public discourse about the technology. These themes centred on: (1)

issues relating to the general concept (“should we do this?”); (2) technical issues (“can we do

this?”) and (3) societal consequences (“what will happen if we do this?”). More specifically,

concept discussions focused principally on the value of CDU in addressing climate change.

While some participants valued CDU as a means of ‘buying time’ in the fight against climate

change, others questioned the efficacy of CDU as a long-term solution to the problem (e.g.

due to the eventual re-release of the captured CO2). Technical discussions tended to centre on

concerns about the high capital-costs required to bring CDU technologies and products to

market, as well as questions about the cost-effectiveness and thermodynamic efficiency of

CO2 conversion processes. In terms of social consequences, participants spoke about a range

of issues, including perceived inconsistencies between investment in CDU and societal drives

towards sustainability. For example, some viewed CDU as something that might encourage

societal complacency in reducing carbon emissions, while others believed that CDU could be

seen as a motivating exemplar of efforts being made to address this issue.

van Heek et al. (2017a) also recently published research into the antecedents of

consumer perceptions for a CDU-derived mattress. In addition to confirming that participants

tended to have relatively positive perceptions of CDU (particularly relative to storage of

CO2), the findings also confirmed a number of things about the factors that might govern the

acceptance of consumer products derived from captured CO2. For example, the proportion of

CO2 used within the product (CO2 proportion) was not a particularly strong predictor of

product acceptance. By contrast, both: (a) the carbon emissions affiliated with a CDU-derived

7


mattress upon disposal (disposal conditions); and (b) the extent of any fossil-resource savings

resulting from the use of CO2 as a carbon feedstock in the manufacturing process (savings of

fossil resources), were predictive. Furthermore, where personal health risks (perceived health

complaints) were introduced and considered by participants, it was these considerations that

became the most decisive factor in shaping acceptance.

While most research in this area has, to date, been qualitative—appropriately

recognising the challenges of assessing lay-public perceptions of unfamiliar subject matter

(e.g. assessing pseudo-opinions, see Section 2.1)—recently larger, quantitative surveys have

also begun to emerge. For instance, Perdan et al. (2017) conducted a survey on 1213 UK

adults to establish the extent of awareness and acceptance of CDU (in this case referred to as

CCU). This study illustrated the very low-level of public awareness about the technology

(only 9% were confident they knew what the technology was); simultaneously highlighting

both the challenge and opportunity for proponents of the technology in securing public

acceptance.

1.3 The current study

While there is growing interest in understanding lay-public perceptions of CDU (and

affiliated product options), there still exists a paucity of published research in this field (see

Jones et al., 2017). The current study sought to address this gap by providing an exploratory

investigation of opinions about CDU within a convenience sample of interviewees from the

UK and Germany.

Twenty-eight in-depth, qualitative interviews were conducted with lay-people in

Sheffield, United Kingdom (n=18) and Potsdam/Berlin, Germany (n =10) between July 2014

and December 2015. The aim was to elucidate more about emerging perceptions of CDU in

8


these countries, using the concept, technical and societal consequence themes identified to

previous research as a framework for the analysis (see Jones et al., 2015).

Due to the fact that CDU facilities can be affiliated with CCS operations (e.g. Styring

et al., 2015) we were also able to investigate how extant public opinion about CCS in each

country shaped interviewee’s opinions about CDU. We were particularly keen to see if the

greater scepticism about CCS technologies in Germany relative to the UK—due to high

social and political rejection of CCS technology in Germany (Herrenbrück, 2015; Johnsson,

Reiner, Itaoka, & Herzog, 2010; Pietzner et al., 2011; Shackley et al., 2007)—would result in

the German interviewees also being more sceptical towards CDU.

2. Methods

2.1 Qualitative interview approach

Individual qualitative interviewing was selected as the preferred method of data

collection for this research. Qualitative interviewing offers a means of providing an in-depth,

discursive forum for exploratory research and has been used successfully to discover more

about the nature of expert and lay opinion of a number of emerging technologies, including

CCS (Wallquist, Visschers & Siegrist, 2009); Geoengineering (Pidgeon et al., 2012);

Hydrogen Energy Technology (Ricci, Bellaby, & Flynn, 2008) and Hydraulic Fracturing

(Ladd, 2013). Bearing in mind the unfamiliar nature of CDU technologies, qualitative

interviewing was favoured over other methods (e.g. a questionnaire-based survey) as a means

of reducing the prospect of registering pseudo-opinions.

Pseudo-opinions are weak and non-directive evaluative judgements that people

provide in responses to questions about things they know very little (if anything) about (de

Best-Waldhober, Daamen, & Faaij, 2009). Qualitative interviewing ostensibly lessens the

9


prospect of recording pseudo-opinions by offering the opportunity to: (a) provide participants

with more information about topic(s) under consideration; and (b) to clarify participants’

understanding before eliciting opinion. The one-on-one context can also help to lessen the

drawbacks associated with the more group-based discussion methods (e.g. group think, see

Esser, 1998), which have also been a favoured means of investigating lay-public opinion of

unfamiliar technologies like CCS (Bradbury et al., 2009; Hope & Jones, 2014; Upham &

Roberts, 2011) and CDU (Jones et al., 2015).

2.2 Participants

Eighteen people from Sheffield (UK) and 10 people from Potsdam/Berlin (Germany)

were recruited (see Table 1) to a study advertised as concerning “…new technology options

being developed to make use of the carbon dioxide produced by industrial processes, like

electricity generation”.i No prior knowledge of the technologies and/or power generation

were required to participate. In the UK only, a small participation incentive (i.e. £20

shopping-voucher) was offered.

UK-based participants (8 female and 10 male) were recruited via an advertisement on

a local online forum, an email advertisement to a University list of volunteers and via

personal contacts. This recruitment strategy resulted in a slight overrepresentation of

university research staff and students; however, a range of people from different backgrounds

(e.g. lawyer, events manager) were also recruited. The sample had a mean age of 33.7 years

(SD = 8.2; Range: 21-53). Five participants claimed to have heard of CDU but self-claimed

pre-interview knowledge of CDU was very low (Mean = 1.11, SD = 0.32).ii

German-based participants (5 female and 5 male) were recruited via personal

contacts. The final sample comprised people with a diversity of occupational backgrounds

10


(e.g. architect, secretary). The sample had a mean age of 44.8 years (SD =17.8; Range: 18-

76). Four participants claimed to have heard of CDU but self-reported pre-interview

knowledge of CDU was very low (Mean = 1.30, SD = 0.48).

Table 1.

Gender, age and occupation of the UK and German interviewees

Sheffield, United Kingdom

UK1 (M, 48, retired lawyer); UK2 (F, 53, community carer); UK3 (M, 38, computer

programmer); UK4 (M, 35, events manager); UK5 (F, 36, learning support provider); UK6

(F, 33, university researcher); UK7 (M, 21, university student); UK8 (F, 27, university

student); UK9 (M, 28, university researcher); UK10 (F, 40, biomedical scientist); UK11

(M, 29, research governance coordinator); UK12 (M, 29, doctor); UK13 (M, 36, university

lecturer); UK14 (F, 27, communications advisor); UK15 (M, 30, project manager); UK16

(M, 34, biotechnologist); UK17 (F, 29, research developer); UK18 (F, 23, library

assistant).

Potsdam/Berlin, Germany

GER1 (F, 27, student); GER2 (M, 39, teacher); GER3 (F, 71, retired secretary); GER4

(M, 76, retired civil servant); GER5 (F, 53, accountant); GER6 (F, 38, communications

advisor); GER7 (F, 42, occupational therapist); GER8 (M, 18, student); GER9 (M, 42,

journalist); GER10 (M, 42, architect).

Note. Gender (M = male; F = female); Age (years); Occupation (as listed by the

interviewee)

While caution should be exercised due to small and discrepant nature of the sample 11


sizes, initial comparative analysis indicated that the UK and German-based samples were

equivalent in terms of the mean age, t(11.13) = 1.89, p = .088, and pre-interview knowledge

of CDU, t(13.59) = 1.11, p = .289. Fisher’s exact tests (two-tailed) confirmed that the gender

distribution (p = 1.00) and self-claimed awareness levels (p = 0.67) were also equivalent.

2.3 Materials

All materials were first created in English and then translated into German. Technical

details were developed in collaboration with the UK Centre for Carbon Dioxide Utilisation

(CDUUK) (www.sheffield.ac.uk/cduuk) and from previously published research (see Jones et

al., 2015). For the exact wording of the information, see Appendix A.

2.3.1 Interview Information Sheet and CDU presentation

The information sheet outlined the reasons for the research, provided a brief

background to CDU and introduced the data-management, analysis and ethical protocols.

Participants also received a PowerPoint presentation comprising three key sections:

(A) General Introduction. This section outlined the names and roles of the research

team, restated the project aims and provided a basic introduction to CDU (see Appendix A).

When contextualizing CDU, discussion centred upon the need to address anthropogenic CO2

emissions from large emitters like fossil-fuel power generation. Firstly, CCS was introduced

as a possible means of sequestering CO2, with the financial-cost, energy-cost and waste

implications of this option outlined as potential drawbacks. Next, CDU was introduced as an

option that could make use of some of the CO2 from processes like CCS for enhanced oil

recovery (EOR) or to make carbon-based products. In the context of product manufacture it

was suggested that CDU could help to ease the reliance on new fossil fuels in the

manufacture of these products and limit atmospheric releases of CO2. Participants were then

12


shown a diagram illustrating the variety of uses for captured CO2 (see Figure 1). Participants

were told that electricity would be required to power the capture and conversion processes

and that this electricity would have to come from renewables or other low carbon sources

(e.g. nuclear power) to ensure that CDU processes yielded net reductions in CO2 emissions.

The diagram was available for participants to refer to during the Question Set 1 (see Table 2).

(B) Specific Examples. This section showcased some case-study examples of CDU.iii

Four CDU projects were briefly described: (1) German-based chemical-companies BASF and

Covestro (formerly Bayer Material Science) and the US-based company Novomer capturing

CO2 and using chemical catalysis to convert it into plastics (e.g. polypropylene and

polyurethane) for use in foams, adhesives and packaging; (2) the US-based Dakota

Gasification Company’s ‘Great Plains Synfuels Plant’ which captures and transports CO2

from coal gasification for sequestering and use in EOR in Saskatchewan, Canada; (3) German

car-manufacture Audi’s ‘e-gas’ project, which is creating synthetic gas from CO2 for use as

transport fuel and as a potential replacement for natural gas in main gas lines; and (4) UK-

based company Air Fuel Synthesis’s project to synthesise kerosene from CO2 sequestered via

direct air capture processes.

(C) Expert ratings. This section comprised a table depicting elite assessments of

CCS and six CDU options (e.g. plastics manufacture) rated against eight evaluative criteria

(e.g. technology readiness level, profit potential). The expert ratings represented the modal

estimations of a group of over 10 engineers and natural scientists with academic expertise in

CDU processes and products, recruited via the CO2Chem network (www.co2chem.co.uk).

For each evaluative criterion, higher ratings (max. 10) related to more favourable evaluations

of the CDU/CCS option. This table was used to enable participants to consider and discuss

13


the relative strengths and weaknesses of CCS and the different CDU options (see Jones,

Radford, Armstrong & Styring, 2014). For the table of expert ratings and the definitions of

the evaluative criteria, see Supplementary Material (Table S1).

Fig. 1. Schematic diagram of use options for captured CO2.

The diagram illustrates how CO2 can be utilised as a resource, including options that are

already used today (e.g. utilisation of CO2 as a refrigerant), and products and processes of

different readiness levels (e.g. polycarbonates). Source: U.S. National Energy Technology

Laboratory (NETL). The figure is reproduced with the permission of the owner.

2.3.2 Pre-interview Questionnaire

This questionnaire was distributed before the interview and recorded the interviewees’

14


age, gender and occupation (all free response), as well their initial self-claimed awareness

(“Have you heard of…?” Yes, No, Don’t Know [DK]) and knowledge of (“How much to do

you think you know about…?” Not a lot; A little, A fair amount; A lot) CDU.iv

2.4 Procedure

A representation of the interview procedure can be found in Figure 2. Interviews took

place in a quiet, one-to-one setting, they were semi-structured and lasted between 30-60

minutes. UK interviews took place in October 2014 and German interviews took place

between July and December 2015. All questions can be found in Table 2. Where relevant the

interviewer asked the participant to clarify unclear statements and provide fuller explanations

for their responses (see Wallquist et al., 2009).

Fig. 2. Overview of the interview procedure.

Note: Interviewees also completed a short post-interview survey (at Step 8) but the results of

15

1Information sheet provided to interviewee and consent form completed.

2Pre-interview questionnaire competed by interviewee.

3Researcher leads interviewee through Part 1 of the presentation (i.e. general introduction to the project and to CDU).

4Researcher asks interviewee Question Set 1.

5Researcher leads interviewee through Part 2 of the presention (i.e. specific case-study examples of CDU).

6Researcher asks interviewee Question Set 2.

7Researcher introduces Part 3 of the presentation (i.e. expert ratings) and asks interviewee to discuss the strengths and weaknesses of different CDU options.

8Interviewees asked if there is anything more they would like to discuss before being thanked, debriefed and dismissed.


this survey are not analysed further within the current study.

Table 2.

Question schedule for interviews (semi-structured)

Question Set 1

1 Before today’s session, how much did you know about CDU?

2 Has the information you have just received changed what you know about CDU?

3 Has the information you have received had an impact on how you feel about CDU and if

so, in what way?

4 Do you think it is a reasonable technology for climate change mitigation?

5 Do you think it is a reasonable to technology for any other purposes?

6 What do you think are the general benefits of CDU technology?1

7 What do you think are the general risks of CDU technology?1

8 Is there a particular aspect of the process that you think is particularly risky?

Question Set 2:

1 What would you think if a CDU pilot project was planned to be sited near to where you

live?2

2 Generally speaking what role, if any, do you think CDU has within the UK/Germany?

3 To what extent do you think that CDU should or shouldn’t be considered as a means of

16


mitigating CO2 emissions from industry?

4 To what extent do you feel that CDU should or shouldn’t be considered as a solution for

climate change?

5 Do you think CDU has more environmental benefits, more economic benefits or both?

Note: 1 Participants were probed for perceived effects on the climate, on future generations

and on themselves. 2 Participants were probed for whether they though that this would be a

good or a bad thing.

2.5 Data analysis approach

Template Analysis was used to explore the data (see Brooks, McCluskey, Turley, &

King, 2015). Coding centred on the perceived advantages and disadvantages of CDU in terms

of: (a) the general concept (“should we do this?”); (b) its techno-economic feasibility (“can

we do this?”); and (c) its consequences for society (“what will happen if we do this?”) (see

Jones et al., 2015). ‘Other’ themes (e.g. comments about the interview procedure) were also

recorded and coded. Preliminary data coding was conducted on the first UK interview (UK1)

using these themes as a template. Modifications were made to the coding-template based

upon this analysis. The revised coding-template was then applied to UK2 and UK3 and any

further updates made. The revised coding-template was checked by all the authors before

being applied to the remaining UK interviews. Where relevant, codes were added/revised and

retrospectively applied to pre-coded transcripts. The final UK coding-template was then

translated into German and applied to the 10 German transcripts. The coding-template is

available within the Supplementary Material (Table S2). 17


UK interview transcripts were first coded by CJ (lead author), with the coding of a

sub-sample of 3 transcripts independently checked by DK (co-author). German transcripts

were first coded by BOK (co-author), with a sub-sample of 2 transcripts independently

checked by a second, native German speaker. Any disagreements between coders were

discussed, resolved and amendments applied to the coding of all transcripts.

3. Results

There were broad similarities in the opinions expressed within the German and UK

samples. As such, the results section comprises a joint presentation of the themes arising from

these two groups; where appropriate notable differences between the cohorts are highlighted.

3.1 Comments on the CDU concept (“should we do this?”)

While there was some scepticism, interviewees were broadly supportive of the CDU

concept. This positivity was, though, often conditional on the grounds that CDU should not

be a sole focus for investment in tackling climate change. More specific conceptual

discussions of CDU centred on 3 sub-themes: (1) the utility of CDU as a means of addressing

climate change; (2) the consistency between CDU and the broader sustainability agenda; and

(3) the comparative favourability of CDU vs. other technologies, particularly CCS.

3.1.1 The utility of CDU in addressing climate change

Some participants questioned whether CDU would provide a viable answer to the

issue of climate change. Concerns mainly mapped to the belief that CDU would present an

‘end-of-pipe’ solution to carbon emissions and would not tackle their root causes.

“…[CDU] sounds as though it is a logical option compared to the storage [of CO2],

however, yes, it kind of raises questions as to whether it is focusing on the right end, is there

a way that we can reduce the CO2 that we produce in the first place?” UK14

18


Some interviewees also reasoned that CDU would only delay an inevitable release of

CO2 into the atmosphere and so would not hold longer-term benefits for tackling climate

change. That said, interviewees recognised that not all CDU products were equivalent in this

regard, with options offering more permanent CO2 storage seen as more preferable.

Assumptions about the scale of the contribution that CDU could make to addressing

climate change were also found to shape opinions. Where these benefits were considered

nominal, the value of the technology was questioned. That said, while CDU was not

considered to be the solution to climate change, a number of interviewees noted that it could

help to slow the problem or ‘buy time’ while more efficacious solutions were developed.

3.1.2 The consistency of CDU with the broader sustainability agenda

Some CDU products—notably plastics—were seen to conflict with societal drives

towards greater sustainability. In the UK, some interviewees also believed that CDU would

presuppose an unwelcome, continued use of fossil fuels as well as also being a risky technical

fix for what are complex environmental issues.

Sceptical interviewees also indicated that they were unclear as to the rationale behind

CDU, questioning whether the environmental motives were sincere or whether the rationale

was primarily economic. This scepticism apparently stemmed from a lack of trust in the

companies promoting the technology and led to calls among some German participants to

monitor and regulate industrial practices and products in order to confirm any claims

regarding environmental sustainability.

Alongside these more sceptical comments, however, participants also registered key

strengths to CDU in terms of encouraging sustainability. Comments related to the belief that

CDU would create a new ‘recycled’ carbon resource that could: (a) reduce raw resource

19


consumption by industry; (b) maximise the potential yield from existing, ‘activated’ fossil

fuels and replace their use in the manufacture of products; (c) advance innovation in science

and industry; and (d) help to move society towards a more circular economy.

“I love the idea of a circular economy; the waste of one process is being used as a

starting product for another. [CDU] is brilliant and totally fits into it, and really closes the

carbon loop that we have in our society.” UK16

3.1.3 The comparative favourability of CDU vs. other technologies.

German interviewees saw CDU to be a preferable option to CCS and responded

negatively to the affiliation of CDU with CCS; rejecting this framing on the grounds that it

did not allow for the consideration of CDU in the absence of CCS. In the UK, participants

typically viewed CCS with CDU as being the more favourable option. This preference

generally stemmed from the perceived risks and drawbacks with the underground storage of

CO2, with long-term storage was seen as wasteful, dirty or dangerous (e.g. from leakage or

explosion). This contrasted with the view of utilisation as being akin to recycling.

“[CDU] seems a lot better than [CCS], like I said before, it’s the difference between

landfill, CCS being landfill, and CDU being more akin to recycling […] My reaction to CCS

is generally that I don’t like mess that you can’t clean up properly.” UK3

Some participants were concerned that a (re-)focusing of financial investment towards

CDU could harm investment in other technologies (notably renewable energy technologies)

that are perceptively more consistent with the sustainability agenda. Where this occurred,

opinions of CDU were typically less favourable.

3.2 Techno-economic Comments (“can we do this?”)

Pragmatic considerations of technical and economic feasibility often caveated

20


interviewees’ positivity to the general CDU concept. While such pragmatism was often

driven by a self-claimed lack of knowledge about the technology, it was also tied to the

recognition that many CDU options were commercially unproven. Discussions broadly

mapped to 2 sub-themes: (1) the technical feasibility and the CO2-capture potential of CDU;

and (ii) the commercialisation and market potential for CDU technologies and products.

3.2.1 The technical feasibility of CDU and CO2-capture potential

Participants were generally uncertain as to the proportion of CO2 that would be

utilised via CDU processes. Where participants believed that CDU could stand to capture

large amounts of CO2—and thus register a significant impact on carbon emissions—opinions

were typically favourable. Some suggested that they would need more information regarding

the capture potential and ‘real world’ benefit of the technology before they would be willing

to support CDU.

For some participants, the early technology readiness and/or low market-penetration

of some CDU options led them to question the immediacy of any discernible benefits that

could be derived from CDU. Interviewees argued that it would be a long time before CDU

operations were on a scale that could make a meaningful contribution to global issues, such

as climate change. Moreover, it was believed that there would need to be significant

international investment—particularly from developing nations—if CDU were to make a

meaningful contribution to such issues.

“[I]t is getting people like China and India to get on board […] because they are so

big that they can make a significant impact if they do it. But if they don't then the UK is just a

fraction of the rest of the world, insignificant really in world terms” UK15

In both countries, some participants questioned whether the high energy-costs

21


associated with the CDU conversion processes might undermine the worth of the technology

and could lead to net increases in CO2 emissions. This scepticism was, however, sometimes

countered by the belief that financial investment in current CDU technologies could help to

increase the viability of future technology options.

3.2.2 The commercialisation and market potential for CDU

There was general uncertainty over the costs involved in commercialising CDU and

over the potential market for CDU technologies and products. It was appreciated that CDU

would have to make economic sense for investors, leading to speculation over how CDU

facilities might be funded (e.g. would there be implications for consumers). That said, many

participants did believe that making use of CO2 could yield profit for investors (e.g. either

directly or through reduced emissions taxes) and that CDU would be attractive to industry if

it could generate a cheap carbon feedstock for products.

Participants in both countries alluded to a number of economic benefits for investors

in CDU, reasoning that: (a) CDU and its products had the potential to integrate easily with

extant industrial infrastructures and (diverse) markets; and (b) there would be future domestic

and international retail markets for those investing in CDU technology research and

development.

“…if you are a front runner in developing technology then you can export and

become an expert in this at both exporting either the technology or setting up companies

elsewhere feeding in, will be good for the UK economy in the long term.” UK16

In the UK there was also a sense among a couple of interviewees that investment in

CDU could be used to enhance business credibility for investors and/or encourage welcome

investment in the renewables sector.

22


3.3 Societal Consequences (“what will happen if we do this?”)

Four key themes were identified: (1) the consequences of CDU for societal change; (2)

the impact on consumers; (3) the public and environmental health and safety risks; and (4)

the impacts on business and industry.

3.3.1 The consequences for societal change

Interviewees had differing views on whether investment in CDU would have positive

or negative consequences for efforts to promote more sustainable lifestyles within society.

Specifically, some participants sensed that people might use the environmental credentials of

CDU as an excuse for not living more sustainably, while others suggested that CDU could

provide a catalyst for fostering change in both the public and business sectors.

Relatedly, some interviewees noted that countries like the UK and Germany would be

setting a good example for other nations by investing in CDU, which could potentially

catalyse positive change within these other countries.

“I think it could benefit the British economy actually because then it’s something that

ultimately we take out to, sort of, developing countries that are currently going on their

industrial revolution and help making them more viable and cleaner and not damaging their

own environment as well.” UK9

3.3.2 Impacts on consumers

There was a sense that the costs associated with CDU could be quite high and would

need to be ‘picked up’ by someone. It was argued that this could be end-consumers through

inflations in the price of products, although some argued that this premium might not be an

issue if it were relatively small, optional and/or if the environmental benefits of the products

were clear.

23


“I could imagine that, if not mandatory, people will be convinced quickly to do their

bit out of an ecological awareness. For me personally, the ecological motivation to buy

something would be bigger than the economical one.” GER2

Concern over the potential for inflation in the price of consumer products was not

universal and the prospect that CDU might produce a low-cost source of carbon, which could

reduce—or at least mitigate increases in—the cost of consumer products (e.g. transport fuel)

was seen as a potential benefit.

3.3.3 Public and environmental health and safety risks

Interviewees’ comments regarding health and safety issues tended to focus on the

transportation and storage of captured but unused CO2. Concerns principally mapped to the

potential for leakage, explosion and related negative effects on local populations, flora and

fauna. The utilisation of CO2 was not seen as overly risky; although, there were occasional

mentions of possible hazards from the chemicals used in the conversion processes and/or the

chance of explosion or harmful emissions from these processes. Some participants also

questioned if their might be unknown risks associated with CDU-derived products.

“I think that one should know what is inside things. I do not really like the thought of

having a waste material in things that for example touch the skin, like creams or plastics in

garments. I think the same about other materials, but with CO2 even more.” GER3

In Germany, trust in regulatory systems to protect consumer-welfare was found to

increase the perceived safety of CDU-derived products. And some German interviewees were

enthused by the symbolic (‘badge of honour’) prospect of using CO2-derived products.

3.3.4 Impacts on business and industry

In both countries many comments mapped to beliefs about the use-value of CDU in

24


creating products (e.g. fuels, plastics) and supporting businesses and industry. Moreover,

within the UK, CDU was valued a non-disruptive technology option; i.e. something that

could reduce industrial emissions while allowing society to operate and function as normal.

“This could kind of go on in the background. Every CO2-producing power station

could adopt this technology tomorrow and nobody would notice in terms of our day-to-day

lives.” UK7

Many interviewees valued captured-CO2 both as a substitution feedstock for use in the

manufacture of carbon-based products and as something that could help to lessen the need for

crude-oil imports, thereby fostering greater energy independence. The substitution potential

of CDU-derived carbon (vs. traditionally-sourced carbon) was seen as particularly attractive

within Germany, where some interviewees referenced the country’s extant industry as

providing a good basis for investment – provided there was a business case.

A few UK interviewees also commented on the potential employment opportunities

that could be derived from the CDU industry, although there was some uncertainty over the

number and longevity of such opportunities.

3.4 Other themes

Several prominent additional themes were raised through discussion, relating to: (1)

public communication and engagement considerations; (2) facility siting and deployment

considerations; and (3) comments on the interview procedure.

3.4.1 Public communication and engagement considerations

Participants from both countries noted the value for CDU proponents in engaging in

early discussions about the technology. In part, these comments appeared to stem from the

interviewees’ personal concern that the success of the technology could be undermined by

25


failures in public engagement. One UK participant spoke of the potential for the media to

amplify perceptions of technological risk, using this to highlight the value of CDU

proponents taking control over how the technology is framed and promoted.

“…the media like to make a big hoo-hah over it [new technology] and it scares

people. Then people don’t ever get facts and figures and real information. All they get is

media scare…” UK6

Interestingly, some participants also argued that care should be taken when drawing

conclusions about the public acceptability of CDU from opinion polls or surveys. Drawing on

their own lack of knowledge, they cautioned that the current low-level of public awareness

about CDU might mean that surveys would record a surface-level endorsement of the

technology, which might not translate into support for CDU when people learned more about

the technology, its purpose and implications.

3.4.2 Project siting and deployment considerations

While the prospect of local facility development was typically not deemed of personal

relevance, interviewees did note that there could be issues within communities where future

CDU facilities were planned. This again raised the importance of public-engagement and

careful site selection. Interviewees hypothesised that local resistance might form to proposals

on the grounds of unwelcome noise and visual impacts, negative effects on house prices,

construction disruption, and concern regarding the storage of captured CO2.

Some concern was expressed where participants did entertain the prospect of

development within their own community; however, this concern appeared to be tied to the

prospect of local development per se as opposed to anything specific about the facility being

involved in CDU.

26


“I generally do not want to have industrial plants built in my surroundings” GER4.

3.4.3 Comments on interview procedure

Interviewees typically reasoned that the information provided within the interview

had improved their understanding of CDU and/or had had a positive influence on their

attitudes. While most interviewees spoke freely within the interview, a number also registered

a desire to have more ‘facts and figures’ (e.g. about the risks and economic costs) in order to

further aid their understanding and/or confirm their beliefs about CDU.

“… I’d have to see the figures and the numbers, and things like that, before I could

say, ‘Yes, it’s a really good idea’, or ‘No, this is a terrible’…” UK1.

4. General Discussion

Overall, interviewees tended to show a ‘caveated acceptance’ of CDU, which

apparently stemmed largely from a self-claimed lack of knowledge about the technology and

questions over the magnitude of the environmental benefit that could be derived from CDU.

The fixation on the environmental benefits of CDU is logical bearing in mind the ‘framing’

used within this study, which was chosen to reflect the pro-environmental argumentation

commonly used when discussing the technology (Palanivelu, 2017; Styring et al., 2015).

In addition to shaping conceptual-level discussions of CDU, the environmental

framing also affected interviewees’ consideration of the techno-economic feasibility and

societal consequences of the technology. For instance, interviewees’ comments regarding the

early technology readiness level and CO2 capture potential of CDU, can be taken as reflecting

general concerns about the likelihood, scale and immediacy of any environmental benefits

that might be derived from the technology. Similarly, comments relating to the realisation

that investment in CDU would only occur if there was a good business case (e.g. from the

27


retail of expertise, technologies and products and/or enhanced business reputation, see

Karakosta, Doukas, & Psarras, 2010; Miles & Covin, 2000), could be seen to reflect concerns

that the desirable environmental benefits from CDU might be stymied by the commercial

unattractiveness of the technology. For an outline of some of the key questions and

considerations apparently shaping interviewees’ opinions of CDU, see Figure 3.

Interestingly, where there was scepticism about the environmental benefits of CDU,

this tended to drive differing responses in the UK and German-based participants. In both

countries, trust in the sincerity of proponents of the technology was questioned; however,

whereas German interviewees tended to call for the regulation of the CDU industry in order

to validate the environmental credentials of processes and products (e.g. through labelling of

consumer goods)v, UK interviewees tended to call for CDU proponents to engage in a more

honest re-framing of communications regarding the technology so as to recognise the

financial motivations for investment. This latter finding strikes parallels with research into

lay-public attitudes to CCS, indicating how publics have more trust in stakeholders when they

use arguments that more consistent with their perceived organisational motives (de Vries,

Terwel, Ellemers, & Daamen, 2015; Terwel, Harinck, Ellemers, & Daamen, 2011).

28


Fig. 3. Questions apparently driving perceptions of CDU

Conceptual consideration of the environmental advantage to be gained from investment in

CDU tended to be focal (consistent with the framing utilised in this study) and was also

found to largely underpin considerations of techno-economic viability and societal

consequences.

29

Conceptual considerations

Techno-economic considerationsSocietal

consequences

Does CDU offer both a good and preferred long -term option for addressing climate change?How does the CDU concept map to broader environmental sustainability drivers and initiatives?

What is the CO2 capture-potential (impact) of CDU?What are the technical efficiencies of CDU processes?Are the products and processes cost-effective for those investing in CDU?

Will CDU encourage or inhibit sustainable lifestyles?How will businesses and industry stand to benefit from investment in CDU?Are there health and safety risks from facilities and products?How will the prices of consumer products be affected?


4.1 Implications, limitations and future directions

The findings of this study present new insight into emerging lay-public perceptions of

CDU technology. While exploratory in nature, we feel that the findings of this study could—

in combination with the specific, growing literature on lay-perceptions of CDU from other

sources (see Jones et al., 2017) and the established literature on the acceptance of new

technologies (see Gupta, Fischer, & Frewer, 2012; Huijts, Molin, & Steg, 2012)—help to

contribute to the development of communication materials designed to help prompt wider

public debate about CDU. This move would be consistent with drives towards greater

participation of publics in science and technology policy and decision making (see Chopyak,

2002; Kurath & Gisler, 2009) and consistent with similar efforts made in analogous

technology sectors (e.g. CCS, Ashworth et al., 2010; Ashworth et al., 2012).

There are, however, some important limitations to this study that should be considered

if seeking to utilise our findings for such purposes. Beyond the obvious limitations relating to

the relatively small and opportunistic nature of our sample—which should be addressed in

future research efforts (e.g. through more purposive sampling of interviewees)—there are

other, more specific limitations relating to the nature and extent of the information provided

to interviewees in this study.

In terms of the nature of the information provided, our chosen framing of CDU as a

‘green’ technology option was found to markedly shape interviewees’ discussions of the

technology (see Figure 3). In addition to steering discussion of the technology towards

considerations of environmental impact, couching CDU in such terms arguably also framed

the technology in a positive light. While there was certainly evidence that our interviewees

were willing to discuss the drawbacks of the technology and while our semi-structured

30


interview format allowed us to probe both interviewees’ negative and positive viewpoints; it

is possible that our chosen framing was partly responsible for relatively positive opinions

formed towards CDU within this study.

We feel that this limitation provides a real opportunity for future, systematic research

into the nature of lay-public attitudes towards the technology. Numerous studies indicate how

even subtle alterations to the framing of a technology (e.g. the emphasis placed upon the

different attributes of a technology) can exert impacts on perceptions of the technology,

particularly in comparative contexts and/or where technologies are unfamiliar (e.g. de Vries,

Terwel & Ellemers, 2016; Druckman & Bolsen, 2011; Jones, Eiser, & Gamble, 2012). A

logical first step in this research would be to investigate how interviewees might respond to

discussions of CDU in a context where a more balanced picture of the technology is provided

(e.g. where details about the environmental credentials of the technology are accompanied by

details relating to the potential health and safety risks of the processes and products).

Relatedly, there are questions as to what effect attempts to further dissociate CDU

from CCS would have upon people’s opinions. Within countries less amenable to CCS, like

Germany or the Netherlands (see Terwel, ter Mors & Daamen, 2012; van Os, Herber &

Scholtens, 2014), one might hypothesise that perceptions of CDU would improve with

greater dissociation from CCS. The same might not be said, however, for countries where

CCS is considered less objectionable and/or seen to augment such processes (e.g. the UK).

In addition to investigating how alterations to the thematic framing of CDU affects

opinions, there is the connected question about how the extent of the information provided to

participants might affect their opinions of the technology. Given the time restrictions placed

on the interviews, the information provided was limited in scope, which could be construed

31


as a limitation of this research. Indeed, while most interviewees agreed that their knowledge

of CDU had increased through participation, they still recognised that there was much they

did not know. As such, whether or not the opinions registered in our study would also arise if

interviewees were provided with more comprehensive details about the technology remains

an open question.

That being said, it has also been argued elsewhere (see Upham & Roberts, 2011;

Upham et al., 2015) that if people in real-world settings form and express opinions about new

technology based upon exposure to very limited information (e.g. short news articles), then

the opinions derived from short focus-groups or questionnaires should not be too dissimilar to

this. If so, then one could view the perceptions registered within our study to be akin in some

regards to those that might be formed outside the interview context.

Beyond developing a deeper appreciation of the public attitudes towards CDU,

another priority for future research should be to elucidate more about any perceptual

divergences in perceptions and acceptance of CDU within different groups. While an obvious

starting point for such investigations would be to explore and overlap or divergence in expert

and lay perceptions of CDU—bearing in mind the relations that this can share with

communicative and deployment issues—the research could move beyond this to investigate

the role that factors, such as education and gender cultures (Barke & Jenkins-Smith, 1993;

Lee, 2016). Furthermore, it was clear from the current research that the diffuse support for

CDU was tied, at least to some extent, to the perceived lack of personal relevance of the

technology. It remains an open question as to whether or not this diffuse support will be

retained in scenarios where participants are more directly identified as the target of risk (e.g.

recipients of a local facility) (Sjöberg, 2000).

32


5. Conclusion

The aim of this study was to provide fresh insight into emerging lay-public

perceptions of CDU in two European countries (i.e. the UK and Germany). We sought to

illuminate participants’ opinions regarding the general concept, its techno-economic

feasibility and the societal consequences that might result from investment in the technology.

The interviews revealed that while awareness of CDU was low, there was generally

tentative support for the concept. The caveats that interviewees placed upon their support

were manifold but appeared to primarily stem from a self-claimed lack of knowledge about

the technology, as well as scepticism over the claimed environmental benefits of the

technology. The focus on the environmental benefits of the technology appeared to relate to

the framing of CDU as a ‘green’ technology option within the interviews.

Although the opinions of our UK and German interviewees were broadly similar,

there were occasional differences. Systematic research is now required to confirm if the

themes emergent in our research are registered in larger, more diverse samples and to

establish more about the extent, nature and implications of any cross-national differences.

Finally, while we argue that the findings of this research hold potential for developing

materials designed to foster wider public debate about CDU, this aim should not be conflated

with the more simplistic objective of using information as a means of generating public

support for the technology (see Sturgis & Allum, 2004). A growing literature argues against

‘knowledge deficit’ thinking as being the root cause of objections towards technologies (and

other sources of social conflict) and also sometimes calls into question the promotion of

scientific literacy as the solution to such problems (Nisbet & Scheufele, 2009).

33


Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank Rebecca L. Radford for her assistance in preparing and

conducting the UK interviews and Henriette Naims for advice and suggestions with the

German interviews. This research is funded by the CO2Chem network (www.co2chem.co.uk)

under EPSRC grants EP/H035702/1 and EP/K007947/1.

References

Apt, J., & Fischhoff, B. (2006). Power and People. The Electricity Journal, 19(9), 17–25. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.tej.2006.09.008

Arning, K., Van Heek, J., & Ziefle, M. (2017). “Risk perception and acceptance of CDU consumer products in Germany.” Paper presented at the 13th International Conference on Greenhouse Gas Control Technologies (GHGT-13), Lausanne, Switzerland, November 14-18, 2016.

Ashworth, P., Boughen, N., Mayhew, M., & Millar, F. (2010). From research to action: Now we have to move on CCS communication. International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control, 4(2), 426–433. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijggc.2009.10.012

Ashworth, P., Bradbury, J., Wade, S., Ynke Feenstra, C. F. J., Greenberg, S., Hund, G., & Mikunda, T. (2012). What’s in store: Lessons from implementing CCS. International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control, 9, 402–409. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijggc.2012.04.012

Barke, R. & Jenkins-Smith, H. (1993). Politics and scientific expertise: scientists, risk perception, and nuclear waste policy, Risk Analysis, 13(4), 425-439. http://doi.org/ 10.1111/j.1539-6924.1993.tb00743.x

Beierle, T. C., & Cayford, J. (2002). Democracy in practice: Public participation in environmental decisions. Washington D.C.: Resources for the Future Press.

Boot-Handford, M. E., Abanades, J. C., Anthony, E. J., Blunt, M. J., Brandani, S., Mac Dowell, N., … Fennell, P. S. (2014). Carbon capture and storage update. Energy & Environmental Science, 7(1), 130–189. http://doi.org/10.1039/C3EE42350F

Bradbury, J., Ray, I., Peterson, T., Wade, S., Wong-Parodi, G., & Feldpausch, A. (2009). The Role of Social Factors in Shaping Public Perceptions of CCS: Results of Multi-State Focus Group Interviews in the U.S. Energy Procedia, 1(1), 4665–4672. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.egypro.2009.02.289

Brooks, J., Mccluskey, S., Turley, E., & King, N. (2015). The Utility of Template Analysis in Qualitative Psychology Research. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 12(February 2015), 202–222. http://doi.org/10.1080/14780887.2014.955224

34

http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijggc.2012.04.012


Bruhn, T., Naims, H., & Olfe-Kräutlein, B. (2016). Separating the debate on CO2 utilisation from carbon capture and storage. Environmental Science & Policy, 60, 38–43. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2016.03.001

Brunsting, S., Upham, P., Dütschke, E., De Best Waldhober, M., Oltra, C., Desbarats, J., … Reiner, D. (2011). Communicating CCS: Applying communications theory to public perceptions of carbon capture and storage. International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control, 5(6), 1651–1662. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijggc.2011.09.012

Chopyak, J. (2002). Public participation in science and technology decision making: trends for the future. Technology in Society, 24(1-2), 155–166. http://doi.org/doi: 10.1016/s0160-791x(01)00051-3

Creighton, J. L. (2005). The public participation handbook: making better decisions through citizen involvement. John Wiley & Sons.

de Best-Waldhober, M., Daamen, D., & Faaij, A. (2009). Informed and uninformed public opinions on CO2 capture and storage technologies in the Netherlands. International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control, 3(3), 322–332. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijggc.2008.09.001

de Vries, G., Terwel, B. W., & Ellemers, N. (2016). Perceptions of manipulation and judgments of illegitimacy: Pitfalls in the use of emphasis framing when communicating about CO2 capture and storage. Environmental Communication, 10(2), 206-226.

de Vries, G., Terwel, B. W., Ellemers, N., & Daamen, D. D. L. (2015). Sustainability or profitability? How communicated motives for environmental policy affect public perceptions of corporate greenwashing. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 22(3), 142–154. http://doi.org/10.1002/csr.1327

Devine-Wright, P. (2011). Public engagement with large-scale renewable energy technologies: Breaking the cycle of NIMBYism. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, 2(1), 19–26. http://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.89

Druckman, J. N., & Bolsen, T. (2011). Framing, motivated reasoning, and opinions about emergent technologies. Journal of Communication, 61(4), 659–688. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2011.01562.x

Esser, J. (1998). Alive and Well after 25 Years: A Review of Groupthink Research. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 73, 116–41. http://doi.org/10.1006/obhd.1998.2758

Fraga, E., & Ng, M. (2015). FDCDU15 - Carbon Dioxide Utilisation: A framework for the analysis of the security of supply of utilising Carbon Dioxide as a chemical feedstock. Faraday Discuss., 183, 309–326. http://doi.org/10.1039/C5FD00038F

Frewer, L. J., Bergmann, K., Brennan, M., Lion, R., Meertens, R., Rowe, G., … Vereijken, C. (2011). Consumer response to novel agri-food technologies: Implications for predicting consumer acceptance of emerging food technologies. Trends in Food Science and Technology, 22(8), 442–456. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.tifs.2011.05.005

Gibbins, J., & Chalmers, H. (2008). Carbon capture and storage. Energy Policy, 36(12),

35

http://doi.org/10.1002/csr.1327


4317–4322. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2008.09.058

Gupta, N., Fischer, A. R. H., & Frewer, L. J. (2012). Socio-psychological determinants of public acceptance of technologies: A review. Public Understanding of Science (Bristol, England), 21(7), 782–95. http://doi.org/10.1177/0963662510392485

Herrenbrück, R. (2015). CCS in Deutschland. RWTH Aarchen University. Retrieved from http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:0168-ssoar-456239

Hope, A. L. B., & Jones, C. R. (2014). The impact of religious faith on attitudes to environmental issues and Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) technologies: A mixed methods study. Technology in Society, 38, 48–59. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2014.02.003

Horlick-Jones, T., Walls, J., Rowe, G., Pidgeon, N., Poortinga, W., Murdock, G., & O’Riordan, T. (2007). The GM debate: risk, politics and public engagement. Routledge. Routledge.

Huijts, N. M. A., Molin, E. J. E., & Steg, L. (2012). Psychological factors influencing sustainable energy technology acceptance: A review-based comprehensive framework. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 16(1), 525–531. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2011.08.018

Johnsson, F., Reiner, D., Itaoka, K., & Herzog, H. (2010). Stakeholder attitudes on Carbon Capture and Storage—An international comparison. International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control, 4(2), 410–418. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijggc.2009.09.006

Jones, C. R., Eiser, J. R., & Gamble, T. R. (2012). Assessing the impact of framing on the comparative favourability of nuclear power as an electricity generating option in the UK. Energy Policy, 41, 451–465. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2011.11.006

Jones, C. R., & Jones, A. R. (2016). Two Blind Mice: It Is Time for Greater Collaboration between Engineers and Social Scientists around the RDD & D of Industrial Technologies. C, 2(2), 16. http://doi.org/10.3390/c2020016

Jones, C. R., Kaklamanou, D., Stuttard, W. M., Radford, R. L., & Burley, J. (2015). Investigating public perceptions of carbon dioxide utilisation (CDU) technology: a mixed methods study. Faraday Discuss. http://doi.org/10.1039/C5FD00063G

Jones, C. R., Olfe-Kräutlein, B., Naims, H., & Armstrong, K. (2017). The social acceptance of carbon dioxide utilisation: A review and research agenda. Frontiers in Energy Research, 5, 11. https://doi.org/10.3389/fenrg.2017.00011

Jones, C. R., Radford, R. L., Armstrong, K., & Styring, P. (2014). What a waste! Assessing public perceptions of Carbon Dioxide Utilisation technology. Journal of CO2 Utilization, 7, 51–54. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcou.2014.05.001

Karakosta, C., Doukas, H., & Psarras, J. (2010). Technology transfer through climate change: Setting a sustainable energy pattern. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 14(6), 1546–1557. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2010.02.001

Kurath, M., & Gisler, P. (2009). Informing, involving or engaging? Science communication, in the ages of atom-, bio- and nanotechnology. Public Understanding of Science

36


(Bristol, England), 18(5), 559–573. http://doi.org/10.1177/0963662509104723

L’Orange Seigo, S., Dohle, S., & Siegrist, M. (2014). Public perception of carbon capture and storage (CCS): A review. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 38, 848–863. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2014.07.017

Lee, R.P. (2016). Misconceptions and biases in German students' perception of multiple energy sources: implications for science education. International Journal of Science Education, 38(6), 1036 - 1056. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2016.1176277

Ladd, J. (2013). Stakeholder perceptions of socioenvironmental impact from unconventional natural gas development and hydraulic fracturing in Haynesville shale. Journal of Rural Social Sciences, 28(2), 56–89.

Markewitz, P., Kuckshinrichs, W., Leitner, W., Linssen, J., Zapp, P., Bongartz, R., … Müller, T. E. (2012). Worldwide innovations in the development of carbon capture technologies and the utilization of CO2. Energy & Environmental Science, 5(6), 7281. http://doi.org/10.1039/c2ee03403d

Mennicken, L., Janz, A., & Roth, S. (2016). The German R&D program for CO2 utilization – innovations for a green economy. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 23(11), 11386-11392.

Miles, M. P., & Covin, J. G. (2000). Environmental marketing: A source of reputational competitive and financial advantage. Journal of Business Ethics, 23, 299–311. http://doi.org/10.2307/25074246

Nisbet, M. C., & Scheufele, D. A. (2009). What’s next for science communication? Promising directions and lingering distractions. American Journal of Botany, 96(10), 1767-1778. http://doi.org/10.3732/ajb.0900041

Palanivelu, K. (2017). Climate change mitigation via utilization of carbon dioxide. In M. Goell & M. Sudhakar (eds.). Carbon utilization: applications for the energy industry. Singapore: Springer. http://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-3352-0_9

Perdan, S., Jones, C. R., & Azapagic, A. (2017). Public awareness and acceptance of carbon capture and utilisation in the UK. Sustainable Production and Consumption, 10, 74-84. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.spc.2017.01.001

Peterson, T. R., Stephens, J. C., & Wilson, E. J. (2015). Public perception of and engagement with emerging low-carbon energy technologies: A literature review. MRS Energy & Sustainability, 2, E11. http://doi.org/10.1557/mre.2015.12

Pidgeon, N. F., Corner, A. J., Parkhill, K., Spence, A. A., Butler, C., & Poortinga, W. (2012). Exploring early public responses to geoengineering. Philosophical Transactions of The Royal Society A, 370, 4176–4196. http://doi.org/10.1098/rsta.2012.0099

Pietzner, K., Schumann, D., Tvedt, S. D., Torvatn, H. Y., Næss, R., Reiner, D. M., … Ziogou, F. (2011). Public awareness and perceptions of carbon dioxide capture and storage (CCS): Insights from surveys administered to representative samples in six European countries. Energy Procedia, 4, 6300–6306. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.egypro.2011.02.645

37

http://doi.org/10.1016/j.spc.2017.01.001

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2016.1176277


Ricci, M., Bellaby, P., & Flynn, R. (2008). What do we know about public perceptions and acceptance of hydrogen? A critical review and new case study evidence. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, 33(21), 5868–5880. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2008.07.106

SCOT (2017, April). CCU database. Smart CO2 Transformation. Retrieved from: http://database.scotproject.org/

SETIS (2016, January). Carbon capture utilisation and storage. SETIS magazine, 11. Available at: https://setis.ec.europa.eu/system/files/setis-magazine_11_ccus_final.pdf

Shackley, S., Waterman, H., Godfroij, P., Reiner, D., Anderson, J., Draxlbauer, K., & Flach, T. (2007). Stakeholder perceptions of CO2 capture and storage in Europe: Results from a survey. Energy Policy, 35(10), 5091–5108. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2007.05.001

Sjöberg, L. (2000). Factors in risk perception. Risk Analysis, 20(1), 1–11. http://doi.org/10.1111/0272-4332.00001

Sjöberg, L. (2015). Risk Perception: Experts and the Public. European Psychologist, 3, 1–12. http://doi.org/10.1027/1016-9040.3.1.1.

Stirling, A. (2008). “Opening up” and “closing down”: Power, participation, and pluralism in the social appraisal of technology, 33(2), 262–294. http://doi.org/10.1177/0162243907311265

Sturgis, P., & Allum, N. (2004). Science in society: re-evaluating the deficit model of public attitudes. Public understanding of science, 13(1), 55-74. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662504042690

Styring, P., Quadrelli, E. A., & Armstrong, K. (2015). Carbon Dioxide Utilisation: Closing the carbon cycle (First edition). Amsterdam: Elsevier Ltd.

Terwel, B. W., Harinck, F., Ellemers, N., & Daamen, D. D. L. (2011). Going beyond the properties of CO2 capture and storage (CCS) technology: How trust in stakeholders affects public acceptance of CCS. International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control, 5(2), 181–188. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijggc.2010.10.001

Terwel, B. W., ter Mors, E., & Daamen, D. D. L. (2012). It’s not only about safety: Beliefs and attitudes of 811 local residents regarding a CCS project in Barendrecht. International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control, 9, 41–51. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijggc.2012.02.017

United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) (2015). Paris Agreement. Available from: http://unfccc.int/files/essential_background/convention/application/pdf/english_paris_agreement.pdf

Upham, P., Oltra, C., & Boso, A. (2015). Towards a cross-paradigmatic framework of social acceptance of energy systems. Energy Research and Social Science, 8, 100-112. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2015.05.003

Upham, P., & Roberts, T. (2011). Public perceptions of CCS: Emergent themes in pan-European focus groups and implications for communications. International Journal of

38

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2015.05.003

http://unfccc.int/files/essential_background/convention/application/pdf/english_paris_agreement.pdf

http://unfccc.int/files/essential_background/convention/application/pdf/english_paris_agreement.pdf


https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662504042690


Greenhouse Gas Control, 5(5), 1359–1367. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijggc.2011.06.005

van Heek, J., Arning, K., & Ziefle, M. (2017a). Reduce, reuse, recycle: Acceptance of CO2-utilization for plastic products. Energy Policy, 105, 53-66. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2017.02.016

van Heek, J., Arning, K. & Ziefle, M. (2017b). “Differences between laypersons and experts in perceptions and acceptance of CO2-utilization for plastic products.” Paper presented at the 13th International Conference on Greenhouse Gas Control Technologies (GHGT-13), Lausanne, Switzerland, November 14-18, 2016.

van Os, H. W. A., Herber, R., & Scholtens, B. (2014). Not under Our Back Yards? A case study of social acceptance of the Northern Netherlands CCS initiative. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 30, 923–942. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2013.11.037

Wallquist, L., Seigo, S. L. O., Visschers, V. H. M., & Siegrist, M. (2012). Public acceptance of CCS system elements: A conjoint measurement. International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control, 6, 77–83. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijggc.2011.11.008

Wallquist, L., Visschers, V. H. M., & Siegrist, M. (2009). Lay concepts on CCS deployment in Switzerland based on qualitative interviews. International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control, 3(5), 652–657. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijggc.2009.03.005

Wilsdon, J., & Willis, R. (2004). See-through science: Why public engagement needs to move upstream. Demos.

Wilson, G., Travaly, Y., Brun, T., Knippels, H., Armstrong, K., Styring, P., Krämer, D., Saussez, G., & Bolscher, H. (2015). A Vision for Smart CO2 Transformation in Europe: Using CO 2 as a resource. SCOT project. Available at: http://www.scotproject.org/images/SCOT%20Vision.pdf

Wüstenhagen, R., Wolsink, M., & Bürer, M. J. (2007). Social acceptance of renewable energy innovation: An introduction to the concept. Energy Policy, 35(5), 2683–2691. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2006.12.001

39



APPENDIX A

Verbal introduction provided to participants before beginning interview questions

(Note: Text was translated and read in German for the German interviews).

Carbon Dioxide (CO2) emissions from human activities, like electricity generation at

fossil fuel power stations, are believed to be contributing to global warming and climate

change. Efforts to reduce CO2 emissions from such activities are needed to combat this

problem. One method of doing this is using a process called Carbon Capture and Storage

(CCS). CCS, in basic terms, captures CO2 where it is produced (e.g., in the gas emissions

from fossil fuel power stations) where upon it can be transported and stored, deep

underground in 'geological reservoirs' (e.g., empty gas and oil fields under the North Sea).

Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) could reduce CO2 emissions being released into the

atmosphere but it is (a) financially costly because it increases the amount of fuel needed to

run the power station; and (b) it permanently disposes of a potentially useful source of carbon

for manufacturing things.

What if some of the captured CO2 could be used to create chemicals, plastics and

other products; products that could then be sold to offset some of the costs of

CCS?

Carbon Dioxide Utilisation (CDU) technologies hold promise for making use of the CO2

from industrial processes, like fossil-fuel electricity generation. CDU uses CO2 as a source of

carbon for making things like plastics, cement, transport fuel, and pharmaceuticals. By using

CDU, it might be possible to ease our reliance as a society on freshly sourced oil, gas and

coal in the manufacture of these products. Captured CO2 can also be used to assist in the

recovery of fresh oil from oil fields (a process called enhanced oil recovery or EOR).

40


CDU could thus simultaneously help to limit releases of CO2 into the atmosphere

from large emitters (like power stations) and provide a use for the captured CO2.

Like CCS, CDU technologies will require a lot of energy to make them work. It is

recognised that this energy must come from renewable sources (like solar power or wind

power) to ensure that CDU technologies do not increase our reliance on fossil-fuel power

stations.

While CDU technology is well understood, at present we know much less about what the

public think of the technology. This survey is designed to investigate more about what people

think of CDU in general and will ask you to evaluate some of the CDU technology options.

41


SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL

Table S1.

Expert ratings of Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) and Carbon Dioxide Utilisation (CDU) options against key evaluative criteria

Carbon Dioxide Utilisation (CDU) option

Evaluative Criteria CCS w/o

CDU

Aviation

Fuel

Methanol Plastics Cement Synthetic

Natural Gas

Urea

1. Profit 1 8 9 7 6 9 9

2. CO2 emissions avoided 10 7 7 4 7 9 8

3. Green Impact 5 7 8 9 9 8 9

4. Long-term CO2 storage 10 1 4 9 10 2 3

42


5. Ability to store renewable energy 0 7 9 5 1 10 5

6. Safety 4 7 9 9 7 9 8

7. Ease of integrating technology 3 8 8 8 9 10 9

8. Technology readiness 7 3 9 8 7 5 6

A group of >10 academic experts recruited via the CO2Chem network (www.co2chem.co.uk) were invited to evaluate CCS without CDU and 6 x CDU options against the

following evaluative criteria (September/October 2014). The evaluative criteria were selected and defined by academic experts in CDU based at the CDUUK

(www.sheffield.ac.uk/cduuk). In each case, a higher value (out of 10) is associated with better performance against that criterion. As with Jones et al. (2014), each of the

experts were invited to consider the benefits of each option when affiliated with a fossil fuel power station. The figures represent the agreed scores provided by the experts.

43


● Profit: An estimate of the income generation potential from the CDU option (e.g. from selling products). CCS does not generate income and increases the cost of

producing electricity, hence the score of 1.

● CO2 emissions avoided: An estimate of how much CO2 release is prevented by the technology. As CCS removes CO2 emissions from fossil fuel power generation,

the potential savings are large, hence the score of 10.

● Green Impact: An estimate of how ‘environmentally friendly’ the technology option is. With CCS, although CO2 is removed, current capture agents have poor

environmental credentials, hence the score of 5.

● Long term CO2 storage: An estimate of how long the captured CO2 is locked away for. With CCS, CO2 is stored permanently in geological formations, hence the

score of 10.

● Ability to store renewable energy: Some of the options are good potential energy stores, others are not. This figure is an estimate of each option’s ability to store

‘renewable’ energy. No renewable energy stored with CCS, hence the score of 0.

● Safety: An estimate of the safety risks associated with the technology; the higher the risk, the lower the score. Because there are risk factors in transporting

supercritical CO2 and possible unknown factors in long term storage, CCS scores 4 in this respect.

● Ease of integrating the technology: An estimate of how easy will it be to deploy the technology. CCS requires the construction of long pipelines from power plant

to the coast, with much disruption, hence the score of 3.

● Technology readiness: An estimate of how close to commercial scale deployment of the technology we are. Although some CCS pilot projects have been

constructed, these are small compared to needs for power plants, hence the score of 7.

44


Table S2.

The full final coding manual for CDU interviews.

Topic Sub-topics Code Description/Notes

CONCEPTUAL

RISKS/

DRAWBACKS

General (fuzzy) negativity towards concept

(A) Climate change/global warming(B) Environmental(C) Social/Economic(D) Moral/Ethical

CR1

A/B/C/D

● Unspecified/generic reasoning (e.g. I just don’t like the idea of CDU/CCU on ethical grounds).

● Use code if someone is voicing a generic negative opinion about the concept of CDU/CCU.

Wrong solution for climate change

(A) CDU/CCU delays inevitable release of CO2, not long-term solution to climate change.

(B) ‘End-of-pipe’ solution to CO2 does not tackle root of climate change issues

CR2

A/B

● CR2 differs from CR1A/B due to specificity of comment. Use this code when people are making specific reference to the use of CDU/CCU as a means of solving/tackling climate change.

● You can note if Ps do not see all CDU/CCU options as comparable (e.g. cement is OK but other options are bad).

Comparatively un-favoured technology option

(A) Other technology options preferable (B) CDU/CCU could draw interest or funding from more

preferable/better options(C) Renewable energy could be put to better use

directly/elsewhere(D) Are we tackling a problem that might not exist in the future

as Fossil Fuels will no longer be used?

CR3

A/B/C/D

● CR3A is akin to “Betting on the wrong horse”. People think that conceptually CDU/CCU is the wrong option. It differs from CR3B, where the focus is on the prospect that CDU/CCU will draw funding from other technologies.

● CR3D is where people point to the fact that the move to reduce Fossil Fuels will render investment in CDU/CCU pointless.

● You can note if Ps do not see all CDU/CCU options as comparable here (e.g. cement is OK but other options are bad)

45


Inconsistency with sustainability drivers

(A) Produces perceptively ‘unsustainable’ product options (e.g. fuel and plastics)

(B) Presupposes continued use of Fossil Fuels(C) Short-term technology option(D) Techno-salvation risk

CR4

A/B/C/D

● CR4A is where people feel the products of CDU/CCU are inconsistent with societal rhetoric about becoming more sustainable.

● CR4B differs from CR3D as comments relate to the fact that we will need to keep FF plant operational to fuel CDU/CCU processes.

● CR4C = Comments indicative of CDU/CCU being a short-term fix.● CR4D = Risks of putting faith in technology to solve problems.

Conceptual similarities drawn with Fracking (negative) CR5 ● Participants liken CDU/CCU to Fracking and note that this is a negative thing.

Rationale for CDU/CCU unclear

(A) Unclear who stands to benefit from CDU/CCU (e.g. is it being developed for economic/environmental reasons)

(B) Participant indicates lack of trust (or lack of sincerity) in developer/industries promoting CDU/CCU

CR6

A/B

● Comments relating to uncertainty in the reasons why CDU/CCU is being pursued (e.g. “who is it supposed to benefit and how?”).

● CR6A = specific reference to uncertainty over monetary or environmental motives. CR6B = scepticism over motives of industry.

● CR6A/B differ from OT5 as comments made are not tied to specific question about Economic or Environmental benefits + are more about the perceived rationale rather than the perceived benefits.

CONCEPTUAL BENEFITS

General (fuzzy) positivity towards concept

(A) Climate change/global warming(B) Other Environment(C) Social/Economic(D) Moral/Ethical

CB1

A/B/C/D

● Unspecified/generic reasoning (e.g. I just like the idea of CDU/CCU on ethical grounds).

● Use code if someone is voicing a generic positive opinion about the concept of CDU/CCU (e.g. “I like it” or “we need CDU”).

Holds specific benefits for tackling climate change

(A) Stop-gap technology option (i.e. could ‘buy time’ in tackling climate change)

CB2

A/B

● Specific mentions of benefits that CDU/CCU has for climate change.● CB2A = references to CDU/CCU being a useful bridging technology -

will help delay the negative effects of CO2.

46


(B) Will address climate change by saving CO2 ● CB2B = specific references to reduction in CO2 release and the benefit this has for climate change.

Indicative of attempts to be more sustainable

(A) Recycle/use (waste) CO2 (move towards circular economy)(B) Replaces crude oil/petrol for use in transportation,

manufacture, etc.(C) Will (conceptually) reduce raw resource consumption(D) Creates a new carbon resource (general use value)

CB3

A/B/C/D

● General references to CDU/CCU enhancing sustainability should be coded CB3.

● CB3A = should make direct reference to recycling or use of waste CO2.

● CB3C = industry will use less fresh/raw resource in manufacture.● CB3D = similar to CB3C but is more about creating a new source of

carbon.

Conceptually favoured technology

(A) Investment in CDU/CCU will spark innovation in use of CO2(B) CDU represents a ‘fresh start’(C) CDU/CCU is good if developed alongside other options(D) CDU/CCU is good use of renewable energy

CB4

A/B/C/D

● CB4A = investment in mark 1 options will spark welcome innovation around use of CO2. CB4A differs from TB3 as it talks more about general innovation around CO2 rather than innovation of CDU/CCU.

● CB4C differs from CB6 as CB6 sees CDU/CCU as a ‘lesser of two evils’ while CB4C sees CDU as an important part of the solution.

Positive comparison with CCS (and other technology)

(A) Storage of CO2 seen as wasteful (landfill)(B) Storage of CO2 seen as dirty or dangerous

CB5

A/B

● Note: most comparisons are with CCS without CDU/CCU. References to Fracking should be coded as CB7.

Reluctant or caveated acceptance of CDU/CCU technology CB6 ● Not a full endorsement. Basically the belief that If we are going to use Fossil Fuels then we might as well have CDU/CCU attached.

Conceptual differences drawn with Fracking (positive) CB7 ● Participants draw positive distinctions between CDU/CCU and Fracking and note that this is a positive thing.

47


TECHNO-ECONOMIC RISKS/

DRAWBACKS

Technical viability/potential for impact

(A) Minimal impact (i.e. will use minimal CO2 emissions) (B) High energy costs for conversion processes (technical

efficiencies are low/thermodynamics don’t add up)(C) We might run out of CO2 in future leaving CDU/CCU

inoperable(D) CDU/CCU might create more CO2 than it uses(E) Will need international ‘buy in’ to have meaningful

impact/benefit

TR1

A/B/C/D/E

● CDU/CCU will either not work or will only have a minimal impact. ● TR1A = minimal CO2 captured - implication is that CDU/CCU is not

worth the effort.● TR1C differs from CR3D as the suggestion is more about the viability

of CDU/CCU in a world where CO2 is not produced by industry rather than the fact that CDU will be solving a conceptual problem that doesn’t exist.

● TR1E = points to an equity and efficacy issue – why should we invest in this technology if others don’t? Our impact alone will be minimal.

Economic/Market viability

(A) High financial investment required to scale-up and bring CDU/CCU to market

(B) No suitable market for technology or product(s) -> Slow (no) return on financial investment

(C) CDU/CCU will have high operational and maintenance costs(D) Has to make economic sense for industry buy-in (CDU/CCU is

a potentially expensive source of carbon)(E) Presents unfavourable economic competition for Fossil Fuels

TR2

A/B/C/D/E

● Questions over whether CDU/CCU is economically feasible and whether industry will buy related technology and products?

● TR2A = relates to specific costs of bring technology to market.● TR2B = speaks specifically about potential market and

likelihood/speed on return on investment (if any).● TR2C = speaks about the ‘up and running’ costs of CDU/CCU.● TR2D = if CDU/CCU is not economic source of carbon then it will be a

‘difficult sell’ to industry.● TR2E = If CDU/CCU produces cheap products this could push up price

of Fossil Fuels and products derived from Fossil Fuels.

Low technology readiness

(A) Unproven commercial technology(B) Reliability risk with new technology(C) Ease of scalability and timescales to meaningful introduction

TR3

A/B/C/D

● References to CDU/CCU being at an early stage in commercialisation process, which presents risks in terms of economics/impact.

● TR3A = specific reference to the economic unknown.● TR3B = specific reference to unreliability of technology.

48


and impact ● TR3C = risks around timescales needed to scale up CDU/CCU to have meaningful economic/environmental consequence.

TECHNO-ECONOMIC BENEFITS

Technical viability/potential for impact TB1 ● Participant points to the potential for large capture/impact potential (e.g. “this could work and make use of a lot of CO2”).

Economic/Market viability

(A) Integration potential with current infrastructures and (diverse) markets

(B) Making use of waste CO2 creates revenue(C) Generates a cheap carbon feedstock for product

manufacture (benefit to industry)(D) PR or marketing angle for investors(E) Opportunity to retail technology to developing nations

TB2

A/B/C/D/E

● References to belief that CDU/CCU could have meaningful markets, makes economic sense. TB2 differs from TB4 where CDU/CCU is seen to increase economic viability of CCS.

● TB2B = implication is that revenue can offset costs of process.● TB2C = specifically we are looking at financial benefit to industry

from CDU/CCU producing competitive source of carbon.● TB2D = CDU/CCU presents a ‘good news’ story for investors, which

could improve trust in brand or be used to promote product sales.● TB2E = differs from TB2D as is looking at retail the technology of

CDU/CCU to other nations due to our advanced knowledge.

Technical and economic innovation potential TB3 ● Investment now will improve efficiency/effectiveness and cost of future CDU/CCU technology. Note: differs from CB4A as participants are talking about specific rather than general innovation.

Positive effect on other technology

(A) Increases economic viability of CCS(B) Will lead to investment in renewables(C) Will benefit Fossil Fuel industry (e.g. reduce cost, increase

longevity and helps them to hit emissions targets).

TB4

A/B/C

● TB4 covers positive techno-economic impacts of investment in CDU/CCU for other technologies.

● TB4B = thrust is that CDU/CCU will (indirectly) increase share of renewables in energy mix, which is a good thing.

● TB4C = CDU/CCU will make extant Fossil Fuel industry more viable/competitive, which is a good thing.

49


SOCIETAL RISKS/

DRAWBACKS

Could inhibit necessary societal change

(A) delay consumer lifestyle/attitude change(B) delay business/industry practice change

SR1

A/B

● CDU/CCU could be used as an excuse not to change practices – suggestion is that if CO2 is being used then we (public/industry) can continue to produce it. Use SR1A/B to differentiate as necessary.

Public/environmental health and safety risks

(A) from chemicals used in process(B) from storage aspect of process (Note: includes

explosions/emissions from stored CO2)(C) Explosions and emissions related to CDU/CCU process (D) Unknown risks from CDU/CCU products

SR2

A/B/C/D

● Code speaks about all health/safety risks from all aspects of process including the storage (CCS) process. Make sure to differentiate where people are talking about issues with storage vs. use.

● SR2C = specifically relates to explosions and emissions from ‘capture’ and ‘transportation’ aspect of process.

● SR2D = people believe chemicals in CDU/CCU products could have risks (e.g. negative health effects).

CDU/CCU will promote CCS technologies SR3 ● CCS is seen as negative option and thought that CDU/CCU makes CCS more viable is bad (Note: This view wasn’t registered in the UK).

Communication consideration

(A) Level of public awareness/knowledge low -> mindless public endorsement of technology.

(B) Need for transparent communication + from trusted source(C) Potential for media amplification of risk(D) Potential for differences in industry vs. public perceptions of

rationale for CDU/CCU

SR4

A/B/C/D

● Noted issue with mindless endorsement (SR4A) is that it might not reflect actual opinion when people learn more.

● SR4C = Media amplification seen as problematic as this might sway people from a conceptually positive technology.

● SR4D = Differences in industry/public rationale could lead to miscommunication.

Siting/Deployment considerations SR5 ● Issues/considerations relating to siting of CDU/CCU plant. Responses generally yielded in response to direct question.

50


(A) General potential for local opposition to facilities (e.g. NIMBY) + will need to be sited in the right places

(B) Need to secure regulatory/governmental approval(C) Specific facility impacts: Unwelcome visual/noise impact from

facilities, construction disruption, space required by facility, negative affect on house prices.

(D) Local siting will be a non-event/will be fine (+)(E) Need for appropriate public engagement around

developments

A/B/C/D/E

● SR5A = discussion about own or others’ likelihood of rejection.● SR5B = thrust is that regulatory approval is not assured.● SR5D = differs from OT3 as reference specifically concerns the

prospect of a local facility.● SR5E = differs from OT1 or OT2 as participant is specifically talking

about need for engagement in response to proposed facilities, rather than discussion of CDU in general.

Increased cost of products from CDU/CCU

(A) High cost of carbon will increase price of products for consumers

(B) Environmental benefits will need to be obvious for public to pay more for CDU/CCU derived products

SR6

A/B

● SR6A = relates to TR2 but relates specifically to societal consequences of use of CDU/CCU for the retail cost of products – who is going to pick up the bill?

● SR6B = public will only be willing to pay potentially inflated prices for CDU/CCU if environmental benefits are clear.

SOCIETAL BENEFITS

Could promote necessary societal change

(A) Promote consumer lifestyle/attitude change(B) Promote business/industry practice change(C) Identifies UK/Germany as an innovator/leader -> potential to

lead by example and change practices in other countries.

SB1

A/B/C

● Theme runs converse to SR1. Thrust is that CDU/CCU is a catalyst for change among the public (SB1A) or industry (SB1B).

● SB1C = thrust is that explicit/public investment in technology could promote other countries to change practices/invest in CDU/CCU.

Could create new employment opportunities (+)

(A) Skilled jobs only (-)(B) Not many jobs (-)

SB2

A/B

● General mentions of jobs/employment should be coded with SB2. ● Caveats on the employment opportunity should use A/B.

Will generate ‘useful’ and ‘necessary’ products SB3 ● Most mentions are to the general usefulness of CDU/CCU in terms of

51


(A) Yields a sustainable source of carbon/presents substitution option for Fossil Fuel derived CO2

(B) Will produce products to plug the energy gap

A/B

producing necessary products (SB3).● SB3A = specific mentions of CDU/CCU deriving a sustainable carbon

feedstock for product manufacture. ● SB3B = participant specifically references CDU/CCU for filling an

emerging energy gap.

Lower political and import dependencies SB4 ● Theme relates to reduced reliance on import crude oil for chemical/energy industry and the Increased security of supply and economic certainty this will bring.

Non-disruptive technology option SB5 ● CDU/CCU will allow for incremental societal change or business as usual approach to life, seen as positive.

Decreased cost of products from CDU/CCU (benefits for consumers) SB6 ● CDU/CCU will create a cheap source of carbon that will reduce cost of products for consumers. Note: SB6 differs from TB2C as benefit is derived by consumers rather than industry.

OTHER CODES

Participant comments on interview procedure

(A) Has improved understanding of CDU/CCU (+)(B) Has stimulated desire to learn more (+)(C) Specific lack of discussion of risks of CDU/CCU (-)(D) Participant wants more “facts and figures”(E) Has improved attitude to CDU/CCU (+)(F) Has worsened attitude to CDU/CCU (-)

OT1

A/B/C/D/E/F

● Theme relates to comments made by participant about what impact the interview has had on them and/or what they think the interview is lacking (e.g. discussion of risk).

● OT1D = participant is referencing their own lack of knowledge per se but is pointing to the need for more facts/information before they can make an informed judgement.

Participant knowledge factors OT2 ● Participant references the fact they know very little – uses this to caveat their responses.

52


(A) Participant indicates they have lack of knowledge (general)(B) Participant indicates they have lack of knowledge (risks)(C) Participant confuses technical processes/terminology or

conflates CDU/CCU with other technology (e.g. CCS)

A/B/C ● Where participant conflates CDU with other technology, ensure this is a mistake rather than participant talking about, e.g., fuels as an option from CDU/CCU.

CDU/CCU is of little personal consequence OT3 ● Ps think that CDU/CCU will not affect them -> wonder why they are being interviewed. Note: differs from SR5D as OT3 is not talking about a specific facility but about CDU/CCU in general.

Economic vs. Environmental benefit for CDU/CCU

(A) Economic > environment benefit(B) Environment > economic benefit(C) Neither economic or environment benefit(D) Equal (indistinguishable) economic & environmental benefit

OT5

A/B/C/D

● Generally this theme should be used to code direct responses to the question as to whether CDU/CCU holds more environmental or economic benefits. It can be used elsewhere though.

● Specific references to differences in the likely motivators of public (environment) and industry (economic) support should be coded differently (e.g. TR2D, SR6B).

ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATIONS…

(1) MAKE A NOTE OF THE CDU/CCU OPTIONS PEOPLE FAVOUR/DISLIKE AND THE REASONS WHY.(2) MAKE A NOTE OF WHERE OPINIONS EXPRESSED ARE PARTICULARLY FIRM/STRONG OR TENTATIVE/WEAK.

53


54

i Due to time and budgetary constraints the interviewee sample sizes in each country were not

matched. However, as the intent behind this exploratory qualitative study was not to statistically

compare and contrast the opinions of demographically representative samples from each country,

this discrepancy in sample size was not considered to significantly undermine the purpose of the

study.

ii How much do you think you know about CDU (1 = Not a lot; 2 = A little; 3 = A fair amount; 4 =

A lot).

iii These case studies were active at the times of the research.

iv The questionnaire used within this study was the same as that used by Jones et al. (2014). As such,

it also contained additional questions relating to interviewee’s awareness and knowledge of CCS, as

well as their attitudes (“Overall, what is your attitude to…?” Very positive; Fairly positive;

Neutral; Fairly negative; Very negative; DK) and attitude certainty (“How certain or uncertain are

you of your attitude to…?” Very certain; Fairly Certain; Neutral; Fairly Uncertain; Very Uncertain;

DK) regarding both CDU and CCS. The survey was also administered both pre- and post-interview

offering the potential to assess changes in awareness and attitudes resulting from participation

within the interview procedure. However, due to the relatively small (and therefore statistically

underpowered) sample size and qualitative nature of the current study, the responses to these

additional questions are not analysed further.

v In the Germany-based sample, trust in regulation was seen to quell some of the uncertainty relating

to CDU. This is akin to findings of research into other technologies (e.g. agri-food technologies,

Frewer et al., 2011).

Documents

epubs.surrey.ac.ukepubs.surrey.ac.uk/842358/1/Lay perceptions of Carbon D… · Web viewLay perceptions of Carbon Dioxide Utilisation technologies in the United Kingdom and Germany: