27
Biomass energy & public perception Dan van der Horst [email protected]

Dan Vd Horst Public Perception

Embed Size (px)

DESCRIPTION

2008 West Midlands Bioenergy Conference Harper Adams University College

Citation preview

Page 1: Dan Vd Horst   Public Perception

Biomass energy &

public perception

Dan van der Horst

[email protected]

Page 2: Dan Vd Horst   Public Perception
Page 3: Dan Vd Horst   Public Perception

The role of the public in the

development of biomass energy

• As local community

• As silent supporter/opponent (MORI polls,

focus groups, voter)

• As member of influential NGOs

• As small investor?

• As co-owner / partner in a short or local

supply chain

• As consumer

Page 4: Dan Vd Horst   Public Perception

Liquid Biofuels:

caught

between local

“Coalitions

of the Willing”

Page 5: Dan Vd Horst   Public Perception

And a (global) coalition of concern

Page 6: Dan Vd Horst   Public Perception

Public attitudes towards Renewable Energy

(London Renewables, 2003)

• 80% in favour of RE

• Solar, wind are more positively perceived than CHP, incineration or AD

• But…support for specific technologies appears to be linked to knowledge

• Market uptake is seen as the responsibility of… government (75%), energy companies (46%), local councils (43%); consumers only 8%!

• Other studies also show that mainstream households feel disempowered with regards to energy efficiency or emissions reductions

Page 7: Dan Vd Horst   Public Perception

Why so passive

• „Rational‟ homo economicus is a myth; we undervalue future savings

• Upfront price is a barrier

• Lack of knowledge (of technology, of costs)

• Perceptions of immature technologies and inexperienced installers

• Who to trust?

• Innovators/pioneers are very well informed, know about & believe in technology, often handy, often more money to spend, ideological motivation (not primarily driven by financial arguments)

Page 8: Dan Vd Horst   Public Perception

The „active‟ consumer; many possible roles in

co-construction, co-production, co-provision.

3 deployment models

for microgeneration

(Sauter & Watson, 2007)

Page 9: Dan Vd Horst   Public Perception

Consumer perception

Of wood stoves

Page 10: Dan Vd Horst   Public Perception

Domestic biomass energy

• „renewable‟ (moral value)

• „local‟ (moral value)

• „traditional‟ (incl stoves, fireplace)

• „nice to have a fire‟ (aesthetics; cosiness)

• „nice to make a fire‟ („recreational‟)

• Use of own resources / pick your own

• Energy independence (big utilities)

• Energy security (Back-up for cold snaps, black-outs, price rises)

• Cheap

Page 11: Dan Vd Horst   Public Perception

Perceptions of biomass energy scenarios in

Yorkshire & Humber (Upham et al., 2007)

• Scenarios developed through workshops with stakeholders & members of the public

• Image of biomass is still in the making; opinions yet to be „hardened‟

• „convergence‟ between stakeholders & public

• Concerns with large-scale elec. only; with biomass imports; with climate change

• Role of the local landscape, place-identity important; small-scale biomass can be positive in that respect.

• Larger scale accepted in some agricultural landscapes

Page 12: Dan Vd Horst   Public Perception

Biomass plants in the UK; the issue of planning permission

Location MW Fuel/technology Planning permission, status

Calne, Wiltshire 20 Straw,

combustion

Lost, withdrawn (1994)

Ely,

Cambridgeshire

31 Straw,

combustion

Lost, appealed, won,

operational (2000)

Newbridge,

Wales

15 Forestry waste,

fast pyrolysis

Lost, resubmitted, withdrawn?

(2001/2002)

Cricklade,

Wiltshire

5.5 willow/forestry,

gasification

Lost, appealed, lost again

(2001)

Winkleigh,

Devon

14 SRC/forestry,

gasification

Lost, appealed, lost again

(2005?)

Page 13: Dan Vd Horst   Public Perception

Public opinion prior to planning of a

new renewable energy facility

• Technology is new so many people don‟t know about it

• Many/most people will say „yes I support such a development because it‟s „green/ good for the environment‟.

• A fairly large number of people will say „don‟t know‟ (somewhat sceptical „need to know more‟ / „wait and see‟ attitude)

• Some are opposed in principle, e.g. because they don‟t believe in climate change, or have a specific view of tax spending.

Page 14: Dan Vd Horst   Public Perception

Public opinion during the planning of a

new renewable energy facility

• Debate becomes emotional

• Strong polarisation of views

• Opponents list as many objections as possible,

try to get organised and work the public

opinion.

• Opponents raise legitimacy and trust issues,

say the company is only „in it for the money‟

• Proponents label opponents as „NIMBYs‟ and

blame them of „scaremongering‟.

Page 15: Dan Vd Horst   Public Perception

Public opinion after the building of a

new renewable energy facility

(plant is now operational)

• Those strongest opposed during the proposal phase are most bothered by the nuisances

• Most people (including those somewhat opposed during the proposal phase) find the nuisances more bearable than previously expected

• When local people have gained a greater knowledge of the plant and the technology and this will also result in a more favourable opinion.

• Over a period of time many people will start to identify the plant with their area and will become more defensive of the plant (who-ever questions the plant, questions their area)

Page 16: Dan Vd Horst   Public Perception

What is NIMBY?

Freudenberg & Pastor (1992) reviewed the literature and found 3 strands of thought:

1. Irrational fear /phobic response. Public are wrong and ignorant (Deficit model of public understanding).

2. Selfish response (seen as rational by economists), but also recognition that the proponents (selfish) interests of their own.

3. Prudent response; public are acting reasonably in distrusting scientists, have good ground for concern and are able to see the siting problem in wider terms than the planning experts (local knowledge, citizen knowledge)

Page 17: Dan Vd Horst   Public Perception

Wolsink‟s typology of opposition

(based on a study of protests against windfarms in the Netherlands)

1. No to wind farms anywhere (NIABY)

2. No to process (consultation, arrogance..;)

3. No to this project, pro-wind subject to certain criteria (change this & that)

4. Put it anywhere but here (true selfish NIMBY);

Page 18: Dan Vd Horst   Public Perception

Clear evidence that the risk communication strategy

needs to be tailored to the local situation

company Plant location Tech spec. Planning outcome

Ambient

Energy

Cricklade,

Wiltshire

5.5MW

Gasification

Rejected, appealed,

rejected

Ambient

Energy

Eye, Suffolk 5.5 MW

Gasification

Planning permission

granted (1st time)

Borders

Biofuel

Newbridge,

Powys

15MW

Pyrolysis

Rejected, appealed,

rejected(?)

Borders

Biofuel

Carlisle,

Cumbria

20MW

Pyrolysis

Planning permission

granted (1st time)

Both had a consistent approach to local communities:

Ambient were open & communicative if amateurish.

Borders Biofuel adopted a silent & arrogant approach.

Their results were identical…

Page 19: Dan Vd Horst   Public Perception

Cricklade planning process

• Ambient applies for planning permission –early 2000

• 439 letters of objection (1 in favour), protest petition

signed by 861 people.

• Protesters organised themselves (BLOT), commissioned

their own research and elected a councillor (Cricklade

Town) to fight the proposal.

• North Wiltshire District Council rejects the planning

permission stating objections of (a) visual impact on the

amenity and character of the countryside and (b)

inappropriate use of rural buffer zone -September 2000-

• Ambient appeals December 2000

• Appeal is rejected in July 2001 stating mainly the major

impact in rural buffer zone.

Page 20: Dan Vd Horst   Public Perception

Concerns raised by residents• Inappropriate location for a power plant (rural buffer zone);

• Close proximity to local residents;

• Emission of greenhouse gases and water vapour;

• Unpleasant odour;

• Emission of light at night;

• Vibration and noise from the power plant;

• Fear of public health hazards;

• Nuisance from traffic;

• Increases in traffic movement and flow of high goods vehicles;

• negative impacts on wildlife & ecosystems,;

• Negative effect on the local weather system;

• Undermining openness;

• Visual impacts of the chimneys and other structures (storage „shed‟);

• Negative effects on cultural heritage (incl. archaeology);

• Few benefits to local community but they bear the soc./envir. costs;

• Negative effect on tourism and business;

• No compensation to local people;

• Negative effect on property prices;

• No significant employment opportunity for local people

Page 21: Dan Vd Horst   Public Perception

Concerns raised by Biomass

Lumbered on Our Town (BLOT)• would set a precedent for further industrial development.

• contradict local designation policies, namely the Area of Special Archaeological Significance & Rural Buffer Zone;

• huge increase of Heavy Goods Vehicles on trunk road;

• chimneys of the plant are very tall, affect the view from afar;

• 117 million litres water /y steamed into the atmosphere;

• odour, dust, noise and emissions nuisances;

• long term uncertainties about health impacts;

• unquantifiable damage to meadows, flora, fauna and unique water systems south east of Cricklade;

• not clear if there would be any compensation to those affected, if anything would go wrong in/with the plant;

• negative effects on property prices in the area.

Page 22: Dan Vd Horst   Public Perception

So BLOT focused on

• Main „proven‟ impacts (visual impacts, traffic)

• Main „legal‟ objections (planning designation)

• Issues of high uncertainty (long term health & biodiversity impacts)

• Main public concerns (potential emissions, impact on property prices, lack of compensation)

Which of these arguments serve to increase public opposition „on the street‟ and which serve to win the argument in the planning process?

Page 23: Dan Vd Horst   Public Perception

Ambient‟s failure in risk

communication in Cricklade• Ambient were stuck with a fixed technology and site, so they

had a there-is-no-alternative (TINA) approach to the planning process.

• Ambient saw their plant as environmentally benign. They did not anticipate such ferocious local opposition and dismissed this initially as a NIMBY response.

• They had no ready response to accusations such as „land in the buffer zone is cheap‟, or the „ES is not independent‟.

• Ambient tried their best to communicate but were caught out in the first meeting (trust once lost, is very hard to recover).

• In the end Ambient personnel and BLOT activists saw more face to face; Ambient admitted the site was poorly chosen, BLOT admitted that it was an environmentally benign plant planned in the wrong location (but by then BLOT knew that this was their winning argument).

Page 24: Dan Vd Horst   Public Perception
Page 25: Dan Vd Horst   Public Perception

Lessons for plant developers• Don‟t go “DAD” (decide, announce and defend)

• Don‟t say “TINA” (there is no alternative)

• Don‟t dismiss local protest as selfish NIMBY

• Local beneficiaries (ownership of plant, providers of fuel, use of services e.g. heat)

• Appropriate scale

• „Proven‟ technology

• Successful operational examples to show

• Make the neighbourhood proud

• Offer compensation?

• Prior education („environmental citizenship‟)

• Target „promising‟ communities?

Page 26: Dan Vd Horst   Public Perception

„Promising communities‟

• Where potential beneficiaries are influential (e.g. farmers in East Anglia)

• Where there is a concentration of green citizens?

• Where there‟s a historic legacy of energy industry (e.g. ex-mining areas)

• Where the marginal impact of the plant is small (e.g. adjacent to larger existing plants)

• „soft‟ communities; where there likelihood of organised protest is low (more deprived/ working class? Not in commuterville where they don‟t care about the „local economy‟ & not in areas full of middleclass retirees with time on their hand). But is this a right thing to do??

Page 27: Dan Vd Horst   Public Perception

Guidelines of the „Facility Siting Credo‟

(Kunreuther et al., 1993).Procedural steps

1. Institute a broad-based participatory process

2. Seek consensus

3. Work to develop trust

4. Seek acceptable sites through a volunteer process

5. Consider a competitive siting process

6. Set realistic timetables

7. Keep multiple options open at all times

Desired outcomes

1. Achieve agreement that the status quo is unacceptable

2. Choose the solution that best addresses the problem

3. Guarantee that stringent safety standards will be met

4. Fully address all negative aspects of the facility

5. Make the host community better off

6. Use contingent agreements

7. Work for geographic fairness