Search

Public trust in various stakeholdersimpacts the acceptance Social and political issues listed: Political development Social acceptance Communication and the 'information deficit' Risk and benefit perceptions Cultural factors Social acceptability Trust in stakeholders NIMBY or not Public awareness of CCUS

Political development for expediting CC(U)S Social and political issues listed: Political development Social acceptance Communication and the 'information deficit' Risk and benefit perceptions Cultural factors Social acceptability Trust in stakeholders NIMBY or not Public awareness of CCUS &nbsp

Lack of social acceptance andacceptability of CC(U)S technology, particularly storage Social and political issues listed: Political development Social acceptance Communication and the 'information deficit' Risk and benefit perceptions Cultural factors Social acceptability Trust in stakeholders NIMBY or not Public awareness of CCUS

Public communication about CCUS – is it just a case of information deficit? Social and political issues listed: Political development Social acceptance Communication and the 'information deficit' Risk and benefit perceptions Cultural factors Social acceptability Trust in stakeholders NIMBY or not Public awareness of CCUS

Common cultural denominatorsaffect all stakeholders Social and political issues listed: Political development Social acceptance Communication and the 'information deficit' Risk and benefit perceptions Cultural factors Social acceptability Trust in stakeholders NIMBY or not Public awareness of CCUS

Public awareness and knowledge ofCCUS – magnitude, gaps, and variation Social and political issues listed: Political development Social acceptance Communication and the 'information deficit' Risk and benefit perceptions Cultural factors Social acceptability Trust in stakeholders NIMBY or not Public awareness of CCUS

Is ‘Not In My Backyard’ a useful explanation for public responses to CCUS? Social and political issues listed: Political development Social acceptance Communication and the 'information deficit' Risk and benefit perceptions Cultural factors Social acceptability Trust in stakeholders NIMBY or not Public awareness of CCUS

Status of knowledge on publicperceptions of risks and benefits of CCUS Social and political issues listed: Political development Social acceptance Communication and the 'information deficit' Risk and benefit perceptions Cultural factors Social acceptability Trust in stakeholders NIMBY or not Public awareness of CCUS

Much potential exists in the Baltic Sea region (BSR) regarding CC(U)S and at least on the research side, there has been a steady stream of activities over the years. Potential storage sites are localized in the Baltic Basin within several countries such as Sweden, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland and Russia. However, the BSR is still lagging behind in deploying a large-scale CC(U)S due to the national policy and regulatory frameworks which create unfavorable conditions for the technology, as well as the low public awareness and acceptability in most of the countries in the region. Consequently, CO2 injection is forbidden in Lithuania, CO2 storage on an industrial scale is banned in Estonia, Latvia and Finland and some federal states of Germany, while in Denmark, Poland and Sweden is permitted with limitations. However, it should also be noted that some positive developments and attitudes towards CC(U)S have also taken place recently in some of the BSR countries. This paper provides an overview of the current CC(U)S status and development in the BSR

The use of variable renewable energy sources will increase in the Nordic and Baltic countries in the future. This will call for increased flexibility in the electricity market to ensure both high energy security and efficient use of renewable powerin all circumstances. The barriers and hence also policies to energy system flexibility are numerous. In this brief, we focus on policy recommendations for two important barriers to flexibility in the Nordic electricity market, namely insufficient market signals to some stakeholders, and uneven market frameworks for different renewable energy resources. We present seven major recommendations, which could mitigate the market barriers to flexibility. A central recommendation is to have better tariffs for electricity and grid use to promote flexibility. This would improve the coupling of access renewable power to other sectors such as heat, transport, and gas, which has a large potential for increased flexibility

A consensus exists that the current trend of energy consumption growth and CO2 emissions cannot continue if global warming is to be tackled. Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) has been considered in many countries for addressing climate change. CCS is a technology that curbs CO2 emission by removing CO2 from the atmosphere and storing it in carbon sinks, such as depleted oil and gas fields. CCS is a controversial technology. Notable opposition to and different perceptions of the technology exist among stakeholders, including experts, politicians and laypeople. Therefore, it is important to understand these diverse perceptions and their roots. I have developed a means towards such an understanding. I show that national culture influences both laypeople and expert perceptions. Moreover, it seems likely that cultural orientation affects some of the other factors, such as trust. In addition, I show that although mainstream research and literature consider experts as unbiased and rational stakeholders, both laypeople and experts have similar underlying cultural features and thus their models of perception follow a similar trend in a society. I specify how cultural orientations and their characteristics shape the perception of CCS technology and influence the reactions of people. For instance, hierarchical nations with high uncertainty avoidance have a tendency towards a higher level of risk perception. In contrast, nations that are characterised by social harmony might have a lower level of risk perception of a technology that could increase the long-term quality of life. This research is a comparative study; comparisons were performed between countries and between laypeople and experts. I used mixed methods to address the research questions. The quantitative part of the study is based on survey data analysis and the qualitative part involves both discourse analysis of interviews and Function of Innovations Systems (FIS) analysis. This research contributes to risk governance of CCS by developing a new framework that policymakers and authorities can use as a tool to consider the unheeded issue of culture in their planning. I demonstrate who is concerned with what and why with respect to the technology. Finally, I discuss the implications of this study, including policy recommendations. For instance, the European Commission might plausibly benefit from the framework when considering its budget allocation and communication with member states to study CCS projects and to estimate the failure or success of a project. Det råder en enighet om att om att om den globala uppvärmningen ska kunna stävjas, så kan inte den nuvarande trenden med allt ökande energikonsumtion och koldioxidutsläpp fortsätta. Geologisk lagring av koldioxid (CCS, Carbon Capture and Storage) har på senare tid blivit ett populärt sätt att bekämpa klimatförändringen i många länder. CCS är en teknologi med hjälp av vilken man kan stävja koldioxidutsläpp genom att först avlägsna koldioxiden från atmosfären och sedan lagra den i kolsänkor såsom tömda olje- och gasfält. CC är en kontroversiell teknologi. Det förekommer mycket motstånd mot, och olika uppfattningar kring, teknologin bland experter, politiker och lekmän. Det är därför viktigt att förstå bakgrunden till de olika uppfattningarna. I avhandlingen utvecklar jag ett sätt att närma sig en sådan förståelse. Jag visar hur den nationella kulturen påverkar både lekmännens och experternas uppfattningar om CCS. Det verkar dessutom troligt att vissa andra faktorer såsom förtroende påverkas av kulturell orientering. Därutöver visar jag – trots att gängse forskning anser experter vara opartiska och rationella parter – att både lekmän och experter uppvisar liknande underliggande kulturella drag, och att deras modeller för varseblivningen därmed följer en liknande trend i samhället. I min avhandling specificerar jag hur kulturell orientering med tillhörande särdrag formar uppfattningen av CCS-teknologin och hur den påverkar människornas reaktioner. Hierarkiska nationer som värdesätter undvikande av osäkerhet högt tenderar till exempel att uppfatta också graden av risk som högre. I kontrast härtill kan nationer som kännetecknas av social harmoni uppvisa en lägre grad av uppfattad risk då det gäller en teknologi som kan öka livskvaliteten på lång sikt. Denna forskning utgör en jämförande studie: mellan länder, och mellan lekmän och experter. För att adressera forskningsfrågorna använder jag mig av en blandning av kvantitativa och kvalitativa metoder. Den kvantitativa delen av studien är baserad på analysen av data från en surveyundersökning. Den kvalitativa delen av studien innefattar både diskursanalys av intervjuer och FIS-analys (Functions of Innovations Systems). Forskningen bidrar till riskhanteringen av CCS-teknologin genom att utveckla ett nytt ramverk, som kan användas som redskap då beslutsfattare och myndigheter vill adressera den hittills ofta ouppmärksammade frågan om kultur i planeringsverksamheten. Jag visar vem som är oroad över vad gällande CCS-teknologin, och varför. Slutligen diskuterar jag vilka slutsatser man kan dra av min forskning, inklusive rekommendationer och politiska riktlinjer. Till exempel kan Europeiska Kommissionen dra nytta av ramverket i samband med budgetanslag samt i kommunikationen med medlemsländer då det gäller att sätta sig in i CCS-projekt eller att bedöma deras grad av framgång respektive misslyckande.

We use data from an international discrete choice experiment (DCE) survey conducted across every BSR country: Germany, Poland, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Finland, Sweden, Norway and Denmark. Respondents were presented with different investment options to co-finance RE generation schemes. Through multinomial logistic regressions conducted on the survey data, we draw inference on the relative influence that different national socio-economic trends, energy cultures and demographic factors have in shaping citizen financial participation on different RE investment schemes and derive empirically validated insights on citizen-centric RE policy support as a key constitutive pillar of NECP design. We structure the chapter as follows: first, we conceptualise community renewable energy through a socio-technical lens and introduce insights from the social acceptance literature to enrich our conceptualisation. With this novel combination, we add to existing acknowledgements of citizens’ salience for the realisation of sustainable energy transitions beyond their traditional “end-user” role (Göpel, 2016; Schot, Kanger and Verbong, 2016; Ingold, Stadelmann-Steffen and Kammermann, 2019). Also, we attempt to refine the social acceptance framework forwarded by Wolsink (2018) by exploring the conceptual space resulting from the overlap of the community and market acceptance dimensions of renewables’ innovation – we call this the “community-as-investor” acceptance of renewables’ innovation. Secondly, we introduce the DCE survey as our main data collection tool, describe the development of our sampling and analytical methodologies and outline the steps taken throughout the data gathering process. We follow with a descriptive disclosure of our analytical outputs and present the results stemming from our regression analysis.We then reflect on the policy implications stemming from our results and discuss the impact that the EU’s latest shift on RE support policy – namely from a feed-in-tariff (FiT) system to a competitive tendering scheme in the form of auctions – has for incentivising citizen-led finance for CRE across the BSR. We specifically narrow in on the Danish and German experiences – two of the most prominent countries with long-standing traditions on cooperative association (Danielsen, 1995; Jørgensen, 1995; Kemp, Rip and Schot, 2001; Debor, 2018) – to illustrate the challenges that such a policy shift has brought in terms of hindering a more actor-diverse RE development pathway in both countries.

publishedVersion