Approaches for Informing Public Preferences for CCS and Other Low Carbon Technologies

Transcription

1 Approaches for Informing Public Preferences for CCS and Other Low Carbon Technologies IEA GHG Social Research Network November 18, 2010 Lauren Fleishman, PhD Candidate Wändi Bruine de Bruin and M. Granger Morgan Engineering and Public Policy, Carnegie Mellon University

2 To evaluate CCS, people need to be properly informed about CCS and other lowcarbon technologies People s preferences are best elicited after they have been well informed Opinions are more stable and consistent with a person s values (e.g., de Best Waldhober 2009) People do not like to consider CCS in isolation. Instead, they want to Compare it to other electricity technologies that reduce CO 2 (e.g., Ashworth et al. 2007, Sharp 2005) Consider it as a part of a low carbon portfolio (e.g., Palmgren et al. 2004, Fleishman et al. 2010) 2

3 People s perceptions of CCS partly depend on their evaluation of other technologies However, people have many common misconceptions about a range of low carbon electricity technologies: Low awareness and understanding of CCS (e.g., Reiner et al. 2006, Huijts et al. 2007) Biomass technologies (e.g., Plate and Monroe 2010) Misconceptions about Nuclear, e.g. plants emit CO 2 (e.g., Reiner et al. 2006, Reynolds et al. 2010) Renewables, e.g. inexpensive (e.g., Ansolabehere 2007) and reliable (e.g., Plate and Monroe 2010) midtownbrews.net citizensagainstco2sequestration.blogspot.com free.com 3

4 Misconceptions can be resistant to change, so education early on about low carbon technologies is important Do science teachers have the knowledge to do so? 58 6 th 12 th grade science teachers answered surveys: seven knowledge questions about common gaps and misconceptions of low carbon technologies measures of their environmental attitudes After testing teacher knowledge, teachers were Presented with comprehensive information about ten electricity technologies Asked to rank the technologies and low carbon portfolios composed of the technologies following Fleishman et al

5 Knowledge Questions 1. Solar power costs less to make than coal power. (F) 2. The natural gas used in power plants to make electricity is not flammable. (F) 3. Electricity can be made by burning woody products such as farm crops, wood chips and paper mill products. (T) 4. Pennsylvania could make all of its electricity from wind power and solar power if we built enough wind and solar farms in the state. (F) 5. Engineers have developed equipment that can capture the carbon dioxide released by power plants, putting it underground instead of releasing it into the atmosphere. (T) 6. The carbon dioxide released by electric power plants is not flammable. (T) 7. Nuclear power plants release no carbon dioxide (CO2) into the air. (T) 5

6 Teachers received information materials following Fleishman et al. (2010) Materials corrected all tested misconceptions and: were technically accurate and understandable provided descriptions of the costs, risks, benefits and limitations of ten technologies 6

7 Teachers ranked the technologies and seven low carbon portfolios Portfolios were designed to meet a specific CO 2 emissions limit 3 diverse portfolios: 1) with CCS & nuclear, 2) with CCS, but no nuclear, 3) no CCS & no nuclear 4 simple portfolios: 1) PC with CCS & PC, 2) IGCC with CCS & IGCC, 3) natural gas & wind, 4) nuclear & PC Costs and pollutant information for portfolios was also given to participants Technology and portfolios rankings were elicited before and after a group workshop by asking participants to assume that the U.S. Congress had mandated a reduction in CO 2 emissions from power plants to be built in the future 7

8 Participants 58 6 th 12 th grade science teachers 23 to 64 years old (M=42.0) 58.6% female and 93.1% white All had a Bachelor s degree, 76% had a Master s degree or higher (most in an education discipline) Nearly 80% were high school teachers 8

9 Knowledge Questions Statement (Correct Answer: T or F) Participant Response Percent Don t Correct Incorrect Know The natural gas used in power plants to make electricity is not flammable. (F) 87.9% 0% 12.1% Electricity can be made by burning woody products such as farm crops, wood chips and paper mill 86.2% 3.4% 10.3% products. (T) The carbon dioxide released by electric power plants is not flammable. (T) 81.0% 3.4% 15.5% Engineers have developed equipment that can capture the carbon dioxide released by power plants, putting it underground instead of releasing it into the atmosphere. (T) 65.5% 6.9% 27.6% Nuclear power plants release no carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) into the air. (T) 62.1% 24.1% 13.8% Solar power costs less to make than coal power. (F) 56.9% 20.7% 22.4% Pennsylvania could make all of its electricity from wind power and solar power if we built enough wind and solar farms in the state. (F) 52.6% 21.0% 26.3% 9

10 Knowledge Correlations Teachers environmental attitudes measured with New Ecological Paradigm (NEP) scale More pro environmental more incorrect answers (p<0.01) Teachers rated their (1 7 Likert) agreement of whether: government regulation should begin to significantly limit the amount of CO 2 that is released into the earth s atmosphere More support for climate change policy more incorrect answers (p=0.02) 10

11 Technology Rankings Ten technologies ranked from best (=1) to worst (=10) Concept: Nuclear CO 2 emissions Participants with correct answer ranked nuclear better (M=3.4) than those with don t know answers (M=6.3) (p<0.01) Concept: Solar and wind to make all of PA s electricity Participants with correct answer ranked wind worse (M=5.1) than those with incorrect answers (M=3.4) (p=0.02) ranked wind marginally worse (M=5.1) than those with don t know answers (M=3.7) (p=0.07) ranked solar marginally worse (M=7.6) than those with incorrect answers (M=5.6) (p=0.06) 11

12 Teacher Knowledge Discussion Science teachers held gaps and misconceptions about: (1) the existence of CCS (2) CO 2 emissions from nuclear, (3) solar cost relative to coal and (4) wind and solar power's ability to meet all of PA s electricity needs The teachers who most want to help the environment hold more misconceptions low carbon technologies May be more likely to include environmental curriculum BUT less able to correct students misconceptions Misconceptions and knowledge gaps may have biased participants relative rankings nuclear, solar and wind Despite receiving comprehensive information correcting misconceptions Results suggest that many science teachers hold an unrealistic view of the challenge of reaching a low carbon energy future 12

13 Science Teacher Ranking Results Mean participant technology rankings (±SD), from 1 (best) to 10 (worst) Participants 58 participants (6 th 12 th grade science) Ages (m=42.0) 59% Female; 93% White All have Bach. Deg, 76% Mast. Deg. 13

14 Science Teacher Portfolio Rankings Portfolio with best mean ranking: 25% IGCC with CCS 21% Nuclear 20% NGCC Plants 17% PC Plants 10% Wind Power 7% Energy Efficiency Mean participant portfolio rankings (±SD), from 1 (best) to 7 (worst) 14

15 Public vs. Science Teachers PUBLIC SCIENCE TEACHERS N= 60 (general public) Ages (m=36.7) 63% Female 67% White All graduated High School 67% Bach. Deg. NEP scale = 4.7 Younger and more diverse Slightly less pro-environmental N=58 (6 th 12 th grade science) Ages (m=42.0) 59% Female 93% White All have Bach. Deg, 76% Mast. Deg. NEP scale = 5.0 Older and more educated Slightly more pro-environmental * NEP is on a 1-7 scale, where higher ratings denote more pro-environmental attitudes 15

16 Public vs. Science Teachers Science teachers have very similar informed preferences to the public Small Larger switch switch between between IGCC PV with solar CCS and IGCC Nuclear PUBLIC TEACHERS 16

17 Public vs. Science Teachers Science teachers have very similar informed preferences to the public Slight difference in rankings of portfolios E and B PUBLIC TEACHERS F = Diverse, includes IGCC with CCS and nuclear B = Simple, IGCC with CCS and IGCC E = Diverse, includes IGCC with CCS, but no nuclear D = Diverse, includes NO CCS and NO nuclear G = Simple, natural gas and wind C = Simple, nuclear and PC A = Simple, PC with CCS and PC 17

18 Discussion & New Work Similar results between science teachers and the public Suggests that once people are well informed, they are in agreement about their technology preferences Interpret with caution: small convenience samples, unrepresentative populations, etc. Limitations of the overall study Only given 7 discrete portfolios choices While portfolios comply with technology limitations, participants may not explicitly understand them New Work: develop a dynamic computer decision tool where participants can learn by doing Lay users build their own portfolio Observe how electricity prices and environmental impacts change along with the change in percentages of technologies 18

19 Portfolio Building Computer Tool build a combination of new power plants [to meet increased demand] that you think is the best [It] must make 60 TWh of electricity per year, but release 50% of the CO 2 that would have been released using the original plan [current PA energy mix]. 19

20 Thank You! Lauren A. Fleishman, PhD Candidate Engineering and Public Policy, Carnegie Mellon University Fleishman LA, Bruine de Bruin, W and Morgan, MG. (2010) Informed Public Preferences for Electricity Portfolios with CCS and Other Low-Carbon Technologies, 2010, Risk Analysis, 30(9): Materials: Funding provided by: 20

21 References Ansolabehere, S., Public attitudes toward American's energy options : report of the 2007 MIT Energy Survey. 2007, Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Center for Energy and Environmental Policy Research.: Cambridge, MA. Ashworth, P., Mayhew, M., Millar, F., & Boughen, N. (2007). An Integrated Roadmap of Communication Activities around Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) in Australia and Beyond. Queensland, Australia: CSIRO. De Best Waldhober, M, D. Daamen, and A. Faaij, Informed and uninformed public opinions of CO2 capture and storage technologies in the Netherlands. International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control, (3): p Fleishman, L., W. Bruine de Bruin, and M. Morgan, Informed Public Preferences for Electricity Portfolios with CCS and Other Low Carbon Technologies. Risk Analysis, (9): p Huijts, N.M.A., C.J.H. Midden, and A.L. Meijnders, Social acceptance of carbon dioxide storage. Energy Policy, (5): p Palmgren, C. R., Morgan, M. G., Bruin, W. B. d., & Keith, D. W. (2004). Initial public perceptions of deep geological and oceanic disposal of carbon dioxide. Environ Sci Technol, 38(24), Plate, R., M. Monroe, and A. Oxarart, Plate et al. Public Perceptions of Using Woody Biomass as a Renewable Energy Source. Journal of Extension, (3): p Reiner, D., Curry, T., Figueiredo, M., Herzog, H., Ansolabehere, S., Itaoka, K., et al. (2006). American Exceptionalism? Similarities and Differences in National Attitudes Toward Energy Policy and Global Warming. Environ Sci Technol, 40, Reynolds, T.W., A. Bostrom, D. Read, and M.G. Morgan, Now What Do People Know About Global Climate Change? Survey Studies of Educated Laypeople. Risk Analysis, (10): p Sharp, J. (2005). Public Attitudes towards Geological Disposal of Carbon Dioxide in Canada, (No. 384): School of Resource and Environmental Management, Simon Frasier University. 21

22 Low Carbon Portfolios All release 70% less CO 2 than a portfolio of 100% PC plants A: PC with CCS mix 81% PC with CCS 9% PC Plants D: EPRI limited portfolio, no nuclear or CCS 66% NGCC Plants 13% Efficiency 10% Wind Power 6% BIGCC Plants 5% PV Solar Our Seven Low Carbon Portfolios B: IGCC with CCS mix 83% IGCC with CCS 17% IGCC Plants E: EPRI semi limited portfolio, with CCS, no Nuclear 48% NGCC Plants 20% IGCC with CCS 13% Wind Power 13% Efficiency 5% PC Plants 1% PV Solar C: Nuclear mix G: NGCC & Wind mix 70% Nuclear 30% PC Plants 66% NGCC Plants 34% Wind Power F: EPRI full portfolio, with CCS and Nuclear 25% IGCC with CCS 21% Nuclear 20% NGCC Plants 17% PC Plants 10% Wind Power 7% Efficiency 22

23 Public Ranking Results Mean participant technology rankings (±SD), from 1 (best) to 10 (worst) Participants 60 participants in 9 workshops Ages (m=36.7) 63% Female; 67% White All graduated HS, 67% Bach. Deg. 23

24 Public Portfolio Rankings Portfolio with best mean ranking: 25% IGCC with CCS 21% Nuclear 20% NGCC Plants 17% PC Plants 10% Wind Power 7% Energy Efficiency Mean participant portfolio rankings (±SD), from 1 (best) to 7 (worst) 24