Th St bilit f P bli P f fThe Stability of Public Preferences for CCS Before and After Group p

Discussion

Presentation for the IEA GHG SRN

November 2, 2009

Lauren Fleishman, PhD Student

lauren@cmu.eduEngineering and Public Policy, Carnegie Mellon Universityg g y g y

Co‐authors: Wändi Bruine de Bruin and M. Granger Morgan

CCS i di h f d

Public Perceptions of CCSCCS perceptions studies have found:• Low level of awareness and understanding of CCS

Respondents’ ranks of portfolios

• Negative to slightly positive opinions of CCS

• People want to talk about CCS in comparison to other low‐carbon technologies, and as part of a low‐carbon energy portfolio.

Palmgren et al. (2004) asked survey respondents to rank energy portfolios with a 50% reduction in CO2 emissions.

CCS portfolios ranked as the least favorable

Source: Palmgren et al. 2004 2

Eliciting Informed Public PreferencesIn this study, participants provided rankings 

before and after a “group workshop”Materials Addressed Limitations in Palmgren et al. (2004) 

Limitation Resolution

Little information about costs Developed multi‐attribute information materials on costsLittle information about costs and benefits of other options

Developed multi attribute information materials on costs, risks and benefits of 10 technologies and  7 portfolios

Unrealistic renewable‐heavy portfolios

Realistic portfolios

• Rankings were more informed and decision‐relevant

portfolios

No advanced technologies “Advanced” (IGCC) and “traditional” (PC) coal options

Rankings were more informed and decision relevant• Iteratively refined materials based on input from 

– Experts, to ensure technical accuracy– Lay people, to ensure their understanding

• Resulting materials were written at grade level 6‐83

Materials: Technology Sheetsgy

4

Materials: Comparison Sheetsp

5

Materials: Comparison SheetsMaterials: Comparison Sheets

6

Low‐Carbon PortfoliosAll release 70% less CO2 than a portfolio of 100% PC plants

A: PC with CCS mix

B: IGCC with CCS mix

C: Nuclear mix G: NGCC & Wind mix

Our Seven Low‐Carbon Portfolios

mix mix

81%  PC with CCS9%    PC Plants

83%  IGCC with CCS17%  IGCC Plants

D EPRI li it d E EPRI i li it d F EPRI f ll tf li

mix

70%  Nuclear 30%  PC Plants

66%  NGCC Plants34%  Wind Power

D: EPRI limitedportfolio, no nuclear 

or CCS

E: EPRI semi‐limitedportfolio, with CCS, no 

Nuclear

F: EPRI full portfolio, with CCS and Nuclear

48% NGCC Pl t 25% IGCC ith CCS66%  NGCC Plants13%  Efficiency10%  Wind Power6% BIGCC Plants

48%  NGCC Plants20%  IGCC with CCS13%  Wind Power13%  Efficiency

25%  IGCC with CCS 21%  Nuclear 20%  NGCC Plants17%  PC Plants6%  BIGCC Plants

5%  PV Solar y

5%  PC Plants 1%  PV Solar

10%  Wind Power7%  Efficiency

7

Low‐Carbon Portfolios•Pie charts act as packet cover sheets• Technology information sheets

Low Carbon Portfolios

Excerpt from Problem Question• Technology information sheets included in packets

•Portfolio Cost and “PA will need more electricity in 25 years…so, new plants will need to be built…suppose that the U S Congress has just passed a law tof

Pollution Comparison sheets

the U.S. Congress has just passed a law to reduce the CO2 released by power plants built in the future…The PA Governor has suggested seven new power plant combinations that

•A Problem Questionprovided a realistic 

t t f th ki

seven new power plant combinations …that release 70% less CO2 …Your job is to rank the seven power plant combinations from best to worst ”context for the ranking 

exercise.

worst.

8

Group Workshop Procedure SteStep 1:p 1: ““Homework Assignment” (pre‐discussion)

Received:Technology‐related information

Provided: Pre‐discussion technology rankingsTechnology related information Pre discussion technology rankings 

Experimenter explanation of “homework” materials & new portfolio materials

SteStep 2:p 2: Working Independently (pre‐discussion)Received:  Provided: 

Participants provided rankings before and after a group workshopPortfolio‐related information Pre‐discussion portfolio rankings 

Group discussion: Participants agree upon a group portfolio ranking

and after a group workshop 

SteStep 3:p 3: Working Independently (post‐discussion)

upon a group portfolio ranking

Received: No new information.

Provided: Post‐discussion portfolio and technology rankings

9

ParticipantsParticipants8 Workshops:• Held at local community organizations• Held at local community organizations• Including 4‐9 participants each• Lasting 2‐3 hoursLasting 2 3 hours• Carefully scripted following Risk Ranking procedures• Paid $95 (to keep or donate to organization)

54 Participants:• Ages 18 to 73 years old (m=37.5)g y ( )• 35% Males, 65% Females• 67% White, 34% African‐American or other minority• All had HS diploma, 63% at least a Bachelor’s degree 

10

Did participants understand the materials?15 True/False questions 

• Average score 91% correct (range 60‐100%)• Most difficult: Problem Question: 87% correct 

Pollution Comparison: 87% correct

• Comprehension ratings •Hardest rated materials were still all significantly above the 

l id i t (f 1 “ h d” t 7 “ ”)scale midpoint (from 1 “very hard” to 7 “very easy”)

•Most difficult pre‐explanation: Cost Comparison (m=5 23 t=5 53 p<0 001)**Cost Comparison (m=5.23, t=5.53, p<0.001)Pollution Comparison (m=5.43, t=7.42, p<0.001)*Problem Question (m=5.74, t=8.17, p<0.001)

Note: Materials rated as significantly easier post-explanation and post-discussion are noted as such: ** for p<0.01 and * for p<0.05.

11

Results – Technology Rankings

Mean participant technology rankings (±SD), from 1 (best) 

to 10 (worst) 

12

Technology Rankings:Consistency and StabilityConsistency and Stability

High Level of Consistency:K d ll’ ffi i t f dKendall’s coefficient of concordance 

shows significant agreement between participants’ technology rank‐orders 

(W=0.36, p<0.001 for pre‐discussion rankings, W=0.34, p<0.001 for post‐discussion rankings)

High Level of Stability:Wilcoxon paired‐rank tests show, for each technology no significant differencetechnology, no significant difference between participants’ pre‐ and post‐

discussion rankings

( f ll)

13

Mean participant technology rankings (±SD), from 1 (best) to 10 (worst) 

(p>0.10 for all)

Results – Portfolio Rankings

Mean participant portfolio rankings (±SD), from 1 (best) to 7 (worst)

14

Portfolio Rankings:Consistency and Stability

High Level of Consistency:K d ll’ ffi i t f d

Consistency and Stability

Kendall’s coefficient of concordance shows significant agreement between participants’ portfolio rank‐orders 

Wilcoxon paired‐ranked  test show significant difference

z=‐2 21 p=0 03(W=0.31, p<0.001 for pre‐discussion rankings, W=0.45, p<0.001 for post‐discussion rankings)

z= 2.21, p=0.03

High Level of Stability:Wilcoxon paired‐rank tests show, for all 

but one portfolio no significantbut one portfolio, no significant difference between participants’ pre‐ and 

post‐discussion rankings

( f ll b f l )

15

Mean participant portfolio rankings (±SD), from 1 (best) to 7 (worst) 

(p>0.10 for all but Portfolio B)

Group Dynamics and Influence

•Participants agreed* with the statements that they thought they had:thought they had:

• Influenced the group discussion• Compared to the scale midpoint (m=5.00, t=4.49, p<0.001)

• Were influenced by the group discussion

• Compared to the scale midpoint (m=5.09, t=5.16, p<0.001)

* On a scale from 1 (completely disagree) to 7 (completely agree)

• Participants’ perceptions of how much they were influenced byParticipants  perceptions of how much they were influenced by the group discussion are correlated** to the mean absolute difference between their pre‐ and post‐discussion rankings

• Spearman ρ=0.34, p=0.01 for technologies

• Spearman ρ=0.26, p=0.06 for portfolios ** (only marginally correlated)16

Discussion of Results• Participants: 

• understood the materials → were well‐informed• seemed accepting of CCS but only when added to IGCC (the• seemed accepting of CCS, but only when added to IGCC (the “advanced” coal)

• showed a high degree of stability between rankings before and after group discussion 

• Only exception: Ranking for IGCC with CCS mix significantly improved after group discussion

• showed a high degree of consistency between their overall rank‐orders

• Results suggest that:• Results suggest that:• CCS opinions held by well‐informed participants are relatively stable before and after a group discussiong p

• Members of the general public who study these materials may find CCS more acceptable than the alternatives

17

Acknowledgmentsg

Advisors: Wändi Bruine de Bruin and M. Granger Morgan

Funding provided by:

Contact Email: Lauren@cmu edu“…an arrogant approach such as the one adopted in the past by the industries responsible for nuclear power and genetically modified crops could create a level of

Contact Email: Lauren@cmu.eduMore materials can be found at: http://sds.hss.cmu.edu/risk/fleishman/LowCarbonPortfolioMaterials.html

responsible for nuclear power and genetically modified crops, could create a level of public distrust that makes the widespread implementation of geological carbon sequestration difficult, if not impossible.” (Palmgren et al. 2004)

18

ReferencesAshworth, P., Littleboy, A., Pisarski, A., Beath, A., & Thambimuthu, K. (2006). Understanding and incorporating stakeholder

perspectives to low emission technologies in Australia. Paper presented at the Eighth International Conference on Greenhouse p p g p p gGas Control Technologies (GHGT-8), June 22, 2008, Trondheim, Norway.

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.

Bielicki, J. M., & Stephens, J. C. (2008). “Public Perception of Carbon Capture and Storage Technology.” Workshop Report, from Harvard Workshop on Public Perception of Carbon Capture and Storage Technology, June 2-3, 2008. Available at: http://belfercenter ksg harvard edu/files/CCShttp://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/files/CCS

Curry, T. E., Reiner, D. M., Figueiredo, M. A. d., & Herzog, H. J. (2005). A Survey of Public Attitudes towards Energy & Environment in Great Britain. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Available at: http://sequestration.mit.edu/pdf/LFEE_2005-001_WP.pdf

Curry, T. E., Ansolabehere, S., & Herzog, H. (2007). A survey of public attitudes towards climate change and climate change mitigation technologies in the United States: Analyses of 2006 results. Report Number MIT LFEE 2007-01, Cambridge, Massachusetts: M tt I tit t f T h lMassacusetts Institute of Technology.

de Best-Waldhober, M., & Daamen, D. (2006). Public perceptions and preferences regarding large scale implementation of six CO2 capture and storage technologies. Center for Energy and Environmental Studies, University of Leiden.

Florig, K. H., Morgan, M. G., Morgan, K. M., Jenni, K. E., Fischhoff, B., Fischbeck, P. S., et al. (2001). A deliberative method for ranking risks (I): Overview and test bed development. Risk Analysis, 21(5), 913-821.

James, R., Richels, R., Blanford, G. and Gehl, S. (2007), “The Power to Reduce CO2 Emissions”, The EPRI Technology Assessment , , , , , , ( ), , gyCenter, Electric Power Research Institute, Pala Alto, CA.

Morgan, K. M., DeKay, M. L., Fischbeck, P. S., Morgan, M. G., Fischhoff, B., & Florig, H. K. (2001). A deliberative method for ranking risks (II): Evaluation of validity and agreement among risk managers. Risk Analysis, 21(5), 923-937.

Morgan, M.G., Fischhoff, B., Bostrom A. and Atman, C. (2002). Risk Communication: A mental models approach, 351pp., Cambridge University Press, New York, 2002.

Morgan M G Florig H K DeKay M L & Fischbeck P (2000) Categorizing Risks for Risk Ranking Risk Analysis 20(1) 49 58Morgan, M. G., Florig, H. K., DeKay, M. L., & Fischbeck, P. (2000). Categorizing Risks for Risk Ranking. Risk Analysis, 20(1), 49-58.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), 6441-6450.Parfomak, P. W. (2008). Community Acceptance of Carbon Capture and Sequestration Infrastructure: Siting Challenges.

Congressional Research Service, RL34601. Available at: http://assets.opencrs.com/rpts/RL34601_20080729.pdfReiner, 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, 2093 - 2098.Sharp, J. (2005). Public Attitudes towards Geological Disposal of Carbon Dioxide in Canada, (No. 384): School of Resource and

Environmental Management, Simon Frasier University.Willis, H. H., DeKay, M. L., Morgan, M. G., Florig, H. K., & Fischbeck, P. S. (2004). Ecological Risk Ranking: Development and

Evaluation of a Method for Improving Public Participation in Environmental Decision Making. Risk Analysis, 24(2), 363-378. 19

B k U SlidBack Up Slides

Viewpoints on CCS 

•Mean participant CCS ratings were slightly favorableMean participant CCS ratings were slightly favorable• Compared to the scale midpoint (m=4.72, t=3.22, p<0.01) 

• Scale from 1 “completely oppose [CCS]” to 7 “completely favor [CCS]”

• Participants’ CCS favorability were not significantly correlated to their rankings of CCS‐inclusive technologies or portfoliotechnologies or portfolio 

•Spearman rank‐order correlations had p>0.01 for all

21

Materials – Portfolio Cost Comparison

22

Materials – Portfolio Pollution Comparison

23

Energy Portfoliosb l N li d V l R l ti t th B C

Portfolio Portfolio Make UpAbsolute Cost

Normalized Value Relative to the Base CaseCost CO2 NOX SOX PM Hg

Base Case 100% PC Plants $94 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00A: PC with CCS 

mix81% PC with CCS 19% PC Plants $124 1.32 0.30 1.23 0.20 0.72 1.25

mix 19% PC Plants 

B: IGCC with CCS mix

83% IGCC with CCS17% IGCC Plants $121 1.29 0.30 0.16 0.27 0.00 0.00

C: Nuclear mix 70% Advanced Nuclear30% PC Plants $126 1.34 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30

D: EPRI limitedportfolio, with no Nuclear or 

CCS

66% NGCC Plants13% Energy Efficiency10% Wind Power6% BIGCC Plants5% PV Solar Power

$165 1.76 0.30 0.16 0.01 0.00 0.00

E: EPRI semi‐limited portfolio, 

with CCS, but 

48% NGCC Plants33% IGCC with CCS13% Wind Power13% Energy Efficiency5% PC Plants 

$133 1.41 0.30 0.17 0.08 0.05 0.05

no Nuclear 1% PV Solar Power

F: EPRI full portfolio, with 

CCS and

25% IGCC with CCS21% Advanced Nuclear20% NGCC Plants17% PC Plants $114 1.21 0.30 0.25 0.20 0.17 0.17CCS and 

nuclear 10% Wind Power7% Energy Efficiency

G: NGCC and Wind mix

66% NGCC Plants34% Wind Power $150 1.60 0.30 0.12 0.00 0.00 0.00

24