Support for carbon capture is extensive but not strong, IU study finds

Sep 19, 2012

A solid majority of Indiana residents think it's a good idea to address concerns about climate change by capturing carbon dioxide from coal-burning power plants and storing it underground, according to a recently published study by Indiana University researchers.

But most Hoosiers didn't know about the approach, called carbon capture and storage, before being contacted for the study. And even after learning about it, a majority didn't have strong feelings pro or con—suggesting they will be open to persuasion by supporters and opponents of the technology.

were more likely to support carbon capture and storage if they believe that human activities contribute to , support increased use of renewable energy or have an "egalitarian" worldview. Respondents who called themselves political conservatives were more likely to oppose carbon capture and storage.

"Our study finds that initial perceptions are mostly favorable toward the deployment of CCS technology in Indiana and that respondents tend to shape their perceptions of CCS on their about climate change, energy, politics and equality," said Sanya Carley, lead author of the paper and an assistant professor in the School of Public and Environmental Affairs at IU Bloomington.

"But most respondents were not familiar with CCS before the survey was administered," she said. "While these findings suggest that Indiana residents will likely support CCS if factual information is provided about the technology, it may also suggest the possibility that respondents could be influenced to change their stance on CCS in the presence of more information on the pros or cons of the technology, especially if this information speaks to their personal beliefs."

The study, "Early Public Impressions of Terrestrial Carbon Capture and Storage in a Coal-Intensive State," was published in the journal . Co-authors are Rachel M. Krause, an IU SPEA alumna now at the University of Texas-El Paso; David C. Warren, a SPEA doctoral student; John A. Rupp, a research scientist at the Indiana Geological Survey; and SPEA Dean John D. Graham.

The study is the first state-level survey of perceptions of carbon capture and storage, and it is significant that it was conducted in a state that relies heavily on coal and where carbon capture and storage facilities would probably be sited. Developers of plants at Edwardsport, Ind., and Rockport, Ind., propose using CCS.

Carley said public opinion on carbon capture and storage can make or break deployment at the scale necessary to make a meaningful reduction in carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas that contributes to climate change. Several carbon capture and storage facilities have been canceled for economic reasons, but public opposition blocked a project in Germany.

The U.S. Department of Energy and coal and utility companies have generally favored carbon capture and storage, while environmental groups are divided, with some supporting it as an interim measure and others arguing for rejecting coal as an energy source. Other organizations may oppose the technology because they reject the idea that human activities cause climate change. As specific carbon capture and storage projects are proposed, supporters and opponents are likely to step up their efforts to win over public opinion.

The study included a two-wave survey of 1,000 adult Indiana residents in the summer of 2011. Respondents were initially contacted and interviewed by phone about politics, energy, climate change and related topics. Those who agreed to participate were mailed a one-page fact sheet and diagram about carbon capture and storage. They were then interviewed about CCS.

In the second interview, nearly three-fourths of respondents agreed that "storing underground is a good approach to protecting the environment." However, 80 percent had not heard of and storage before being contacted for the survey. And opinions tended to be lukewarm. Only 36 percent expressed "strong" support for or opposition to CCS, while a majority agreed or disagreed "somewhat" with the idea.

"People appear now to hold more intermediate views of CCS," Carley said. "Information could potentially sway these individuals toward a stronger pro or con position, which could eventually affect the viability of CCS deployment in the state."

Explore further: Dutch unveil big plan to fight rising tides

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Storage of carbon dioxide a vexed question

Sep 15, 2009

In Sweden alone, 52 million tons of carbon dioxide is emitted every year. To mitigate the negative impacts of greenhouse gases, carbon dioxide sequestration has come to the fore as a hot new method. However, the process is ...

Near Zero Emissions Coal study launched in Beijing

Nov 20, 2007

China’s CO2 emissions from using coal are set to double by 2030, the scale of which is significant in the context of mitigating global climate change. In view of the essential role of coal in China’s energy system, it ...

Recommended for you

Dutch unveil big plan to fight rising tides

3 hours ago

The Netherlands on Tuesday unveiled a multi-billion-euro, multi-decade plan to counter the biggest environmental threat to the low-lying European nation: surging seawater caused by global climate change.

Drought hits Brazil coffee harvest

6 hours ago

Coffee output in Brazil, the world's chief exporter, will slide this year after the worst drought in decades, agricultural agency Conab said Tuesday.

Landmark fracking study finds no water pollution

8 hours ago

The final report from a landmark federal study on hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, has found no evidence that chemicals or brine water from the gas drilling process moved upward to contaminate drinking water at one site ...

Politics divide coastal residents' views of environment

9 hours ago

From the salmon-rich waters of Southeast Alaska to the white sand beaches of Florida's Gulf Coast to Downeast Maine's lobster, lumber and tourist towns, coastal residents around the U.S. share a common characteristic: ...

User comments : 14

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Shootist
1 / 5 (2) Sep 19, 2012
What are you fretting greens going to do when a comet or asteroid impacts a carbonate shelf (limestone) and releases in seconds more carbon than man has in 10,000 years?

It has happened before. In fact is happens fairly often as such things go.

You do realize that all the carbon sequestered as coal, petroleum, limestone and natural gas was once in the atmosphere as CO2, yes?

And all of that sequestering was done within the last 500 million years (out of the 4.5 billion years the planet has been here), yes?

And the seas didn't boil away even though the atmosphere was FULL of CO2 for over 2 billion years before the appearance of aerobic life. And that aerobic life EMITS CO2 as a waste product?

If I were an alien being watching all of this I would think the genesis of such attitudes was one of control. Control over the means of production by the elite. Control obtained by scaring the spit out of a working class too concerned by making a living to question what the elites were saying
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (1) Sep 19, 2012
What are you fretting greens going to do when a comet or asteroid impacts a carbonate shelf (limestone) and releases in seconds more carbon than man has in 10,000 years?

What are you going to do if someone runs you over with a car? Is that a good argument for you to stop wearing your seatbelt right now? What kind of an inane argument is that?

It has happened before. In fact is happens fairly often as such things go.

That's an idiotic statement. Anything happens averagely often 'as such things go'. Because that's the point of saying 'as such things go'.

You do realize that all the carbon sequestered as coal, petroleum, limestone and natural gas was once in the atmosphere as CO2, yes?

And the world wasn't a very good place for humans when it was.
ScooterG
1 / 5 (3) Sep 19, 2012
This study is a clever "soft-probe" designed to help locate the best place in which to stick the financial knife. It (the study) clearly indicates the AWG shysters know full-well who will pick up the tab for the global warming "cures" - and that would be the average US consumer.

Notice Al Gore (the lead shyster with the enormous personal carbon footprint) was not mentioned as a subject of the study.
thermodynamics
3 / 5 (2) Sep 20, 2012
ScooterG: Is everything that has to do with AGW a conspiracy to you? Are you afraid that "they" are going to slither in one night and haul your money away? Do you even understand what CCS is and how it works? Does any of the science matter to you? Is your tin-foil hat on tight tonight?
ScooterG
1 / 5 (2) Sep 20, 2012
ScooterG: Is everything that has to do with AGW a conspiracy to you? Are you afraid that "they" are going to slither in one night and haul your money away? Do you even understand what CCS is and how it works? Does any of the science matter to you? Is your tin-foil hat on tight tonight?


thermodynamics: It's not a conspiracy, but rather a solid business plan specifically designed to capitalize on an easily-identifiable group of gullible chumps.

Funny..."follow the money" applies to everything but global warming - LOL

Please explain to me how much the AGW remedy will cost and where the money will come from? Please be specific.
thermodynamics
1 / 5 (1) Sep 20, 2012
ScooterG: I am sure that you won't be swayed by any numbers or studies, but I will take the time anyway. You said:
"Please explain to me how much the AGW remedy will cost and where the money will come from? Please be specific." I will, instead point you to the literature that spell out the costs for the various technologies to implement CCS.

Start here with analyses of specific costs for the various technologies that are used for CCS:

http://netl.doe.g...ult.aspx

Here is the source for renewable calculations:

http://www.nrel.gov/

There are organizations and innitiaves trying to do a better job of implementing CCS:

http://www.future...project/

And there are industry coalitions that have estimated the costs:

http://www.americ...y-future

I assume you will not even look at these resources and, instead, continue your monolog.
ScooterG
1 / 5 (2) Sep 21, 2012
I assume you will not even look at these resources and, instead, continue your monolog.


I looked at all of them. Without exception, they all accept the entire global warming theory. They're biased and cannot be relied upon to provide accurate information. Additionally, they would all benefit monetarily if/when money is extolled from the chumps.

Follow the money, follow the money, follow the money!

If global warming jihadistas want to be believd now, they should not have lied to us prior. You jihadistas are known for the company you keep. I'd suggest you police your own, drop the radical islam-like attitude, and maybe someday you can restore some credibility to your cause.

Nice try thermodynamics - but, as they say "a swing-and-a-miss".
thermodynamics
1 / 5 (1) Sep 21, 2012

I looked at all of them. Without exception, they all accept the entire global warming theory. They're biased and cannot be relied upon to provide accurate information. Additionally, they would all benefit monetarily if/when money is extolled from the chumps.

Follow the money, follow the money, follow the money!

If global warming jihadistas want to be believd now, they should not have lied to us prior. You jihadistas are known for the company you keep. I'd suggest you police your own, drop the radical islam-like attitude, and maybe someday you can restore some credibility to your cause.

Nice try thermodynamics - but, as they say "a swing-and-a-miss".

So, you are saying that any organization that has any monetary income associated with the investigation of the science and engineering of carbon mitigation can't be trusted. Who does that leave? Even Anthony Watt takes congributions from denailists. What is his motive? (continued)
thermodynamics
1 / 5 (1) Sep 21, 2012
You also bring up the shill topic of you being lied to. Please point out when and what was said. If you are talking about "Climate gate" that has been covered and found to be truthful. Please be specific about what you think you have been lied to on? My bet is you will come back and say that all of the investigations into the "lies" have been biased and corrupt. Only you are good enough to know the truth. I'm sorry, but you are not good enough to know the truth and you are arrogant and uneducated. You must be a very angry, frightened person with so many conspiracy theories running around in your ignorant head.
ScooterG
1 / 5 (2) Sep 22, 2012
I'm sorry, but you are not good enough to know the truth and you are arrogant and uneducated. You must be a very angry, frightened person with so many conspiracy theories running around in your ignorant head.


There must be hundreds of claims/websites out there that discredit AGW - educate yourself. As I mentioned early on, all I really need to know is who sits at the helm of the AGW ship.
I'm not angry, certainly not frightened. I don't wish to give over a big chunk of my take-home pay to known hucksters who are leading a group of emotionally-driven, illogical radicals.

When it comes to AGW, you people have thrown your discernment and common sense in the trash can.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (1) Sep 22, 2012
There must be hundreds of claims/websites out there that discredit AGW


Oooh. Websites. With angry bloggers.

Yep: The scientific data and the scientific groups from more than 100 nations must surely all all be a scam. Guys posting from their basements are certainly the people who know what's going on.

You may not be frightened...but you certainly have lost all touch with reality.
thermodynamics
2.3 / 5 (3) Sep 22, 2012
ScooterG: You said: "As I mentioned early on, all I really need to know is who sits at the helm of the AGW ship."

That is where you show up as some conspiracy believeing, ignorant, paranoid. THERE IS NO ONE IN CHARGE! Instead, it is science. It is carried out at every university I am aware of (except maybe church based schools), it is carried out by every government (including those that don't talk to each other), it is carried out by industry, it is carried out by Utilities. It has symposiums, meetings, and published papers. Scientists wring out all the information they can from the data. Those who learn new things publish and get credit. So, who is at the end of the trail of the money? No one! Get your act together your conspiracy theory is worthy of checking youself into a mental ward with the rest of those who need help. Fear drives people like you who are looking over their shoulders for someone sneaking up on them to take their money.
ScooterG
1 / 5 (1) Sep 22, 2012
THERE IS NO ONE IN CHARGE!


Apparently I know some things you don't know.

Don't ask - it's out there if you dig for it.

thermodynamics
1 / 5 (1) Sep 23, 2012
ScooterG: Oh, please tell me it is the Illuminati and they are running the world from their fortress under the North Poll. I can't wait to hear who put at the end of your money trail.