Informed public opinions on CCS in comparison to other mitigation options

M. de Best-Waldhober; D. Daamen; C.A. Ramírez Ramírez; A.P.C. Faaij; C. Hendriks; Erika de Visser; S. Simöes; H. Cabal

doi:10.1016/j.egypro.2009.02.306

Informed public opinions on CCS in comparison to other mitigation options

M. de Best-Waldhober, D. Daamen, C.A. Ramírez Ramírez, A.P.C. Faaij, C. Hendriks, Erika de Visser, S. Simöes, H. Cabal

extern

Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › Academic › peer-review

Abstract

In this study, an Information-Choice Questionnaire (ICQ) was used to find out how a representative sample of the Dutch public (n =971) would evaluate and choose between seven mitigation options after having been thoroughly informed. The results suggest that due to the comparison with other mitigation options, people are less positive about CCS options. Still, only few respondents firmly reject the CCS options.

Original language	English
Pages (from-to)	4795-4802
Number of pages	8
Journal	Energy Procedia
Volume	1
Issue number	1
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egypro.2009.02.306
Publication status	Published - 2011

Bibliographical note

Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Greenhouse Gas Control Technologies (GHGT-9), 16–20 November 2008, Washington DC, USA

Access to Document

10.1016/j.egypro.2009.02.306

Embargoed Document

Waldhober
Final published version, 479 KB
Embargo ends: 1/01/50

Cite this

@article{b0f974718c464196b4e5116b73ac0fe9,

title = "Informed public opinions on CCS in comparison to other mitigation options",

abstract = "In this study, an Information-Choice Questionnaire (ICQ) was used to find out how a representative sample of the Dutch public (n =971) would evaluate and choose between seven mitigation options after having been thoroughly informed. The results suggest that due to the comparison with other mitigation options, people are less positive about CCS options. Still, only few respondents firmly reject the CCS options.",

author = "{de Best-Waldhober}, M. and D. Daamen and {Ram{\'i}rez Ram{\'i}rez}, C.A. and A.P.C. Faaij and C. Hendriks and {de Visser}, Erika and S. Sim{\"o}es and H. Cabal",

note = "Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Greenhouse Gas Control Technologies (GHGT-9), 16–20 November 2008, Washington DC, USA",

year = "2011",

doi = "10.1016/j.egypro.2009.02.306",

language = "English",

volume = "1",

pages = "4795--4802",

journal = "Energy Procedia",

issn = "1876-6102",

publisher = "Elsevier Ltd",

number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Informed public opinions on CCS in comparison to other mitigation options

AU - de Best-Waldhober, M.

AU - Daamen, D.

AU - Ramírez Ramírez, C.A.

AU - Faaij, A.P.C.

AU - Hendriks, C.

AU - de Visser, Erika

AU - Simöes, S.

AU - Cabal, H.

N1 - Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Greenhouse Gas Control Technologies (GHGT-9), 16–20 November 2008, Washington DC, USA

PY - 2011

Y1 - 2011

N2 - In this study, an Information-Choice Questionnaire (ICQ) was used to find out how a representative sample of the Dutch public (n =971) would evaluate and choose between seven mitigation options after having been thoroughly informed. The results suggest that due to the comparison with other mitigation options, people are less positive about CCS options. Still, only few respondents firmly reject the CCS options.

AB - In this study, an Information-Choice Questionnaire (ICQ) was used to find out how a representative sample of the Dutch public (n =971) would evaluate and choose between seven mitigation options after having been thoroughly informed. The results suggest that due to the comparison with other mitigation options, people are less positive about CCS options. Still, only few respondents firmly reject the CCS options.

U2 - 10.1016/j.egypro.2009.02.306

DO - 10.1016/j.egypro.2009.02.306

M3 - Article

SN - 1876-6102

VL - 1

SP - 4795

EP - 4802

JO - Energy Procedia

JF - Energy Procedia

IS - 1

ER -

Informed public opinions on CCS in comparison to other mitigation options

Abstract

Bibliographical note

Access to Document

Embargoed Document

Fingerprint

Cite this