Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Assessing the social acceptance of key technologies for the German energy transition

Assessing the social acceptance of key technologies for the German energy transition Background: The widespread use of sustainable energy technologies is a key element in the transformation of the energy system from fossil-based to zero-carbon. In line with this, technology acceptance is of great importance as resistance from the public can slow down or hinder the construction of energy technology projects. The current study assesses the social acceptance of three energy technologies relevant for the German energy transition: stationary bat- tery storage, biofuel production plants and hydrogen fuel station. Methods: An online survey was conducted to examine the public’s general and local acceptance of energy tech- nologies. Explored factors included general and local acceptance, public concerns, trust in relevant stakeholders and attitudes towards financial support. Results: The results indicate that general acceptance for all technologies is slightly higher than local acceptance. In addition, we discuss which public concerns exist with regard to the respective technologies and how they are more strongly associated with local than general acceptance. Further, we show that trust in stakeholders and attitudes towards financial support is relatively high across the technologies discussed. Conclusions: Taken together, the study provides evidence for the existence of a “general–local” gap, despite measur- ing general and local acceptance at the same level of specificity using a public sample. In addition, the collected data can provide stakeholders with an overview of worries that might need to be addressed when planning to implement a certain energy project. Keywords: Technology acceptance, Energy transition, Sustainability, Hydrogen fuel station, Battery storage, Biofuel production plant Background to 2030 [1]. To reach the German Federal Government’s In June 2021, the German Federal Government agreed goal of achieving net-zero C O emissions until 2045, an on an amendment to the Climate Change Act, aiming increased use of renewable energies, efficient energy for climate neutrality by 2045. Pulling forward the pre- use as well as sector coupling are necessary [2]. To facil- vious target by 5 years, the government aims to reduce itate the integration of renewable energy sources and emission by 65% by 2030 and introduced a new target of to ensure a stable provision of energy to industry and an 88% reduction by 2040. These ambitious targets also society, the energy system transformation relies on new affect the CO reduction targets in individual sectors, and emerging technologies. Even though technical fac- including the transport, energy and building sector up tors ultimately determine to which degree different sec - tors can be decarbonized, non-technical factors such as cost, potential environmental impacts, regulation, pub- *Correspondence: marcel.weil@kit.edu lic acceptance and consumer choices will determine the Institute for Technology Assessment and Systems Analysis (ITAS), level of actual progress [3]. In line with this, the cur- Karlsruhe Institute of Technology (KIT ), Karlsruhe, Germany Full list of author information is available at the end of the article rent study focuses on assessing citizen’s perception of © The Author(s) 2022. Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http:// creat iveco mmons. org/ licen ses/ by/4. 0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http:// creat iveco mmons. org/ publi cdoma in/ zero/1. 0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data. Baur et al. Energy, Sustainability and Society (2022) 12:4 Page 2 of 16 three energy technologies by examining their public Emerging technologies in the energy sector acceptance. While active acceptance or public support Energy scenarios, which describe possible future devel- [4] of emergent technologies can facilitate political sup- opments of the energy system, can help to discern under port and incentivize industry and government to invest which conditions and with which measures the goals as further in their development [5, 6], opposition to new laid out in the Climate Change act can be achieved. More technologies can result in project delays or even cancel- specifically, energy scenarios help to explore which tech - ling entire energy infrastructure projects [7]. nology options (and combinations) as well as regulatory Generally, representative opinion polls show that measures can significantly contribute to the achievement the public is in favor of the energy transition and new of climate targets. energy technologies in Germany [8]. However, resist- Germany’s ambitious emission reduction targets can- ance sometimes arises when concrete projects are to not be achieved equally well in all sectors [16]. For be realized, such as in the case of power lines or wind instance, reducing emissions in the industrial sector will farms [9–11]. In the past, this phenomenon of peo- be more difficult than in the electric power sector. The ple approving of energy technologies in general while electric power sector currently accounts for a large share opposing local energy infrastructure projects has been of energy-related CO emissions in Germany [3]. To date, referred to as the “not in my backyard” (nimby) phe- the focus for decarbonizing the power sector has been nomenon [12, 13]. Recent research has proven nimby on increasing the share of renewable energies. Achieving explanations to be too simplistic to explain the motiva- this will require better integration in the electricity, heat tions for opposition to energy projects [14], and has put and transport sector, infrastructure changes as well as the forward some recommendations to examine whether a development of storage technologies to mitigate power general–local gap actually exists, which we will outline intermittency of renewable energy sources [3, 16]. While further below. up to a share of around 40–60% of renewable energy, the The present research was conducted within the Helm - need for increased flexibility in the German electricity holtz “Energy System 2050” initiative, which explores system can be covered by flexibility options other than the integration of technological key elements into the new electricity storage, full integration of renewables energy system and develops solutions to integrate the into the electricity system is increasingly more difficult fluctuating renewable energies such as wind or solar when the share of renewables increases further [17]. power successfully into German and European energy With renewables averaging a share of 47.5% of electricity systems. The objective of the work was to gain insights production in August 2021 [18], the need for new energy into the acceptance of energy storage technology as storage will increase over the next years. Currently, the well as technologies for energy carrier utilization. More majority of installed large-scale energy storage comprises specifically, three technologies that are discussed in the pumped hydro-storage power [19]. Given the fact that Climate Action Program 2030 by the German govern- pumped hydro-storage facilities alone cannot cover the ment [15] are studied: amount of needed storage capacity alone, the need for increased storage capacity will have to be (partly) cov- ered by a mixture of storage technologies such as battery • grid-scale stationary battery storage systems, storage, thermal storage or hydrogen covering different • biofuel production plants and services. Battery storage is expected to play an increas- • hydrogen refueling stations. ingly important role in adapting the grid on a decentral level when connecting new renewables such as wind and To better understand the public’s view of these new solar power plants to smooth out production peaks [17, technologies, both general and local acceptance are 20], and the market for battery storage is expected to assessed. Additionally, we assess key variables that have grow, with annual additions of storage capacity by battery been shown to influence public acceptance, namely storage being expected to overtake annual additions by trust in stakeholders, public concerns and attitudes pumped hydro-storage by 2023 [21]. Given the fact that towards financial support for the technologies. By battery storage is expected to play an increasingly impor- doing so, we will (1) assess whether a general–local tant role in the energy transition, grid-scale battery stor- gap exists with regard to the three energy technolo- age will be one of the technologies in focus of the current gies chosen and (2) assess how public concerns are study. related to acceptance. Below, we first briefly introduce With regard to renewables, wind energy, solar energy the technologies that are in focus of the current study and biomass currently play a key role in the German by reviewing current energy system scenarios. Sub- energy system. Most scenario analyses expect espe- sequently, we introduce factors relevant for the social cially on- and offshore wind and solar energy to cover acceptance of energy technologies. Baur  et al. Energy, Sustainability and Society (2022) 12:4 Page 3 of 16 the largest share of the total energy consumption in the the use of battery storage as virtual power lines, aim- future [3, 22–24]. The use of biomass on the other hand ing to reduce the need to build new transmission lines is debated since it is not regarded as justifiable to grow by storing excess wind and solar power in batteries [34, crops as biomass for energy production due to competi- 35]. Overall, research on the acceptance of battery stor- tion for arable land and potential negative environmental age systems is still relatively sparse, which emphasizes impacts [20, 22]. In line with this, many scenario analyses the necessity to conduct research on the acceptance of expect only biomass that comes from waste and residues the technology. Most existing studies indicate that peo- to be used in the future, which is why the contribution ple hold positive attitudes towards battery storage tech- of biomass as an energy source is considered limited in nologies overall [36–39]. On the other hand, qualitative the future energy system [22, 23]. Even though signifi - research also points towards the fact that there are vari- cant differences exists with regard to the expected share ous public concerns with regard to the technology that of bioenergy in the energy system, biomass and biofuels might decrease acceptance of battery storage in a local are nevertheless expected to be continued to be used to a context [37]. More specifically, participants perceived certain extent, as the direct use of electricity from renew- battery storage as inappropriate on some landscapes, able energy is not the most efficient and environmentally raised concerns about the loss of living space due to the friendly way of supplying energy in all consumption sec- technology and mentioned the risk of fire and explo - tors [25, 26]. In the mobility sector and industry, liquid or sion as safety concerns. Due to the nature of the quali- gaseous energy carriers will probably remain necessary, a tative research, it however remains unclear how public demand that will likely partly be met by biomass. In line concerns and general and local acceptance relate to each with this, one of the technologies studied in the current other, which calls for a more thorough investigation of paper are biofuel production plants. acceptance on different levels. A second energy carrier that is expected to significantly contribute to meeting the demand for fuel and raw mate- Biofuel production plants rials in the industrial and mobility sectors is hydrogen [3, To date, biomass is one of the most important and flex - 22, 27]. As outlined in Germany’s hydrogen strategy [27], ible renewable energy source in Germany. Regionally only hydrogen that has been produced using renewable available biomass is used in solid, liquid and gaseous energy (green hydrogen) is considered to be sustainable. form to generate electricity and heat and to produce Up to date, green hydrogen is not yet widely used, but is biofuels, making biomass a very versatile energy carrier. expected to be established as a decarbonization option. This way, the use of bioenergy can contribute to ensuring For instance, green hydrogen could replace the fossil- energy supply security and compensate for fluctuations based hydrogen that is currently used in many chemi- caused by other renewable energy sources [40]. Further- cal and industrial processes. In addition, hydrogen is more, biofuels can play a valuable role in reducing carbon expected to play a key role for sector coupling as well as dioxide emissions and are often considered as carbon a fuel in transport. As the public will likely be exposed to emission neutral [41, 42], as the carbon  dioxide that is hydrogen infrastructure in the transport sector the most, released when biofuels are burned is equal to the carbon we investigate the acceptance of hydrogen refueling sta- dioxide that is absorbed by the biomass during its growth tions as one of the key technologies in the current study. [43]. With biofuels having gained increasing importance Below, we will discuss the three chosen technologies in in the field of renewable energies, analyzing its pub - more detail and shortly review past research on the social lic importance is a key issue. For biofuel projects, local acceptance of the technologies. opposition is an issue that can cause project delays and interrupt operations [44, 45]. Residents living nearby a Stationary battery storage systems (SBS) biofuel production plant oftentimes report having to put Large-scale energy storage is essential for the successful up with odor and noise emissions induced by the plant implementation of the energy transition as it can mitigate [46, 47], which can influence acceptance. the fluctuating output from renewable energy by storing excess electricity that is produced and by discharging it Hydrogen fuel stations when demand is high [28, 29]. This way, energy storage The German national hydrogen strategy [27] assigns systems enable an increased share of renewable energies hydrogen a key role in facilitating the energy transi- in the electrical grid while simultaneously increasing the tion. By replacing fossil fuel use in transport, the use of resilience and security of supply at the local level [30, 31]. hydrogen as an energy carrier can reduce air pollution in This can reduce, defer or prevent a cost-intensive and cities and the dependence on fossil fuels, provided that locally undesirable expansion of the electricity grid [32, electrical energy from renewable energy sources such 33]. France’s grid operator RTE for instance is piloting as wind energy or solar power is used for production Baur et al. Energy, Sustainability and Society (2022) 12:4 Page 4 of 16 via electrolysis [48]. The main advantage of hydrogen is have referred to as “acceptability” [57]. Acceptance of that once produced and stored, it can generate electrical energy technology can be assessed on both a general and power in a fuel cell, emitting only water vapor and warm local level. Acceptance on a general level is sometimes air instead of harmful carbon dioxide and nitrogen oxide referred to as socio-political acceptance and encompasses emissions. Also, hydrogen can be used as an intermediate acceptance of technologies and policies by the public, by energy carrier for various power to x paths to produce, key stakeholders and by policy-makers [64]. In the cur- e.g., methane, methanol or ammonia [49]. However, the rent study, we will focus on acceptance of technologies production, storage and use of hydrogen still requires by the public. General acceptance is usually assessed as great efforts and large investments in the necessary the general attitude towards an energy technology, which technology infrastructure before it can be rolled out on is what is most commonly measured in public opin- a wide scale [50]. u Th s, hydrogen is currently still a very ion polls [65]. However, as energy projects have shown, expensive energy carrier to use in industrial settings [51]. general acceptance is not necessarily predictive of local With regard to research on citizen’s perception of hydro- acceptance of energy projects and resistance towards gen, studies report low public awareness and knowledge technologies can occur despite surveys indicating that a of hydrogen and associated technologies such as fuel cells technology is generally approved of. In line with this, the [52] and inconsistent results with regard to the accept- relationship between general and local acceptance has ance of hydrogen technologies. While some studies sug- been the subject of some discussion within research, with gest that there is widespread support for hydrogen’s critics arguing that using representative opinion poll data development as a fuel and concerns with safety risks are to indicate acceptance towards a technology is painting a rather low [53], other studies report hydrogen technolo- skewed picture [65]. Similarly, other research argues that gies such as hydrogen fuel stations receiving opposition even though people may be inclined to express positive or low acceptance from citizens [54–56]. More specifi - attitudes towards renewables, this does not necessarily cally, studies showed that people have mixed attitudes indicate their actual opinion about the issue [13]. Fur- concerning the safety and storage of hydrogen near resi- thermore, local acceptance may be much more depend- dential areas [54], that intentions to act against hydrogen ent on case- and project-specific variables, instead of facilities is more strongly based on moral considerations general attitudes towards an energy technology [66]. than on self-interest [55] and that the further the distance Additionally, some research critique that many studies between fuel station and dwelling, the more accepting that examines the “general–local gap” or “national–local people are of the technology [56]. gap” as they call it oftentimes draws upon two non-corre- spondent dimensions [14]. More specifically, acceptance Exploring factors influencing the acceptance of energy or attitudes towards energy technologies in general are technologies usually examined at a public or national level, which are Previous studies on the acceptance of energy technolo- then compared with the local level, namely acceptance gies have shown that factors such as perceived risks and or attitudes towards energy technologies near the place benefits, trust, perceived fairness and personal norms where people live (e.g., a specific town). To determine influence attitudes and behaviors towards technologies whether a general–local acceptance gap actually exists, [57–61]. In the following, we will shortly introduce the the authors recommend to measure responses regarding factors examined in the current study. general and local acceptance at the same level of specific - ity, a suggestions that we adopt in the current study. The General vs local acceptance authors furthermore suggest adopting a place-based per- Public acceptance is a key factor in the diffusion of sus - spective rather than a spatial perspective when assessing tainable energy technologies [62]. While active accept- local acceptance using a local sample. In this way, studies ance or public support of emergent technologies can could better focus on how individuals and groups living facilitate political support and incentivize industry and in different places make sense of energy infrastructures government to invest further in their development [4, and respond to it by taking into account their relation- 5], opposition to new technologies can result in project ships with and feelings about those places. As we only delays or even cancelling entire energy infrastructure measure acceptance using a national/public sample in the projects [6]. Various definitions and understandings exist current study to assess general acceptance and accept- with regard to the term “acceptance”, with some studies ance of technologies close to people’s homes at the same referring to attitudes when talking about acceptance [63], level of specificity, this recommendation does not con - while other studies refer to attitudes as “acceptability”. In cern the measures in the current study. Last, the authors the current study, we define the term acceptance as atti - suggest assessing more than simply attitudes towards tudes towards a technology, which some previous studies energy technologies and to include other additional Baur  et al. Energy, Sustainability and Society (2022) 12:4 Page 5 of 16 variables such as trust or the perceived outcomes of attitudes for financial support can serve as another indi - energy infrastructures when consulting a national/public cator towards support for new technologies. As attitudes sample. We follow this recommendation and explain our towards financial support/funding are examined on a choice of further variables below. general level (i.e., not for an energy project in a certain location), we expect attitudes towards financial support/ Public concerns funding to be associated with general acceptance but not Research has shown that perceived risks and benefits local acceptance. play an important role when it comes to public accept- ance of technologies [57, 67–69]. Most studies exam- Methods ine risks and benefits on a rather general level, such as We created an online survey to examine the factors that by asking respondents how useful, positive or safe they influence the social acceptance of energy technologies. judge the technologies [70]. Risks and benefits assessed First, the participants received a one-page description of in this way have been shown to be (in)directly associated one of the technologies, including a picture of the tech- with general and local energy technology acceptance [70, nology. This way, we wanted to ensure that participants 71]. Some studies however recommend placing the focus had a common knowledge base to evaluate the technolo- on specific costs and benefits perceived by local residents gies. Subsequently, different factors that may influence when studying the local acceptance of energy technolo- energy technology acceptance were examined. Explored gies [47] as local acceptance can be much more depend- factors included public concerns, knowledge about the ent on project-specific variables [66]. For instance, in technologies, perceived problems of the current energy the case of biogas, unpleasant smells are a cost associ- system, trust in industry and municipality, affect, and ated with local acceptance [47], whereas for wind energy, environmental self-identity. In the current paper, we will the visual impacts of the technology have been shown report results on the factors public concerns, trust in to be associated with local acceptance [72]. In line with stakeholders (industry and municipality), financial sup - this reasoning, we assess which specific public concerns port and acceptance (general and local). Additionally, are perceived with regard to the three technologies and we assessed both general and public acceptance of the examine whether they are more strongly associated with three technologies. All items were answered on 5-point local compared to general acceptance. Likert scales. Data were collected by distributing the survey via the open scientific survey panel “SoSci Panel” Trust in stakeholders as well as social media channels. The survey was com - When technologies are still relatively unknown, public pleted by 1247 participants, with the participants being acceptance is strongly influenced by trust in stakehold - about equally distributed across the three technologies ers, as lay judgements of a technology may be based on (hydrogen fuel stations n = 409, biofuel production plants assessments of those who are responsible for the tech- n = 416 and stationary battery storage n = 422). nology and who are deemed technical experts [73, 74]. Generally, trust in stakeholders responsible for the tech- Measurements nology is associated with higher acceptance of the tech- Public concerns Public concerns with regard to the three nology. Several studies have examined the role of trust in energy technologies were measured with one ques- stakeholders and have found that it can influence accept - tion [Which of the effects listed below do you fear when ance via both perceived risks and benefits of a technol - using such systems?]. Based on input from expert inter- ogy as well as affective responses towards a technology. views as well as the literature, seven public concerns were For instance, a study on hydrogen systems found that included as answer possibilities, with an additional open people who had a negative evaluation of trust in stake- text field to mention any additional concerns [electros - holders and negative affective spontaneous associations mog, odor pollution, noise pollution, air pollution, fire perceived more risks and fewer benefits of the technol - hazard, risk of explosion, negative impact on the land- ogy [75]. Similarly, a study on the acceptance of C O stor- scape or urban landscape, other—if you fear "other" effects age found that people’s attitudes towards the technology under the previous question, you are welcome to tell us were mainly based on trust and affective reactions [73]. about them.]. The same answer options were presented independent of which technology the participants were Attitudes towards financial support/funding asked to evaluate. This way, we wanted to ensure not to Last, we will examine attitudes towards financial support/ steer the participants by only providing concerns com- funding. Technologies that receive funding or financial monly associated with a certain technology. support from the government are more likely to be rolled Attitude towards financial support Attitudes towards out on a broader scale in the future. Therefore, assessing financial support for the technologies were measured Baur et al. Energy, Sustainability and Society (2022) 12:4 Page 6 of 16 with one item [I approve that such plants are financially measure general and local acceptance at the same level of supported], which was answered on a 5-point Likert scale specificity when using a national/public sample, as rec - [1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree]. ommended by Batel and Devine-Wright [14]. Trust in stakeholders Trust in industry was measured with three items: I trust that the governmental authori- Results ties will: (1) ensure that safe technology plants will be Socio‑demographic profile built; (2) have the relevant expertise to successfully Out of 1247 respondents, 52% were male and 47% female, build a safe technology plant; (3) will operate the plant the gender of 1% of the respondents is unknown. Most safely [1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree]. Trust in of the participants had a high educational level, 67% had municipality was measured with four items: I trust that attained a university degree and 23% had completed high the governmental authorities will (1) take the concerns school. About half of the participants were in employ- of residents into account; (2) make a responsible decision ment (55%), while students represented the second most on whether or not to build the technology; (3) ensure frequently named profession (21%). The median category that safe technology plants will be built; (4) execute given for age was 40–49 years (see Fig. 1). As the sample safety checks to ensure the safe operation of the plant contained a large share of participants holding a univer- [1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree]. sity degree, the data are not fully representative of the Acceptance General acceptance was measured with German population in this regard [76]. the item “Overall, I rate such systems as…” [1 = very negative, 5 = very positive], whereas local acceptance was Public concerns measures with the item “I have no problem with the con- The most frequently mentioned concerns differed with struction of such a facility next to my place of residence.” regard to the nature of the respective technologies (see [1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree]. In this way, we Fig.  2). For stationary battery storage systems, the most Fig. 1 Participants’ socio-demographic profile Baur  et al. Energy, Sustainability and Society (2022) 12:4 Page 7 of 16 Fig. 2 Public concerns regarding stationary battery storage, biofuel production plants and hydrogen refueling stations frequently mentioned concerns included fire hazards biomass from tropical forests, endangerment of natural (56%) and explosion hazards (51%). About a third of the humus formation), concerns related to traffic (increased participants were also concerned about electrosmog traffic volume leading to higher air and nose pollution (32%) and of battery storage plants having a negative and overcrowded roads) as well as concerns related to impact on the landscape and cityscape (28%). The least land use and the usefulness of the technology (cultiva- frequently mentioned concerns included noise pollu- tion of crops for biomass will lead to an imbalance in the tions (20%), smell pollution (2%) and air pollution (2%). use of raw materials, monocultures and competition with Additional concerns that were provided by the partici- organic food production). pants in the empty text field included concerns about the With regard to hydrogen refueling stations, explosion environmental impact of the technology (production and hazards (64%) and fire hazards (37%) were the most fre - disposal, unsustainable raw materials, impairment of for quently mentioned concerns. Furthermore, about a quar- a and fauna), concerns about costs related the use of the ter of the participants mentioned noise pollution (25%) technology (disposal costs, decline in land and property and a negative impact on the landscape and cityscape values, high taxes) as well as safety and health concerns, (19%) as concerns, whereas electrosmog (4%), smell pol- which were related to the answer possibilities already lution (4%) and air pollution (3%) were barely mentioned provided (health risks from electromagnetic fields, severe as concerns. Additional concerns that were provided by fires and toxic smoke, risk of accidents). With regard to the participants in the empty text field included con - biofuel production plants, over two-thirds of the par- cerns about the costs related to the use of the technol- ticipants were concerned about smell pollution (78%), ogy (high production costs of hydrogen, failing property whereas the second most frequently mentioned concerns values), environmental concerns (consequences on the included noise pollution (48%) and a negative impact on water economy, noise pollution, threat to flora and fauna, the landscape and cityscape (44%). Air pollution (23%), consequences of the haze and increased humidity), safety explosion hazards (20%) and fire hazards (19%) were concerns (target for terrorist attacks, risk of explosion), mentioned as concerns about equally often, while elec- as well as concerns regarding the usefulness of the tech- trosmog (3%) was only mentioned by a small percentage nology (use of fossil fuels for hydrogen production, con- of the participants. Additional concerns that were pro- tinuation of current transport concept with emphasis on vided by the participants in the empty text field included individual transport). concerns about the costs related to the use of the tech- nology (increased land prices and prices of other biomass Trust in stakeholders product such as animal feed and food, monopolization of With regard to trust in stakeholders, the majority of arable land), environmental concerns (pollution of land, respondents across the three technologies indicated to water and air due to high methane load and the import of trust the industry and municipalities (see Fig.  3). While Baur et al. Energy, Sustainability and Society (2022) 12:4 Page 8 of 16 Fig. 3 Trust in industry and municipality with regard to the potential construction of stationary battery storage, biofuel production plants and hydrogen refueling stations the percentages of participants who indicated to strongly rather agreed to this. Last, for hydrogen refueling sta- agree ranged between 13 and 15% for both trust in indus- tions, 28% of respondents were strongly in favor of finan - try and municipality across the technologies, around 50% cial support towards the technology, while 51% were of participants indicated to rather agree with regard to rather in support of this. For all three technologies, only trusting the industry (46% for stationary battery storage, few respondents (less than 10%) were against the tech- 43% for biofuel production plants, 48% for hydrogen refu- nologies receiving financial support. About 12–18% of eling stations) and municipality (47% for stationary bat- respondents indicated to be undecided about whether tery storage, 47% for biofuel production plants, 56% for the technologies should be financially supported. hydrogen refueling stations). Relatively few respondents indicated not to have trust in the industry and munici- Public acceptance of emerging technologies palities. Noticeably, a rather large share of participants Overall, the three technologies were evaluated as fairly seemed to be undecided about whether they trusted the positive, meaning that general acceptance of all three relevant stakeholders. With regard to trust in industry, technologies is high (see Fig. 5). With regard to stationary 28–30% of participants indicated to be undecided about battery storage, 37% of the participants indicated to per- whether they trusted industry stakeholders (28% for ceive the technology as very positive. Biofuel production stationary battery storage, 30% for biofuel production plants were evaluated as very positive by 16% of the par- plants, 28% for hydrogen refueling stations). With regard ticipants, whereas hydrogen refueling stations were rated to trust in municipalities, the percentages were very simi- as very positive by 25% of the participants. Furthermore, lar, with 25–30% of participants indicating to be unde- for all three technologies, about half of the participants cided (30% for stationary battery storage, 29% for biofuel evaluated the technologies as rather positive (48% for sta- production plants, 25% for hydrogen refueling stations). tionary battery storage systems, 58% for biofuel produc- tion plants, 50% for hydrogen refueling stations). Only Attitude towards financial support few participants indicated to perceive the technologies Most participants had rather positive attitudes towards negatively. For both biofuel production plants and hydro- financial support for the three technologies (see Fig.  4). gen refueling stations, about a fifth of the participants For stationary battery storage, the majority of respond- were undecided with regard to the technologies (17% for ents either strongly (45%) or rather agreed (30%) to the biofuel production plants, 20% for hydrogen refueling technology to be financially supported. For biofuel pro - stations). With regard to stationary battery storage, only duction plants, 18% of respondents strongly agreed to 10% of respondents indicated to be undecided about the the technology to be financially supported, whereas 50% technology. Baur  et al. Energy, Sustainability and Society (2022) 12:4 Page 9 of 16 Fig. 4 Attitudes towards financial support for the three energy technologies stationary battery storage, biofuel production plants and hydrogen refueling stations Fig. 5 General acceptance of stationary battery storage, biofuel production plants and hydrogen refueling stations When asking the participants whether they would stations). Between 9 and 18% of the participants indi- accept the technology to be placed near their homes cated to rather disagree with regard to the technologies (local acceptance), the participant’s responses were being placed close to their homes (13% for stationary slightly less positive than when asked about whether battery storage systems, 18% for biofuel production they would accept the technologies in general (see plants, and 9% for hydrogen refueling stations). Only Fig.  6). With regard to stationary battery storage sys- a small percentage of participants strongly disagreed tems, 37% strongly agreed to accept the technologies to with having one of the technologies in the vicinity of be placed close to their homes, for biofuel production their homes. Last, with regard to all three technologies, plants, 16% strongly agreed and for hydrogen refueling about a fifth of the participants were undecided about stations, 25% strongly agreed. Furthermore, around whether they would accept the technologies close to 40% of the participants indicated to rather agree to this their homes (21% for stationary battery storage sys- (39% for stationary battery storage systems, 41% for tems, 21% for biofuel production plants, and 20% for biofuel production plants, 42% for hydrogen refueling hydrogen refueling stations). Baur et al. Energy, Sustainability and Society (2022) 12:4 Page 10 of 16 Fig. 6 Local acceptance of stationary battery storage, biofuel production plants and hydrogen refueling stations Table 1 Bivariate correlations (Spearman’s rank order) between Table 2 Bivariate correlations (Spearman’s rank order) between public concerns and financial support, general acceptance and public concerns and financial support, general acceptance and local acceptance for stationary battery storage local acceptance for biofuel production plants General acceptance Local acceptance General acceptance Local acceptance Electrosmog − 0.002 − 0.338** Electrosmog − 0.006 − 0.120* Smell pollution − 0.044 − 0.073 Smell pollution 0.114* − 0.059 Noise pollution − 0.048 − 0.176** Noise pollution 0.039 − 0.171** Air pollution − 0.088 − 0.145** Air pollution − 0.125* − 0.241** Fire hazard − 0.114* − 0.125* Fire hazard 0.001 − 0.064 Explosion hazard − 0.074 − 0.204** Explosion hazard 0.026 − 0.048 Negative impact on land- − 0.081 − 0.235** Negative impact on land- − 0.054 − 0.294** scape and cityscape scape and cityscape Financial support 0.595** 0.217** Financial support 0.604** 0.345** General acceptance – 0.361** General acceptance – 0.380** *p < 0.05 *p < 0.05 **p < 0.01 **p < 0.01 Associations between public concerns, public acceptance p < 0.001) were found (see Table 1). For biofuel produc- and financial support tion plants, moderate association between local accept- To look at the relationship between public concerns ance and air pollution (r = − 0.241, p < 0.001) as well as and acceptance, Spearman’s rank correlation coeffi - negative impact on the landscape and cityscape (r =− cients were examined. No associations between public 0.294, p < 0.001) were found (see Table 2). For hydrogen concerns and general acceptance were found, except for refueling stations (see Table 3), the only moderate asso- few weak associations (r < 0.2) that are not reported in ciation between local acceptance and a public concern detail here. On the other hand, some moderate asso- was found for explosion hazard (r = − 0.223, p < 0.001). ciations (r > 0.2) between public concerns and local Additionally, we examined the correlations between acceptance were found. For stationary battery storage public acceptance and financial support for the energy systems, moderate association between local accept- technologies. Across all technologies, financial sup - ance and electrosmog (r = −  0.338, p < 0.001), explo- port and general acceptance were strongly correlated sion hazard (r = −  0.204, p < 0.001) and negative (r = 0.595, p < 0.001 for stationary battery storage sys- impact on the landscape and cityscape (r = −  0.235, tems, r = 0.604, p < 0.001 for biofuel production plants, s Baur  et al. Energy, Sustainability and Society (2022) 12:4 Page 11 of 16 Table 3 Bivariate correlations (Spearman’s rank order) between the most commonly mentioned concern in our study public concerns and financial support, general acceptance and was smell pollution, followed by noise pollution and the local acceptance for hydrogen refueling stations technology having a negative impact on the landscape and cityscape. These concerns go in line with previous General acceptance Local acceptance studies conducted in Switzerland and Austria. In a study Electrosmog − 0.132** − 0.150** on the local acceptance of existing biogas plants in Swit- Smell pollution − 0.095 − 0.106* zerland [47], the authors found that smell perception Noise pollution − 0.060 − 0.114* influences acceptance indirectly via perceived benefits Air pollution − 0.154** − 0.128** and risks as well as trust. Furthermore, results of a study Fire hazard − 0.053 − 0.153** based on expert interviews indicate that low acceptance Explosion hazard − 0.069 − 0.223** of biogas plants in Austria is related to complaints about Negative impact on land- − 0.107* − 0.156** high levels of smell, noise and traffic by residents, which scape and cityscape can result in planned projects having to be scaled down Financial support 0.560** 0.340** or shut down [77]. A concern not commonly reported General acceptance – 0.333** in previous studies was biofuel production plants hav- *p < 0.05 ing a negative impact on the landscape. Potentially, the **p < 0.01 visual impact of energy infrastructure increasingly con- cerns citizens as more and more new energy infrastruc- ture is introduced as the energy transition progresses. For and r = 0.560, p < 0.001 for hydrogen refueling sta- s hydrogen fuel stations, the most frequently reported con- tions). Furthermore, financial support was moderately cerns were explosion hazards and fire hazards, followed correlated with local acceptance (r = 0.217, p < 0.001 s by noise pollution and the technology having a negative for stationary battery storage systems, r = 0.345, s impact on the landscape and cityscape. Especially the risk p < 0.001 for biofuel production plants, and r = 0.340, s of explosion is a commonly reported safety concern in p < 0.001 for hydrogen refueling stations). studies on hydrogen acceptance [52, 78], with hydrogen often being associated with explosions and fire. As a lack of trust in safety is associated with opposition to hydro- Discussion gen infrastructures, such concerns need to be taken very The current study supports and extends findings with seriously during the planning process of the technology. regard to common public concerns about the three tech- With regard to public acceptance, our results sug- nologies studied: stationary battery storage, biofuel pro- gest that for all three technologies, general acceptance duction plants and hydrogen refueling stations. The most is slightly higher than local acceptance. These results frequently mentioned concerns with regard to station- go in line with previous findings, which indicate that ary battery storage include fire and explosion hazards, even though some surveys report people approving of followed by electrosmog and the technology having a new energy technologies [8], public opposition often- negative impact on the landscape and cityscape. These times arises when concrete energy infrastructures are results go in line with previous results from a qualitative intended to be built [9–11]. The finding that general and study conducted in the UK [37], which mentioned fire local acceptance differ has important implications, as it and explosion hazards as well as electromagnetic radia- underlines the importance of distinguishing these con- tion as perceived risks. The study also reports that sta - cepts when studying public acceptance. Public opinion tionary battery storage systems may be more acceptable surveys usually measure acceptance on a general level, if situated out of the way or if the technology fit in with which can create a skewed picture of technology accept- the environment, a finding that is consistent with par - ance if one assumes that data on general acceptance will ticipants in our study indicating to be concerned about directly translate into acceptance on a local level [65]. the negative impact of the technology on the landscape When asked on a general level, people may be inclined or cityscape. About a fifth of the participants in our to express positive attitudes towards sustainable energy study mentioned noise pollution as a concern, a finding technologies [13]. However, this not necessarily express that was not reported in previous studies. An additional their actual opinion on the issue, which might differ concern that was mentioned by some participants in the when asked about acceptance of technologies close to open text field included environmental impacts, more one’s home. Importantly, the current study shows that specifically with regard to the raw materials and produc - there is a gap between general and local acceptance, tion and disposal of the technology, which is a concern even if it is assessed at the same level of specificity (i.e., that was also found in the study by Thomas, Demski and measuring general and local acceptance at the same level Pidgeon [37]. With regard to biofuel production plants, Baur et al. Energy, Sustainability and Society (2022) 12:4 Page 12 of 16 of specificity using a public/national sample). In other a public/national sample in the current study. Similarly words, the results indicate that people can relate to the to the results of Batel and Devine-Wright, we did see a issue even if they are not directly affected, but merely difference with regard to general and local acceptance, asked to provide their opinion about a fictional situation. despite only referring to a fictional scenario with regard Public concerns were shown to be associated with local to local acceptance in our study. Overall, the results indi- acceptance, but not with general acceptance besides a cate that acceptance of all three technologies was fairly few exceptions. Associations between public concerns high in general, which was also reflected in the partici - and local acceptance differed per technology. Even pant’s attitudes for financial support. Local acceptance though causality cannot be assumed due to the nature of of the technologies was slightly lower, but no pattern of the study, the results can nevertheless provide an indi- strong opposition could be seen. This indicates that even cation of the specific concerns that may inhibit local though participants were not “directly” affected by the acceptance of the technologies and lead to opposition placement of energy technologies close to their homes, when specific energy infrastructure projects are planned. they could still relate to the issue. In other words, even This way, public concerns can be addressed upfront and though the study indicates that there is a gap between trust in safety measures can be built. In addition, these general and local acceptance, this finding disputes the results point towards the fact that it might be helpful to prevalent representation of energy users as nimbys, include more specific concerns in future studies, as to namely people who are selfish, irrational and only con - date, mostly risks on a general level are included in most cerned with issues around energy technologies when they research [70]. are affected directly “in their own backyards”. In practice, Trust in industry and stakeholders was high across these results illustrate the added value that surveys into all three technologies. What was noticeable about trust the public acceptance of technologies can provide, even if in stakeholders was that across all technologies and for people who do not have direct experience with a certain both trust in industry and stakeholders, a relatively large energy technology are surveyed. As it can be time-con- share of respondents (30%) indicated to be undecided suming to consult local samples, we recommend assess- about whether they trusted the stakeholders. As previ- ing general and local acceptance using public/national ous research has shown that trust in stakeholders is an sample as a first step to gauge whether there are indica - important predictor of acceptance [73, 74], this is a rel- tions for local opposition towards technologies. Should evant issue in need of further analysis. Attitudes towards such a study indicate that this can be the case, consulting financial support of the three energy technologies were a local sample would then be a feasible second step when relatively high across all the technologies. As expected, planning energy infrastructure in a certain community financial support and general acceptance were corre - or town. In line with this, this approach would also be lated across all three technologies. This finding goes in helpful to assess potential public concerns that can influ - line with previous research on climate engineering tech- ence acceptance at a local level, a similar approach can be nologies, which also reports a strong correlation between adopted. Using a public/national sample, assessing public support for further research and support for deployment concerns by means of a survey can provide stakeholders of technologies [79]. As the majority of studies focuses with an overview regarding worries that might need to be predominantly on the predictors of public acceptance addressed when planning to implement a certain energy of energy technologies, future research could explore project. Once a clear picture exists with regard to the whether similar factors, such as perceived benefits of the public concerns that exist among the public with regard technology, are associated with attitudes towards finan - to certain new energy technologies, further measures can cial support of energy technologies. be taken to address the concerns identified. As shown in our study, some of the public concerns that emerged Conclusion and policy recommendations are unlikely to happen in real life. As public concerns In the current study, we aimed to examine the social are associated with local acceptance, we suggest these to acceptance of three emerging energy technologies: sta- be addressed upfront with the help of transparent com- tionary battery storage, biofuel production plants and munication efforts. This way, misconceptions about the hydrogen refueling stations. In light of this, we assessed technologies and associated costs and risks could be pre- public concerns, acceptance (general and local), trust in vented. Nevertheless, it needs to be kept in mind that stakeholders, as well as financial support for the tech - information provision, which is a public form of public nologies. Following the recommendations by Batel and involvement, is not necessarily sufficient to secure pub - Devine-Wright [14], we assessed acceptance of technolo- lic support. In addition, even though we consider knowl- gies in general as well as acceptance of technologies close edge about public concerns as vital to planning energy to people’s homes at the same level of specificity, using projects, policy-makers and practitioners should refrain Baur  et al. Energy, Sustainability and Society (2022) 12:4 Page 13 of 16 thinking of energy infrastructure plans as “top-down” lens. For instance, what does it mean to them when the processes that the public should seemingly accept. On new technology X is introduced in their community? the contrary, if valid public concerns exist, these should How do they expect the new technology to affect their be taken seriously. Previous research shows that even community? Do they have specific place-related wor - though public involvement is not an easy remedy with ries that affect their perception of the new technology? regard to acceptance issues surrounding energy pro- Gaining an understanding of people’s perception in this jects, acceptance may be higher if people believe that the way could help to better manage how a specific energy decision-making process is fair, and if they feel that their project needs to be planned and adapted to a certain interests are considered [59]. On the other hand, if peo- community. With regard to trust in stakeholders, a rela- ple feel as if their concerns are not actually heard, public tively large share of participants indicated to be unde- involvement can even backfire and dampen acceptance cided about whether they trusted the stakeholders in [81]. the current study. As it is unclear whether this is due to the fact of some of the technologies being relatively unknown, future studies could explore which factors Limitations and avenues for future research influence trust, such as knowledge about the technolo - Despite the exploitation of a large dataset, the current gies. Additionally, it would be interesting to examine study is subject to a number of limitations. With par- whether technological incidents affect trust in differ - ticipants of certain age groups, professions and educa- ent stakeholders. In line with this, future studies could tional background being overrepresented, the sample explore whether trust in stakeholders changes in the is not fully representative of the German population. long term after technological incidents happen, but also Furthermore, with regard to assessing local acceptance, whether technological incidents with regard to simi- we presented the participants with a fictional situa - lar technologies influences trust and thereby accept - tion. The results obtained in the current study are help - ance. For instance, it would be interesting to examine ful in some ways, but also are subject to a drawback. whether fire incidents related to battery electric vehi - While the results provide support for the existence of cles (BEVs) not only affect attitudes and trust towards a general–local acceptance gap even when measuring BEVs, but also towards other battery technologies, such acceptance at the same level of specificity which shows as battery storage. In conclusion, future studies can that people still relate to issues around energy projects extend our knowledge about best practices in terms of [14], people’s reactions to the implementation of the using both public and local samples when assessing the technologies might still deviate in real life when using social acceptance of energy technologies as well as fac- a local sample. For instance, there could be a degree tors influencing acceptance. of response bias, as potential risks and drawbacks of having one of the technologies built in the vicinity of Acknowledgements For their support in developing the survey, we would like to thank Prof. people’s home might be of even stronger personal rel- Michael Braun from GESIS—Leibniz Institute for the Social Sciences, Dr. evance in real life than when answering to an imagined Dominik Leiner and Dr. Christina Peter, both from the Ludwig Maximilian situation in a survey. Future studies could compare University of Munich; our thanks also go to the platform SoSci-survey (www. sosci survey. de) for hosting the survey. general and local acceptance using both national/pub- lic and local samples of participants who are faced Authors’ contributions with the implementation of a concrete energy project DB: validation, data analysis, data curation, data visualization, writing—origi- nal draft, writing—review and editing. PE: conceptualization, methodology, close to their homes, ideally before and after the energy validation, data analysis, investigation, data curation, writing—review and infrastructure is built. This would enable to better editing, supervision, project administration. MJB: conceptualization, investiga- understand how results regarding local acceptance are tion, resources, writing—review and editing, supervision, funding acquisition. MW: conceptualization, investigation, resources, writing—review and editing, influenced by the research design and sample used in a supervision, funding acquisition. All authors read and approved the final study. In line with this, public concerns related to spe- manuscript. cific energy technologies and their influence on local Funding acceptance could as well be examined in more detail. In Open Access funding enabled and organized by Projekt DEAL. The authors the current study, we include specific concerns instead would like to thank the Helmholtz Association initiative ‘Energy System 2050’ of simply measuring whether perceived risks at a gen- for financial support. Our special thanks go to the researchers of the initiative, who have supported the work in several ways. This work also contributes to eral level influence acceptance. While we think that the research performed at CELEST (Center for Electrochemical Energy Storage this approach taken has some advantages over sim- Ulm-Karlsruhe). This work was partially funded by the Deutsche Forschun- ply measuring perceived risks in general, future stud- gsgemeinschaft (DFG, German Research Foundation) under Germany’s Excel- lence Strategy—EXC 2154—Project number 390874152 and the European ies could use qualitative method to more thoroughly Union’s—H2020-LC-GD-2020 / H2020-LC-GD-2020-6 project stoRIES Grant understand people’s concerns through a “place-based” Agreement No. 101036910. Content does not reflect the official opinion of Baur et al. Energy, Sustainability and Society (2022) 12:4 Page 14 of 16 the European Union. Responsibility for the information and views expressed 8. Agentur für Erneuerbare Energien (2019) Wichtig für den Kampf gegen herein lies entirely with the authors. den Klimawandel: Bürger*innen wollen mehr Erneuerbare Energien. Agentur für Erneuerbare Energien e.V. Available via AEE. https:// www. Availability of data and materialsunend lich- viel- energ ie. de/ themen/ akzep tanz- erneu erbar er/ akzep tanz- All data generated or analyzed during this study are included in this published umfra ge/ akzep tanzu mfrage- 2019. Accessed 4 Feb 2021 article and its supplementary information files: Emmerich P, Hülemeier A-G, 9. Schöpper Y (2020) Akzeptanz in der Fläche, Protest im Lokalen? Studie Jendryczko D et al. (2020) Public acceptance of emerging energy technologies zur Windenergie an Land. Agentur für Erneuerbare Energien e.V. Available in context of the German energy transition. Energy Policy 142:111516. https:// via AEE. https:// www. unend lich- viel- energ ie. de/ media/ file/ 3801. AEE_ doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. enpol. 2020. 111516.Renews_ Spezi al_ 90_ Akzep tanz- Wind_ Apr20. pdf. Accessed 4 Feb 2021 10. Asendorpf D (2016) Klimaschutz mit Nebenwirkungen: Die hässliche Seite der Energiewende. https:// www. swr. de/ swr2/ wissen/ energ iewen Declarations de- haess lich,broad castc ontrib- swr- 31480. html. Accessed 21 Sept 2020 11. Schwenkenbecher A (2017) What is wrong with Nimbys? Renewable Ethics approval and consent to participate energy, landscape impacts and incommensurable values. Environ Values Approval by an ethics committee was not required. The aim of the online 26:711–732. https:// doi. org/ 10. 3197/ 09632 7117x 15046 90549 0353 survey was to collect the participant’s opinions on sustainable energy 12. Petrova M (2013) NIMBYism revisited: public acceptance of wind energy technologies and did not risk any potential harm to the participants, nor was in the United States. Wiley Interdiscip Rev: Climate Change 4:575–601. there any intentional deception involved. Appropriate ethical aspects with https:// doi. org/ 10. 1002/ wcc. 250 regard to online surveys were taken into account: before starting the survey, 13. van der Horst D (2007) NIMBY or not? Exploring the relevance of location informed consent was obtained from the participants. The participants were and the politics of voiced opinions in renewable energy siting controver- informed about the data being collected anonymously and about them being sies. Energy Policy 35:2705–2714. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. enpol. 2006. 12. able to stop their participation at any point in time. At the end of the survey, participants were debriefed about the aims of the survey. 14. Batel S, Devine-Wright P (2015) A critical and empirical analysis of the national-local ‘gap’ in public responses to large-scale energy infrastruc- Consent for publication tures. J Environ Planning Manage 58(6):1076–1095. https:// doi. org/ 10. Data were collected anonymously and the manuscript does not include 1080/ 09640 568. 2014. 914020 details, images, or videos relating to an individual person. 15. Bundesregierung (2019) Klimaschutzprogramm 2030 der Bundesr- egierung zur Umsetzung des Klimaschutzplans 2050. https:// www. bunde Competing interests sregi erung. de/ resou rce/ blob/ 975226/ 16799 14/ e01d6 bd855 f09bf 05cf7 The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests 498e0 6d0a3 ff/ 2019- 10- 09- klima- massn ahmen- data. pdf? downl oad=1. or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work Accessed 4 Feb 2021 reported in this paper. 16. UBA (2010) Energy target 2050: 100% renewable electricity supply. Available via UBA. https:// www. umwel tbund esamt. de/ sites/ defau lt/ files/ Author details medien/ 378/ publi katio nen/ energ ieziel_ 2050_ kurz. pdf. Accessed 16 Aug Institute for Technology Assessment and Systems Analysis (ITAS), Karlsruhe Institute of Technology (KIT ), Karlsruhe, Germany. I nstitute of T echnology 17. Agora Energiewende (2014) Electricity Storage in the German Energy and Management, Technical University of Berlin, Berlin, Germany. Helmholtz- Transition. Available via Agora Energiewende. https:// www. agora- energ Institute Ulm for Electrochemical Energy Storage (HIU), Ulm, Germany. iewen de. de/ filea dmin/ Proje kte/ 2013/ speic her- in- der- energ iewen de/ Agora_ Speic herst udie_ EN_ web. pdf. Accessed 16 Aug 2021 Received: 11 February 2021 Accepted: 19 December 2021 18. Statista (2021) Anteil erneuerbarer Energien an der Stromerzeugung pro Monat in Deutschland von August 2020 bis August 2021. Available via Stastista. https:// de. stati sta. com/ stati stik/ daten/ studie/ 779784/ umfra ge/ monat licher- anteil- erneu erbar er- energ ien- an- der- strom erzeu gung- in- deuts chland/ Accessed 15 Aug 2021 References 19. International Energy Agency (2018) Tracking clean energy processes. 1. Bundesministerium für Umwelt, Naturschutz und nukleare Sicherheit https:// www. iea. org/ topics/ track ing- clean- energy- progr ess. International (2016) Klimaschutzplan 2050: Klimaschutzpolitische Grundsätze und Energy Agency. Accessed 12 Nov 2020 Ziele der Bundesregierung. Available via BMU. https:// www. bmu. de/ filea 20. BfN (2018) Naturverträgliche Energieversorgung aus 100% erneuerbaren dmin/ Daten_ BMU/ Downl oad_ PDF/ Klima schutz/ klima schut zplan_ 2050_ Energien 2050. Available via BfN. https:// www. bfn. de/ filea dmin/ BfN/ servi bf. pdf. Accessed 4 Feb 2021 ce/ Dokum ente/ skrip ten/ Skrip t501. pdf. Accessed 15 Aug 2021 2. Sohre A (2013) Strategien in der energie- und klimapolitik. Springer, 21. International Energy Agency (2019) Will pumped storage hydropower Wiesbaden expand more quickly than stationary battery storage? https:// www. iea. 3. Shell (2017) Energy Scenarios Germany. Available via Shell. https:// www. org/ artic les/ will- pumped- stora ge- hydro power- expand- more- quick ly- shell. com/ energy- and- innov ation/ the- energy- future/ scena rios/ what- than- stati onary- batte ry- stora ge. International Energy Agency. Accessed 4 are- scena rios/_ jcr_ conte nt/ par/ tabbe dcont ent/ tab/ texti mage_ 25172 Feb 2021 244. stream/ 15041 04048 141/ 87b26 84f71 2f1da 82ef3 2d07b 19555 92041 22. UBA (2013) Germany 2050 a greenhouse gas-neutral Country. Available 2d451/ shell- energy- scena rios- germa ny. pdf via UBA. https:// www. umwel tbund esamt. de/ sites/ defau lt/ files/ medien/ 4. Schweizer-Ries P (2008) Energy sustainable communities: environmental 376/ publi katio nen/ germa ny_ 2050_a_ green house_ gas_ neutr al_ count psychological investigations. Energy Policy 36:4126–4135. https:// doi. org/ ry_ langf assung. pdf. Accessed 16 Aug 2021 10. 1016/j. enpol. 2008. 06. 021 23. dena (2018) dena Study Integrated Energy Transition. Available via dena. 5. Stimson J, Mackuen M, Erikson R (1995) Dynamic representation. Am https:// www. umwel tbund esamt. de/ sites/ defau lt/ files/ medien/ 376/ Political Sci Rev 89:543–565. https:// doi. org/ 10. 2307/ 20829 73 publi katio nen/ germa ny_ 2050_a_ green house_ gas_ neutr al_ count ry_ 6. Bock S, Reimann B (2017) Beteiligungsverfahren bei umweltrelevanten langf assung. pdf. https:// www. dena. de/ filea dmin/ dena/ Dokum ente/ Pdf/ Vorhaben. Abschlussbericht. Available via UBA. https:// www. umwel 9283_ dena_ Study_ Integ rated_ Energy_ Trans ition. PDF. Accessed 16 Aug tbund esamt. de/ sites/ defau lt/ files/ medien/ 1410/ publi katio nen/ 2017- 05- 30_ texte_ 37- 2017_ betei ligun gsver fahren- umwel tvorh aben. pdf. 24. UBA (2019) Wege in eine ressourcenschonende Treibhausgasneutralität. Accessed 4 Feb 2021 Available via UBA. https:// www. umwel tbund esamt. de/ sites/ defau lt/ files/ 7. Westdeutscher Rundfunk (2020) Baustopp für Windräder zwischen Altena medien/ 1410/ publi katio nen/ rescue_ studie_ cc_ 36- 2019_ wege_ in_ eine_ und Neuenrade. Westdeutscher Rundfunk. Available via WDR. https:// resso urcen schon ende_ treib hausg asneu trali taet_ aufla ge2_ juni- 2021. pdf . www1. wdr. de/ nachr ichten/ westf alen- lippe/ baust opp- windr aeder- Accessed 15 Aug 2021 altena- 100. html. Accessed 4 Feb 2021 Baur  et al. Energy, Sustainability and Society (2022) 12:4 Page 15 of 16 25. UBA (2021) System comparison of storable energy carriers from renew- 45. Upreti BR (2004) Conflict over biomass energy development in the able energies. Available via UBA. https:// www. umwel tbund esamt. de/ United Kingdom: some observations and lessons from England and sites/ defau lt/ files/ medien/ 5750/ publi katio nen/ 2021- 03- 03_ texte_ 40- Wales. Energy Policy 32(6):785–800. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/ S0301- 2021_ syseet_ eng. pdf. Accessed 16 Aug 20214215(02) 00342-7 26. ewi (2018) The energy market in 2030 and 2050—the contribution of gas 46. Kortsch T, Hildebrand J, Schweizer-Ries P (2015) Acceptance of biomass and heat infrastructure to efficient carbon emission reductions. Available plants–results of a longitudinal study in the bioenergy-region Altmark. via ewi. https:// www. ewi. resea rch- scena rios. de/ cms/ wp- conte nt/ uploa Renewable Energy 83:690–697. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. renene. 2015. 04. ds/ 2017/ 11/ ewi_ ERS_ Energy_ market_ 2030_ 2050_ web. pdf. Access 16 059 Aug 2021 47. Soland M, Steimer N, Walter G (2013) Local acceptance of existing biogas 27. Bundesministerium für Wirtschaft und Energie (2020) The National plants in Switzerland. Energy Policy 61:802–810. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. Hydrogen Strategy. Bundesministerium für Wirtschaft und Energie. Avail-enpol. 2013. 06. 111 able via BMWi. https:// www. bmwi. de/ Redak tion/ EN/ Publi katio nen/ Energ 48. IRENA (2019) Hydrogen: a renewable energy perspective. International ie/ the- natio nal- hydro gen- strat egy. pdf?__ blob= publi catio nFile &v=6. Renewable Energy Agency, Abu Dhabi Accessed 4 Feb 2021 49. Gong J, English NJ, Pant D, Patzke GR, Protti S, Zhang T (2021) Power-to-X: 28. Schainker RB (2004) Executive overview: energy storage options for a lighting the path to a net-zero-emission future. sustainable energy future. In: IEEE Power Engineering Society General 50. Robinius M, Linßen J, Grube T, Reuß M, Stenzel P, Syranidis K, Kuckertz Meeting, Denver, CO, USA, 6–10 June 2004 P, Stolten D (2018) Comparative analysis of infrastructures: hydrogen 29. Weil M, Tübke J (2015) Energiespeicher für energiewende und elektro- fueling and electric charging of vehicles. Forschungszentrum Jülich, mobilität. TATuP Zeitschrift für Technikfolgenabschätzung in Theorie und Jülich Praxis 24:4–9. https:// doi. org/ 10. 14512/ tatup. 24.3.4 51. Nazir H, Louis C, Jose S, Prakash J, Muthuswamy N, Buan MEM et al (2020) 30. Panwar M, Chanda S, Mohanpurkar M et al (2019) Integration of flow Is the H2 economy realizable in the foreseeable future? Part I: H2 produc- battery for resilience enhancement of advanced distribution grids. Int J tion methods. Int J Hydrogen Energy 45(27):13777–13788. https:// doi. Electr Power Energy Syst 109:314–324. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. ijepes. org/ 10. 1016/j. ijhyd ene. 2020. 03. 092 2019. 01. 024 52. Ricci M, Bellaby P, Flynn R (2008) What do we know about public percep- 31. Zhou J, Tsianikas S, Birnie D, Coit D (2019) Economic and resilience tions and acceptance of hydrogen? A critical review and new case study benefit analysis of incorporating battery storage to photovoltaic array evidence. Int J Hydrogen Energy 33(21):5868–5880. https:// doi. org/ 10. generation. Renewable Energy 135:652–662. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. 1016/j. ijhyd ene. 2008. 07. 106 renene. 2018. 12. 013 53. Achterberg P, Houtman D, Van Bohemen S, Manevska K (2010) Unknow- 32. Sterner M, Stadler I (2014) Energiespeicher-Bedarf, Technologien, Integra- ing but supportive? Predispositions, knowledge, and support for hydro- tion. Springer, Wiesbaden gen technology in the Netherlands. Int J Hydrogen Energy 35(12):6075– 33. Wietschel M, Plötz P, Pfluger B, Klobasa M, Eßer A, Haendel M, Müller- 6083. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. ijhyd ene. 2010. 03. 091 Kirchenbauer J, Kochems J, Hermann L, Grosse B, Nacken L (2018) 54. Zaunbrecher BS, Bexten T, Wirsum M, Ziefle M (2016) What is stored, Sektorkopplung: Definition, Chancen und Herausforderungen. Working why, and how? Mental models, knowledge, and public acceptance of Paper Sustainability and Innovation. hydrogen storage. Energy Procedia 99:108–119. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. 34. IRENA (2020) Virtual power lines. International Renewable Energy Agency, egypro. 2016. 10. 102 Abu Dhabi 55. Hart D (2010) Strategic and socioeconomic studies in hydrogen energy. 35. Colthorpe (2020) France’s grid battery ‘experiments’ take aim at creating In: Stolten D (ed) Hydrogen and fuel cells. Wiley-VHC, Weinheim, pp market fit for carbon neutrality. Energy Storage News. https:// www. 567–576 energy- stora ge. news/ news/ franc es- grid- batte ry- exper iments- take- aim- 56. Mumford J, Gray D (2009) Reconciling conflicting interpretations of risk. at- creat ing- market- for- carbon- neu. Accessed on 4 Feb 2021 A case study about the siting of a hazardous plant. J Commun Manag 36. Emmerich P, Hülemeier A, Jendryczko D et al (2020) Public acceptance of 13(3):233–249. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1108/ 13632 54091 09766 80 emerging energy technologies in context of the German energy transi- 57. Huijts NM, Molin EJ, Steg L (2012) Psychological factors influencing sus- tion. Energy Policy 142:111516. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. enpol. 2020. tainable energy technology acceptance: a review-based comprehensive 111516 framework. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 16(1):525–531. https:// doi. org/ 10. 37. Thomas G, Demski C, Pidgeon N (2019) Deliberating the social accept-1016/j. rser. 2011. 08. 018 ability of energy storage in the UK. Energy Policy 133:110908. https:// doi. 58. Perlaviciute G, Steg L (2014) Contextual and psychological factors org/ 10. 1016/j. enpol. 2019. 110908 shaping evaluations and acceptability of energy alternatives: integrated 38. Jones C, Gaede J, Ganowski S, Rowlands I (2018) Understanding lay- review and research agenda. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 35:361–381. public perceptions of energy storage technologies: results of a question-https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. rser. 2014. 04. 003 naire conducted in the UK. Energy Procedia 151:135–143. https:// doi. org/ 59. Steg L, Perlaviciute G, van der Werff E (2015) Understanding the human 10. 1016/j. egypro. 2018. 09. 038 dimensions of a sustainable energy transition. Front Psychol 6:805. 39. Gaede J, Jones C, Ganowski S, Rowlands I (2020) Understanding lay-https:// doi. org/ 10. 3389/ fpsyg. 2015. 00805 public perceptions of energy storage technologies: preliminary results of 60. Perlaviciute G, Schuitema G, Devine-Wright P, Ram B (2018) At the heart a questionnaire conducted in Canada. Energy Rep 6:249–258. https:// doi. of a sustainable energy transition: the public acceptability of energy org/ 10. 1016/j. egyr. 2020. 03. 031 projects. IEEE Power Energ Mag 16(1):49–55. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1109/ MPE. 40. Dinjus E, Dahmen N (2012) The Bioliq process concept, technology and 2017. 27599 18 state of development. Auto Tech Review 1(3):26–31. https:// doi. org/ 10. 61. Zoellner J, Schweizer-Ries P, Wemheuer C (2008) Public acceptance of 1365/ s40112- 012- 0030-z renewable energies: results from case studies in Germany. Energy Policy 41. Johnson E (2009) Goodbye to carbon neutral: getting biomass footprints 36(11):4136–4141. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. enpol. 2008. 06. 026 right. Environ Impact Assess Rev 29:165–168. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. 62. Kardooni R, Yusoff SB, Kari FB (2016) Renewable energy technology eiar. 2008. 11. 002 acceptance in Peninsular Malaysia. Energy Policy 88:1–10. https:// doi. org/ 42. Timmons D, Buchholz T, Veeneman C (2016) Forest biomass energy: 10. 1016/j. enpol. 2015. 10. 005 assessing atmospheric carbon impacts by discounting future carbon 63. L’Orange Seigo S, Dohle S, Siegrist M (2014) Public perception of flows. GCB Bioenergy 8:631–643. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1111/ gcbb. 12276 carbon capture and storage (CCS): a review. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 43. Agentur für Erneuerbare Energien (2009) Globale Bioenergienutzung: 38:848–863. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. rser. 2014. 07. 017 Potentiale und Nutzngspfade. Agentur für Erneuerbare Energien e.V. 64. Wüstenhagen R, Wolsink M, Bürer MJ (2007) Social acceptance of renew- Available via AEE. https:// www. infot hek- bioma sse. ch/ image s// 126_ 2009_ able energy innovation: an introduction to the concept. Energy Policy WBGU_ Bioen ergie_ Poten ziale_ Nutzu ngspf ade. pdf. Accessed 4 Feb 2021 35(5):2683–2691. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. enpol. 2006. 12. 001 44. Griesen M (2010) Akzeptanz von Biogasanlagen. In: Bonner Studien zur 65. Aitken M (2010) Why we still don’t understand the social aspects of wind Wirtschaftssoziologie, 34th ed. Shaker, Aachen. power: a critique of key assumptions within the literature. Energy Policy 38(4):1834–1841. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. enpol. 2009. 11. 060 Baur et al. Energy, Sustainability and Society (2022) 12:4 Page 16 of 16 66. Wolsink M (2012) Undesired reinforcement of harmful ‘self-evident truths’ concerning the implementation of wind power. Energy Policy 48:83–87. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. enpol. 2012. 06. 010 67. Boudet HS (2019) Public perceptions of and responses to new energy technologies. Nat Energy 4(6):446–455. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1038/ s41560- 019- 0399-x 68. Devine-Wright P (2008) Reconsidering public acceptance of renewable energy technologies: a critical review. In: Jamasb T, Grubb M, Pollitt M (eds) Delivering a low carbon electricity system: technologies, economics and policy. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 69. Singleton G, Herzog H, Ansolabehere S (2009) Public risk perspectives on the geologic storage of carbon dioxide. Int J Greenhouse Gas Control 3(1):100–107. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. ijggc. 2008. 07. 006 70. Huijts NM, Molin EJ, van Wee B (2014) Hydrogen fuel station acceptance: a structural equation model based on the technology acceptance frame- work. J Environ Psychol 38:153–166. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. jenvp. 2014. 01. 008 71. Sonnberger M, Ruddat M (2017) Local and socio-political acceptance of wind farms in Germany. Technol Soc 51:56–65. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. techs oc. 2017. 07. 005 72. Petrova MA (2016) From NIMBY to acceptance: toward a novel frame- work—VESPA—for organizing and interpreting community concerns. Renewable Energy 86:1280–1294. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. renene. 2015. 09. 047 73. Midden CJ, Huijts NM (2009) The role of trust in the affective evaluation of novel risks: the case of CO2 storage. Risk Anal 29(5):743–751. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1111/j. 1539- 6924. 2009. 01201.x 74. Siegrist M, Cvetkovich G (2000) Perception of hazards: the role of social trust and knowledge. Risk Anal 20(5):713–720. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1111/ 0272- 4332. 205064 75. Montijn-Dorgelo FN, Midden CJ (2008) The role of negative associa- tions and trust in risk perception of new hydrogen systems. J Risk Res 11(5):659–671. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 13669 87080 19672 18 76. Statistisches Bundesamt (2019) Society-Environment, Press Release No. 055 of February 2019. Available via destatis. https:// www. desta tis. de/ EN/ Press/ 2019/ 02/ PE19_ 055_ 213. html. Accessed 8 Feb 2021. 77. Brudermann T, Mitterhuber C, Posch A (2015) Agricultural biogas plants–a systematic analysis of strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats. Energy Policy 76:107–111. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. enpol. 2014. 11. 022 78. O’Garra T, Pearson P, Mourato S (2007) Public acceptability of hydrogen fuel cell transport and associated refuelling infrastructures. In: Flynn R, Bellaby P (eds) Risk and the Public Acceptance of New Technologies. Palgrave, Basingstoke 79. Terwel BW, Harnick F, Ellemers N, Daamen DDL (2010) Voice in political decision-making: the effect of group voice on perceived trustworthi- ness of decision makers and subsequent acceptance of decisions. J Exp Psychol 16(2):173–186. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1037/ a0019 977 Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in pub- lished maps and institutional affiliations. Re Read ady y to to submit y submit your our re researc search h ? Choose BMC and benefit fr ? Choose BMC and benefit from om: : fast, convenient online submission thorough peer review by experienced researchers in your field rapid publication on acceptance support for research data, including large and complex data types • gold Open Access which fosters wider collaboration and increased citations maximum visibility for your research: over 100M website views per year At BMC, research is always in progress. Learn more biomedcentral.com/submissions http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png "Energy, Sustainability and Society" Springer Journals

Assessing the social acceptance of key technologies for the German energy transition

Loading next page...
 
/lp/springer-journals/assessing-the-social-acceptance-of-key-technologies-for-the-german-DQPh8xXj82

References (47)

Publisher
Springer Journals
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s) 2022
eISSN
2192-0567
DOI
10.1186/s13705-021-00329-x
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

Background: The widespread use of sustainable energy technologies is a key element in the transformation of the energy system from fossil-based to zero-carbon. In line with this, technology acceptance is of great importance as resistance from the public can slow down or hinder the construction of energy technology projects. The current study assesses the social acceptance of three energy technologies relevant for the German energy transition: stationary bat- tery storage, biofuel production plants and hydrogen fuel station. Methods: An online survey was conducted to examine the public’s general and local acceptance of energy tech- nologies. Explored factors included general and local acceptance, public concerns, trust in relevant stakeholders and attitudes towards financial support. Results: The results indicate that general acceptance for all technologies is slightly higher than local acceptance. In addition, we discuss which public concerns exist with regard to the respective technologies and how they are more strongly associated with local than general acceptance. Further, we show that trust in stakeholders and attitudes towards financial support is relatively high across the technologies discussed. Conclusions: Taken together, the study provides evidence for the existence of a “general–local” gap, despite measur- ing general and local acceptance at the same level of specificity using a public sample. In addition, the collected data can provide stakeholders with an overview of worries that might need to be addressed when planning to implement a certain energy project. Keywords: Technology acceptance, Energy transition, Sustainability, Hydrogen fuel station, Battery storage, Biofuel production plant Background to 2030 [1]. To reach the German Federal Government’s In June 2021, the German Federal Government agreed goal of achieving net-zero C O emissions until 2045, an on an amendment to the Climate Change Act, aiming increased use of renewable energies, efficient energy for climate neutrality by 2045. Pulling forward the pre- use as well as sector coupling are necessary [2]. To facil- vious target by 5 years, the government aims to reduce itate the integration of renewable energy sources and emission by 65% by 2030 and introduced a new target of to ensure a stable provision of energy to industry and an 88% reduction by 2040. These ambitious targets also society, the energy system transformation relies on new affect the CO reduction targets in individual sectors, and emerging technologies. Even though technical fac- including the transport, energy and building sector up tors ultimately determine to which degree different sec - tors can be decarbonized, non-technical factors such as cost, potential environmental impacts, regulation, pub- *Correspondence: marcel.weil@kit.edu lic acceptance and consumer choices will determine the Institute for Technology Assessment and Systems Analysis (ITAS), level of actual progress [3]. In line with this, the cur- Karlsruhe Institute of Technology (KIT ), Karlsruhe, Germany Full list of author information is available at the end of the article rent study focuses on assessing citizen’s perception of © The Author(s) 2022. Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http:// creat iveco mmons. org/ licen ses/ by/4. 0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http:// creat iveco mmons. org/ publi cdoma in/ zero/1. 0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data. Baur et al. Energy, Sustainability and Society (2022) 12:4 Page 2 of 16 three energy technologies by examining their public Emerging technologies in the energy sector acceptance. While active acceptance or public support Energy scenarios, which describe possible future devel- [4] of emergent technologies can facilitate political sup- opments of the energy system, can help to discern under port and incentivize industry and government to invest which conditions and with which measures the goals as further in their development [5, 6], opposition to new laid out in the Climate Change act can be achieved. More technologies can result in project delays or even cancel- specifically, energy scenarios help to explore which tech - ling entire energy infrastructure projects [7]. nology options (and combinations) as well as regulatory Generally, representative opinion polls show that measures can significantly contribute to the achievement the public is in favor of the energy transition and new of climate targets. energy technologies in Germany [8]. However, resist- Germany’s ambitious emission reduction targets can- ance sometimes arises when concrete projects are to not be achieved equally well in all sectors [16]. For be realized, such as in the case of power lines or wind instance, reducing emissions in the industrial sector will farms [9–11]. In the past, this phenomenon of peo- be more difficult than in the electric power sector. The ple approving of energy technologies in general while electric power sector currently accounts for a large share opposing local energy infrastructure projects has been of energy-related CO emissions in Germany [3]. To date, referred to as the “not in my backyard” (nimby) phe- the focus for decarbonizing the power sector has been nomenon [12, 13]. Recent research has proven nimby on increasing the share of renewable energies. Achieving explanations to be too simplistic to explain the motiva- this will require better integration in the electricity, heat tions for opposition to energy projects [14], and has put and transport sector, infrastructure changes as well as the forward some recommendations to examine whether a development of storage technologies to mitigate power general–local gap actually exists, which we will outline intermittency of renewable energy sources [3, 16]. While further below. up to a share of around 40–60% of renewable energy, the The present research was conducted within the Helm - need for increased flexibility in the German electricity holtz “Energy System 2050” initiative, which explores system can be covered by flexibility options other than the integration of technological key elements into the new electricity storage, full integration of renewables energy system and develops solutions to integrate the into the electricity system is increasingly more difficult fluctuating renewable energies such as wind or solar when the share of renewables increases further [17]. power successfully into German and European energy With renewables averaging a share of 47.5% of electricity systems. The objective of the work was to gain insights production in August 2021 [18], the need for new energy into the acceptance of energy storage technology as storage will increase over the next years. Currently, the well as technologies for energy carrier utilization. More majority of installed large-scale energy storage comprises specifically, three technologies that are discussed in the pumped hydro-storage power [19]. Given the fact that Climate Action Program 2030 by the German govern- pumped hydro-storage facilities alone cannot cover the ment [15] are studied: amount of needed storage capacity alone, the need for increased storage capacity will have to be (partly) cov- ered by a mixture of storage technologies such as battery • grid-scale stationary battery storage systems, storage, thermal storage or hydrogen covering different • biofuel production plants and services. Battery storage is expected to play an increas- • hydrogen refueling stations. ingly important role in adapting the grid on a decentral level when connecting new renewables such as wind and To better understand the public’s view of these new solar power plants to smooth out production peaks [17, technologies, both general and local acceptance are 20], and the market for battery storage is expected to assessed. Additionally, we assess key variables that have grow, with annual additions of storage capacity by battery been shown to influence public acceptance, namely storage being expected to overtake annual additions by trust in stakeholders, public concerns and attitudes pumped hydro-storage by 2023 [21]. Given the fact that towards financial support for the technologies. By battery storage is expected to play an increasingly impor- doing so, we will (1) assess whether a general–local tant role in the energy transition, grid-scale battery stor- gap exists with regard to the three energy technolo- age will be one of the technologies in focus of the current gies chosen and (2) assess how public concerns are study. related to acceptance. Below, we first briefly introduce With regard to renewables, wind energy, solar energy the technologies that are in focus of the current study and biomass currently play a key role in the German by reviewing current energy system scenarios. Sub- energy system. Most scenario analyses expect espe- sequently, we introduce factors relevant for the social cially on- and offshore wind and solar energy to cover acceptance of energy technologies. Baur  et al. Energy, Sustainability and Society (2022) 12:4 Page 3 of 16 the largest share of the total energy consumption in the the use of battery storage as virtual power lines, aim- future [3, 22–24]. The use of biomass on the other hand ing to reduce the need to build new transmission lines is debated since it is not regarded as justifiable to grow by storing excess wind and solar power in batteries [34, crops as biomass for energy production due to competi- 35]. Overall, research on the acceptance of battery stor- tion for arable land and potential negative environmental age systems is still relatively sparse, which emphasizes impacts [20, 22]. In line with this, many scenario analyses the necessity to conduct research on the acceptance of expect only biomass that comes from waste and residues the technology. Most existing studies indicate that peo- to be used in the future, which is why the contribution ple hold positive attitudes towards battery storage tech- of biomass as an energy source is considered limited in nologies overall [36–39]. On the other hand, qualitative the future energy system [22, 23]. Even though signifi - research also points towards the fact that there are vari- cant differences exists with regard to the expected share ous public concerns with regard to the technology that of bioenergy in the energy system, biomass and biofuels might decrease acceptance of battery storage in a local are nevertheless expected to be continued to be used to a context [37]. More specifically, participants perceived certain extent, as the direct use of electricity from renew- battery storage as inappropriate on some landscapes, able energy is not the most efficient and environmentally raised concerns about the loss of living space due to the friendly way of supplying energy in all consumption sec- technology and mentioned the risk of fire and explo - tors [25, 26]. In the mobility sector and industry, liquid or sion as safety concerns. Due to the nature of the quali- gaseous energy carriers will probably remain necessary, a tative research, it however remains unclear how public demand that will likely partly be met by biomass. In line concerns and general and local acceptance relate to each with this, one of the technologies studied in the current other, which calls for a more thorough investigation of paper are biofuel production plants. acceptance on different levels. A second energy carrier that is expected to significantly contribute to meeting the demand for fuel and raw mate- Biofuel production plants rials in the industrial and mobility sectors is hydrogen [3, To date, biomass is one of the most important and flex - 22, 27]. As outlined in Germany’s hydrogen strategy [27], ible renewable energy source in Germany. Regionally only hydrogen that has been produced using renewable available biomass is used in solid, liquid and gaseous energy (green hydrogen) is considered to be sustainable. form to generate electricity and heat and to produce Up to date, green hydrogen is not yet widely used, but is biofuels, making biomass a very versatile energy carrier. expected to be established as a decarbonization option. This way, the use of bioenergy can contribute to ensuring For instance, green hydrogen could replace the fossil- energy supply security and compensate for fluctuations based hydrogen that is currently used in many chemi- caused by other renewable energy sources [40]. Further- cal and industrial processes. In addition, hydrogen is more, biofuels can play a valuable role in reducing carbon expected to play a key role for sector coupling as well as dioxide emissions and are often considered as carbon a fuel in transport. As the public will likely be exposed to emission neutral [41, 42], as the carbon  dioxide that is hydrogen infrastructure in the transport sector the most, released when biofuels are burned is equal to the carbon we investigate the acceptance of hydrogen refueling sta- dioxide that is absorbed by the biomass during its growth tions as one of the key technologies in the current study. [43]. With biofuels having gained increasing importance Below, we will discuss the three chosen technologies in in the field of renewable energies, analyzing its pub - more detail and shortly review past research on the social lic importance is a key issue. For biofuel projects, local acceptance of the technologies. opposition is an issue that can cause project delays and interrupt operations [44, 45]. Residents living nearby a Stationary battery storage systems (SBS) biofuel production plant oftentimes report having to put Large-scale energy storage is essential for the successful up with odor and noise emissions induced by the plant implementation of the energy transition as it can mitigate [46, 47], which can influence acceptance. the fluctuating output from renewable energy by storing excess electricity that is produced and by discharging it Hydrogen fuel stations when demand is high [28, 29]. This way, energy storage The German national hydrogen strategy [27] assigns systems enable an increased share of renewable energies hydrogen a key role in facilitating the energy transi- in the electrical grid while simultaneously increasing the tion. By replacing fossil fuel use in transport, the use of resilience and security of supply at the local level [30, 31]. hydrogen as an energy carrier can reduce air pollution in This can reduce, defer or prevent a cost-intensive and cities and the dependence on fossil fuels, provided that locally undesirable expansion of the electricity grid [32, electrical energy from renewable energy sources such 33]. France’s grid operator RTE for instance is piloting as wind energy or solar power is used for production Baur et al. Energy, Sustainability and Society (2022) 12:4 Page 4 of 16 via electrolysis [48]. The main advantage of hydrogen is have referred to as “acceptability” [57]. Acceptance of that once produced and stored, it can generate electrical energy technology can be assessed on both a general and power in a fuel cell, emitting only water vapor and warm local level. Acceptance on a general level is sometimes air instead of harmful carbon dioxide and nitrogen oxide referred to as socio-political acceptance and encompasses emissions. Also, hydrogen can be used as an intermediate acceptance of technologies and policies by the public, by energy carrier for various power to x paths to produce, key stakeholders and by policy-makers [64]. In the cur- e.g., methane, methanol or ammonia [49]. However, the rent study, we will focus on acceptance of technologies production, storage and use of hydrogen still requires by the public. General acceptance is usually assessed as great efforts and large investments in the necessary the general attitude towards an energy technology, which technology infrastructure before it can be rolled out on is what is most commonly measured in public opin- a wide scale [50]. u Th s, hydrogen is currently still a very ion polls [65]. However, as energy projects have shown, expensive energy carrier to use in industrial settings [51]. general acceptance is not necessarily predictive of local With regard to research on citizen’s perception of hydro- acceptance of energy projects and resistance towards gen, studies report low public awareness and knowledge technologies can occur despite surveys indicating that a of hydrogen and associated technologies such as fuel cells technology is generally approved of. In line with this, the [52] and inconsistent results with regard to the accept- relationship between general and local acceptance has ance of hydrogen technologies. While some studies sug- been the subject of some discussion within research, with gest that there is widespread support for hydrogen’s critics arguing that using representative opinion poll data development as a fuel and concerns with safety risks are to indicate acceptance towards a technology is painting a rather low [53], other studies report hydrogen technolo- skewed picture [65]. Similarly, other research argues that gies such as hydrogen fuel stations receiving opposition even though people may be inclined to express positive or low acceptance from citizens [54–56]. More specifi - attitudes towards renewables, this does not necessarily cally, studies showed that people have mixed attitudes indicate their actual opinion about the issue [13]. Fur- concerning the safety and storage of hydrogen near resi- thermore, local acceptance may be much more depend- dential areas [54], that intentions to act against hydrogen ent on case- and project-specific variables, instead of facilities is more strongly based on moral considerations general attitudes towards an energy technology [66]. than on self-interest [55] and that the further the distance Additionally, some research critique that many studies between fuel station and dwelling, the more accepting that examines the “general–local gap” or “national–local people are of the technology [56]. gap” as they call it oftentimes draws upon two non-corre- spondent dimensions [14]. More specifically, acceptance Exploring factors influencing the acceptance of energy or attitudes towards energy technologies in general are technologies usually examined at a public or national level, which are Previous studies on the acceptance of energy technolo- then compared with the local level, namely acceptance gies have shown that factors such as perceived risks and or attitudes towards energy technologies near the place benefits, trust, perceived fairness and personal norms where people live (e.g., a specific town). To determine influence attitudes and behaviors towards technologies whether a general–local acceptance gap actually exists, [57–61]. In the following, we will shortly introduce the the authors recommend to measure responses regarding factors examined in the current study. general and local acceptance at the same level of specific - ity, a suggestions that we adopt in the current study. The General vs local acceptance authors furthermore suggest adopting a place-based per- Public acceptance is a key factor in the diffusion of sus - spective rather than a spatial perspective when assessing tainable energy technologies [62]. While active accept- local acceptance using a local sample. In this way, studies ance or public support of emergent technologies can could better focus on how individuals and groups living facilitate political support and incentivize industry and in different places make sense of energy infrastructures government to invest further in their development [4, and respond to it by taking into account their relation- 5], opposition to new technologies can result in project ships with and feelings about those places. As we only delays or even cancelling entire energy infrastructure measure acceptance using a national/public sample in the projects [6]. Various definitions and understandings exist current study to assess general acceptance and accept- with regard to the term “acceptance”, with some studies ance of technologies close to people’s homes at the same referring to attitudes when talking about acceptance [63], level of specificity, this recommendation does not con - while other studies refer to attitudes as “acceptability”. In cern the measures in the current study. Last, the authors the current study, we define the term acceptance as atti - suggest assessing more than simply attitudes towards tudes towards a technology, which some previous studies energy technologies and to include other additional Baur  et al. Energy, Sustainability and Society (2022) 12:4 Page 5 of 16 variables such as trust or the perceived outcomes of attitudes for financial support can serve as another indi - energy infrastructures when consulting a national/public cator towards support for new technologies. As attitudes sample. We follow this recommendation and explain our towards financial support/funding are examined on a choice of further variables below. general level (i.e., not for an energy project in a certain location), we expect attitudes towards financial support/ Public concerns funding to be associated with general acceptance but not Research has shown that perceived risks and benefits local acceptance. play an important role when it comes to public accept- ance of technologies [57, 67–69]. Most studies exam- Methods ine risks and benefits on a rather general level, such as We created an online survey to examine the factors that by asking respondents how useful, positive or safe they influence the social acceptance of energy technologies. judge the technologies [70]. Risks and benefits assessed First, the participants received a one-page description of in this way have been shown to be (in)directly associated one of the technologies, including a picture of the tech- with general and local energy technology acceptance [70, nology. This way, we wanted to ensure that participants 71]. Some studies however recommend placing the focus had a common knowledge base to evaluate the technolo- on specific costs and benefits perceived by local residents gies. Subsequently, different factors that may influence when studying the local acceptance of energy technolo- energy technology acceptance were examined. Explored gies [47] as local acceptance can be much more depend- factors included public concerns, knowledge about the ent on project-specific variables [66]. For instance, in technologies, perceived problems of the current energy the case of biogas, unpleasant smells are a cost associ- system, trust in industry and municipality, affect, and ated with local acceptance [47], whereas for wind energy, environmental self-identity. In the current paper, we will the visual impacts of the technology have been shown report results on the factors public concerns, trust in to be associated with local acceptance [72]. In line with stakeholders (industry and municipality), financial sup - this reasoning, we assess which specific public concerns port and acceptance (general and local). Additionally, are perceived with regard to the three technologies and we assessed both general and public acceptance of the examine whether they are more strongly associated with three technologies. All items were answered on 5-point local compared to general acceptance. Likert scales. Data were collected by distributing the survey via the open scientific survey panel “SoSci Panel” Trust in stakeholders as well as social media channels. The survey was com - When technologies are still relatively unknown, public pleted by 1247 participants, with the participants being acceptance is strongly influenced by trust in stakehold - about equally distributed across the three technologies ers, as lay judgements of a technology may be based on (hydrogen fuel stations n = 409, biofuel production plants assessments of those who are responsible for the tech- n = 416 and stationary battery storage n = 422). nology and who are deemed technical experts [73, 74]. Generally, trust in stakeholders responsible for the tech- Measurements nology is associated with higher acceptance of the tech- Public concerns Public concerns with regard to the three nology. Several studies have examined the role of trust in energy technologies were measured with one ques- stakeholders and have found that it can influence accept - tion [Which of the effects listed below do you fear when ance via both perceived risks and benefits of a technol - using such systems?]. Based on input from expert inter- ogy as well as affective responses towards a technology. views as well as the literature, seven public concerns were For instance, a study on hydrogen systems found that included as answer possibilities, with an additional open people who had a negative evaluation of trust in stake- text field to mention any additional concerns [electros - holders and negative affective spontaneous associations mog, odor pollution, noise pollution, air pollution, fire perceived more risks and fewer benefits of the technol - hazard, risk of explosion, negative impact on the land- ogy [75]. Similarly, a study on the acceptance of C O stor- scape or urban landscape, other—if you fear "other" effects age found that people’s attitudes towards the technology under the previous question, you are welcome to tell us were mainly based on trust and affective reactions [73]. about them.]. The same answer options were presented independent of which technology the participants were Attitudes towards financial support/funding asked to evaluate. This way, we wanted to ensure not to Last, we will examine attitudes towards financial support/ steer the participants by only providing concerns com- funding. Technologies that receive funding or financial monly associated with a certain technology. support from the government are more likely to be rolled Attitude towards financial support Attitudes towards out on a broader scale in the future. Therefore, assessing financial support for the technologies were measured Baur et al. Energy, Sustainability and Society (2022) 12:4 Page 6 of 16 with one item [I approve that such plants are financially measure general and local acceptance at the same level of supported], which was answered on a 5-point Likert scale specificity when using a national/public sample, as rec - [1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree]. ommended by Batel and Devine-Wright [14]. Trust in stakeholders Trust in industry was measured with three items: I trust that the governmental authori- Results ties will: (1) ensure that safe technology plants will be Socio‑demographic profile built; (2) have the relevant expertise to successfully Out of 1247 respondents, 52% were male and 47% female, build a safe technology plant; (3) will operate the plant the gender of 1% of the respondents is unknown. Most safely [1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree]. Trust in of the participants had a high educational level, 67% had municipality was measured with four items: I trust that attained a university degree and 23% had completed high the governmental authorities will (1) take the concerns school. About half of the participants were in employ- of residents into account; (2) make a responsible decision ment (55%), while students represented the second most on whether or not to build the technology; (3) ensure frequently named profession (21%). The median category that safe technology plants will be built; (4) execute given for age was 40–49 years (see Fig. 1). As the sample safety checks to ensure the safe operation of the plant contained a large share of participants holding a univer- [1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree]. sity degree, the data are not fully representative of the Acceptance General acceptance was measured with German population in this regard [76]. the item “Overall, I rate such systems as…” [1 = very negative, 5 = very positive], whereas local acceptance was Public concerns measures with the item “I have no problem with the con- The most frequently mentioned concerns differed with struction of such a facility next to my place of residence.” regard to the nature of the respective technologies (see [1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree]. In this way, we Fig.  2). For stationary battery storage systems, the most Fig. 1 Participants’ socio-demographic profile Baur  et al. Energy, Sustainability and Society (2022) 12:4 Page 7 of 16 Fig. 2 Public concerns regarding stationary battery storage, biofuel production plants and hydrogen refueling stations frequently mentioned concerns included fire hazards biomass from tropical forests, endangerment of natural (56%) and explosion hazards (51%). About a third of the humus formation), concerns related to traffic (increased participants were also concerned about electrosmog traffic volume leading to higher air and nose pollution (32%) and of battery storage plants having a negative and overcrowded roads) as well as concerns related to impact on the landscape and cityscape (28%). The least land use and the usefulness of the technology (cultiva- frequently mentioned concerns included noise pollu- tion of crops for biomass will lead to an imbalance in the tions (20%), smell pollution (2%) and air pollution (2%). use of raw materials, monocultures and competition with Additional concerns that were provided by the partici- organic food production). pants in the empty text field included concerns about the With regard to hydrogen refueling stations, explosion environmental impact of the technology (production and hazards (64%) and fire hazards (37%) were the most fre - disposal, unsustainable raw materials, impairment of for quently mentioned concerns. Furthermore, about a quar- a and fauna), concerns about costs related the use of the ter of the participants mentioned noise pollution (25%) technology (disposal costs, decline in land and property and a negative impact on the landscape and cityscape values, high taxes) as well as safety and health concerns, (19%) as concerns, whereas electrosmog (4%), smell pol- which were related to the answer possibilities already lution (4%) and air pollution (3%) were barely mentioned provided (health risks from electromagnetic fields, severe as concerns. Additional concerns that were provided by fires and toxic smoke, risk of accidents). With regard to the participants in the empty text field included con - biofuel production plants, over two-thirds of the par- cerns about the costs related to the use of the technol- ticipants were concerned about smell pollution (78%), ogy (high production costs of hydrogen, failing property whereas the second most frequently mentioned concerns values), environmental concerns (consequences on the included noise pollution (48%) and a negative impact on water economy, noise pollution, threat to flora and fauna, the landscape and cityscape (44%). Air pollution (23%), consequences of the haze and increased humidity), safety explosion hazards (20%) and fire hazards (19%) were concerns (target for terrorist attacks, risk of explosion), mentioned as concerns about equally often, while elec- as well as concerns regarding the usefulness of the tech- trosmog (3%) was only mentioned by a small percentage nology (use of fossil fuels for hydrogen production, con- of the participants. Additional concerns that were pro- tinuation of current transport concept with emphasis on vided by the participants in the empty text field included individual transport). concerns about the costs related to the use of the tech- nology (increased land prices and prices of other biomass Trust in stakeholders product such as animal feed and food, monopolization of With regard to trust in stakeholders, the majority of arable land), environmental concerns (pollution of land, respondents across the three technologies indicated to water and air due to high methane load and the import of trust the industry and municipalities (see Fig.  3). While Baur et al. Energy, Sustainability and Society (2022) 12:4 Page 8 of 16 Fig. 3 Trust in industry and municipality with regard to the potential construction of stationary battery storage, biofuel production plants and hydrogen refueling stations the percentages of participants who indicated to strongly rather agreed to this. Last, for hydrogen refueling sta- agree ranged between 13 and 15% for both trust in indus- tions, 28% of respondents were strongly in favor of finan - try and municipality across the technologies, around 50% cial support towards the technology, while 51% were of participants indicated to rather agree with regard to rather in support of this. For all three technologies, only trusting the industry (46% for stationary battery storage, few respondents (less than 10%) were against the tech- 43% for biofuel production plants, 48% for hydrogen refu- nologies receiving financial support. About 12–18% of eling stations) and municipality (47% for stationary bat- respondents indicated to be undecided about whether tery storage, 47% for biofuel production plants, 56% for the technologies should be financially supported. hydrogen refueling stations). Relatively few respondents indicated not to have trust in the industry and munici- Public acceptance of emerging technologies palities. Noticeably, a rather large share of participants Overall, the three technologies were evaluated as fairly seemed to be undecided about whether they trusted the positive, meaning that general acceptance of all three relevant stakeholders. With regard to trust in industry, technologies is high (see Fig. 5). With regard to stationary 28–30% of participants indicated to be undecided about battery storage, 37% of the participants indicated to per- whether they trusted industry stakeholders (28% for ceive the technology as very positive. Biofuel production stationary battery storage, 30% for biofuel production plants were evaluated as very positive by 16% of the par- plants, 28% for hydrogen refueling stations). With regard ticipants, whereas hydrogen refueling stations were rated to trust in municipalities, the percentages were very simi- as very positive by 25% of the participants. Furthermore, lar, with 25–30% of participants indicating to be unde- for all three technologies, about half of the participants cided (30% for stationary battery storage, 29% for biofuel evaluated the technologies as rather positive (48% for sta- production plants, 25% for hydrogen refueling stations). tionary battery storage systems, 58% for biofuel produc- tion plants, 50% for hydrogen refueling stations). Only Attitude towards financial support few participants indicated to perceive the technologies Most participants had rather positive attitudes towards negatively. For both biofuel production plants and hydro- financial support for the three technologies (see Fig.  4). gen refueling stations, about a fifth of the participants For stationary battery storage, the majority of respond- were undecided with regard to the technologies (17% for ents either strongly (45%) or rather agreed (30%) to the biofuel production plants, 20% for hydrogen refueling technology to be financially supported. For biofuel pro - stations). With regard to stationary battery storage, only duction plants, 18% of respondents strongly agreed to 10% of respondents indicated to be undecided about the the technology to be financially supported, whereas 50% technology. Baur  et al. Energy, Sustainability and Society (2022) 12:4 Page 9 of 16 Fig. 4 Attitudes towards financial support for the three energy technologies stationary battery storage, biofuel production plants and hydrogen refueling stations Fig. 5 General acceptance of stationary battery storage, biofuel production plants and hydrogen refueling stations When asking the participants whether they would stations). Between 9 and 18% of the participants indi- accept the technology to be placed near their homes cated to rather disagree with regard to the technologies (local acceptance), the participant’s responses were being placed close to their homes (13% for stationary slightly less positive than when asked about whether battery storage systems, 18% for biofuel production they would accept the technologies in general (see plants, and 9% for hydrogen refueling stations). Only Fig.  6). With regard to stationary battery storage sys- a small percentage of participants strongly disagreed tems, 37% strongly agreed to accept the technologies to with having one of the technologies in the vicinity of be placed close to their homes, for biofuel production their homes. Last, with regard to all three technologies, plants, 16% strongly agreed and for hydrogen refueling about a fifth of the participants were undecided about stations, 25% strongly agreed. Furthermore, around whether they would accept the technologies close to 40% of the participants indicated to rather agree to this their homes (21% for stationary battery storage sys- (39% for stationary battery storage systems, 41% for tems, 21% for biofuel production plants, and 20% for biofuel production plants, 42% for hydrogen refueling hydrogen refueling stations). Baur et al. Energy, Sustainability and Society (2022) 12:4 Page 10 of 16 Fig. 6 Local acceptance of stationary battery storage, biofuel production plants and hydrogen refueling stations Table 1 Bivariate correlations (Spearman’s rank order) between Table 2 Bivariate correlations (Spearman’s rank order) between public concerns and financial support, general acceptance and public concerns and financial support, general acceptance and local acceptance for stationary battery storage local acceptance for biofuel production plants General acceptance Local acceptance General acceptance Local acceptance Electrosmog − 0.002 − 0.338** Electrosmog − 0.006 − 0.120* Smell pollution − 0.044 − 0.073 Smell pollution 0.114* − 0.059 Noise pollution − 0.048 − 0.176** Noise pollution 0.039 − 0.171** Air pollution − 0.088 − 0.145** Air pollution − 0.125* − 0.241** Fire hazard − 0.114* − 0.125* Fire hazard 0.001 − 0.064 Explosion hazard − 0.074 − 0.204** Explosion hazard 0.026 − 0.048 Negative impact on land- − 0.081 − 0.235** Negative impact on land- − 0.054 − 0.294** scape and cityscape scape and cityscape Financial support 0.595** 0.217** Financial support 0.604** 0.345** General acceptance – 0.361** General acceptance – 0.380** *p < 0.05 *p < 0.05 **p < 0.01 **p < 0.01 Associations between public concerns, public acceptance p < 0.001) were found (see Table 1). For biofuel produc- and financial support tion plants, moderate association between local accept- To look at the relationship between public concerns ance and air pollution (r = − 0.241, p < 0.001) as well as and acceptance, Spearman’s rank correlation coeffi - negative impact on the landscape and cityscape (r =− cients were examined. No associations between public 0.294, p < 0.001) were found (see Table 2). For hydrogen concerns and general acceptance were found, except for refueling stations (see Table 3), the only moderate asso- few weak associations (r < 0.2) that are not reported in ciation between local acceptance and a public concern detail here. On the other hand, some moderate asso- was found for explosion hazard (r = − 0.223, p < 0.001). ciations (r > 0.2) between public concerns and local Additionally, we examined the correlations between acceptance were found. For stationary battery storage public acceptance and financial support for the energy systems, moderate association between local accept- technologies. Across all technologies, financial sup - ance and electrosmog (r = −  0.338, p < 0.001), explo- port and general acceptance were strongly correlated sion hazard (r = −  0.204, p < 0.001) and negative (r = 0.595, p < 0.001 for stationary battery storage sys- impact on the landscape and cityscape (r = −  0.235, tems, r = 0.604, p < 0.001 for biofuel production plants, s Baur  et al. Energy, Sustainability and Society (2022) 12:4 Page 11 of 16 Table 3 Bivariate correlations (Spearman’s rank order) between the most commonly mentioned concern in our study public concerns and financial support, general acceptance and was smell pollution, followed by noise pollution and the local acceptance for hydrogen refueling stations technology having a negative impact on the landscape and cityscape. These concerns go in line with previous General acceptance Local acceptance studies conducted in Switzerland and Austria. In a study Electrosmog − 0.132** − 0.150** on the local acceptance of existing biogas plants in Swit- Smell pollution − 0.095 − 0.106* zerland [47], the authors found that smell perception Noise pollution − 0.060 − 0.114* influences acceptance indirectly via perceived benefits Air pollution − 0.154** − 0.128** and risks as well as trust. Furthermore, results of a study Fire hazard − 0.053 − 0.153** based on expert interviews indicate that low acceptance Explosion hazard − 0.069 − 0.223** of biogas plants in Austria is related to complaints about Negative impact on land- − 0.107* − 0.156** high levels of smell, noise and traffic by residents, which scape and cityscape can result in planned projects having to be scaled down Financial support 0.560** 0.340** or shut down [77]. A concern not commonly reported General acceptance – 0.333** in previous studies was biofuel production plants hav- *p < 0.05 ing a negative impact on the landscape. Potentially, the **p < 0.01 visual impact of energy infrastructure increasingly con- cerns citizens as more and more new energy infrastruc- ture is introduced as the energy transition progresses. For and r = 0.560, p < 0.001 for hydrogen refueling sta- s hydrogen fuel stations, the most frequently reported con- tions). Furthermore, financial support was moderately cerns were explosion hazards and fire hazards, followed correlated with local acceptance (r = 0.217, p < 0.001 s by noise pollution and the technology having a negative for stationary battery storage systems, r = 0.345, s impact on the landscape and cityscape. Especially the risk p < 0.001 for biofuel production plants, and r = 0.340, s of explosion is a commonly reported safety concern in p < 0.001 for hydrogen refueling stations). studies on hydrogen acceptance [52, 78], with hydrogen often being associated with explosions and fire. As a lack of trust in safety is associated with opposition to hydro- Discussion gen infrastructures, such concerns need to be taken very The current study supports and extends findings with seriously during the planning process of the technology. regard to common public concerns about the three tech- With regard to public acceptance, our results sug- nologies studied: stationary battery storage, biofuel pro- gest that for all three technologies, general acceptance duction plants and hydrogen refueling stations. The most is slightly higher than local acceptance. These results frequently mentioned concerns with regard to station- go in line with previous findings, which indicate that ary battery storage include fire and explosion hazards, even though some surveys report people approving of followed by electrosmog and the technology having a new energy technologies [8], public opposition often- negative impact on the landscape and cityscape. These times arises when concrete energy infrastructures are results go in line with previous results from a qualitative intended to be built [9–11]. The finding that general and study conducted in the UK [37], which mentioned fire local acceptance differ has important implications, as it and explosion hazards as well as electromagnetic radia- underlines the importance of distinguishing these con- tion as perceived risks. The study also reports that sta - cepts when studying public acceptance. Public opinion tionary battery storage systems may be more acceptable surveys usually measure acceptance on a general level, if situated out of the way or if the technology fit in with which can create a skewed picture of technology accept- the environment, a finding that is consistent with par - ance if one assumes that data on general acceptance will ticipants in our study indicating to be concerned about directly translate into acceptance on a local level [65]. the negative impact of the technology on the landscape When asked on a general level, people may be inclined or cityscape. About a fifth of the participants in our to express positive attitudes towards sustainable energy study mentioned noise pollution as a concern, a finding technologies [13]. However, this not necessarily express that was not reported in previous studies. An additional their actual opinion on the issue, which might differ concern that was mentioned by some participants in the when asked about acceptance of technologies close to open text field included environmental impacts, more one’s home. Importantly, the current study shows that specifically with regard to the raw materials and produc - there is a gap between general and local acceptance, tion and disposal of the technology, which is a concern even if it is assessed at the same level of specificity (i.e., that was also found in the study by Thomas, Demski and measuring general and local acceptance at the same level Pidgeon [37]. With regard to biofuel production plants, Baur et al. Energy, Sustainability and Society (2022) 12:4 Page 12 of 16 of specificity using a public/national sample). In other a public/national sample in the current study. Similarly words, the results indicate that people can relate to the to the results of Batel and Devine-Wright, we did see a issue even if they are not directly affected, but merely difference with regard to general and local acceptance, asked to provide their opinion about a fictional situation. despite only referring to a fictional scenario with regard Public concerns were shown to be associated with local to local acceptance in our study. Overall, the results indi- acceptance, but not with general acceptance besides a cate that acceptance of all three technologies was fairly few exceptions. Associations between public concerns high in general, which was also reflected in the partici - and local acceptance differed per technology. Even pant’s attitudes for financial support. Local acceptance though causality cannot be assumed due to the nature of of the technologies was slightly lower, but no pattern of the study, the results can nevertheless provide an indi- strong opposition could be seen. This indicates that even cation of the specific concerns that may inhibit local though participants were not “directly” affected by the acceptance of the technologies and lead to opposition placement of energy technologies close to their homes, when specific energy infrastructure projects are planned. they could still relate to the issue. In other words, even This way, public concerns can be addressed upfront and though the study indicates that there is a gap between trust in safety measures can be built. In addition, these general and local acceptance, this finding disputes the results point towards the fact that it might be helpful to prevalent representation of energy users as nimbys, include more specific concerns in future studies, as to namely people who are selfish, irrational and only con - date, mostly risks on a general level are included in most cerned with issues around energy technologies when they research [70]. are affected directly “in their own backyards”. In practice, Trust in industry and stakeholders was high across these results illustrate the added value that surveys into all three technologies. What was noticeable about trust the public acceptance of technologies can provide, even if in stakeholders was that across all technologies and for people who do not have direct experience with a certain both trust in industry and stakeholders, a relatively large energy technology are surveyed. As it can be time-con- share of respondents (30%) indicated to be undecided suming to consult local samples, we recommend assess- about whether they trusted the stakeholders. As previ- ing general and local acceptance using public/national ous research has shown that trust in stakeholders is an sample as a first step to gauge whether there are indica - important predictor of acceptance [73, 74], this is a rel- tions for local opposition towards technologies. Should evant issue in need of further analysis. Attitudes towards such a study indicate that this can be the case, consulting financial support of the three energy technologies were a local sample would then be a feasible second step when relatively high across all the technologies. As expected, planning energy infrastructure in a certain community financial support and general acceptance were corre - or town. In line with this, this approach would also be lated across all three technologies. This finding goes in helpful to assess potential public concerns that can influ - line with previous research on climate engineering tech- ence acceptance at a local level, a similar approach can be nologies, which also reports a strong correlation between adopted. Using a public/national sample, assessing public support for further research and support for deployment concerns by means of a survey can provide stakeholders of technologies [79]. As the majority of studies focuses with an overview regarding worries that might need to be predominantly on the predictors of public acceptance addressed when planning to implement a certain energy of energy technologies, future research could explore project. Once a clear picture exists with regard to the whether similar factors, such as perceived benefits of the public concerns that exist among the public with regard technology, are associated with attitudes towards finan - to certain new energy technologies, further measures can cial support of energy technologies. be taken to address the concerns identified. As shown in our study, some of the public concerns that emerged Conclusion and policy recommendations are unlikely to happen in real life. As public concerns In the current study, we aimed to examine the social are associated with local acceptance, we suggest these to acceptance of three emerging energy technologies: sta- be addressed upfront with the help of transparent com- tionary battery storage, biofuel production plants and munication efforts. This way, misconceptions about the hydrogen refueling stations. In light of this, we assessed technologies and associated costs and risks could be pre- public concerns, acceptance (general and local), trust in vented. Nevertheless, it needs to be kept in mind that stakeholders, as well as financial support for the tech - information provision, which is a public form of public nologies. Following the recommendations by Batel and involvement, is not necessarily sufficient to secure pub - Devine-Wright [14], we assessed acceptance of technolo- lic support. In addition, even though we consider knowl- gies in general as well as acceptance of technologies close edge about public concerns as vital to planning energy to people’s homes at the same level of specificity, using projects, policy-makers and practitioners should refrain Baur  et al. Energy, Sustainability and Society (2022) 12:4 Page 13 of 16 thinking of energy infrastructure plans as “top-down” lens. For instance, what does it mean to them when the processes that the public should seemingly accept. On new technology X is introduced in their community? the contrary, if valid public concerns exist, these should How do they expect the new technology to affect their be taken seriously. Previous research shows that even community? Do they have specific place-related wor - though public involvement is not an easy remedy with ries that affect their perception of the new technology? regard to acceptance issues surrounding energy pro- Gaining an understanding of people’s perception in this jects, acceptance may be higher if people believe that the way could help to better manage how a specific energy decision-making process is fair, and if they feel that their project needs to be planned and adapted to a certain interests are considered [59]. On the other hand, if peo- community. With regard to trust in stakeholders, a rela- ple feel as if their concerns are not actually heard, public tively large share of participants indicated to be unde- involvement can even backfire and dampen acceptance cided about whether they trusted the stakeholders in [81]. the current study. As it is unclear whether this is due to the fact of some of the technologies being relatively unknown, future studies could explore which factors Limitations and avenues for future research influence trust, such as knowledge about the technolo - Despite the exploitation of a large dataset, the current gies. Additionally, it would be interesting to examine study is subject to a number of limitations. With par- whether technological incidents affect trust in differ - ticipants of certain age groups, professions and educa- ent stakeholders. In line with this, future studies could tional background being overrepresented, the sample explore whether trust in stakeholders changes in the is not fully representative of the German population. long term after technological incidents happen, but also Furthermore, with regard to assessing local acceptance, whether technological incidents with regard to simi- we presented the participants with a fictional situa - lar technologies influences trust and thereby accept - tion. The results obtained in the current study are help - ance. For instance, it would be interesting to examine ful in some ways, but also are subject to a drawback. whether fire incidents related to battery electric vehi - While the results provide support for the existence of cles (BEVs) not only affect attitudes and trust towards a general–local acceptance gap even when measuring BEVs, but also towards other battery technologies, such acceptance at the same level of specificity which shows as battery storage. In conclusion, future studies can that people still relate to issues around energy projects extend our knowledge about best practices in terms of [14], people’s reactions to the implementation of the using both public and local samples when assessing the technologies might still deviate in real life when using social acceptance of energy technologies as well as fac- a local sample. For instance, there could be a degree tors influencing acceptance. of response bias, as potential risks and drawbacks of having one of the technologies built in the vicinity of Acknowledgements For their support in developing the survey, we would like to thank Prof. people’s home might be of even stronger personal rel- Michael Braun from GESIS—Leibniz Institute for the Social Sciences, Dr. evance in real life than when answering to an imagined Dominik Leiner and Dr. Christina Peter, both from the Ludwig Maximilian situation in a survey. Future studies could compare University of Munich; our thanks also go to the platform SoSci-survey (www. sosci survey. de) for hosting the survey. general and local acceptance using both national/pub- lic and local samples of participants who are faced Authors’ contributions with the implementation of a concrete energy project DB: validation, data analysis, data curation, data visualization, writing—origi- nal draft, writing—review and editing. PE: conceptualization, methodology, close to their homes, ideally before and after the energy validation, data analysis, investigation, data curation, writing—review and infrastructure is built. This would enable to better editing, supervision, project administration. MJB: conceptualization, investiga- understand how results regarding local acceptance are tion, resources, writing—review and editing, supervision, funding acquisition. MW: conceptualization, investigation, resources, writing—review and editing, influenced by the research design and sample used in a supervision, funding acquisition. All authors read and approved the final study. In line with this, public concerns related to spe- manuscript. cific energy technologies and their influence on local Funding acceptance could as well be examined in more detail. In Open Access funding enabled and organized by Projekt DEAL. The authors the current study, we include specific concerns instead would like to thank the Helmholtz Association initiative ‘Energy System 2050’ of simply measuring whether perceived risks at a gen- for financial support. Our special thanks go to the researchers of the initiative, who have supported the work in several ways. This work also contributes to eral level influence acceptance. While we think that the research performed at CELEST (Center for Electrochemical Energy Storage this approach taken has some advantages over sim- Ulm-Karlsruhe). This work was partially funded by the Deutsche Forschun- ply measuring perceived risks in general, future stud- gsgemeinschaft (DFG, German Research Foundation) under Germany’s Excel- lence Strategy—EXC 2154—Project number 390874152 and the European ies could use qualitative method to more thoroughly Union’s—H2020-LC-GD-2020 / H2020-LC-GD-2020-6 project stoRIES Grant understand people’s concerns through a “place-based” Agreement No. 101036910. Content does not reflect the official opinion of Baur et al. Energy, Sustainability and Society (2022) 12:4 Page 14 of 16 the European Union. Responsibility for the information and views expressed 8. Agentur für Erneuerbare Energien (2019) Wichtig für den Kampf gegen herein lies entirely with the authors. den Klimawandel: Bürger*innen wollen mehr Erneuerbare Energien. Agentur für Erneuerbare Energien e.V. Available via AEE. https:// www. Availability of data and materialsunend lich- viel- energ ie. de/ themen/ akzep tanz- erneu erbar er/ akzep tanz- All data generated or analyzed during this study are included in this published umfra ge/ akzep tanzu mfrage- 2019. Accessed 4 Feb 2021 article and its supplementary information files: Emmerich P, Hülemeier A-G, 9. Schöpper Y (2020) Akzeptanz in der Fläche, Protest im Lokalen? Studie Jendryczko D et al. (2020) Public acceptance of emerging energy technologies zur Windenergie an Land. Agentur für Erneuerbare Energien e.V. Available in context of the German energy transition. Energy Policy 142:111516. https:// via AEE. https:// www. unend lich- viel- energ ie. de/ media/ file/ 3801. AEE_ doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. enpol. 2020. 111516.Renews_ Spezi al_ 90_ Akzep tanz- Wind_ Apr20. pdf. Accessed 4 Feb 2021 10. Asendorpf D (2016) Klimaschutz mit Nebenwirkungen: Die hässliche Seite der Energiewende. https:// www. swr. de/ swr2/ wissen/ energ iewen Declarations de- haess lich,broad castc ontrib- swr- 31480. html. Accessed 21 Sept 2020 11. Schwenkenbecher A (2017) What is wrong with Nimbys? Renewable Ethics approval and consent to participate energy, landscape impacts and incommensurable values. Environ Values Approval by an ethics committee was not required. The aim of the online 26:711–732. https:// doi. org/ 10. 3197/ 09632 7117x 15046 90549 0353 survey was to collect the participant’s opinions on sustainable energy 12. Petrova M (2013) NIMBYism revisited: public acceptance of wind energy technologies and did not risk any potential harm to the participants, nor was in the United States. Wiley Interdiscip Rev: Climate Change 4:575–601. there any intentional deception involved. Appropriate ethical aspects with https:// doi. org/ 10. 1002/ wcc. 250 regard to online surveys were taken into account: before starting the survey, 13. van der Horst D (2007) NIMBY or not? Exploring the relevance of location informed consent was obtained from the participants. The participants were and the politics of voiced opinions in renewable energy siting controver- informed about the data being collected anonymously and about them being sies. Energy Policy 35:2705–2714. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. enpol. 2006. 12. able to stop their participation at any point in time. At the end of the survey, participants were debriefed about the aims of the survey. 14. Batel S, Devine-Wright P (2015) A critical and empirical analysis of the national-local ‘gap’ in public responses to large-scale energy infrastruc- Consent for publication tures. J Environ Planning Manage 58(6):1076–1095. https:// doi. org/ 10. Data were collected anonymously and the manuscript does not include 1080/ 09640 568. 2014. 914020 details, images, or videos relating to an individual person. 15. Bundesregierung (2019) Klimaschutzprogramm 2030 der Bundesr- egierung zur Umsetzung des Klimaschutzplans 2050. https:// www. bunde Competing interests sregi erung. de/ resou rce/ blob/ 975226/ 16799 14/ e01d6 bd855 f09bf 05cf7 The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests 498e0 6d0a3 ff/ 2019- 10- 09- klima- massn ahmen- data. pdf? downl oad=1. or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work Accessed 4 Feb 2021 reported in this paper. 16. UBA (2010) Energy target 2050: 100% renewable electricity supply. Available via UBA. https:// www. umwel tbund esamt. de/ sites/ defau lt/ files/ Author details medien/ 378/ publi katio nen/ energ ieziel_ 2050_ kurz. pdf. Accessed 16 Aug Institute for Technology Assessment and Systems Analysis (ITAS), Karlsruhe Institute of Technology (KIT ), Karlsruhe, Germany. I nstitute of T echnology 17. Agora Energiewende (2014) Electricity Storage in the German Energy and Management, Technical University of Berlin, Berlin, Germany. Helmholtz- Transition. Available via Agora Energiewende. https:// www. agora- energ Institute Ulm for Electrochemical Energy Storage (HIU), Ulm, Germany. iewen de. de/ filea dmin/ Proje kte/ 2013/ speic her- in- der- energ iewen de/ Agora_ Speic herst udie_ EN_ web. pdf. Accessed 16 Aug 2021 Received: 11 February 2021 Accepted: 19 December 2021 18. Statista (2021) Anteil erneuerbarer Energien an der Stromerzeugung pro Monat in Deutschland von August 2020 bis August 2021. Available via Stastista. https:// de. stati sta. com/ stati stik/ daten/ studie/ 779784/ umfra ge/ monat licher- anteil- erneu erbar er- energ ien- an- der- strom erzeu gung- in- deuts chland/ Accessed 15 Aug 2021 References 19. International Energy Agency (2018) Tracking clean energy processes. 1. Bundesministerium für Umwelt, Naturschutz und nukleare Sicherheit https:// www. iea. org/ topics/ track ing- clean- energy- progr ess. International (2016) Klimaschutzplan 2050: Klimaschutzpolitische Grundsätze und Energy Agency. Accessed 12 Nov 2020 Ziele der Bundesregierung. Available via BMU. https:// www. bmu. de/ filea 20. BfN (2018) Naturverträgliche Energieversorgung aus 100% erneuerbaren dmin/ Daten_ BMU/ Downl oad_ PDF/ Klima schutz/ klima schut zplan_ 2050_ Energien 2050. Available via BfN. https:// www. bfn. de/ filea dmin/ BfN/ servi bf. pdf. Accessed 4 Feb 2021 ce/ Dokum ente/ skrip ten/ Skrip t501. pdf. Accessed 15 Aug 2021 2. Sohre A (2013) Strategien in der energie- und klimapolitik. Springer, 21. International Energy Agency (2019) Will pumped storage hydropower Wiesbaden expand more quickly than stationary battery storage? https:// www. iea. 3. Shell (2017) Energy Scenarios Germany. Available via Shell. https:// www. org/ artic les/ will- pumped- stora ge- hydro power- expand- more- quick ly- shell. com/ energy- and- innov ation/ the- energy- future/ scena rios/ what- than- stati onary- batte ry- stora ge. International Energy Agency. Accessed 4 are- scena rios/_ jcr_ conte nt/ par/ tabbe dcont ent/ tab/ texti mage_ 25172 Feb 2021 244. stream/ 15041 04048 141/ 87b26 84f71 2f1da 82ef3 2d07b 19555 92041 22. UBA (2013) Germany 2050 a greenhouse gas-neutral Country. Available 2d451/ shell- energy- scena rios- germa ny. pdf via UBA. https:// www. umwel tbund esamt. de/ sites/ defau lt/ files/ medien/ 4. Schweizer-Ries P (2008) Energy sustainable communities: environmental 376/ publi katio nen/ germa ny_ 2050_a_ green house_ gas_ neutr al_ count psychological investigations. Energy Policy 36:4126–4135. https:// doi. org/ ry_ langf assung. pdf. Accessed 16 Aug 2021 10. 1016/j. enpol. 2008. 06. 021 23. dena (2018) dena Study Integrated Energy Transition. Available via dena. 5. Stimson J, Mackuen M, Erikson R (1995) Dynamic representation. Am https:// www. umwel tbund esamt. de/ sites/ defau lt/ files/ medien/ 376/ Political Sci Rev 89:543–565. https:// doi. org/ 10. 2307/ 20829 73 publi katio nen/ germa ny_ 2050_a_ green house_ gas_ neutr al_ count ry_ 6. Bock S, Reimann B (2017) Beteiligungsverfahren bei umweltrelevanten langf assung. pdf. https:// www. dena. de/ filea dmin/ dena/ Dokum ente/ Pdf/ Vorhaben. Abschlussbericht. Available via UBA. https:// www. umwel 9283_ dena_ Study_ Integ rated_ Energy_ Trans ition. PDF. Accessed 16 Aug tbund esamt. de/ sites/ defau lt/ files/ medien/ 1410/ publi katio nen/ 2017- 05- 30_ texte_ 37- 2017_ betei ligun gsver fahren- umwel tvorh aben. pdf. 24. UBA (2019) Wege in eine ressourcenschonende Treibhausgasneutralität. Accessed 4 Feb 2021 Available via UBA. https:// www. umwel tbund esamt. de/ sites/ defau lt/ files/ 7. Westdeutscher Rundfunk (2020) Baustopp für Windräder zwischen Altena medien/ 1410/ publi katio nen/ rescue_ studie_ cc_ 36- 2019_ wege_ in_ eine_ und Neuenrade. Westdeutscher Rundfunk. Available via WDR. https:// resso urcen schon ende_ treib hausg asneu trali taet_ aufla ge2_ juni- 2021. pdf . www1. wdr. de/ nachr ichten/ westf alen- lippe/ baust opp- windr aeder- Accessed 15 Aug 2021 altena- 100. html. Accessed 4 Feb 2021 Baur  et al. Energy, Sustainability and Society (2022) 12:4 Page 15 of 16 25. UBA (2021) System comparison of storable energy carriers from renew- 45. Upreti BR (2004) Conflict over biomass energy development in the able energies. Available via UBA. https:// www. umwel tbund esamt. de/ United Kingdom: some observations and lessons from England and sites/ defau lt/ files/ medien/ 5750/ publi katio nen/ 2021- 03- 03_ texte_ 40- Wales. Energy Policy 32(6):785–800. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/ S0301- 2021_ syseet_ eng. pdf. Accessed 16 Aug 20214215(02) 00342-7 26. ewi (2018) The energy market in 2030 and 2050—the contribution of gas 46. Kortsch T, Hildebrand J, Schweizer-Ries P (2015) Acceptance of biomass and heat infrastructure to efficient carbon emission reductions. Available plants–results of a longitudinal study in the bioenergy-region Altmark. via ewi. https:// www. ewi. resea rch- scena rios. de/ cms/ wp- conte nt/ uploa Renewable Energy 83:690–697. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. renene. 2015. 04. ds/ 2017/ 11/ ewi_ ERS_ Energy_ market_ 2030_ 2050_ web. pdf. Access 16 059 Aug 2021 47. Soland M, Steimer N, Walter G (2013) Local acceptance of existing biogas 27. Bundesministerium für Wirtschaft und Energie (2020) The National plants in Switzerland. Energy Policy 61:802–810. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. Hydrogen Strategy. Bundesministerium für Wirtschaft und Energie. Avail-enpol. 2013. 06. 111 able via BMWi. https:// www. bmwi. de/ Redak tion/ EN/ Publi katio nen/ Energ 48. IRENA (2019) Hydrogen: a renewable energy perspective. International ie/ the- natio nal- hydro gen- strat egy. pdf?__ blob= publi catio nFile &v=6. Renewable Energy Agency, Abu Dhabi Accessed 4 Feb 2021 49. Gong J, English NJ, Pant D, Patzke GR, Protti S, Zhang T (2021) Power-to-X: 28. Schainker RB (2004) Executive overview: energy storage options for a lighting the path to a net-zero-emission future. sustainable energy future. In: IEEE Power Engineering Society General 50. Robinius M, Linßen J, Grube T, Reuß M, Stenzel P, Syranidis K, Kuckertz Meeting, Denver, CO, USA, 6–10 June 2004 P, Stolten D (2018) Comparative analysis of infrastructures: hydrogen 29. Weil M, Tübke J (2015) Energiespeicher für energiewende und elektro- fueling and electric charging of vehicles. Forschungszentrum Jülich, mobilität. TATuP Zeitschrift für Technikfolgenabschätzung in Theorie und Jülich Praxis 24:4–9. https:// doi. org/ 10. 14512/ tatup. 24.3.4 51. Nazir H, Louis C, Jose S, Prakash J, Muthuswamy N, Buan MEM et al (2020) 30. Panwar M, Chanda S, Mohanpurkar M et al (2019) Integration of flow Is the H2 economy realizable in the foreseeable future? Part I: H2 produc- battery for resilience enhancement of advanced distribution grids. Int J tion methods. Int J Hydrogen Energy 45(27):13777–13788. https:// doi. Electr Power Energy Syst 109:314–324. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. ijepes. org/ 10. 1016/j. ijhyd ene. 2020. 03. 092 2019. 01. 024 52. Ricci M, Bellaby P, Flynn R (2008) What do we know about public percep- 31. Zhou J, Tsianikas S, Birnie D, Coit D (2019) Economic and resilience tions and acceptance of hydrogen? A critical review and new case study benefit analysis of incorporating battery storage to photovoltaic array evidence. Int J Hydrogen Energy 33(21):5868–5880. https:// doi. org/ 10. generation. Renewable Energy 135:652–662. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. 1016/j. ijhyd ene. 2008. 07. 106 renene. 2018. 12. 013 53. Achterberg P, Houtman D, Van Bohemen S, Manevska K (2010) Unknow- 32. Sterner M, Stadler I (2014) Energiespeicher-Bedarf, Technologien, Integra- ing but supportive? Predispositions, knowledge, and support for hydro- tion. Springer, Wiesbaden gen technology in the Netherlands. Int J Hydrogen Energy 35(12):6075– 33. Wietschel M, Plötz P, Pfluger B, Klobasa M, Eßer A, Haendel M, Müller- 6083. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. ijhyd ene. 2010. 03. 091 Kirchenbauer J, Kochems J, Hermann L, Grosse B, Nacken L (2018) 54. Zaunbrecher BS, Bexten T, Wirsum M, Ziefle M (2016) What is stored, Sektorkopplung: Definition, Chancen und Herausforderungen. Working why, and how? Mental models, knowledge, and public acceptance of Paper Sustainability and Innovation. hydrogen storage. Energy Procedia 99:108–119. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. 34. IRENA (2020) Virtual power lines. International Renewable Energy Agency, egypro. 2016. 10. 102 Abu Dhabi 55. Hart D (2010) Strategic and socioeconomic studies in hydrogen energy. 35. Colthorpe (2020) France’s grid battery ‘experiments’ take aim at creating In: Stolten D (ed) Hydrogen and fuel cells. Wiley-VHC, Weinheim, pp market fit for carbon neutrality. Energy Storage News. https:// www. 567–576 energy- stora ge. news/ news/ franc es- grid- batte ry- exper iments- take- aim- 56. Mumford J, Gray D (2009) Reconciling conflicting interpretations of risk. at- creat ing- market- for- carbon- neu. Accessed on 4 Feb 2021 A case study about the siting of a hazardous plant. J Commun Manag 36. Emmerich P, Hülemeier A, Jendryczko D et al (2020) Public acceptance of 13(3):233–249. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1108/ 13632 54091 09766 80 emerging energy technologies in context of the German energy transi- 57. Huijts NM, Molin EJ, Steg L (2012) Psychological factors influencing sus- tion. Energy Policy 142:111516. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. enpol. 2020. tainable energy technology acceptance: a review-based comprehensive 111516 framework. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 16(1):525–531. https:// doi. org/ 10. 37. Thomas G, Demski C, Pidgeon N (2019) Deliberating the social accept-1016/j. rser. 2011. 08. 018 ability of energy storage in the UK. Energy Policy 133:110908. https:// doi. 58. Perlaviciute G, Steg L (2014) Contextual and psychological factors org/ 10. 1016/j. enpol. 2019. 110908 shaping evaluations and acceptability of energy alternatives: integrated 38. Jones C, Gaede J, Ganowski S, Rowlands I (2018) Understanding lay- review and research agenda. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 35:361–381. public perceptions of energy storage technologies: results of a question-https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. rser. 2014. 04. 003 naire conducted in the UK. Energy Procedia 151:135–143. https:// doi. org/ 59. Steg L, Perlaviciute G, van der Werff E (2015) Understanding the human 10. 1016/j. egypro. 2018. 09. 038 dimensions of a sustainable energy transition. Front Psychol 6:805. 39. Gaede J, Jones C, Ganowski S, Rowlands I (2020) Understanding lay-https:// doi. org/ 10. 3389/ fpsyg. 2015. 00805 public perceptions of energy storage technologies: preliminary results of 60. Perlaviciute G, Schuitema G, Devine-Wright P, Ram B (2018) At the heart a questionnaire conducted in Canada. Energy Rep 6:249–258. https:// doi. of a sustainable energy transition: the public acceptability of energy org/ 10. 1016/j. egyr. 2020. 03. 031 projects. IEEE Power Energ Mag 16(1):49–55. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1109/ MPE. 40. Dinjus E, Dahmen N (2012) The Bioliq process concept, technology and 2017. 27599 18 state of development. Auto Tech Review 1(3):26–31. https:// doi. org/ 10. 61. Zoellner J, Schweizer-Ries P, Wemheuer C (2008) Public acceptance of 1365/ s40112- 012- 0030-z renewable energies: results from case studies in Germany. Energy Policy 41. Johnson E (2009) Goodbye to carbon neutral: getting biomass footprints 36(11):4136–4141. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. enpol. 2008. 06. 026 right. Environ Impact Assess Rev 29:165–168. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. 62. Kardooni R, Yusoff SB, Kari FB (2016) Renewable energy technology eiar. 2008. 11. 002 acceptance in Peninsular Malaysia. Energy Policy 88:1–10. https:// doi. org/ 42. Timmons D, Buchholz T, Veeneman C (2016) Forest biomass energy: 10. 1016/j. enpol. 2015. 10. 005 assessing atmospheric carbon impacts by discounting future carbon 63. L’Orange Seigo S, Dohle S, Siegrist M (2014) Public perception of flows. GCB Bioenergy 8:631–643. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1111/ gcbb. 12276 carbon capture and storage (CCS): a review. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 43. Agentur für Erneuerbare Energien (2009) Globale Bioenergienutzung: 38:848–863. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. rser. 2014. 07. 017 Potentiale und Nutzngspfade. Agentur für Erneuerbare Energien e.V. 64. Wüstenhagen R, Wolsink M, Bürer MJ (2007) Social acceptance of renew- Available via AEE. https:// www. infot hek- bioma sse. ch/ image s// 126_ 2009_ able energy innovation: an introduction to the concept. Energy Policy WBGU_ Bioen ergie_ Poten ziale_ Nutzu ngspf ade. pdf. Accessed 4 Feb 2021 35(5):2683–2691. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. enpol. 2006. 12. 001 44. Griesen M (2010) Akzeptanz von Biogasanlagen. In: Bonner Studien zur 65. Aitken M (2010) Why we still don’t understand the social aspects of wind Wirtschaftssoziologie, 34th ed. Shaker, Aachen. power: a critique of key assumptions within the literature. Energy Policy 38(4):1834–1841. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. enpol. 2009. 11. 060 Baur et al. Energy, Sustainability and Society (2022) 12:4 Page 16 of 16 66. Wolsink M (2012) Undesired reinforcement of harmful ‘self-evident truths’ concerning the implementation of wind power. Energy Policy 48:83–87. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. enpol. 2012. 06. 010 67. Boudet HS (2019) Public perceptions of and responses to new energy technologies. Nat Energy 4(6):446–455. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1038/ s41560- 019- 0399-x 68. Devine-Wright P (2008) Reconsidering public acceptance of renewable energy technologies: a critical review. In: Jamasb T, Grubb M, Pollitt M (eds) Delivering a low carbon electricity system: technologies, economics and policy. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 69. Singleton G, Herzog H, Ansolabehere S (2009) Public risk perspectives on the geologic storage of carbon dioxide. Int J Greenhouse Gas Control 3(1):100–107. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. ijggc. 2008. 07. 006 70. Huijts NM, Molin EJ, van Wee B (2014) Hydrogen fuel station acceptance: a structural equation model based on the technology acceptance frame- work. J Environ Psychol 38:153–166. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. jenvp. 2014. 01. 008 71. Sonnberger M, Ruddat M (2017) Local and socio-political acceptance of wind farms in Germany. Technol Soc 51:56–65. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. techs oc. 2017. 07. 005 72. Petrova MA (2016) From NIMBY to acceptance: toward a novel frame- work—VESPA—for organizing and interpreting community concerns. Renewable Energy 86:1280–1294. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. renene. 2015. 09. 047 73. Midden CJ, Huijts NM (2009) The role of trust in the affective evaluation of novel risks: the case of CO2 storage. Risk Anal 29(5):743–751. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1111/j. 1539- 6924. 2009. 01201.x 74. Siegrist M, Cvetkovich G (2000) Perception of hazards: the role of social trust and knowledge. Risk Anal 20(5):713–720. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1111/ 0272- 4332. 205064 75. Montijn-Dorgelo FN, Midden CJ (2008) The role of negative associa- tions and trust in risk perception of new hydrogen systems. J Risk Res 11(5):659–671. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 13669 87080 19672 18 76. Statistisches Bundesamt (2019) Society-Environment, Press Release No. 055 of February 2019. Available via destatis. https:// www. desta tis. de/ EN/ Press/ 2019/ 02/ PE19_ 055_ 213. html. Accessed 8 Feb 2021. 77. Brudermann T, Mitterhuber C, Posch A (2015) Agricultural biogas plants–a systematic analysis of strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats. Energy Policy 76:107–111. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. enpol. 2014. 11. 022 78. O’Garra T, Pearson P, Mourato S (2007) Public acceptability of hydrogen fuel cell transport and associated refuelling infrastructures. In: Flynn R, Bellaby P (eds) Risk and the Public Acceptance of New Technologies. Palgrave, Basingstoke 79. Terwel BW, Harnick F, Ellemers N, Daamen DDL (2010) Voice in political decision-making: the effect of group voice on perceived trustworthi- ness of decision makers and subsequent acceptance of decisions. J Exp Psychol 16(2):173–186. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1037/ a0019 977 Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in pub- lished maps and institutional affiliations. Re Read ady y to to submit y submit your our re researc search h ? Choose BMC and benefit fr ? Choose BMC and benefit from om: : fast, convenient online submission thorough peer review by experienced researchers in your field rapid publication on acceptance support for research data, including large and complex data types • gold Open Access which fosters wider collaboration and increased citations maximum visibility for your research: over 100M website views per year At BMC, research is always in progress. Learn more biomedcentral.com/submissions

Journal

"Energy, Sustainability and Society"Springer Journals

Published: Jan 11, 2022

Keywords: Technology acceptance; Energy transition; Sustainability; Hydrogen fuel station; Battery storage; Biofuel production plant

There are no references for this article.