Informed public opinion in the Netherlands: Evaluation of CO 2 capture and storage technologies in comparison with other CO 2 mitigation options

Marjolein de Best-Waldhober, Dancker Daamen, Andrea Ramirez Ramirez, André Faaij, Chris Hendriks, Erika de Visser

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleScientificpeer-review

17 Citations (Scopus)


In this study, 995 respondents in a representative sample of the Dutch general population are set in the situation of policymakers: they are faced with the issue of fulfilling the Dutch demand for energy in 2030 in such a way that emissions of carbon dioxide will be reduced by 50%. In the Information-Choice Questionnaire (ICQ) that was developed for this, respondents evaluated information from experts on seven options for CO 2 emission reduction and their consequences. Two CCS options were compared to two energy efficiency options, a wind energy option, a biomass energy option, and a nuclear energy option. Results show that people are not that enthusiastic regarding the two CCS options. These are evaluated 5.3 and 5.9 on average on a scale of 1-10 and not often chosen as one of the three preferred options, but they are also rarely rejected. Most of the other options in the questionnaire were evaluated rather positively, except nuclear energy and the more ambitious efficiency option. Analysis shows that the evaluation of the information regarding consequences moderately influences how options are evaluated overall. The results further indicate that the CCS options are evaluated less positively due to the comparison with other options.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)169-180
Number of pages12
JournalInternational Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control
Publication statusPublished - 1 Sep 2012
Externally publishedYes


  • Acceptance
  • CCS
  • Information-Choice Questionnaire
  • Mitigation
  • Public opinion

Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'Informed public opinion in the Netherlands: Evaluation of CO <sub>2</sub> capture and storage technologies in comparison with other CO <sub>2</sub> mitigation options'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this