Public perceptions of underground coal gasification in the United Kingdom

There is growing interest internationally in the technology of Underground Coal Gasification (UCG) as a means of accessing the energy contained within inaccessible coal reserves. One of the potential obstacles to UCG deployment is adverse public perceptions and reactions, either stopping or delaying proposed applications. This paper explores the public perceptions of UCG in the UK through a detailed case-study and focus group discussion. A failed proposal for a UCG drill site at Silverdale (Staffordshire) provides an opportunity to understand the influence of local social, cultural and institutional factors on the manner in which the risks and benefits associated with UCG are perceived. The participants of the focus group recognised the potential of UCG as a secure source of energy for the UK in the future, provided that it is safe to humans and the environment and cost-effective. The group discussed potential benefits to the local community, potential risks, the role of carbon dioxide capture and storage, and links to the hydrogen economy. The group recommended that an open, transparent and consultative process of decision-making and operation should be adopted by the developer, operator and regulator; and that UCG should be developed at a remote site, preferably on land, before applying it in coal seams close to populated areas.

[1]  Bishnu Raj Upreti,et al.  Conflict over biomass energy development in the United Kingdom: some observations and lessons from England and Wales , 2004 .

[2]  Gordon Walker,et al.  Risk communication, public participation and the Seveso II directive , 1999 .

[3]  Frances M. Lynn,et al.  Citizen Advisory Committees and Environmental Policy: What We Know, What's Left to Discover , 1995 .

[4]  Peter Simmons,et al.  Faulty Environments and Risk Reasoning: The Local Understanding of Industrial Hazards , 1999 .

[5]  George O. Rogers,et al.  Siting potentially hazardous facilities: what factors impact perceived and acceptable risk? , 1998 .

[6]  Susan E. Pickett,et al.  Japan's nuclear energy policy: from firm commitment to difficult dilemma addressing growing stocks of plutonium, program delays, domestic opposition and international pressure , 2002 .

[7]  Jacquelin Burgess,et al.  Exploring Environmental Values through the Medium of Small Groups: 1. Theory and Practice , 1988 .

[8]  David Toke,et al.  Explaining wind power planning outcomes:: some findings from a study in England and Wales , 2005 .

[9]  Judith Petts,et al.  Trust and waste management information expectation versus observation , 1998 .

[10]  Simon Shackley,et al.  Towards a "folk integrated assessment" of climate change? , 1999 .

[11]  P Slovic,et al.  The risk game. , 2001, Journal of hazardous materials.

[12]  Peter A. Groothuis,et al.  The Role of Social Distrust in Risk-Benefit Analysis: A Study of the Siting of a Hazardous Waste Disposal Facility , 1997 .

[13]  B Fischhoff,et al.  Risk perception and communication unplugged: twenty years of process. , 1995, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[14]  S. Shackley,et al.  The case of a proposed 21.5 MW(e) biomass Gasifier in Winkleigh, Devon: implications for governance of renewable energy planning , 2006 .

[15]  Jacquelin Burgess,et al.  Rationalizing environmental responsibilities: A comparison of lay publics in the UK and the Netherlands , 1996 .

[16]  Susan Owens,et al.  Siting, sustainable development and social priorities , 2004 .

[17]  Richard Cowell,et al.  Land and Limits: Interpreting Sustainability in the Planning Process , 2001 .

[18]  S. Shackley,et al.  opinion on a proposed 21.5MWe biomass gasifier in Winkleigh, Devon: implications for bioenergy planning and policy , 2005 .

[19]  Thomas L. Greenbaum.  handbook for focus group research , 1993 .

[20]  Ortwin Renn,et al.  The Brent Spar Controversy: An Example of Risk Communication Gone Wrong , 1997 .

[21]  Marie Lynn Miranda,et al.  Talking trash about landfills: Using quantitative scoring schemes in landfill siting processes , 2000 .

[22]  S. Crow,et al.  Planning gain: there must be a better way , 1998 .

[23]  P. Devine‐Wright.  Local aspects of UK renewable energy development: exploring public beliefs and policy implications , 2005 .

[24]  T. Webler,et al.  Fairness and competence in citizen participation : evaluating models for environmental discourse , 1995 .

[25]  Gordon Walker,et al.  Renewable energy and the public , 1995 .

[26]  Carly McLachlan,et al.  The public perception of carbon dioxide capture and storage in the UK: results from focus groups and a survey , 2004 .

[27]  Carolyn D. Heising,et al.  Seabrook Station: Citizen Politics and Nuclear Power , 1990 .

[28]  Peter Simmons,et al.  Tolerating risk: policy principles and public perceptions , 1999 .

[29]  G. H. Lamb,et al.  Underground coal gasification , 1977 .

[30]  Paul Slovic,et al.  Perceived risk, trust, and democracy , 1993 .

[31]  Ragnar E. Löfstedt,et al.  Facility Siting : Risk, Power and Identity in Land Use Planning , 2004 .

[32]  John Surrey,et al.  Opposition to nuclear power : A review of international experience , 1976 .

[33]  Patrick Devine-Wright,et al.  Beyond NIMBYism: towards an integrated framework for understanding public perceptions of wind energy , 2005 .

[34]  Howard Kunreuther,et al.  Siting noxious facilities: A test of the Facility Siting Credo , 1993 .

[35]  Ian G. Taylor,et al.  Burying Carbon under the Sea: An Initial Exploration of Public Opinions , 2002 .

[36]  Euston Quah,et al.  The Siting Problem of Nimby Facilities: Cost – Benefit Analysis and Auction Mechanisms , 1998 .

[37]  R. Kasperson,et al.  Social Distrust as a Factor in Siting Hazardous Facilities and Communicating Risks , 1992 .

[38]  Peter Phillimore,et al.  ‘If we have wrong perceptions of our area, we cannot be surprised if others do as well.’ Representing risk in Teesside's environmental politics , 2004 .

[39]  Howard Kunreuther,et al.  The Role of Compensation in Siting Hazardous Facilities , 1996 .