At latest since the reactor accident in Fukushima in 2011 and the subsequent decision to phase out nuclear energy while simultaneously reducing fossil energy supply, the energy transition (Energiewende) in Germany has been a central political and social issue. The Federal Government formulated the goals of the German energy transition in the Energiekonzept [1] and its amendment after Fukushima in 2011 [2]. The main objective of the concept is to reduce 80 to 95% of climate-damaging greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 compared to 1990.

One key aspect towards a low-carbon society is the implementation of new technologies. Next to preventing carbon dioxide (CO₂) emissions by using alternative energy sources, Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) is another technology to reduce energy or industry induced CO₂ emissions. H₂/CCS chains – the combination of CCS and hydrogen (H₂) technologies – are an option to decarbonise the gas energy sector. In H₂/CCS chains, CO₂ is separated from natural gas and stored in deep underground. Hydrogen as remaining product after the separating process can be used as CO₂-free energy carrier.

However, the way towards a low-carbon society with its far-reaching interventions in the energy system affects the majority of society to broad extent. Being affected may manifest in changing energy infrastructures, rising energy costs, lifestyle patterns or consumption habits. In the past, especially energy technologies such as large-scale infrastructure projects or perceived risk technologies have lacked acceptance and evoked conflicts and protests in the population [3]. Thus, for the decision-making and the successful implementation of new (energy) technologies like H₂/CCS chains, social acceptance is crucial. Therefore, it is necessary to understand and reveal positions in society which reflect chances and risks for acceptance.

The study is based on the current state of acceptance research on CCS and H₂ technologies as well as on energy infrastructure in general with a focus on Germany. First acceptance studies on CCS technology were carried out between 2006 and 2014 and were related to planned or already abandoned CCS projects in Germany. These studies indicated rather little acceptance of CCS technologies, especially the storage of CO₂, in the German population. Yet, the level of awareness and knowledge of as well as familiarity with CCS technologies is rather low [4], [5]. Nevertheless, there is no general nationwide refusal of CCS as shown by the successful project implementation in Ketzin [6]. Dütschke et al. [7] revealed in their analyses that people evaluated CCS in the context of industry processes or biomass more positive than in the context of coal-fired plants. Braun et al. [8] found the perceived seriousness of climate change, trust in institutions and whether CCS is perceived as a technology that defers responsibility or manipulates nature to be central factors of acceptance. Regarding different stakeholder groups, especially the government, industry and energy experts have a mainly neutral or positive attitude towards CCS while environmental non-governmental organisations (NGOs) are rather critically towards the technology [9]. More recent data from 2017, comparing the public perception of CCS and Carbon Capture and Utilisation (CCU), stated a general acceptance of CCS and CCU. But CCS is perceived less positive than CCU, mainly due to risks associated with storage and transport [10].

Several acceptance studies on hydrogen technology in Germany, mainly on hydrogen mobility, have been performed. These studies exposed mainly positive perception of hydrogen technologies as well as its related infrastructure [11-14]. Especially green hydrogen was found to be more accepted while hydrogen produced from fossil energy sources is valued more critically [13]. Schmidt and Donsbach [12] worked out that hydrogen is presented with more positive than negative arguments in stakeholder communication and media in Germany.

While in the last years only few projects on acceptance of CCS and/or hydrogen have been carried out in Germany, many studies are available on acceptance of infrastructure projects in Germany concerning renewable energies. These studies are related to wind farms [15-17], geothermal energy [18], [19], transmission grid [20], [21] or several renewable technologies [22], [23]. These studies are united by the observation that the technologies are generally perceived positively, while the infrastructure at the local level is met with rejection, although not always, by everyone and everywhere. The identified relevant parameters for acceptance range from positive/negative associations, perceived risks and benefits, concerns about (landscape) modification, distances, place attachment as well as participation and information.

This paper makes an original contribution to the existing literature as up to now, the acceptance of a decarbonised gas infrastructure via H₂/CCS chains has not been explored. By investigating acceptance of H₂/CCS chains, various aspects of other energy technologies are combined and linked with each other: among others, the restructuring and expansion of gas infrastructure, the installation of a new (pipeline) infrastructure to transport CO₂, respectively, H₂, the transport of CO₂ and H₂ and the use of H₂ as a new energy carrier. Furthermore, the potential to combine fossil energies with renewable energies is a particular aspect of H₂/CCS chains: while CCS technologies allow to decarbonise fossil energy carriers, hydrogen technologies allow to be combined with renewable energies.

This paper aims to better understand the factors which foster or hinder social acceptance of new technologies in the context of the energy transition and to recognise risks and opportunities during the process of decarbonising the energy system. Therefore, the study analyses positions and conflicts of stakeholders in the context of the energy transition using the example of implementing a full chain H₂/CCS infrastructure to reduce CO₂ emissions. As a preliminary to social acceptance in generic terms, the stakeholders’ positions and conflicts are assumed to be crucial for the formation and progress of social debates and public discourses. Accordingly, they represent dominant social perceptions and reflect chances and risks for acceptance.

Research on social technology acceptance implies the analysis of its origin, forms and effects in societies. Differentiation of everyday technology, technology at work and external technology (large-scale technology/external risk technology and infrastructure) approved to be an effective classification for a more precise analysis. Compared to everyday technology and technology at work, external technologies evoke the highest refusal. The higher level of refusal towards external technologies is above all due to ambivalent perceptions considering risks and benefits and their distributive justice [24]. Based on knowledge, interests and values, controversial perceptions of risks and benefits are causing technology conflicts [25]. Energy technologies mainly apply to external technologies, but on the application level – like mobility or heating systems for private homes – they are also classified among everyday technology.

Alongside individual concern and risk perception, the acceptance of new energy technology is significantly influenced by the location of new technologies in the discourse of the energy transition. Therefore, the authors examine social acceptance of H₂/CCS chains in Germany by embedding central positions and conflicts in the discursive context of the German energy transition. With this procedure, arguments become visible that are in line with the general energy transition discourses as well as with diverging arguments.

Going back on Foucault [26], discourse is a language-produced context of meaning in form of statements that are reflected in social practices. Based on Foucault [26], diverse conceptualisations of discourse analytic approaches have been developed. The common basis of these approaches is the assumption that knowledge is the result of social constructed symbolic systems and orders, produced in and by discourses. Institutions, organisations and social actors lead these discourses [27]. Concluding, discourses can be defined as complex social and communicative manifestations as well as associated negotiations to what is accepted as knowledge [28]. Transferred to the energy transition, discourses justify (energy) technologies, institutions and behaviours.

In order to systematise the positions and conflicts in the energy transition discourses, a concept is applied that classifies different dimensions of attitudes towards the energy transition. Attitudes within the energy transition are complex processes because of their relation to different technologies, goals, risks and chances. Therefore, it seems necessary to systematise these different dimensions for the analysis of attitudinal processes as well as for the investigation of discourses. For the development of this systematisation, the multidimensional research concept by Schönauer [24] is applied which was developed for a conceptualisation of attitudes towards industry. This concept divides attitudes into three dimensions: goals, instruments and consequences. Along these dimensions and its subcategories, Schönauer [24] examines statements on the object of attitudes to attain a multidimensional assessment. Central question in the dimension of goals is the intensity and extensity of the implementation of the object ‘industrial production’. In this context the category ‘extensity’ means the responsibility for the realisation of objectives, and the category ‘intensity’ concerns the extent and extent of the realisation of these objectives. The category of resources is concerned with the evaluation of the instruments by which the objectives are to be achieved. Finally, the third output dimension of the consequences includes the outcomes of the various instruments. These are subdivided into the category of economic/technical and ecological effects [24]. This multidimensional research concept can be transferred to other objects, so that it represents a suitable conceptual framework for a differentiated consideration of the dimensions of the energy transition process and discourse.

Matching the discursive approach with the multidimensional research concept raises the possibility to capture and differentially analyse arguments on the macro/meso level and attitudes on the micro level as well as their correlations. The attitudinal dimensions of energy transition are conceptualised based on the model of Schönauer [24] (Figure 1). While the categories of the dimension ‘goals’ and ‘consequences’ are transferable from the original model, but extended by the category ‘social consequences’, the categories of the dimension ‘instruments’ are adapted to the object ‘energy transition’. The instruments used to achieve the goals are very diverse as they include different sectors (electricity, heat, mobility) and also range from using technologies and phasing out energy technologies to various stakeholders involved in the implementation of the energy transition goals (companies, NGOs, citizens, politicians, etc.). The presentation of the instruments in Figure 1 is therefore certainly not comprehensive and can be extended with further instruments. Yet, the instruments are of particular relevance for the acceptance of the energy transition because they frequently cause discussions and conflicts. While there is a broad acceptance in the population of the basic goals of the energy transition, there is no agreement on the way to achieve these goals. This can be explained by the consequences which come along with the various instruments. The success of the implementation of new instruments is therefore related to the other dimensions – goals and consequences.

Schönauer’s empirical results reveal that especially the consequences have a strong impact on the global assessment of the attitude object. The results of a partial correlation analysis indicated a high correlation between the overall assessments, the instruments and the consequences. The dimension ‘goals’ is not highly correlating with the global attitude but is strongly connected to the dimension of consequences [24]. Also Zaunbrecher et al. [18] identified environmental impact on the one hand and economic and infrastructural consequences on the other hand as the two conflicting poles in evaluating energy technology. This in turn can be the reason for ambivalent overall evaluation of technologies.

Figure 1.

Dimensions^† of energy transition (own illustration based on Schönauer [24])

These findings are consistent with the dominant discourses on the German energy transition. The German energy transition occurs on a timescale of decades and was politically decided within the Energiekonzept [1]. The Fukushima accident in 2011 can be interpreted as shift towards the German energy policy consensus. The discussion about whether Germany should phase out fossil and nuclear energy has been replaced by discussing the best way to achieve full energy supply by renewable energies [29]. Since then, not the general energy transition goals were object of conflict, but the intensity to achieve the targets of the energy transition, more particular the level of ambition and the specific design of renewable energy expansion [30], [31]. Leipprand [30] identified two main discourses which have emerged over the course of time that dominate in German parliamentary debates on energy policy: the ‘energy transition discourse’ and the ‘energy mix discourse’ persist “under the shared discursive ‘roof’ of Energy Transition” [30; p 45].

The ‘energy transition discourse’ focuses on environmental concerns and claims for fundamental changes in the existing energy system, decentralisation of the energy system and use of renewable energies. Established energy companies are perceived as actors who are merely interested in securing their profits. This discourse is led by ‘the proactive coalition’, which includes above all environmental NGOs and business associations and the Green Party [30]. In contrast, the ‘energy mix discourse’ considers environmental and climate challenges, but also focuses on economic feasibility regarding energy supply and energy security. The tenor is that holding up energy supply security, Germanys’ industrial competitiveness and affordable energy prices is not realistic without fossil energies. This discourse is led by ‘the reactive coalition’, including above all conventional energy companies and industry associations as well as the Christian, Social and Free Democrats Parties [30]. Slowly phasing out fossil energies is justified by labour-market and economic arguments [32].

The discursive consensus bases on the need to fight climate change, but apart from this, ‘[t]he persistent differences in the stories that are told by parliamentarians […], all under the heading of energy transition, suggest that conflicts are far from solved. These conflicts now center on the implementation rather than the overall feasibility and desirability of the transition’ [30; p 45]. Buschmann and Oels [33] identify the German energy transition as ‘a clear case of the (discursive) institutionalisation of a decarbonising trajectory’ [33; p 11] with a parallel and not yet overcome carbon lock-in. With the election of the party Alternative für Deutschland (AfD) to parliament in 2017, the context has changed, since the discursive consensus is interrupted by climate-sceptic voices. As a result, changes in the main discourses are to be expected, but are not yet taken into account in the present study.

The attitudinal research concept as well as the central conflicts within the two discourses on the German energy transition underline the importance of economic and ecological consequences. Based on these findings, the authors assume social acceptance of the instrument ‘Transformation of the gas network via hydrogen and CCS’ to depend on its (discursive) connection with economic and ecological consequences.

The stakeholders’ points of view are of central importance for this study as they reflect different social objectives, interests and motivations. The stakeholders can be seen as multiplicators, which are crucial for the formation and progress of social debates on energy transition and determine public discourses. Stakeholders like companies, industry associations, environmental associations or consumer advisors make themselves heard in order to assert and establish their views and interpretations, whereby they essentially shape and determine the public debate [25], [28]. To cover the different social positions, stakeholders of the four societal subsystems politics, economy/industry, civil society and science or at intersections between the systems were identified (see Table 1). The systems have different functions, according to which the stakeholders act.

The level of awareness as well as knowledge are relevant variables for technology perception and acceptance. Accordingly, the awareness and knowledge of the interviewed stakeholders is highly relevant for the interpretation of their statements. Since in the present study, the interviewed stakeholders were defined as experts, the focus of the selection process was to ensure that they were experts in at least one of the key issues ‘CCS’, ‘H₂’ or ‘acceptance of energy infrastructure’. The expertise of the interviewees from energy companies and industry focused more on the technologies, while the expertise of the interviewed civil society stakeholders focused more on the social acceptance of the technology and infrastructure. In this way, a comprehensive view of positions and conflicts arising from decarbonising the gas infrastructure via hydrogen and CCS is obtained.

The authors conducted explorative interviews (N = 10) with the above mentioned stakeholders (see Table 1). The interviews included following topics:

• Evaluation of H₂/CCS technologies to decarbonise the energy system;

• Experience with and evaluation of technology acceptance in society;

• Experience with public participation during planning processes;

• Information and communication needed to evaluate technologies.

The interviewed stakeholders were assured of anonymity. The interviews were transcribed and analysed using the method of thematic coding. Based on theoretical considerations, categories were developed and further differentiated and adapted during the analysis [34]. By applying a qualitative research method, the analysis of the interviews is inductive, flexible and data-driven with the aim to generate and develop descriptions, interpretations and explanations. Every argument is equally valued, independent of the frequency of its mention [35].

The stakeholder interviews reveal challenges and risks as well as opportunities and strengths of implementing H₂/CCS chains in Germany. The necessity to address climate change and therefore to reduce CO₂ emissions is common sense among all stakeholders. But the interviews indicate different positions and assumptions on how to achieve reduction of CO₂ emissions.

The ones promote a fast phase-out of fossil energies and prevention of CO₂ emissions through sufficiency, efficiency and consistency, the others promote a fast implementation of CCS to save time for phasing-out fossil energies next to instruments of especially efficiency and consistency. These two opposite positions – in particular represented by the environmental organisation on the one side and the industry on the other side – are in line with one of the central conflicts of the energy transition represented in discourses: whether energy transition is based on a radical change from fossil energies to renewable energies or whether fossil energies also play a significant role next to renewable energies in the long term.

Regarding the hydrogen part of the H₂/CCS chain, argumentation about hydrogen technology is not discourse specific but compatible with both the energy transition and the energy mix discourse. The most important question in this context is whether the energy system will focus on one or more than one energy carrier as in Germany, hydrogen technologies are competing with electrical applications. Technology-openness is more or less shared position of the stakeholders.

“[…] commitment to a single energy source ‘electricity’ will not be effective in the future.” (Industry II: 00:19:32-7)

“Actually, we are open to technology, which is why we do not have a clear opinion on hydrogen and batteries either.” (Environmental NGO: 00:12:09-5)

All stakeholders realise the necessity to act quickly to achieve the climate goals, but are stating political and legal uncertainty. From their perspective, a legal and political framework is needed to invest in development and expansion of technologies and energy infrastructure, but focusing on different instruments.

Significantly greater differences exist in technical feasibility.

“[…] from our perspective, [CCS] is technically covered.” (Industry II: 00:29:55-8)

“[…] because somewhere [the CO₂] is still there when you’re honest. You just hope that it [the CO₂] will stay there for a long, long time, but actually it’s difficult.” (Consumer association: 00:09:01-5)

“[…] for an infinitely long time, I imagine [CO₂ storage] to be technically virtually impossible […].” (Environmental NGO: 00:41:45-3)

While industrial stakeholders evaluate technological feasibility of H₂/CCS chains mainly positive – technological challenges play a rather minor role when assessing H₂/CCS chains – environmental and civil stakeholders express clear concern about the technological feasibility regarding the permanent storage of CO₂.

This study set out to better understand social acceptance of H₂/CCS chains in Germany. Therefore, the authors applied dominant discourses on the German energy transition and a multidimensional concept of attitudes to embed and link acceptance of this specific technology in general debates on energy transition and infrastructural changes. Stakeholders’ perspectives, gathered from explorative interviews, present and clarify argumentation regarding H₂/CCS chains alongside goals, instruments, ecological and economic consequences and social acceptance. Furthermore, connectivity to the discourses ‘energy transition’ and ‘energy mix’ is revealed (Figure 2).

While pursuing the common goal of addressing climate change, the main diverging positions regard the instruments to achieve reduction of CO₂ emissions. Regarding H₂/CCS chains as an instrument in the context of the energy transition, the stakeholder interviews indicate controversial as well as consensual perceptions. The assessments range from rejection of an H₂/CCS chain to deeming it absolutely necessary. Central controversial aspects and therefore challenges concern economic, environmental consequences, social acceptance and political and legal uncertainty. The evaluation of relevance and prioritisation of these challenges differ between the stakeholders. While the attitudinal concept includes economic, ecological and social consequences, legal/political uncertainty extends the model and could be integrated as reliability of goals.

Figure 2.

Stakeholders’ argumentation regarding hydrogen and CCS chains alongside goals, instruments and consequences and connected to the discourses ‘energy transition’ and ‘energy mix’

The general conflict concerns the strategy towards a low-carbon society, especially how quickly fossil energies are phased out. Argumentations behind these positions refer among others to economic viability versus environmental protection and different assumptions on dealing with societal demand and needs as well as whether security of energy supply is feasible without fossil energies. Thus, the evaluation of H₂/CCS chains represents the central conflicts within the discourses on energy transition, identified by previous studies (e.g. in [30], [33]). From the perspective of the energy transition discourse, CCS supports the existing ‘fossil’ structures rather than creating a transition. From the perspective of energy mix discourse, it enables a slower phasing-out of fossil energies and secures security of energy supply and competitiveness. The main conflict along environmental and economic consequences has already been found in previous studies [18], [24].

Regarding the stakeholders’ evaluation of social acceptance, it becomes apparent that on the level of instruments, arguments are mainly in line with the energy transition discourse and require the expansion of renewable energies. Also, regarding acceptance of stakeholders, representatives of the energy transition discourse are assumed to be the more trusted ones. On the level of consequences, the stakeholders’ evaluation of acceptance involves elements from the energy transition as well as from the energy mix discourse. These concern for example new infrastructure in the context of renewable energies as well as in the context of fossil energies (natural gas, CCS) which is expected to be met with refusal.

NIMBYism [36] was mentioned in several interviews as a reason for lack of acceptance. Nevertheless, the concept of NIMBY was critiqued in several studies in the last years for being too reductive in explaining (lack of) social acceptance [37], [38]. Personal factors, project-related factors or place-based factors were identified as further variables explaining social acceptance [37], [39]. It therefore seems important to transfer a more differentiated understanding of acceptance in the discourse of relevant (industrial) stakeholders.

Alongside opposing and conflicting arguments within and between the social areas of politics, economy/industry and society, there are also consensual perceptions and intersecting sets in evaluating H₂/CCS chains. A general openness to technologies is the more or less shared position of the stakeholders in the context of the energy transition. Especially the hydrogen part of the H₂/CCS chain represents a compatible element for positions within the energy transition discourse, because it represents a link to the expansion of renewable energies. But also in the CCS part of the chain, consensual perceptions were identified. Albeit to varying degrees, all stakeholders acknowledged the general potential of reducing CO₂ emissions as opportunity and strength of H₂/CCS chains. The consensus must, however, be limited to the decarbonisation of industry-induced or bioenergy-induced emissions via CCS. The higher approval of CCS in the context of industry processes and biomass than in the context coal-fired plants was already found in previous results on social acceptance [7]. Considering this restriction, H₂/CCS chains seem to be a scenario, which is linkable with ecological arguments and the energy transition discourse. On the infrastructural level, using existing infrastructure is preferred from an economic and ecological perspective. These consensual perceptions indicate chances to approach solutions for broad acceptance by stakeholders who are assumed to represent the different social perspectives in the context of the energy transition.

The interviewed stakeholders were experts in the field of energy technologies with a focus on CCS technologies and/or H₂ technologies or in the field of social acceptance with a focus on energy technologies or large-scale infrastructures. Industrial perspectives from further energy technologies (e.g., renewable energy industry) have not been included. Furthermore, climate-sceptical voices were not considered. This has to be taken into account when interpreting the results as it would certainly result in an even broader range of evaluation of H₂/CCS chains.

The aim of the present study on acceptance of H₂/CCS chains in Germany was to reveal chances and risks of implementing new (energy) technologies in the context of the energy transition. The results mostly confirm the current state of research on attitudes towards CCS, H₂ technologies and large-scale infrastructure as well as on discourses on energy transition. In addition, new insights supplement and specify it in regard to the specific framework of H₂/CCS chains. Applying the two dominant discourses, the study revealed links to the energy transition discourse as well as to the energy mix discourse. Applying the attitudinal concept, the authors exposed consequences of the implementation as the main conflicts of H₂/CCS chains within the energy transition. These consequences are closely related with the targets of the energy transition, more specific with the level of intensity to pursue the targets. With this approach, central aspects relevant for social acceptance of implementing technologies within the energy transition were identified which can serve as a blueprint for further technologies and instruments.

To conclude, resolving these conflicts is not an easy task, but there are some possible starting points. For example, the compatibility of hydrogen technologies with renewable and fossil energies or the restriction of the use of CCS only for certain applications (industry, bioenergy) represent compromises which are supported by different stakeholder groups and which provide a balance of ecological and economic arguments. Furthermore, the importance of technology openness must be taken into account in further (political) decisions.

Finally, even if social perception and acceptance of technologies often appear to be contradictory, it is nevertheless important not to rashly reduce these arguments to selfish, irrational and uninformed motivations of residents. It is important to take these seriously and to include them in implementation processes in form of transparency and participation.

This study is part of the project “ELEGANCY – Enabling a low-carbon economy via hydrogen and CCS”. ACT ELEGANCY, Project No. 271498, has received funding from DETEC (CH), the German Federal Ministry for Economic Affairs and Energy (DE), RVO (NL), Gassnova (NO), BEIS (UK), Gassco AS and Statoil Petroleum AS, and is cofunded by the European Commission under the Horizon 2020 programme, ACT Grant Agreement No 691712.