What’s in my fuel tank? Insights into beliefs and preferences for e-fuels and biofuels

Energy, Sustainability and Society

Research

Anika Linzenich¹  Martina Ziefle¹  Katrin Arning²  Dominik Bongartz³ 

[1] Human-Computer Interaction Center (HCIC)/Chair of Communication Science, RWTH Aachen University, Campus-Boulevard 57, 52074, Aachen, Germany;Junior Professor for Risk Perception and Communication, Institute for Linguistics and Communication Science, RWTH Aachen University, Campus-Boulevard 57, 52074, Aachen, Germany;Process Systems Engineering (AVT.SVT), RWTH Aachen University, Forckenbeckstraße 51, 52074, Aachen, Germany;Department of Chemical Engineering, KU Leuven, Celestijnenlaan 200F, 3001, Leuven, Belgium;

关键词: Social acceptance;    Public perceptions;    Beliefs;    Fuel preferences;    E-fuels;    Biofuels;   

DOI  :  10.1186/s13705-023-00412-5

 received in 2022-11-15, accepted in 2023-08-31,  发布年份 2023

来源: Springer

【 摘 要 】

BackgroundAlternative fuels made from biomass or CO2 and water using renewable energy can reduce CO2 and pollutant emissions compared to fossil-based mobility and thus support a transition to a more sustainable transport. The adoption of alternative fuels in transport will ultimately depend on public acceptance and drivers’ willingness to use them. Little is known if and under which circumstances people would accept alternative fuels and which narratives and cognitive beliefs might underlie these usage intentions. Moreover, it is unclear if and how laypeople distinguish between different alternative fuel types in their perceptions, e.g., between fuels made from biomass (biofuels) and fuels produced using electricity (e-fuels). To address the research gap, this study empirically investigated laypeople’s beliefs and expectations towards alternative fuels and preferences for different fuel types. Understanding preferences for fuel types could help in steering public information, support managerial decisions and communication pathways, and promote the roll-out process of fuel innovations.ResultsLaypeople expected alternative fuels to be made using renewable feedstocks and to not contain gasoline or diesel. Whereas alternative fuels were believed to have advantages concerning environmental and toxic effects and safety compared to diesel and gasoline, they were associated with practical disadvantages for drivers. It was shown that although e-fuels and biofuels both fall under the definition of ”alternative fuels”, laypeople distinguish between them in evaluations of safety, costs, and resource competitiveness: E-fuels were preferred over biofuels and believed to have a lower competition for resources than biofuels. They were also evaluated to be more expensive and comparably less safe to use. Moreover, different adopter groups were identified for both fuels.ConclusionsThe study has highlighted both adoption drivers and barriers for alternative fuels: Reduced environmental impact could be an important positive factor. In contrast, drawbacks feared by laypeople regarding a low range and an expensive fuel price could be barriers for alternative fuel adoption because they reflect current technical challenges for these fuels. Thus, a more cost-efficient production and higher fuel efficiency should be considered in an acceptance-optimized alternative fuel production.

【 授权许可】

CC BY   
© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2023

【 图 表 】

Fig. 1

12888_2023_5172_Article_IEq33.gif

12888_2023_5172_Article_IEq32.gif

Fig. 9

Fig. 3

Fig. 5

Fig. 3

Fig. 4

Fig. 1

Fig. 5

Fig. 5

12888_2023_5172_Article_IEq27.gif

13690_2023_1170_Article_IEq115.gif

12888_2023_5172_Article_IEq26.gif

13690_2023_1170_Article_IEq2.gif

Fig. 1

13690_2023_1170_Article_IEq1.gif

Fig. 3

Fig. 6

Fig. 12

Fig. 2

Fig. 3

Fig. 2

Fig. 6

Fig. 3

42004_2023_995_Article_IEq36.gif

Fig. 2

42004_2023_995_Article_IEq34.gif

Fig. 3

Fig. 4

Fig. 2

Fig. 4

Fig. 7

12888_2023_5172_Article_IEq15.gif

Fig. 2

Fig. 4

Fig. 7

Fig. 2

Fig. 1

Fig. 2

Fig. 1

13690_2023_1170_Article_IEq14.gif

Fig. 3

Fig. 4

Scheme 1

42004_2023_995_Article_IEq11.gif

Fig. 3

13690_2023_1170_Article_IEq88.gif

12888_2023_5145_Article_IEq1.gif