Search

Many believe that enhanced geothermal systems (EGS) can greatly increase the extraction of geothermal energy worldwide, helping to decarbonize heat and electricity production. Effective communication is key to realizing the potential of EGS, yet we currently know little about how the public perceives this emerging technology. This exploratory study contributes to the literature with a cross-national survey in the United States (n = 1003) and Switzerland (n = 1028), two countries with active EGS projects. Specifically, we explore how EGS support relates to beliefs about the deep underground and perceptions of EGS as tampering with nature. The results show that respondents tend to perceive the deep underground as part of nature, dangerous, and unpredictable. The majority are positive about using the deep underground as a resource, although there were variations regarding specific underground activities. In both countries, EGS support is greater for respondents who perceive the underground as something for human use, perceive more benefits than risks from EGS, and support their country's transition to renewable energy. In Switzerland, EGS support is positively related to trust in industry developers and negatively related to perceptions that EGS is tampering with nature. The results offer novel theoretical insights into perceptions of the deep underground in relation to energy development. From a practical standpoint, the results suggest that those seeking to develop EGS may want to consider how to familiarize individuals with current subsurface energy activities, including efforts to protect the underground from unwanted consequences of "tampering," alongside engaging in discussions about the risks and benefits of EGS., (© 2024 The Author(s). Risk Analysis published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of Society for Risk Analysis.)

Subsurface energy activities entail the risk of induced seismicity including low-probability high-consequence (LPHC) events. For designing respective risk communication, the scientific literature lacks empirical evidence of how the public reacts to different written risk communication formats about such LPHC events and to related uncertainty or expert confidence. This study presents findings from an online experiment (N = 590) that empirically tested the public's responses to risk communication about induced seismicity and to different technology frames, namely deep geothermal energy (DGE) and shale gas (between-subject design). Three incrementally different formats of written risk communication were tested: (i) qualitative, (ii) qualitative and quantitative, and (iii) qualitative and quantitative with risk comparison. Respondents found the latter two the easiest to understand, the most exact, and liked them the most. Adding uncertainty and expert confidence statements made the risk communication less clear, less easy to understand and increased concern. Above all, the technology for which risks are communicated and its acceptance mattered strongly: respondents in the shale gas condition found the identical risk communication less trustworthy and more concerning than in the DGE conditions. They also liked the risk communication overall less. For practitioners in DGE or shale gas projects, the study shows that the public would appreciate efforts in describing LPHC risks with numbers and optionally risk comparisons. However, there seems to be a trade-off between aiming for transparency by disclosing uncertainty and limited expert confidence, and thereby decreasing clarity and increasing concern in the view of the public., (© 2017 Society for Risk Analysis.)