Abstract
Abstract
Background
Alternative 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.
Results
Laypeople 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.
Conclusions
The 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.
Funder
Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft
RWTH Aachen University
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Subject
Energy Engineering and Power Technology,Development,Renewable Energy, Sustainability and the Environment
Reference64 articles.
1. Follmer R, Gruschwitz D (2019) Mobility in Germany—Short Report. Transport Volume—Structure—Trends. Edition 4.0 of the study by infas, DLR, IVT and infas 360 on behalf of the Federal Ministry of Transport and Digital Infrastructure (BMVI). FE no. 70.904/15, (www.mobilitaet-in-deutschland.de)
2. Schubach E, Zimmermann J, Noack P, Neyer FJ (2016) Me, Myself, and Mobility: the relevance of region for young adults’ identity development. Eur J Pers 30(2):189–200
3. Deutz S, Bongartz D, Heuser B, Kätelhön A, Schulze Langenhorst L, Omari A, Walters M, Klankermayer J, Leitner W, Mitsos A, Pischinger S, Bardow A (2018) Cleaner production of cleaner fuels: Wind-to-wheel–environmental assessment of CO2-based oxymethylene ether as a drop-in fuel. Energy Environ Sci 11(2):331–343
4. Nemoto EH, Issaoui R, Korbee D, Jaroudi I, Fournier G (2021) How to measure the impacts of shared automated electric vehicles on urban mobility. Transp Res Part D: Transp Environ 93:102766
5. Huijts NMA, Molin EJE, Steg L (2012) Psychological factors influencing sustainable energy technology acceptance: a review-based comprehensive framework. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 16(1):525–531
Cited by
5 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献