The Impact of Russia’s Invasion of Ukraine on Germany’s Energy Choice Attitudes among Residents in German States with Nuclear Power Plants in Commission or Decommissioned
[ad_1]
4.3. Results for Supporting or Not Supporting Coal-Fired Power Generation
Table 7 shows the results regarding the reasons for supporting and not supporting coal-fired power generation. First, we present the results for the reasons for supporting coal-fired power generation.
First, the results for “Germany and the EU are experiencing electricity shortages” show that elderly people in NPP states (0.049) are likely to support coal-fired power generation due to electricity shortages in Germany and the EU.
Second, regarding “An energy mix combining thermal power, hydroelectric power, and renewable energy is necessary”, young people (−0.255) and higher income individuals (0.136) in NPP states support coal-fired power generation as they believe in the need for an energy mix.
Third, regarding “Coal-fired electricity is cheaper than that produced by crude oil or natural gas”, younger individuals (−0.302), males (0.366), higher income individuals (0.221) living in NPP states, and those with smaller household members (−0.341) support coal-fired power generation as it can generate electricity economically and cheaply. Furthermore, younger individuals in NPP states (−0.108) are even more supportive.
Fourth, regarding “There are coal reserves in Germany, providing a stable supply of energy”, the coefficients for NPP state × Education (0.405) and NPP state × Household size (0.302) show positive values. This means that NPP states with a higher proportion of more educated individuals and larger household sizes tend to support coal-fired power generation as coal offers a stable energy supply. Furthermore, the coefficient for Age (0.411) is positive, while the coefficient for NPP states × Age (−0.224) is negative. Therefore, in NPP states, the sum of these coefficients, 0.411 + (−0.224), gives 0.187, indicating that there is a tendency for the support for coal-fired power generation to decrease with age, even though a stable supply can be expected, in such states.
Fifth, regarding “Advances have been made in clean coal technology, significantly reducing air pollutants”, higher income individuals (0.167) living in NPP states tend to support coal-fired power generation due to the recent significant reductions in air pollutants from coal-fired power plants. However, the coefficient for the Number of children (0.393) is positive, while the coefficient for NPP states × Number of children (−0.488) is negative. Therefore, in NPP states, the coefficient is 0.393+(−0.488) = −0.095, indicating that individuals with children in NPP states tend not to support coal-fired power generation, even if air pollutants are significantly reduced, although this tendency is small.
Next, we present the results regarding the reasons for not supporting coal-fired power generation.
First, the results for “Germany should promote renewable energy” indicate that individuals with higher incomes (0.224) and those with fewer household members in NPP states (−0.217) do not support coal-fired power generation, as they feel that Germany should instead promote renewable energy.
Second, regarding “Burning coal emits air pollutants that cause asthma, acid rain, and so on”, individuals with higher levels of education (0.320) do not support coal-fired power generation as burning coal emits air pollutants that can lead to conditions such as asthma and acid rain.
Third, regarding “Coal-fired power generation emits large amounts of CO2 and has a large environmental impact”, individuals from NPP states (1.734) and those with higher levels of education (0.489) do not support coal-fired power generation due to its significant environmental impact. Within NPP states, the coefficients for Household Size and Age of −0.292 and −0.475, respectively, were observed. In such states, households with a larger number of members and older individuals show support.
Fourth, with regard to “Germany imports half of its coal from Russia, and it is necessary to reduce dependency on Russia”, older individuals (0.308) and those with higher incomes (0.132), as well as females (−0.313) and individuals with smaller households (−0.368) living in NPP states, do not support coal-fired power generation as it is necessary for Germany to reduce its dependency on Russia. Furthermore, the coefficient for Education (−0.371) is negative, while the coefficient for NPP state × Education (0.418) is positive. Therefore, in NPP state, the combined coefficient is −0.371 + 0.418 = 0.047. For this reason, as educational standards rise in NPP states, there is a tendency for greater support for coal-fired power generation in order to promote “de-Russianization”, but this tendency is small.
Fifth, regarding “Many financial institutions in the EU are reluctant to invest in coal-fired power generation, making it difficult to build new power plants”, individuals with higher levels of education (0.544) do not support coal-fired power generation because many financial institutions in the EU do not providing funding for coal-fired power generation, making it difficult to establish new power plants. Additionally, the coefficient for NPP state (2.956) is a positive value, and the coefficient for NPP state × Age (−0.770) is a negative value. Therefore, residents in NPP states tend not to promote coal-fired power generation because it is difficult to build new thermal power plants, but residents in NPP states tend to show greater support for coal-fired power generation with age.
Sixth, regarding “Decarbonization, which is a further step forward from low carbonization”, individuals with higher incomes (0.144) and those with higher levels of education (0.639) do not support coal-fired power generation as decarbonization is advancing on a global level.
Seventh, regarding “Germany, as the chairing country of the G7 Climate, Energy and Environment Ministers Meeting, is responsible for compiling a joint statement on phasing out coal-fired power generation by 2035”, individuals with higher levels of education (0.499) do not support coal-fired power generation as Germany has the responsibility, as chair of the G7, to coordinate a joint statement on the phasing out of coal-fired power generation.
4.3.1. Results Regarding Reasons for Supporting or Not Supporting Solar Power Generation
Table 8 presents the results regarding the reasons for supporting and not supporting solar power generation. First, we show the results for the reasons to promote solar power generation. We also analyzed “It generates income from the sale of electricity”, but no significant results were obtained with the explanatory variables, so we omitted it.
First, regarding “It improves the country’s energy self-sufficiency and energy security”, older individuals (0.285) and those with higher levels of education (0.295), as well as individuals with fewer household members in NPP states (−0.287) support solar power generation as it enhances national energy self-sufficiency and is advantageous for energy security. Additionally, the coefficient for Number of children (−0.316) is negative, while the coefficient for NPP state × Children (0.505) is positive. Therefore, the coefficient in NPP states is −0.316 + 0.505 = 0.189. Thus, a positive effect was observed for individuals with children in NPP states as solar power generation is considered more advantageous for energy security and is thus supported to a greater extent.
Second, with regard to “The power generation efficiency is constant regardless of size, and the system can be installed on small areas such as rooftops”, individuals with higher incomes (0.128) and younger individuals (−0.457) were found to support solar power generation as it can be installed in small spaces such as rooftops.
Third, regarding “It can be used as an emergency power source through the use of storage batteries”, individuals with higher incomes (0.194) and older individuals (0.154) in NPP states, as well as those without children (−0.377), support solar power generation as solar power can serve as an emergency power source when coupled with the use of storage batteries. However, females in NPP states show a negative value (−0.376). Additionally, the coefficient for Income (0.194) is a positive value, whereas the coefficient for the NPP state × Income (−0.248) is a negative value. Therefore, in NPP states the coefficient is 0.194 + (−0.248) = −0.054, indicating that in NPP states, as incomes rise, there is a tendency for residents not to support nuclear power plants, even though they could be used as an emergency power source, but this tendency is small.
Fourth, concerning “Mechanical breakdowns are less likely to occur and high-performance panels are becoming cheaper year by year”, individuals with higher levels of education (0.615) and those without children (−0.319) in NPP state support solar power generation as high-performance panels are becoming more affordable.
Next, we present the results regarding the reasons for not supporting solar power generation.
First, concerning “Solar power is dependent on the seasons and weather, therefore unstable and unreliable”, the coefficient for residents in NPP state (0.183) is positive. This means that residents in such states do not support solar power generation as they perceive it as providing unstable power generation output.
Second, regarding “The equipment is too easily damaged by bad weather”, the coefficients for NPP state are as follows: 3.160 for NPP state, −0.375 for NPP state × Household Size, −0.958 for NPP state × Age, 0.513 for NPP state × Children, and 0.232 for NPP state × Income. Therefore, it was observed that only in NPP state, the effects were observed for Number of household members, Age, Children, and Income. In NPP state, individuals with children or higher incomes do not support solar power generation, but those with larger households or older individuals tend to support it.
Third, regarding “There is an increased risk of heat stroke for residents in the vicinity of solar farms”, individuals with lower incomes in NPP state (−0.198) do not support solar power generation due to the increased risk of heat stroke.
Fourth, with regard to “Installation and land costs are high, and the cost per unit of electricity generated is relatively high”, individuals without children (−0.211) and those with higher levels of education (0.411) do not support solar power generation because of the high initial costs and relatively high cost per unit of electricity generated.
4.3.2. Results Regarding Reasons for Supporting or Not Supporting Wind Power Generation
Table 9 presents the results for the reasons to promote and not wind power generation. To begin, we show the results for the reasons to promote wind power generation.
First, concerning “It improves the country’s energy self-sufficiency and energy security, particularly in remote areas”, individuals with higher incomes (0.166) support wind power generation as it enhances domestic energy self-sufficiency and can serve as an independent power source, particularly in remote areas such as islands. Additionally, it should be noted that the coefficient for NPP state (2.150) is positive, while the coefficient for NPP state × Age (−0.584) is negative. Thus, in NPP states, wind power generation is supported as it can serve as an independent power source, particularly in remote areas like islands, with younger individuals also supporting wind power generation.
Second, with regard to “It does not emit greenhouse gases during power generation”, females (−0.282) and older individuals (0.133) in NPP states support wind power generation as it does not emit greenhouse gasses during power generation. Additionally, the coefficient for Income (0.203) is positive, while the coefficient for NPP state × Income (−0.284) is negative. Therefore, in NPP states, the coefficient is −0.081 (−0.284 + 0.203 = −0.081). In these states, there is a tendency to support wind power generation as income increases, regardless of greenhouse gas emissions, but this tendency is small.
Third, regarding “No fuel is needed for operation, the cost of power generation is low, and commercialization is relatively easy”, individuals with higher incomes (0.112) support wind power generation because of its low generation cost and relative ease of commercialization.
Fourth, regarding “Energy can be converted into electricity with higher efficiency than other renewable energies”, individuals with higher incomes (0.164) and those without children (−0.254) support wind power generation because wind power has higher efficiency in converting energy into electricity compared to other renewable energy sources. On the other hand, the coefficient for NPP state (0.411) is positive, with the coefficient for NPP state × Household Size (−0.412) also positive. In such states, wind power generation is supported because of its high efficiency in converting energy into electricity, even among individuals with fewer household members.
Fifth, regarding “Wherever the wind blows constantly, power can be generated at any time of day or night”, individuals with higher incomes (0.620) and those without children (−0.212) support wind power generation as wind power can generate electricity at any time, including during the night, as long as there is a constant wind supply.
Sixth, with regard to “Germany is said to be one of the best places for wind power”, women (−0.292) support wind power generation because Germany is the most appropriate place for wind power generation.
Next, we present the results regarding the reasons for not supporting wind power generation.
First, with regard to “Fluctuations in wind speed cause fluctuations in voltage and power factor, which can result in unstable and inconsistent energy supply”, individuals with higher levels of education (0.240) do not support wind power generation because they believe that fluctuations in wind speed may lead to variations in voltage and power, potentially resulting in unstable and inconsistent energy supply.
Second, regarding “Strong winds may cause damage to wind turbines”, high-income individuals in NPP states (0.197) do not support wind power generation as they perceive the risk of wind turbines being damaged by strong winds.
Third, with regard to “There is a possibility of damaging the natural landscape”, individuals with higher incomes (0.138) and those with fewer household members in NPP states (−0.450) do not support wind power generation due to the potential for harm to the natural landscape. Additionally, the coefficient for Age (−0.306) is negative, while the coefficient for NPP state × Age (0.126) is positive. Therefore, in NPP states, the combined coefficient is −0.180 (−0.306 + 0.126 = −0.180). For this reason, in the NPP states, individuals tend not to support wind power generation with increasing age as it damages the natural landscape.
Fourth, regarding “It may cause noise damage and health hazards due to ultrasound in the surrounding area”, individuals with higher levels of education (0.707) and those with fewer household members in NPP states (−0.235) do not support wind power generation due to the perceived potential health risk.
Fifth, with regard to “There is a high risk of birds being killed or injured by collisions with rotating wind turbines”, younger individuals (−0.318) and those with higher levels of education (0.707) do not support wind power generation because of the increased risk of birds colliding with the rotating wind turbines.
Sixth, regarding “The inspection and repair costs of wind turbines are increasing year by year”, younger individuals in NPP states (−0.196) and those with higher levels of education (0.691) do not support wind power generation because they expect the inspection and repair costs of wind turbines will increase year by year.
[ad_2]
