The Scottish Government

« Previous | Contents | Next »

Listen

Public Attitudes to the Environment in Scotland

5.2 ELECTRICITY PRODUCTION

This section reports on respondents' awareness of different methods of generating electricity and the attributes people associated with different forms of electricity generation. Public preferences for different types of electricity generation are then presented.

Approximately 32% of electricity generated in Scotland is currently generated in nuclear power stations, 31% by coal and oil fired power stations, 25% by gas fired power stations and 12% from hydro, wave and wind power ⁵⁶. There is a commitment to increase the amount of electricity generated from renewable sources to 18% by 2010 ⁵⁷. The Scottish Renewables Obligation represents one important means by which to ensure long term investment in renewable sources of electricity generation ⁵⁸.

5.2.1 Awareness of sources of electricity generation

Respondents were shown a card listing various possible methods of electricity generation and asked to select those they had heard of. As Table 5.9 shows, awareness of electricity generation sources ranged from nine in ten people who had heard of nuclear power stations to four in ten who had heard of combined heat and power stations. Just under half of those surveyed had heard of using wood (or other plants) as a fuel to generate electricity (47%).

It can be seen from Table 5.9 that women were less likely to report having heard of each type of power generation than men. For example, 70% of men had heard of wave power compared with just 44% of women. Awareness of the different forms of electricity generation also varied by age, highest educational qualification, tenure type and urban or rural location (tables not shown).

5.2.2 Attributes associated with producing electricity in different ways

Producing electricity in different ways has implications for both the environment and the costs of energy production, and has potential visual and noise impacts. Respondents were presented with a list of attributes and asked which they thought were related to generating electricity in different ways. The attributes considered are shown in Figure 5.3, which also shows which characteristics are actually associated with each method of production.

Table 5.10 compares the attributes that people associated with each source of electricity. From this, it can be seen that renewable sources of electricity generation were least likely to be perceived as being very expensive and nuclear power was most likely to be considered very expensive. While 10% of people thought wind power was very expensive, 35% thought this for nuclear power.

Coal and oil generation of electricity was associated with using up natural resources that will run out (70%), as was generation by gas fired power stations (51%). Just under four in ten people associated these same two forms of electricity generation with producing greenhouse gases - more than any other method of electricity generation.

Six in ten people (59%) thought wind power does not pollute air or water while fewer than four in ten thought this for hydro power (37%) - neither method of electricity generation does cause such pollution. While almost three quarters of people recognised that nuclear power produces dangerous wastes (73%), around one in five thought this was the case for coal and oil and gas generation of electricity - which actually do not produce such wastes.

Wind power and other renewable power sources were thought by four and three people in ten respectively to be unable to generate a supply of power at all times. Sixteen per cent thought this about hydro power, although this is not actually the case.

None of the methods of generating electricity were particularly associated with 'creating a lot of noise that affects local people'. Seventeen per cent said this for coal and oil fired power stations, 14% for hydro power, 13% for wind power and 11% for nuclear power. Nuclear power generation was perceived to be an eyesore by the greatest proportion of people (35%) followed by coal and oil fired power stations (26%). Seventeen per cent said that wind power generation represented an eyesore.

For each method of electricity production at least one in ten people said they did not know which attributes applied - and for renewable sources this proportion rose to two in ten.

Sample size for each row = 1,989

5.2.3 Views on attributes of electricity generation sources by socio-economic characteristics

Exploring differences in the perceived attributes of different forms of power generation within the population is complicated by the fact that the proportion of people who said they did not know about the impacts of each method of generation varied notably by respondent's background characteristics. In some cases a third of people in a group said they did not know the impacts of generating electricity by a particular method. Table 5.11 shows the proportions of those with different socio-demographic characteristics who said they did not know what the attributes of each method of electricity generation were.

Women were far more likely than men to say they did not know the impacts of electricity generation and those aged 65+ were more likely than those in younger age groups to say they did not know the attributes. Those in social rented housing and those with no educational qualifications were also particularly likely to say they did not know the effects of producing electricity in different ways. Differences in knowledge were evident between urban and rural areas for generation of electricity by hydro power and wind. For example, only 6% of those in remote rural areas said they did not know the attributes of generating electricity from wind power compared with 12% of those in large urban areas.

In order to explore differences between respondents in terms of associating the different forms of generation with the various characteristics, those who did not know the attributes have been excluded from the following analysis. However, it is important to bear in mind the patterns described above when considering Tables 5.12 to 5.17.

Nuclear power

Views on some of the attributes of the impacts of nuclear power generation varied by sex, age, tenure type, education and urban or rural location. Men were more likely than women to associate nuclear power with being very expensive (42% compared with 37%) and with producing dangerous wastes (84% compared with 79%). Those aged 65+ were least likely to think generating electricity by nuclear power produces dangerous waste (76% compared with 86% of those aged 16-24).

Interestingly, owner occupiers were more likely than social renters to perceive of nuclear power generation as being an eyesore (41% compared with 34%).

Some of the greatest differences related to educational attainment. While 71% of those with no qualifications thought that nuclear power produces dangerous wastes, this figure rose to 89% of those with degrees. However it was not always the case that views changed systematically with increasing levels of education. Those with Highers or equivalent qualifications were as likely as those with no qualifications (36% in each case) to think that the generation of electricity by nuclear power produces greenhouse gases (which it does not) while 26% of those with degrees or higher level qualifications thought this. Only 6% of those with the highest qualifications thought nuclear power generation produces noise that affects local people, less than half the proportion of those at each other qualification level who thought this.

[Table 5.12]

Coal and oil generation

Educational attainment was strongly related to views on the attributes of generating electricity by coal and oil. For example, 27% of those with no qualifications said that this produces greenhouse gases, as did 57% of those with degrees or professional qualifications. Those with higher educational qualifications were also more likely to state that coal and oil generation uses up natural resources that will run out, produces dangerous wastes and is an eyesore. Those aged 16-24 were particularly likely to associate this form of electricity generation with creating noise (28%). People living in remote rural areas were least likely to take this view (7%).

[Table 5.13]

Gas

A smaller proportion of those with degree level qualifications thought that gas was a very expensive way to generate electricity than among other groups (13% compared with 22% of those with no qualifications). Those with higher educational qualifications were also more likely to be aware that this method of electricity generation produces greenhouse gases and uses up natural resources that will run out.

[Table 5.14]

Hydro power

Respondents with degrees or professional qualifications were more likely to associate hydro power with the potential for small-scale production of electricity and non-constant generation of electricity - the latter of which is actually not true - than those with lower or no qualifications. Those with qualifications of Higher grade or above were, less likely to think hydro power a very expensive form of generation, than those with lower or no qualifications.

Those in the youngest age group were particularly likely to consider this form of electricity generation to be noisy, and less likely than their older counterparts to perceive it as an eyesore.

[Table 5.15]

Wind power

Among those respondents who gave a view on some of the attributes of wind power, the proportion associating this method of electricity generation with creating noise, being an eyesore, being able to be produced on a small scale, and with not being able to produce a supply at all times increased with educational attainment. There was no notable difference in the views of those living in urban and rural areas with regard to the issue of noise creation and visual intrusion (being an eyesore). However, those in urban areas were more likely than their rural counterparts to identify that wind power can be produced on a small scale close to where it is used. Those in remote rural areas and remote small towns were least likely to consider wind power very expensive (7% and 6% respectively compared with 12% of those in large urban areas who gave a view on the attributes of this method of producing electricity).

[Table 5.16]

Other renewable sources - such as wave and solar power

People with higher educational qualifications were more likely than other groups to identify that other renewable sources of electricity do not pollute air and water, cannot produce a supply at all times and can be produced on a small scale close to where the power is needed.

[Table 5.17]

5.2.4 How should electricity be generated?

The findings described above show a clear perception that certain types of power - namely wind power, other renewable sources, and to a lesser extent hydro power - are not as polluting as other methods of electricity generation. However, a sizeable proportion of those surveyed held a number of mis-perceptions about the various sources. These should be borne in mind as the public's views on ideal methods of electricity production are considered.

The proportion of Scotland's electricity currently generated in different ways was described to each respondent and they were then asked what proportion they thought should be generated in different ways. Table 5.18 shows the proportion of people who thought different amounts of electricity should be produced in different ways.

Overall, 15% of people said that all electricity in Scotland should be generated from renewable sources, 1% said that all electricity should be generated by nuclear power and 1% said that all electricity should be generated by gas. The remaining respondents selected a mix of sources. In total, over a third of respondents, 36%, did not include nuclear power in their selection, 27% did not include coal and oil, 22% did not include gas and just 3% did not select renewables. This finding suggests that nuclear power and coal and oil electricity generation were perceived as being the two least favoured sources of electricity, but renewable energy generation was widely supported.

Sample size for each row = 1,989

Figure 5.4 compares the current and desired proportion of electricity generated from each source and confirms the above picture.

In Table 5.19 these same data are re-formatted to show the proportion of people who opted for more or less of a particular type of power generation than at present. Almost nine in ten people (86%) wanted less electricity generated from nuclear power than at present and the same proportion wanted more electricity to be generated from renewables. Just under eight in ten (77%) wanted less electricity to be generated from coal and oil fired power stations. While 37% wanted less power to be generated from gas, 50% wanted to see more electricity coming from this source. Extending this analysis, Table 5.19 shows which groups within the population held particular preferences.

It can be seen that men were more likely than women to favour increasing the role of nuclear power in providing Scotland's electricity (9% compared with 5%). There were also variations in relation to education status - with those with degrees or professional qualifications more likely to say they wanted more nuclear power than at present (12%). This compares with just 4% of those with Highers or equivalent qualifications. Education was also strongly related to views on other sources of power generation. Those with higher qualifications were more likely to favour less generation coming from coal, oil and gas-fired power stations and more from renewables than those with lower qualifications. For example, over 90% of those with qualifications of Higher grade or above wanted to see more electricity coming from renewable sources, as did 80% of those with no qualifications. While 35% of those with no qualifications wanted to see less power coming from gas-fired power stations, this rose to 46% among those with degrees or professional qualifications.

Those in remote and rural Scotland were at least as keen on increasing the role of renewables in total electricity production as those in urban areas, despite the fact that they are perhaps more likely to be affected by such power generation taking place in their local areas. It might also be that those in remote and rural areas have had greater prior exposure to renewable energy generation schemes. Almost half (47%) of those in remote rural areas wanted to see more electricity generated from gas compared with a third of those in the large urban areas (35%).

*The proportion of people who said they did not know, or who opted for the same proportion as at present, are not included in this table.

As already described, one of the main ways in which Scotland might increase its electricity generation from renewable sources, is through wind farm development. Respondents were asked their views on wind farms being used to generate electricity. Table 5.20 shows that a fifth of respondents preferred the idea of creating lots of small wind farms and a fifth favoured creating a few large wind farms, while there was strongest support for the idea of creating both small and large wind farms (43%). Only 2% of people did not want to see any wind farms at all. Those in urban areas were more likely to say they did not have a view (17% of those in the large urban areas said this, compared with 4% of people in remote rural areas).

Views on wind farms also varied by age and highest educational qualification. There was little variation in the proportion who did not want any wind farms to be created, however higher proportions of those in the older age groups, and with no qualifications, said they did not know. Correspondingly, higher proportions of younger people and those with higher level qualifications said they would like to see the creation of lots of small and a few large wind farms.

[Tables 5.21 - 5.22]

Using geographical analysis it is possible to identify how far survey respondents actually lived from a wind farm ⁶² (Table 5.23). It is interesting to note that a higher proportion of people in the large urban areas than in remote rural areas actually lived within 20 miles of a wind farm (29% compared with 20%). This is due to the existence of wind farms within 20 miles of parts of Edinburgh and Glasgow. Those in remote small towns and accessible small towns were most likely to live in close proximity to a wind farm (20% and 11% respectively lived within 10 miles of one).

There was not a clear pattern between views on wind farms and current distance from a wind farm (Table 5.24). This is partly because the proportion of people who did not give a view varied with distance - being smallest at the ends of the distribution (up to 10 miles and more than 50 miles). It might also be that recent proposals for wind farms in areas where they are not currently placed have increased awareness of them in a range of areas.

The survey also recorded respondent's happiness at the idea of living beside a wind farm (as reported in Section 2.6). Analysis of this finding in relation to actual distance from a wind farm suggests again that people closest to, and furthest from a wind farm at present, were most happy about the idea of living beside a wind farm (Table 5.25).

* Sample sizes in Table 5.25 are greater than those in Table 5.24 because the full sample were asked whether they would be happy living next to a wind farm.

5.3 SUMMARY

• The quality of drinking water was an issue over which half of those surveyed were very worried, although over three quarters said they were satisfied or very satisfied with the quality of their tap water.

• Over six in ten people had not noticed any significant problems with the appearance or taste of their tap water. Of those people who were dissatisfied with drinking water quality, six in ten had noticed a chemical taste or smell and five in ten had noticed cloudiness in their tap water.

• Three in ten people preferred to drink bottled or filtered water at home. The most common reasons given for this were that bottled or filtered water had a better taste or was better quality than tap water.

• While nine in ten people had heard of generating electricity from nuclear power, only four in ten had heard of combined heat and power from industrial processes being used to generate electricity. Just under half had heard of wood (or other plants) being used as a fuel to generate electricity.

• Seventeen per cent thought wind generation of electricity could represent an eyesore and 35% thought this about the generation of electricity by nuclear power.

• Only around four in ten people identified generation of electricity from coal, oil and gas with producing greenhouse gases. A similar proportion (42%) were aware that wind power generation cannot generate a supply of power at all times.

• Respondents' highest educational qualifications were related to their views on the impacts of electricity generation by different methods. Those with higher qualifications tended to be better informed of the potential environmental impacts of each method and also considered each method more likely to be an eyesore than those with no educational qualifications.

• Asked what proportion of Scotland's electricity respondents would ideally like to be generated by different methods, there was strong support for increasing electricity generated from renewable sources and for reducing the role of nuclear, coal and oil-fired power stations.

« Previous | Contents | Next »