Public Perception of Hydrogen: Response to an Open-ended Questions

Widespread use of hydrogen and hydrogen-based fuels as energy carriers in society may enable the gradual replacement of fossil fuels by renewable energy sources. Although the development and deployment of the associated technologies and infrastructures represent a considerable bottleneck, it is generally acknowledged that neither the technical feasibility nor the economic viability alone will determine the extent of the future use of hydrogen as an energy carrier. Public perception, beliefs, awareness and knowledge about hydrogen will play a significant role in the further development of the hydrogen economy. To this end, the present study examines public perception and awareness of hydrogen in Norway. The approach adopted entailed an open-ended question examining spontaneous associations with the term ‘hydrogen’. The question was fielded to 2276 participants in Wave 25 of the Norwegian Citizen Panel (NCP), an on-line panel that derives random samples from the general population registry. The analysis focused on classifying the responses into negative associations (i.e. barriers towards widespread implementation of hydrogen in society), neutral associations (e.g., basic facts), and positive associations (i.e. drivers towards widespread implementation of hydrogen in society). Each of the 2194 responses were individually assessed by five researchers. The majority of the responses highlighted neutral associations, using words such as ‘gas’, ‘water’, and ‘element’. When considering barriers vs. drivers, the overall responses tend towards positive associations. Many respondents perceive hydrogen as a clean and environmentally friendly fuel, and hydrogen technologies are often associated with the future. The negative sentiments were typically associated with words such as ‘explosive’, ‘hazardous’, and ‘expensive’. Despite an increase in the mentioning of safety-related properties, relative to a previous study in the same region, the frequency of such references was rather low (4%). The responses also reveal various misconceptions, such as hydrogen as a prospective ‘source’ of clean energy.