State-of-the-art analysis of public perceptions and reactions to hydrogen and fuel cell technologies (D1.2)

Ref. Ares(2024)3874456 - 30/05/2024 D 1.2 State-of-the-art analysis of public perceptions and reactions to hydrogen and fuel cell technologies DELIVERABLE TYPE Report MONTH AND DATE OF DELIVERABLE Month 12, 31/05/2024 WORK PACKAGE WP 1 LEADER IMI DISSEMINATION LEVEL Public AUTHORS Dr Aaron Jensen Dr Eric Jensen Lali van Zuydam Daniela Martin Panisa Thaislip Dr Brady Wagoner PROGRAMME HORIZON EUROPE GRANT AGREEMENT 101111933 START June 2023 DURATION 24 months Contributors NAME ORGANISATION Aaron Jensen, Eric Jensen, Lali van Zuydam, Daniela Martin, Panisa Thaislip, Brady Wagoner IMI Peer Reviews NAME ORGANISATION Ilaria Sciavi ENVI Revision History The information and views set out in this report are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official opinion of the European Union, neither the European Union Institutions and Bodies nor any person acting on their behalf. VERSION DATA REVIEWER MODIFICATIONS Table of Contents 1 Introduction 10 2 Literature review on public perceptions and reactions to hydrogen 10 2.1 Literature review methodology 10 2.2 Literature review results: Summaries of relevant research studies 16 2.3 Literature review conclusion 33 3 Secondary analysis on public perceptions and reactions to hydrogen 35 3.1 Secondary analysis methodology 35 3.2 Secondary analysis results: Awareness and familiarity with hydrogen energy 35 3.2.1 Hydrogen energy familiarity by country and gender 36 Familiarity with hydrogen energy (Category 1) 36 Heard of but not familiar with hydrogen energy (Category 2) 37 Neither heard of nor familiar with hydrogen energy (Category 3) 37 3.2.2 Hydrogen energy familiarity by country and age 39 Familiarity with hydrogen energy (Category 1) 39 Heard but not familiar with hydrogen energy (Category 2) 39 Neither heard nor familiar with hydrogen energy (Category 3) 40 3.3 Secondary analysis results: Views of hydrogen energy and technologies 42 3.3.1 Views on hydrogen as a solution for energy dependence 42 Trends by Country 42 Support for the view that hydrogen reduces energy dependence by gender 43 Opposition to the view that hydrogen reduces energy dependence by gender 44 3.3.2 Views on hydrogen as a sustainable energy source 44 Trends by Country 44 Support for the view that hydrogen is sustainable by gender 46 Opposition to the view that hydrogen is sustainable by gender 46 3.3.3 Views on hydrogen as a safe energy source 47 Trends by Country 47 Support for the view that hydrogen is safe by gender 48 Opposition to the view that hydrogen is safe by gender 49 3.3.4 Views on hydrogen as a polluting energy source similar to fossil fuels 50 Trends by Country 50 Opposition to the view that hydrogen is polluting by gender 52 Support for the view that hydrogen is polluting by gender 52 4 Conclusions and implications for public engagement 53 5 Appendix A. Secondary analysis methodology 55 6 Appendix B. Secondary analysis tables 62 7 References 90 Table of Tables Table 1. Relevant sources of survey data with analytical relevance 12 Table 2. Countries represented by the relevant articles/reports identified by the literature review 15 Table 3. Hydrogen public opinion results by positive, mixed or negative valence 32 Table 4. Negative Views of Hydrogen Pollution Similar to Fossil Fuels (A02_4) 60 Table 5. Gender of respondents for Heard and Familiar with Hydrogen Energy (A02_4) 60 Table 6. Age of respondents for Heard and Familiar with Hydrogen Energy (A02_4) 60 Table 7. Country of respondents for Heard and Familiar with Hydrogen Energy (A02_4) 60 Table 8. Heard and Familiar with Hydrogen Energy (A02_4) 61 Table 9. Heard and Familiar with Hydrogen Energy (A02_4; All Categories by Gender) 62 Table 10. Heard and Familiar with Hydrogen Energy (A02_4; All Categories by Age) 62 Table 11. Heard and Familiar with Hydrogen Energy (A02_4; All Categories by Gender and Country) 63 Table 12. Heard and Familiar with Hydrogen Energy (A02_4; All Categories by Gender and Country) 66 Table 13. Gender of respondents for ‘Hydrogen is a good solution for reducing the energy dependence’ (B07_2) 70 Table 14. Age of respondents for ‘Hydrogen is a good solution for reducing the energy dependence’ (B07_2) 70 Table 15. Country of respondents for ‘Hydrogen is a good solution for reducing the energy dependence’ (B07_2) 70 Table 16. Levels of Agreement about Energy Dependence (B07_2; All Categories) 71 Table 17. Levels of Agreement about Energy Dependence (B07_2; All Categories, Gender) 71 Table 18. Levels of Agreement about Energy Dependence (B07_2; All Categories, Gender and Country) 71 Table 19. Gender of respondents for ‘Hydrogen is a sustainable energy source’ (B07_2) 75 Table 20. Responses to ‘Hydrogen is a sustainable energy source’ (B07_2) 75 Table 21. Levels of Agreement about Hydrogen Sustainability (B07_3; All Categories, Gender) 75 Table 22. Levels of Agreement about Hydrogen Sustainability (B07_3; All Categories, Gender and Country)75 Table 23. Levels of Agreement about Hydrogen Safety (B07_6; Gender) 79 Table 24. Levels of Agreement about Hydrogen Safety (B07_6; All Categories) 79 Table 25. Levels of Agreement about Hydrogen Safety (B07_6; All Categories, Gender) 79 Table 26. Levels of Agreement about Hydrogen Safety (B07_6; All Categories, Gender and Country) 79 Table 27. Respondents by gender for levels of agreement about Hydrogen Polluting (B07_5; Gender) 83 Table 28. Levels of Agreement about Hydrogen Polluting (B07_5; All Categories) 83 Table 29. Levels of Agreement about Hydrogen Polluting (B07_5; All Categories, Gender) 83 Table 30. Levels of Agreement about Hydrogen Polluting (B07_5; All Categories, Gender and Country) 83 Table of Figures Figure 1. Flow chart detailing text selection following PRISMA guidelines 11 Figure 2. Technology Awareness: Hydrogen Energy (A02_4) 35 Figure 3. Familiar with Hydrogen Energy (A02_4; Category 1, Gender by Country) 35 Figure 4. Heard but unfamiliar with hydrogen energy (A02_4; Category 2, Gender by Country) 36 Figure 5. Neither heard nor familiar with hydrogen energy (A02_4; Category 3, Gender by Country) 36 Figure 6. Means of Heard or Familiar with Hydrogen Energy (A02_4; All Categories, Gender by Country) 37 Figure 7. Familiar with Hydrogen Energy (A02_4; Category 1, Age by Country) 38 Figure 8. Heard but unfamiliar with hydrogen energy (A02_4; Category 2, Age by Country) 38 Figure 9. Neither heard nor familiar with hydrogen energy (A02_4; Category 3, Age by Country) 39 Figure 10. Means of awareness/familiarity with hydrogen energy (A02_4; All Categories, Age by Country) 40 Figure 11. Levels of agreement about energy dependence (B07_2; All Categories by Country) 42 Figure 12. Levels of agreement about reducing energy dependence (B07_2; All Categories, Country and Gender) 42 Figure 13. Levels of disagreement about reducing energy dependence (B07_2; All Categories, Country, and Gender) 43 Figure 14. Levels of agreement about hydrogen as a sustainable energy source (B07_3; All Categories by Country) 44 Figure 15. Support for views of hydrogen as a sustainable energy source (B07_3; All Categories, Country, and Gender) 45 Figure 16. Opposition to the view that hydrogen is a sustainable energy source (B07_3; All Categories, Country, and Gender) 45 Figure 17. Levels of agreement about hydrogen safety (B07_6; All Categories by Country) 47 Figure 18. Support for the view that hydrogen is safe (B07_6; All Categories, Country, and Gender) 47 Figure 19. Opposition to the view that hydrogen is safe (B07_6; All Categories, Country and Gender) 48 Figure 20. Levels of agreement about hydrogen pollution (B07_5; All Categories by Country) 49 Figure 21. Opposition to the view that hydrogen is polluting (B07_5; All Categories, Gender, and Country) 50 Figure 22. Support for the view that hydrogen is polluting (B07_5; All Categories, Gender, and Country) 50 Figure 23. Gender distribution across all countries 53 Figure 24. Awareness and Familiarity with Hydrogen Energy (A02_4; All Categories distributed by Gender) 53 Figure 25. Age distribution across all countries 54 Figure 26. Awareness and Familiarity with Hydrogen Energy (A02_4; All Categories distributed by Age) 54 Figure 27. Levels of Agreement about Hydrogen Reducing Energy Dependence (B07_2; All Categories) 55 Figure 28. Levels of Agreement about Hydrogen Increasing Sustainability (B07_3; All Categories) 55 Figure 29. Levels of Agreement about Hydrogen Safety (B07_6; All Categories) 56 Figure 30. Levels of Agreement about Hydrogen Polluting (B07_5; All Categories) 56 Figure 31. Levels of Agreement about Hydrogen Energy (B07; All Categories, Gender) 57 Figure 32. Levels of Agreement about Hydrogen’s Contribution to Energy Dependence (B07_2; All Categories, Gender) 58 Figure 33. Levels of Agreement about Hydrogen as a Sustainable Energy Sources (B07_3; All Categories) 58 Figure 34. Levels of Agreement about Hydrogen Safety (B07_6; All Categories, Gender) 59 Figure 35. Levels of Agreement about Hydrogen Pollution (B07_5; All Categories, Gender) 59 Partners short names APRE Agenzia per la Promozione della Ricerca Europea BH2C Balkanski Vodoroden Klaster CLUSTER TWEED Cluster Tweed CNH2 Centro Nacional Del Hidrogeno ENVI Parco Scientifico Tecnologico Per L’ambiente Environment Park Torino Spa IME Fundacion IMDEA Energia IMI Institute for Methods Innovation RIGP Regionalna Izba Gospodarcza Pomorza Abbreviations HFCT Hydrogen fuel cell technologies NIMBY Not in my backyard FCEV Hydrogen fuel cell electric vehicle FCH Hydrogen fuel cell Executive summary Scope The deliverable is divided into two main parts. The first section identifies and synthesises the existing research literature on public perceptions of hydrogen energy. The second section presents results from a secondary analysis of public opinion data about hydrogen energy in Europe. This deliverable presents an original analysis of data collected for the Public Opinion Survey on hydrogen technology (Gallup International, 2023). By analysing existing survey data, we developed a baseline understanding of the public opinion regarding H2 implementation in EU countries regarding technology understanding and acceptance. Other reliable sources of survey data with analytical relevance to public understanding and acceptance of hydrogen technology in EU27 countries were explored and included in the literature review section of the deliverable. Results Literature review In the context of decarbonising energy supply, the European public's perception of hydrogen technology is characterised by knowledge, cultural predispositions, and varying degrees of societal acceptance, influenced by regional specifics and overarching trends. Support for hydrogen technology often does not correlate with a comprehensive understanding of its mechanisms or implications. Instead, environmental concern and trust in scientific advancements significantly shape attitudes. This trend highlights the critical role of cultural predispositions, which strengthen with increased knowledge and influence acceptance as understanding grows. While there is general positivity towards hydrogen technology across Europe, this support often encounters hurdles when implementing related infrastructure, particularly in residential areas. This is most evident in Germany, where public approval for hydrogen is high, yet local projects like hydrogen pipelines face resistance due to the ‘Not in my backyard’ (NIMBY) phenomenon. Similar challenges are seen in Denmark and Poland, where enthusiasm for hydrogen fuel cell electric vehicles (FCEVs) and other applications is tempered by cost, infrastructure, and safety concerns. These insights suggest that while the foundational support exists largely due to perceived environmental benefits, it is conditional, requiring targeted communication strategies to address safety concerns and infrastructural hesitations. Secondary analysis of public opinion data The original analysis of public opinion survey data across the EU27 conducted for this deliverable reveals a broad awareness but limited in-depth understanding of hydrogen technology. Over 80% of respondents are aware of hydrogen energy at some level. However, there is a notable gender disparity in familiarity, with men claiming greater knowledge. This may link to a broader need to expand inclusion of women in STEM within the EU. Ultimately EU13 countries evinced a broad range of views about hydrogen technology, sometimes more supportive than the EU27 and sometimes less. In EU13 nations such as Bulgaria and Malta, there is a strong belief in hydrogen's environmental benefits. At the same time, scepticism about its safety persists in some EU13 countries such as Czechia, Slovakia, and Bulgaria due to variable trust in new technologies and regulatory frameworks. Implications for public engagement Enhancing public acceptance and support for hydrogen technology in Europe necessitates a multifaceted approach that integrates continuous, effective information dissemination with robust, trust-building communication strategies. This approach should clarify the benefits and safety of hydrogen technology and tackle the infrastructural and economic concerns that inhibit broader acceptance. Emphasising the environmental advantages while transparently addressing practical and safety issues could foster a more informed and supportive public, pivotal for advancing hydrogen technology as a key part of Europe's green energy transition and decarbonisation efforts. This public engagement strategy aligns with findings from across the EU27, where the path to acceptance is paved with informed public engagement and policy-driven support. 2.2 Literature review results: Summaries of relevant research studies Source 1. Unknowing but supportive? Predispositions, knowledge, and support for hydrogen technology in the Netherlands (2010) The study investigates the Dutch public's knowledge of and support for hydrogen technology, revealing a generally low level of hydrogen knowledge yet high support for its implementation. This paradox prompts exploration into the role of cultural predispositions—such as environmental concern and trust in technology—in shaping public opinion towards hydrogen technology. Drawing on a representative survey conducted in 2008 (N = 2121), the research uncovers that while factual knowledge about hydrogen positively influences support, cultural predispositions hold more sway in determining public acceptance. Specifically, individuals with high trust in technology and environmental concerns exhibit stronger support for hydrogen technology. Furthermore, the study finds that the impact of cultural predispositions on hydrogen technology support intensifies with an increase in relevant knowledge, highlighting the nuanced interplay between information, predispositions, and public support. Source 2. The role of attitudes in technology acceptance management: reflections on the case of hydrogen fuel cells in Europe (2018) The study explores the impact of public attitudes on the acceptance of hydrogen fuel cell technologies across seven European countries (Belgium, France, Germany, Norway, Slovenia, Spain and the United Kingdom). The survey results (N = +/- 1000 per country) highlight a general positivity towards hydrogen technologies but underline the low strength and stability of these attitudes due to limited public knowledge and awareness. The research suggests that at the early stages of technology diffusion, public attitudes are not yet strong enough to significantly influence reactions to communication campaigns to increase social acceptance or merely inform the public about hydrogen fuel cells. Source 3. Dynamic effects on the acceptance of hydrogen technologies—an international comparison (2008) The study, conducted across eight cities (Amsterdam, Barcelona, Berlin, Hamburg, London, Luxembourg, Madrid and Reykjavik) with 3352 respondents, explores public acceptance of hydrogen technologies. It reveals 68% of respondents are supportive, while 31% show volatile attitudes. Interestingly, 77% preferred hydrogen buses over conventional ones under identical conditions, yet 21% remained indifferent. This discrepancy highlights that acceptance can shift based on new information or incidents. The research suggests that significant events could either boost support to 97% or increase opposition to 32%, emphasising the need for ongoing public engagement to stabilise and enhance acceptance of hydrogen technologies. Overall, the research shows that people who are neutral about hydrogen technologies and seek more information are easier to educate and persuade than those who are already opposed. Indifference and a desire for more knowledge create an opportunity for effective communication, whereas opposition requires overcoming preconceived negative attitudes. Source 4. Are French people ready to accept hydrogen underground storage? An answer through the distance from object model (2023) The article explores the social acceptability of underground hydrogen storage in France. It focuses on how public perceptions are influenced by knowledge, experience, and personal involvement. A survey of 157 French respondents highlights generally positive attitudes toward hydrogen storage and believes it could protect the environment, considering environmental and fossil fuel issues important. Those with higher knowledge of hydrogen saw it as more beneficial for the environment, while those with lower knowledge perceived greater problems with fossil fuels. Key findings suggest that increasing knowledge about hydrogen's environmental impact and emphasising the importance of environmental issues can enhance public acceptance of hydrogen storage. Source 5. Hydrogen in future energy systems: Social acceptance of the technology and its large-scale infrastructure (2021) This study, part of the ELEGANCY project (SINTEF Energy Research, 2017), examines the social acceptance of hydrogen technology and its infrastructure in Germany. Survey data from 1,438 Germans reveal a generally positive view of hydrogen (65%), but acceptance drops when infrastructure, such as pipelines, is proposed locally. Younger respondents show more tendencies for Not-In-My-Back-Yard (NIMBY) than older respondents. Trust in stakeholders, particularly political and scientific entities, boosts acceptance levels, while low trust, especially in environmental NGOs, correlates with NIMBY attitudes. Source 6. Let's go green with hydrogen! The general public's perspective (2012) This study examines German public acceptance of hydrogen technology in the mobility sector, revealing that nearly 80% of Germans support the introduction of hydrogen vehicles. This positive outlook is contingent on hydrogen being produced in an environmentally friendly manner. The study, part of the HyTrust project (NOW GmbH, n.d.) and funded by the German Federal Ministry of Transport, employed interviews (N = 30), focus groups (N = 3), and a representative survey (N = 1011) to gauge public opinion. Despite high awareness and favourable attitudes towards hydrogen-powered cars, the public lacks detailed knowledge about hydrogen and fuel cell technology. The study indicates safety concerns are minimal, emphasizing the importance of renewable energy in hydrogen production for public support. Source 7. Knowing hydrogen and loving it too? Information provision, cultural predispositions, and support for hydrogen technology among the Dutch (2012) The study investigates how information and cultural predispositions in the Netherlands shape public perceptions of hydrogen technology. The study explores the framing effects on public support by using 1,012 respondents provided with varying information about hydrogen technology. Findings suggest that for individuals with high trust in science and technology, positive information enhances support for hydrogen technology, whereas negative information diminishes it. Conversely, for those with low trust in science and technology, providing positive or negative information does not significantly influence their evaluation of hydrogen technology. This reveals a nuanced interaction between information provision and pre-existing cultural predispositions towards science and technology. This suggests that "providing positive information fails to evoke a more favourable evaluation" among those inherently sceptical of science and technology. Source 8. Public acceptance of Hydrogen in the Netherlands: Two surveys that demystify public views on a hydrogen economy (2006) The journal article examines the Dutch public's (n=612) acceptance of hydrogen technology through two surveys. The findings indicate a generally positive attitude towards hydrogen, albeit with significant variability based on the type of information presented to participants. Specifically, the study finds that 87% of respondents showed a favourable attitude towards using hydrogen combined with natural gas for home heating when exposed to positively skewed information about hydrogen. However, acceptance rates differed when participants were provided with negative or neutral information, demonstrating the impact of media framing on public perception. The surveys also addressed the public's willingness to accept trade-offs while transitioning to a hydrogen economy. For example, while a significant majority (87%) would support the use of hydrogen if it produced 10% less carbon dioxide than natural gas and maintained the same level of service, this support dropped to 67% if a 100-euro switch cost was involved, and to less than a third if safety was perceived to be slightly compromised. Source 9. A survey of Finnish energy engineering students' knowledge and perception of hydrogen technology (2018) The study, involving 93 students from Aalto University, assessed changes in their understanding and attitudes before and after a specific learning assignment focused on hydrogen technology. Key findings include significant improvements in students' knowledge, particularly regarding hydrogen safety, with an average increase of 1.74 points on a 6-point scale post-assignment. Additionally, students' willingness to adopt home hydrogen systems showed notable growth, highlighted by an increase from 2.78 to 4.06 on the same scale. This shift suggests a robust positive response to the educational content provided. Source 10. Assessing the social acceptance of hydrogen for transportation in Spain (2016) The study surveyed 1005 Spanish residents to evaluate public perception and acceptance of hydrogen as a potential energy carrier in the transportation sector. The respondents demonstrated a high level of awareness (>70%) about hydrogen and a favourable opinion on its implementation, with nearly 80% supporting hydrogen technologies in public transport and 75% endorsing its environmental benefits. The survey revealed strong public backing for establishing local hydrogen refuelling stations, although there was a preference for these to be located away from residential areas. The findings suggest that, while there is substantial support for hydrogen technologies, considerable work remains to address economic and infrastructural challenges to facilitate broader adoption. Source 11. Forecasting the passenger car demand split from public perceptions of electric, hybrid, and hydrogen-fuelled cars in Greece (2022) The study aims to explore the feasibility of mechanic learning techniques to forecast the demand for passenger cars with motor units other than internal combustion engines (ICE). The authors used a multilayer perceptron and an adaptive neural fuzzy inference system (machine learning techniques) to forecast the demand split from public perceptions, captured through an online survey. The survey data was collected in March 2022 (n=453) to measure respondents’ intent to buy a passenger car, including hydrogen electric vehicles. Researchers found less than 5% of respondents intended to buy a new or used hydrogen electric vehicle. Source 12. Is the public willing to pay for hydrogen buses? A comparative study of preferences in four cities (2007) Using the contingent valuation method, the study evaluates the public's willingness to pay for hydrogen fuel cell buses across Berlin, London, Luxembourg, and Perth. This survey research took place between July 2003 and February 2004 and forms part of the AcceptH2 project and investigates public acceptance and preferences for this environmentally friendly transportation technology (n=1358 total; n=344 in Berlin; n=300 in Luxembourg). Findings show that the public in all surveyed cities is positively willing to pay for the air pollution reductions associated with hydrogen buses, with an adjusted willingness to pay extra, ranging from €0.29 to €0.35 per single bus fare. The study reveals that this willingness spans different geographic locations, indicating a generally positive reception towards hydrogen buses, irrespective of the specific urban context. Source 13. Social acceptance of green hydrogen in Germany: Building trust through responsible innovation (2023) The study delves into the public's perception and acceptance of green hydrogen technology in Germany. The research used a comprehensive mixed-method approach comprising semi-structured interviews (n=24), participatory workshops (n=51), and a representative survey (n=2054) to gauge social attitudes and derive generalisable conclusions about green hydrogen. The study unearthed a critical mix of limited knowledge yet considerable openness towards green hydrogen within the general population. It shows that acceptance hinges significantly on trust in scientific, governmental, and media institutions, which are key in upholding distributive justice. Additionally, the research identified methodologically sound participatory processes as catalysts for enhancing trust and acceptance, suggesting that positive experiences within these engagements are crucial for fostering social trust. Source 14. The changing face of public support for hydrogen technology: Explaining declining support among the Dutch (2008-2013) (2014) Using data from two surveys conducted in 2008 (n=2121) and 2013 (n=1982), the study found that while initially high, public support for hydrogen technology significantly declined by 2013. The decline in support was quantified through a series of F-tests revealing decreases in agreement with several statements about hydrogen technology: support for investment dropped from 84.8% to 79.2%, belief in its application in public transportation fell from 86.4% to 77.1%, agreement that it is good for the environment declined from 78.9% to 73.4%, and urgency for its adoption decreased from 45.7% to 35.6%. The research attributes this decline primarily to a corresponding drop in trust in science and technology over the same period. This shift is viewed through the lens of modern societal trends, suggesting that increased awareness of the risks associated with science and technology among the educated may undermine support for technological advancements such as hydrogen technology. Source 15. Willingness to pay and public acceptance for hydrogen buses: A case study of Perugia (2015) The study assessed public perception among local public transport users in Perugia, Italy, concerning air pollution reduction through hydrogen buses from the end of January to March 2013 (n=587). A significant portion of the survey sample expressed a willingness to pay a premium for hydrogen buses, highlighting the public's recognition of the environmental benefits these buses could offer. The findings indicate that 81% of respondents supported the trial of hydrogen buses, and 88% were willing to pay more for public transportation if it involved hydrogen technology. This reflects a public acceptance of hydrogen buses, predicated on the potential environmental benefits. Source 16. A positive shift in the public acceptability of a low-carbon energy project after implementation: The case of a hydrogen fuel station (2019) The article investigates the changes in public acceptance of a hydrogen fuel station in Arnhem, Netherlands, before and after its implementation. The data collection (n=280) took place around the official opening of the hydrogen fuel station on December 3, 2010. The study reveals that residents living near the station showed a significant increase in acceptability post-implementation, contrary to those living farther away, who showed no significant change. This phenomenon is attributed to psychological mechanisms such as loss aversion and cognitive dissonance reduction. Source 17. Hydrogen as Energy Source – Challenges for Regions in Latvia (Results of Public Opinion Survey) (2014) The research explores the public's perception and acceptance of hydrogen energy across different regions of Latvia. Conducted in the first half of 2013, the study involved a comprehensive survey targeting various demographic groups, with a total of 1299 respondents, comprising 51.7% females and 48.3% males. The findings indicate a significant lack of public awareness and information about hydrogen energy, with average ratings on various aspects of hydrogen technology knowledge and acceptance falling on the lower end of the scale. Key results reveal that while there is widespread support for hydrogen technology, with 70.1% of respondents showing favourability, the public's detailed understanding of hydrogen energy applications in the economy and transport sector is notably low. Source 18. Hydrogen energy as a catalyst for sustainable development: A comparative analysis of policies, strategies, and implementation in Poland and Germany (2023) The study presents a comparative analysis by reviewing literature, policy frameworks, and stakeholder surveys, highlighting how hydrogen is integrated into Poland and Germany's energy strategy. The survey component of this research took place in 2021 and involved a sample size of 898 people from Poland and 924 from Germany. In Poland, the implementation of hydrogen technology is still evolving, with a strong emphasis on research and development aimed at integrating hydrogen with renewable energy sources. The Polish government's proactive stance includes ambitious goals to make Poland a leader in hydrogen energy in Europe by 2030. Conversely, Germany is already a global leader in hydrogen technology, backed by a well-established and comprehensive strategy promoting commercialising hydrogen technologies across various sectors. Despite these advancements, both countries face high production costs and infrastructural demands. Source 19. Opportunities for hydrogen marketing – Public opinion analysis (2012) The article explores public receptiveness to hydrogen energy, focusing on the European market. The study surveyed 1200 participants across various demographics. The key findings include that 62% of respondents know hydrogen as an energy source, yet only 28% can clearly articulate its potential uses or benefits. Public support for hydrogen energy is moderate, with 48% expressing tentative support contingent on further information about environmental impacts and safety. The study highlights a gap in effective communication, as demonstrated by the fact that 72% of respondents were uncertain about hydrogen's safety, pointing to a need for targeted educational campaigns. Source 20. People's attitude to energy from hydrogen—from the point of view of modern energy technologies and social responsibility (2020) Figure 2: Studies according to the year conducted, location, and size of the study Hydrogen public opinion results by valence The literature summaries underwent sentiment analysis, revealing that most studies exhibited positive or mixed valences toward hydrogen (Table 3). Broadly positive opinions were noted, such as increased support for hydrogen technologies following participation in education programmes, a willingness to pay for hydrogen-powered vehicles, and a high percentage of support for hydrogen technologies overall. Mixed responses were also prevalent, indicating broad support for hydrogen technologies but often with caveats, such as support contingent on the technology sourced from renewable sources or concerns regarding safety and costs. Low support percentages primarily characterised negative perspectives compared to other green technologies; for example, one study found that only 20% of respondents would purchase a hydrogen-powered vehicle, contrasting with 60% preferring e-cars (#27). Table 3. Hydrogen public opinion results by positive, mixed or negative valence Hydrogen Public Opinion Results Valence References with Findings in each Category Positive 2, 4, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 15, 16, 17, 26, 29, 30 Mixed 1, 3, 5, 6, 7, 13, 14, 18, 22, 24, 25, 28 Negative 19, 20, 21, 23, 27 Notably, despite being classified as generally negative, the studies did not have strongly anti-hydrogen sentiments; concerns primarily revolved around safety, costs, and a lack of awareness about the technology. It is important to acknowledge that valence analysis is subjective, and it could be argued that all studies represent varying degrees of mixed responses to hydrogen. 2.3 Literature review conclusion This collection of European studies presents a nuanced picture of public opinion regarding hydrogen technologies. For example, although there is significant support for hydrogen as a part of renewable energy initiatives in Latvia, there remains a notable gap in detailed understanding and public awareness. The pattern of favourable public opinion coupled with relatively low informational depth is reflected across several EU countries, including those with advanced hydrogen strategies like Germany and Poland. These findings imply a base of support for hydrogen technologies based on the perceived environmental benefits. Yet, support for hydrogen technologies may be contingent on increasing public awareness and addressing misconceptions about safety and applications. Indeed, this evidence synthesis highlights the interrelated nature of knowledge, cultural predispositions, and societal acceptance. Findings from the Netherlands, for example, suggest a pattern where public support for hydrogen technologies does not necessarily correlate with a deep understanding of the technology itself. Instead, cultural predispositions such as environmental concern and trust in technology play a more definitive role. This is evidenced by studies indicating that individuals with a pre-existing trust in scientific and technological advancements are more likely to support hydrogen technology, even if their factual knowledge is limited. The Netherlands research elucidates a pivotal finding: as knowledge about hydrogen increases, so does the influence of these cultural predispositions on individual support, suggesting an intertwined relationship between information dissemination and intrinsic values. Overall, the European public's attitude towards hydrogen technologies is cautiously optimistic but highlights a clear need for strategic educational campaigns and transparent communication about the benefits and safety of hydrogen energy. This necessity is echoed in the research from Ireland, where safety and cost are pivotal to gaining public trust and acceptance for transitioning to hydrogen energy. European attitudes towards hydrogen technology, especially in terms of its infrastructure and applications like hydrogen fuel cells and buses, exhibit general positivity but face challenges due to the NIMBY (Not in my backyard) phenomenon. This is particularly prominent in Germany, where while the populace may view hydrogen positively, local infrastructure projects such as pipelines meet with decreased acceptance. The volatility in public opinion is marked by a dynamic acceptance pattern, responsiveness to new information, and influence by ongoing communication strategies. The broader European context shows a gradual increase in awareness and favourability towards hydrogen technologies, underpinned by their potential environmental benefits. Yet, this support is tempered by concerns related to infrastructure and the perceived risks associated with technology. The insights from Spain and Italy, where there is strong backing for hydrogen in public transport, contrast with the cautious approach seen in Germany and the Netherlands concerning hydrogen infrastructure in residential areas. Despite differing stages of hydrogen technology integration within their respective energy strategies in Poland and Germany, public perception aligns with viewing hydrogen as environmentally friendly and innovative. However, perceptions of the technology’s reliability and cost-effectiveness diverge, influenced by national contexts and the extent of governmental and infrastructural commitment to hydrogen. This dichotomy between the two nations reflects broader European trends where public enthusiasm for hydrogen energy is moderated by practical concerns about cost and infrastructure, as also seen in research in Denmark highlighting hesitance regarding hydrogen fuel cell electric vehicles (FCEVs) due to high costs and inadequate refuelling infrastructure. Public opinion research in the EU27 indicates a skew towards positive views. However, the existing published literature does not cover some countries, namely Malta, Cyprus, and Sweden. Fortunately, the dataset we analyse in the subsequent section includes these countries. There are some examples of overlap in the data. For instance, studies #12 and #29 use the same data regarding the Accept H2 survey; however, they are written with a slightly different focus and come from various sources. Similarly, studies #25 and #28 appear to use the same survey data but analyse different aspects. The data comprised two reports, one master’s thesis, two conference proceedings, and the rest are peer-reviewed journal articles. Most studies were opinion surveys; however, one survey (#15) was a willingness-to-pay study. 3Secondary analysis on public perceptions and reactions to hydrogen 3.1 Secondary analysis methodology This analysis draws on the same data as the Gallup International (2023) Awareness of Hydrogen Technologies Survey Report. The public opinion survey was launched to analyse and assess European citizens’ attitudes towards and level of knowledge of hydrogen technologies and determine a baseline for monitoring changes in public opinion over time. The online survey research, with supplementary telephone interviews1, was conducted in Autumn 2022, with a representative sample of 1000 citizens aged 15 years and above2, in each EU Member State. The samples in all the countries were stratified by gender, age, administrative region, and type of locality3. The survey explored various issues, including knowledge and awareness of energy in general and of hydrogen energy in particular. The main objectives of the study were: ●To understand perceptions on the use of fuel cells and hydrogen (FCH) technologies in terms of: ○Overall awareness, acceptance, and uptake of hydrogen technologies ○Perceptions of the safety and sustainability of hydrogen technologies ●To create a benchmark metric that will be able to track changing perceptions in the European population over time ●To provide a basis for further analysis and recommendations The report did not provide a detailed analysis of hydrogen attitudes disaggregated by country and gender. Here, we have conducted a deeper analysis of the data from this survey and present disaggregated country-level results regarding public perceptions of hydrogen technology by gender and age to provide a more complete picture of key patterns that could have implications for public engagement. 3.2 Secondary analysis results: Awareness and familiarity with hydrogen energy In the survey, respondents were asked if they had ‘seen, read or heard anything about hydrogen as an energy source’ (Figure 2). The majority reported technology awareness but not familiarity, with 13,603 respondents (56%) indicating "Yes, but not at all familiar with it." Another 6,621 participants (27%) responded: "Yes, and rather familiar with it." A smaller group, 4,183 individuals (17%), stated, "No, never heard or read about it." Across all countries, there was a notable trend that more respondents had heard of hydrogen energy (Category 1 and 2 combined) than those who had never 3This stratification was designed using the following sociodemographic variables: ●Gender (Male, Female) ●Age (15-24, 25-39, 40-54, 55 years or more) ●Region: The widest geographical coverage of the population was sampled to ensure representativeness. All NUTS II regions were included in our survey. ●Urbanisation (rural area, small or mid size town, large city). 2A certain number of telephone interviews were conducted with citizens aged 65 years and above. 1In total, 25,934 interviews were conducted with fieldwork taking place in Autumn 2022. heard of it (Category 3). This suggested a relatively higher awareness of hydrogen energy among the surveyed population. Figure 2. Technology Awareness: Hydrogen Energy (A02_4) When looking at the "familiar" (Category 1) with "heard but not familiar" (Category 2), the data varies by country. Some countries showed a higher percentage of respondents familiar with hydrogen energy. Most respondents across most countries have heard of hydrogen energy but are not familiar with it (Category 2), often constituting over 50% of responses, which indicated a general awareness of hydrogen energy but a lack of in-depth knowledge. Notable is that in nearly all countries, females slightly lead in this category. Individuals who have never heard of hydrogen energy (Category 3) comprised the smallest group in almost all countries, indicating that while hydrogen energy was not widely understood, there was at least some awareness. 3.2.1 Hydrogen energy familiarity by country and gender Familiarity with hydrogen energy (Category 1) Trends across countries showed similar patterns (Figure 3). For example, most of the male respondents in Slovakia (67%) reported being familiar with hydrogen energy, which was the highest familiarity rate observed. Other countries had higher percentages of familiarity among men including Luxembourg (51%), Poland (45%), Malta (44%), Germany (43%), Cyprus (40%), and Bulgaria (40%). Figure 3. Familiar with Hydrogen Energy (A02_4; Category 1, Gender by Country) Heard of but not familiar with hydrogen energy (Category 2) Women generally led in Category 2, signifying awareness without detailed knowledge (Figure 4). For example, in Portugal (73%), most female respondents indicated hearing about the hydrogen but not being familiar with it. This suggests that while women are nearly as aware as men of hydrogen as an energy source. Figure 4. Heard but unfamiliar with hydrogen energy (A02_4; Category 2, Gender by Country) Neither heard of nor familiar with hydrogen energy (Category 3) Several countries displayed substantial disparities in gender responses, especially in Category 3 (Figure 5). Females are overrepresented in this category compared to males. Figure 5. Neither heard nor familiar with hydrogen energy (A02_4; Category 3, Gender by Country) Hydrogen energy familiarity with mean scores by country and gender Mean scores were created based on a point value for each response (Figure 6), where 1 = "Yes, and rather familiar with it.", 2 = "Yes, but not at all familiar with it.", 3 = "No, never heard or read about it." Higher mean scores indicated less awareness/familiarity with hydrogen energy. These mean scores aim to provide a numerical insight into the overall familiarity level across genders: in all countries, higher mean scores are indicated for females than males. Figure 6. Means of Heard or Familiar with Hydrogen Energy (A02_4; All Categories, Gender by Country) 3.2.2 Hydrogen energy familiarity by country and age Familiarity with hydrogen energy (Category 1) Across all age brackets (Figure 7), Slovakia stands out with the highest awareness/familiarity with hydrogen energy. Other countries, including Luxembourg, Poland, Malta, Italy, Germany, Greece, and Bulgaria, also had high percentages of familiarity across age brackets. Younger groups (15-24) in countries such as Slovakia, Italy, and Romania showed a high percentage of familiarity compared to their counterparts in countries such as Portugal where the familiarity is notably lower. Figure 7. Familiar with Hydrogen Energy (A02_4; Category 1, Age by Country) Heard but not familiar with hydrogen energy (Category 2) There was variation across age groups in Category 2 (Figure 8). Here, Portugal was notably high in awareness while Cyprus was at the other extreme. Figure 8. Heard but unfamiliar with hydrogen energy (A02_4; Category 2, Age by Country) Neither heard nor familiar with hydrogen energy (Category 3) The overall trend across most countries indicated a lack of awareness/familiarity with hydrogen energy (Figure 9). Figure 9. Neither heard nor familiar with hydrogen energy (A02_4; Category 3, Age by Country) Southern Europe displayed varied trends. Cyprus, among the EU13, was the country with the highest rates of unawareness/unfamiliarity across all ages, which started at 30% in the 15-24 age group and peaked at 68% in the 65 and above age group. In contrast, Malta, also among the EU13, showed an overall decline in unawareness/unfamiliarity from 28% in the youngest age group to a low of 11% in the oldest age group. Greece and Italy maintained moderate unawareness/unfamiliarity across all age groups, with Greece peaking at 25% in the oldest age group. In Northern European countries, Denmark had the highest levels, peaking at 43% among those aged 65 and above. Sweden demonstrated a decreasing trend with age, notably dropping to 15% in the oldest age group. Countries such as Austria, Germany, and the Netherlands had relatively low levels of unawareness/unfamiliarity across all age groups, with particularly low figures in the oldest age group. Luxembourg and Belgium, for example, had more varied percentages but generally showed lower unawareness/unfamiliarity in the younger age groups, with slight increases or stable trends as age increased. Hydrogen energy familiarity with mean scores by country and age Mean scores were created based on a point value for each response (Figure 10), where 1 = "Yes, and rather familiar with it.", 2 = "Yes, but not at all familiar with it.", 3 = "No, never heard or read about it." Higher mean scores indicated less awareness/familiarity with hydrogen energy (Figure 15). The data shows that familiarity does not drastically change with age in most countries. Figure 10. Means of awareness/familiarity with hydrogen energy (A02_4; All Categories, Age by Country) Figure 17. Levels of agreement about hydrogen safety (B07_6; All Categories by Country) Support for the view that hydrogen is safe by gender The data provided the positive views of male and female respondents in various countries who agreed with the statement, "The use of Hydrogen is as safe as the use of any other energy source." (Figure 18). The data indicated consistent gender-specific support for hydrogen safety as an energy source in most countries. Figure 18. Support for the view that hydrogen is safe (B07_6; All Categories, Country, and Gender) Some countries showed strong support for hydrogen safety among both genders including Portugal (86% male and female), Italy (83% male, 80% female), and Spain (83% male, 78% female). EU13 countries such as Slovenia (64% male and female), Estonia (64% male and female), and Latvia (59% male, 62% female) displayed the lowest support among both genders. In Lithuania (EU13), support among females (75%) was notably higher than males (62%). Opposition to the view that hydrogen is safe by gender The data showed the negative views of male respondents across various European countries who disagreed with the statement, "The use of Hydrogen is as safe as the use of any other energy source" (Figure 19). Across all countries, males and females displayed relatively low opposition, generally not exceeding 41% for males and 38% for females. Figure 19. Opposition to the view that hydrogen is safe (B07_6; All Categories, Country and Gender) Latvia had the highest opposition among males (41%) and females (38%). Whereas, Portugal (14% males and females), Italy (17% males, 20% females), and Spain (17% males, 22% females) had the lowest opposition. Lithuania showed a large gender difference in opposition between males (38%) and females (25%). Both genders had identical opposition rates (36%) in Slovenia and Estonia. Ireland showed one of the most substantial disparities between male (20%) and female (12%) opposition levels. 3.3.4 Views on hydrogen as a polluting energy source similar to fossil fuels Trends by Country The data showed positive views that hydrogen was a less polluting energy source across most of the sampled countries, indicating a broad perception that hydrogen can be a cleaner alternative to traditional fossil fuels (Figure 20). Finland (81%) had the highest percentage of disagreement (pro-hydrogen) on this reverse-coded statement, followed by EU13 countries Bulgaria (79%) and Malta (78%). Conversely, Greece (67%) and Austria (69%) had the lowest levels of disagreement (pro-hydrogen). Countries like Denmark (75%), Germany (76%), and the Netherlands (70%) often recognised for their pro-environmental policies, reported a mid-range of disagreement (pro-hydrogen), aligning them closely with the overall trend of positive responses to hydrogen’s lesser pollution impact. Figure 20. Levels of agreement about hydrogen pollution (B07_5; All Categories by Country) Opposition to the view that hydrogen is polluting by gender These data indicated that most countries surveyed tended to show higher hydrogen support (by disagreeing with the statement, ‘Hydrogen is as polluting as Diesel or gasoline’) among male respondents than female respondents (Figure 21). Figure 21. Opposition to the view that hydrogen is polluting (B07_5; All Categories, Gender, and Country) Cyprus (83% male, 65% female) showed a substantial gender difference in support, with males showing 18% higher support than females. Malta (85% male, 71% female) also displayed a notable gender gap, with males 14% higher. France (71% male, 62% female) and Croatia (78% male, 70% female) showed around 9% difference. Less of a gender difference was noted in countries like Portugal (82% male, 79% female), Estonia (77% male, 73% female), and Italy (71% male, 69% female), which ranged from 4% to 1%, Support for the view that hydrogen is polluting by gender The descriptive statistics revealed varying levels of overall opposition across European countries, as measured on a reverse-coded Likert-type scale (Figure 22). The data suggests a mixed perception across Europe, with some trends indicating higher scepticism or concern about hydrogen in specific regions. Figure 22. Support for the view that hydrogen is polluting (B07_5; All Categories, Gender, and Country) Cyprus showed the largest gender disparity, with 35% of females and 17% of males in opposition. High levels of female opposition were noted in France (38%) and Sweden (36%), while the male opposition stood at 29% in both countries. Moderate opposition was seen in Italy (30% both male and female), Belgium (27% male, 29% female) and Spain (26% male, 29% female), where both genders showed similar opposition levels. Generally, female respondents opposed the statement slightly more than male respondents that hydrogen was as polluting as diesel or gasoline. This trend was uniform across almost all countries, except for Portugal (30% male, 27% female), Germany (27% male, 25% female), and a few other countries with very small (1%) differences. 4 Conclusions and implications for public engagement The EU27 public perception of hydrogen technology is characterised by differences in knowledge, cultural predispositions, and societal acceptance, influenced by regional and national factors and overarching EU-wide trends. There is a consistent theme of support for hydrogen technology that is often not underpinned by deep understanding and familiarity with this topic. Relevant research evidence indicates that factors such as environmental concern and trust in scientific advancements may significantly shape these attitudes. The research also points to the critical role of cultural predispositions, which strengthen with increased knowledge and heavily influence acceptance as understanding grows. At a broader level, while there is general positivity towards hydrogen technology across the EU27, this support often encounters hurdles when implementing related infrastructure, particularly in residential areas. The literature review points to examples of this in Germany, where public approval for hydrogen is otherwise very high. Yet, local projects like hydrogen pipelines face resistance due to the NIMBY phenomenon. Similar challenges are seen in Denmark and Poland, where enthusiasm for hydrogen fuel cell electric vehicles (FCEVs) and other applications has been tempered by cost, infrastructure, and safety concerns. These insights suggest that support for hydrogen technology is conditional, requiring targeted communication strategies to address safety concerns and infrastructural issues. Our analysis shows that the perception of hydrogen technology varies considerably across Europe, reflecting distinct national attitudes and contexts. Differences between and within countries in levels of awareness and familiarity highlight the need for localised educational campaigns sensitive to each country’s unique cultural, environmental, and political landscape. Regarding the environmental and safety perceptions of hydrogen, the overall sentiment across Europe is positive, with a strong majority viewing hydrogen as a sustainable and safer alternative to traditional fossil fuels. Ultimately EU13 countries evinced a broad range of views about hydrogen technology, sometimes more supportive than the EU27 and sometimes less. In EU13 nations such as Bulgaria and Malta, there is a strong belief in hydrogen's environmental benefits. At the same time, scepticism about its safety persists in some EU13 countries such as Czechia, Slovakia, and Bulgaria due to variable trust in new technologies and regulatory frameworks. To shift address these perceptions, it is imperative to establish and communicate strict safety standards and the environmental benefits of hydrogen effectively. Implications for public engagement Our analysis shows that public awareness of hydrogen technology across the EU27 tends to be high, yet it is underpinned by only a superficial awareness of hydrogen as an energy source. That is, while over 80% of European respondents have some level of hydrogen awareness, in-depth understanding remains limited. This broad but shallow awareness could form a robust base for targeted educational initiatives to deepen knowledge and correct misconceptions. Men generally claim greater familiarity with hydrogen technology. This gender-specific disparity in familiarity indicates the need for communication strategies tailored to address the diverse informational needs of various demographic groups. It may also link to broader patterns of underrepresentation of women in STEM professions. Enhancing public acceptance and support for hydrogen technology in Europe necessitates a multifaceted approach that integrates continuous, effective information dissemination with robust, trust-building communication strategies. Showcasing successful hydrogen implementations can also transform general awareness into well-informed support, thus facilitating Europe's transition towards a hydrogen-enhanced energy future and a broader shift towards improved inclusion of women in STEM. This approach should clarify the benefits and safety of hydrogen technology and tackle the infrastructural and economic concerns that inhibit broader acceptance. Emphasising the environmental advantages while transparently addressing practical and safety issues could foster a more informed and supportive public, pivotal for advancing hydrogen technology as a cornerstone of Europe's energy transition and decarbonisation efforts. This strategy aligns with findings from across the EU27, where the path to acceptance is paved with informed public engagement and policy-driven support. 5 Appendix A. Secondary analysis methodology This section contains supplemental methodological details produced as part of IMI’s analysis. 1. Gender distribution across all countries Across all countries, there is a relatively even distribution between male and female respondents, with slight percentage variations (Figure 23). Female respondents numbered 12,286, accounting for 50% of the total, and male respondents also constituted 50% with a count of 12,121. Figure 23. Gender distribution across all countries 2. Hydrogen familiarity response distribution by gender Men tended to have a higher rate of responses in Category 1, indicating that they were more familiar with hydrogen compared to women (Figure 24.). Similar percentages across all countries fell into Category 2 between men and women. More females than males stated they had never heard of hydrogen energy across all countries (Category 3). Figure 24. Awareness and Familiarity with Hydrogen Energy (A02_4; All Categories distributed by Gender) 1. Age distribution across all countries Across all countries, there was a relatively even distribution between age groups of respondents, with slight variations in percentages (Figure 25). The 40-54 age bracket represented the largest group (n=6173, 25%), which was closely followed by the 25-39 age bracket (n=5831, 24%), and individuals aged 65 and above (n=5359, 22%). Those in the 55-64 age group made up 16% of the total (n=3907), while the 15-24 category accounted for 13% (n=3200). Figure 25. Age distribution across all countries 2. Hydrogen familiarity response distribution by age All age groups had similar and closely comparable rates of responses across categories (Figure 26), with the highest rate of responses in Category 2. Smaller percentages were evident in Category 3, with only minor deviations in respondents stating they had never heard of hydrogen energy. While younger age groups tended to be more familiar, older individuals showed less familiarity despite having heard of the subject. Overall, most respondents across all countries heard of the topic but were not entirely familiar with it. Figure 26. Awareness and Familiarity with Hydrogen Energy (A02_4; All Categories distributed by Age) B07. To what extent do you agree or disagree with each of the following statements regarding Hydrogen energy and technologies? Across these items, there was a general trend towards positive perceptions of hydrogen regarding its sustainability, safety, and potential to reduce energy dependence. Similarly, there was a pronounced trend towards positive views that hydrogen is a sustainable energy source8, with a total of 84% in agreement. Also, most perceived hydrogen as safe, with 74% of respondents agreeing that hydrogen was as safe as other energy sources9. A majority disagreed with the statement that hydrogen is as polluting as diesel or gasoline10, with 74% indicating a positive perception of hydrogen as being less polluting than traditional fossil fuels. B07.2. Hydrogen is a good solution for reducing the energy dependence of [Country] Respondents were asked about their views of hydrogen as a good solution for reducing the energy dependence of their country (Figure 27). The data showed a strong inclination towards positive 10 Polluting (B07_5) 9Safety (B07_6) 8Sustainable Energy (B07_3) views, with 82% of respondents agreeing that hydrogen is a good solution for reducing energy dependence11. As an indication of positive views, most tended to agree (n=11386, 55%) and totally agree (n=5580, 27%) with the statement. Alternatively, negative views were indicated by a small proportion that tended to disagree (n=2822, 14%) or totally disagree (n=828, 4%). Figure 27. Levels of Agreement about Hydrogen Reducing Energy Dependence (B07_2; All Categories) B07.3. Hydrogen is a sustainable energy source Respondents were asked about their views of hydrogen as a sustainable energy source (Figure 28). Most respondents ‘tended to agree’ (n=11117, 56%) and ‘totally agreed’ (n=5559, 28%), indicating positive views about hydrogen sustainability. Negative views were not widely held, as indicated by only 13% who ‘tended to disagree’ (n=2547) and 3% who ‘totally disagreed’ (n=660). Figure 28. Levels of Agreement about Hydrogen Increasing Sustainability (B07_3; All Categories) B07.6. The use of Hydrogen is as safe as the use of any other energy source Respondents were asked about hydrogen's safety compared to other energy sources (Figure 29). In the assessment, a majority ‘tended to agree’ (n=9685, 52%) or ‘totally agreed’ (n=4137, 22%) that Hydrogen was perceived as safe. Conversely, a minority ‘tended to disagree’ (n=3954, 21%) and ‘totally disagreed’ (n=985, 5%) with the statement, indicating that Hydrogen may not have comparable safety with other energy sources. 11 Energy Dependence (B07_2) Netherlands 173 64% 97 36% 270 100% Belgium 142 63% 82 37% 224 100% Slovakia 310 63% 186 38% 496 100% Latvia 101 61% 64 39% 165 100% Lithuania 111 60% 73 40% 184 100% Cyprus 92 59% 64 41% 156 100% Spain 122 59% 86 41% 208 100% Romania 174 58% 125 42% 299 100% Germany 210 58% 151 42% 361 100% Austria 185 58% 135 42% 320 100% Italy 210 57% 159 43% 369 100% Bulgaria 190 56% 147 44% 337 100% Poland 207 55% 167 45% 374 100% Grand Total 4172 63% 2449 37% 6621 100% Table 9. Heard and Familiar with Hydrogen Energy (A02_4; All Categories by Gender) D03 Gender Male Female Grand Total A02_4 N % x N % x N % x Yes, and rather familiar with it 4172 17% 2449 10% 6621 27% Yes, but not at all familiar with it 6615 27% 6988 29% 13603 56% No, never heard or read about it 1334 5% 2849 12% 4183 17% Grand Total 12121 50% 1.77 12286 50% 2.03 24407 100% 1.90 Table 10. Heard and Familiar with Hydrogen Energy (A02_4; All Categories by Age) D02A Age 15-24 25-39 40-54 55-64 65 and above Grand Total A02_4 N % x N % x N % x N % x N % x N % x Heard and familiar 1046 33% 1688 29% 1586 26% 1002 26% 1319 25% 6641 27% Heard but not at all familiar 1547 48% 3110 53% 3505 57% 2306 59% 3165 59% 13633 56% Never heard and not familiar 607 19% 1033 18% 1082 18% 599 15% 875 16% 4196 17% Grand Total 3200 13% 1.86 5831 24% 1.89 6173 25% 1.92 3907 16% 1.90 5359 22% 1.92 24470 100% 1.90 Table 11. Heard and Familiar with Hydrogen Energy (A02_4; All Categories by Gender and Country) D03 Gender Male Female Grand Total COUNTRY CODE A02_4 N % x N % x N % x Austria 40 Yes, and rather familiar with it 185 39% 135 27% 320 33% Yes, but not at all familiar with it 260 55% 314 62% 574 59% No, never heard or read about it 29 6% 55 11% 84 9% 40 Total 474 100% 1.67 504 100% 1.84 978 100% 1.76 Belgium 56 Yes, and rather familiar with it 142 28% 82 16% 224 22% Yes, but not at all familiar with it 305 61% 325 63% 630 62% No, never heard or read about it 52 10% 108 21% 160 16% 56 Total 499 100% 1.82 515 100% 2.05 1014 100% 1.94 Bulgaria 100 Yes, and rather familiar with it 190 40% 147 30% 337 35% Yes, but not at all familiar with it 242 51% 264 53% 506 52% No, never heard or read about it 42 9% 84 17% 126 13% 100 Total 474 100% 1.69 495 100% 1.87 969 100% 1.78 Croatia 191 Yes, and rather familiar with it 159 33% 85 18% 244 25% Yes, but not at all familiar with it 274 57% 283 59% 557 58% No, never heard or read about it 49 10% 109 23% 158 16% 191 Total 482 100% 1.77 477 100% 2.05 959 100% 1.91 Cyprus 196 Yes, and rather familiar with it 92 40% 64 27% 156 33% Yes, but not at all familiar with it 63 27% 65 27% 128 27% No, never heard or read about it 76 33% 108 46% 184 39% 196 Total 231 100% 1.93 237 100% 2.19 468 100% 2.06 Czechia 203 Yes, and rather familiar with it 101 22% 38 8% 139 15% Yes, but not at all familiar with it 306 66% 259 57% 565 61% No, never heard or read about it 60 13% 158 35% 218 24% 203 Total 467 100% 1.91 455 100% 2.26 922 100% 2.09 Denmark 208 Yes, and rather familiar with it 149 32% 70 16% 219 24% Yes, but not at all familiar with it 217 46% 189 42% 406 44% No, never heard or read about it 103 22% 187 42% 290 32% 208 Total 469 100% 1.90 446 100% 2.26 915 100% 2.08 Estonia 233 Yes, and rather familiar with it 103 22% 48 10% 151 16% Yes, but not at all familiar with it 297 65% 299 60% 596 62% No, never heard or read about it 60 13% 148 30% 208 22% 233 Total 460 100% 1.91 495 100% 2.20 955 100% 2.06 Finland 246 Yes, and rather familiar with it 160 34% 59 13% 219 23% Yes, but not at all familiar with it 264 56% 293 62% 557 59% No, never heard or read about it 47 10% 120 25% 167 18% 246 Total 471 100% 1.76 472 100% 2.13 943 100% 1.94 France 250 Yes, and rather familiar with it 171 37% 77 16% 248 26% Yes, but not at all familiar with it 250 54% 304 63% 554 59% No, never heard or read about it 41 9% 104 21% 145 15% 250 Total 462 100% 1.72 485 100% 2.06 947 100% 1.89 Germany 276 Yes, and rather familiar with it 210 43% 151 31% 361 37% Yes, but not at all familiar with it 244 50% 302 61% 546 56% No, never heard or read about it 31 6% 40 8% 71 7% 276 Total 485 100% 1.63 493 100% 1.77 978 100% 1.70 Greece 300 Yes, and rather familiar with it 229 46% 110 24% 339 35% Yes, but not at all familiar with it 210 42% 189 41% 399 42% No, never heard or read about it 63 13% 157 34% 220 23% 300 Total 502 100% 1.67 456 100% 2.10 958 100% 1.88 Hungary 348 Yes, and rather familiar with it 123 27% 62 13% 185 19% Yes, but not at all familiar with it 271 59% 311 63% 582 61% No, never heard or read about it 65 14% 122 25% 187 20% 348 Total 459 100% 1.87 495 100% 2.12 954 100% 2.00 Ireland 372 Yes, and rather familiar with it 132 27% 65 13% 197 20% Yes, but not at all familiar with it 290 60% 266 55% 556 58% No, never heard or read about it 60 12% 151 31% 211 22% 372 Total 482 100% 1.85 482 100% 2.18 964 100% 2.01 Italy 380 Yes, and rather familiar with it 210 44% 159 32% 369 38% Yes, but not at all familiar with it 236 49% 267 54% 503 52% No, never heard or read about it 34 7% 66 13% 100 10% 380 Total 480 100% 1.63 492 100% 1.81 972 100% 1.72 Latvia 428 Yes, and rather familiar with it 101 23% 64 13% 165 18% Yes, but not at all familiar with it 254 59% 272 56% 526 57% No, never heard or read about it 79 18% 152 31% 231 25% 428 Total 434 100% 1.95 488 100% 2.18 922 100% 2.07 Lithuania 440 Yes, and rather familiar with it 111 25% 73 16% 184 20% Yes, but not at all familiar with it 274 62% 241 52% 515 57% No, never heard or read about it 60 13% 151 32% 211 23% 440 Total 445 100% 1.89 465 100% 2.17 910 100% 2.03 Luxembourg 442 Yes, and rather familiar with it 126 51% 69 29% 195 40% Yes, but not at all familiar with it 95 38% 119 50% 214 44% No, never heard or read about it 27 11% 48 20% 75 15% 442 Total 248 100% 1.60 236 100% 1.91 484 100% 1.75 Malta 470 Yes, and rather familiar with it 114 44% 45 19% 159 32% Yes, but not at all familiar with it 112 43% 128 55% 240 49% No, never heard or read about it 33 13% 61 26% 94 19% 470 Total 259 100% 1.69 234 100% 2.07 493 100% 1.87 Netherlands 528 Yes, and rather familiar with it 173 35% 97 20% 270 28% Yes, but not at all familiar with it 285 58% 337 69% 622 64% No, never heard or read about it 31 6% 52 11% 83 9% 528 Total 489 100% 1.71 486 100% 1.91 975 100% 1.81 Poland 616 Yes, and rather familiar with it 207 45% 167 34% 374 39% Yes, but not at all familiar with it 224 48% 244 49% 468 49% No, never heard or read about it 34 7% 83 17% 117 12% 616 Total 465 100% 1.63 494 100% 1.83 959 100% 1.73 Portugal 620 Yes, and rather familiar with it 108 22% 60 12% 168 17% Yes, but not at all familiar with it 339 70% 375 73% 714 71% No, never heard or read about it 40 8% 78 15% 118 12% 620 Total 487 100% 1.86 513 100% 2.04 1000 100% 1.95 Romania 642 Yes, and rather familiar with it 174 36% 125 27% 299 31% Yes, but not at all familiar with it 269 56% 258 55% 527 55% No, never heard or read about it 36 8% 88 19% 124 13% 642 Total 479 100% 1.71 471 100% 1.92 950 100% 1.82 Slovakia 703 Yes, and rather familiar with it 310 67% 186 39% 496 53% Yes, but not at all familiar with it 136 29% 205 43% 341 36% No, never heard or read about it 20 4% 82 17% 102 11% 703 Total 466 100% 1.38 473 100% 1.78 939 100% 1.58 Slovenia 705 Yes, and rather familiar with it 149 31% 65 13% 214 22% Yes, but not at all familiar with it 291 60% 305 63% 596 62% No, never heard or read about it 42 9% 112 23% 154 16% 705 Total 482 100% 1.78 482 100% 2.10 964 100% 1.94 Spain 724 Yes, and rather familiar with it 122 24% 86 17% 208 21% Yes, but not at all familiar with it 320 64% 302 61% 622 63% No, never heard or read about it 59 12% 105 21% 164 16% 724 Total 501 100% 1.87 493 100% 2.04 994 100% 1.96 Sweden 752 Yes, and rather familiar with it 121 26% 60 13% 181 20% Yes, but not at all familiar with it 287 61% 272 60% 559 61% No, never heard or read about it 61 13% 120 27% 181 20% 752 Total 469 100% 1.87 452 100% 2.13 921 100% 2.00 Grand Total 12121 100% 1.77 12286 100% 2.03 24407 100% 1.90 Table 12. Heard and Familiar with Hydrogen Energy (A02_4; All Categories by Gender and Country) 15-24 25-39 40-54 55-64 65 and above Grand Total COUNTRY CODE A02_4 N % x N % x N % x N % x N % x N % x Austria 40 Heard and familiar 41 32% 74 33% 72 29% 46 29% 88 41% 321 33% Heard but not at all familiar 68 54% 127 56% 165 65% 103 65% 111 51% 574 59% Never heard and not familiar 18 14% 26 11% 15 6% 9 6% 17 8% 85 9% 40 Total 127 100% 1.82 227 100% 1.79 252 100% 1.77 158 100% 1.77 216 100% 1.67 980 100% 1.76 Belgium 56 Heard and familiar 50 37% 59 24% 48 20% 28 18% 39 17% 224 22% Heard but not at all familiar 62 46% 157 63% 151 61% 112 70% 149 66% 631 62% Never heard and not familiar 22 16% 34 14% 47 19% 20 13% 37 16% 160 16% 56 Total 134 100% 1.79 250 100% 1.90 246 100% 2.00 160 100% 1.95 225 100% 1.99 1015 100% 1.94 Bulgaria 100 Heard and familiar 41 41% 84 36% 90 36% 53 33% 71 31% 339 35% Heard but not at all familiar 47 47% 112 48% 120 48% 92 57% 136 59% 507 52% Never heard and not familiar 13 13% 35 15% 39 16% 16 10% 23 10% 126 13% 100 Total 101 100% 1.72 231 100% 1.79 249 100% 1.80 161 100% 1.77 230 100% 1.79 972 100% 1.78 Croatia 191 Heard and familiar 41 33% 52 24% 48 21% 37 22% 67 30% 245 25% Heard but not at all familiar 61 49% 125 57% 140 61% 110 66% 123 56% 559 58% Never heard and not familiar 23 18% 44 20% 41 18% 20 12% 30 14% 158 16% 191 Total 125 100% 1.86 221 100% 1.96 229 100% 1.97 167 100% 1.90 220 100% 1.83 962 100% 1.91 Cyprus 196 Heard and familiar 27 32% 40 31% 57 43% 20 34% 12 19% 156 33% Heard but not at all familiar 32 38% 40 31% 33 25% 15 26% 8 13% 128 27% Never heard and not familiar 25 30% 51 39% 43 32% 23 40% 42 68% 184 39% 196 Total 84 100% 1.98 131 100% 2.08 133 100% 1.89 58 100% 2.05 62 100% 2.48 468 100% 2.06 Czechia 203 Heard and familiar 22 20% 37 16% 39 16% 17 12% 25 12% 140 15% Heard but not at all familiar 58 54% 135 58% 151 62% 89 64% 133 65% 566 61% Never heard and not familiar 28 26% 60 26% 52 21% 34 24% 47 23% 221 24% 203 Total 108 100% 2.06 232 100% 2.10 242 100% 2.05 140 100% 2.12 205 100% 2.11 927 100% 2.09 Denmark 208 Heard and familiar 62 41% 65 33% 34 15% 29 21% 33 16% 223 24% Heard but not at all familiar 55 36% 90 45% 111 49% 66 47% 86 41% 408 44% Never heard and not familiar 36 24% 43 22% 80 36% 44 32% 90 43% 293 32% 208 Total 153 100% 1.83 198 100% 1.89 225 100% 2.20 139 100% 2.11 209 100% 2.27 924 100% 2.08 Estonia 233 Heard and familiar 22 16% 34 15% 30 14% 31 20% 34 16% 151 16% Heard but not at all familiar 78 57% 135 58% 151 69% 96 62% 136 65% 596 62% Never heard and not familiar 38 28% 65 28% 39 18% 27 18% 39 19% 208 22% 233 Total 138 100% 2.12 234 100% 2.13 220 100% 2.04 154 100% 1.97 209 100% 2.02 955 100% 2.06 Finland 246 Heard and familiar 34 26% 46 21% 54 25% 33 21% 53 23% 220 23% Heard but not at all familiar 72 55% 126 59% 121 56% 94 61% 148 64% 561 59% Never heard and not familiar 25 19% 43 20% 42 19% 27 18% 30 13% 167 18% 246 Total 131 100% 1.93 215 100% 1.99 217 100% 1.94 154 100% 1.96 231 100% 1.90 948 100% 1.94 France 250 Heard and familiar 32 24% 54 27% 56 24% 43 26% 63 29% 248 26% Heard but not at all familiar 80 61% 113 57% 144 61% 96 59% 123 56% 556 59% Never heard and not familiar 20 15% 30 15% 38 16% 25 15% 32 15% 145 15% 250 Total 132 100% 1.91 197 100% 1.88 238 100% 1.92 164 100% 1.89 218 100% 1.86 949 100% 1.89 Germany 276 Heard and familiar 45 40% 85 40% 79 33% 69 40% 83 34% 361 37% Heard but not at all familiar 59 52% 106 50% 137 58% 94 55% 151 62% 547 56% Never heard and not familiar 9 8% 23 11% 21 9% 8 5% 10 4% 71 7% 276 Total 113 100% 1.68 214 100% 1.71 237 100% 1.76 171 100% 1.64 244 100% 1.70 979 100% 1.70 Greece 300 Heard and familiar 37 35% 74 33% 84 33% 58 38% 87 39% 340 35% Heard but not at all familiar 47 44% 98 43% 107 43% 67 44% 80 36% 399 42% Never heard and not familiar 23 21% 54 24% 60 24% 28 18% 55 25% 220 23% 300 Total 107 100% 1.87 226 100% 1.91 251 100% 1.90 153 100% 1.80 222 100% 1.86 959 100% 1.87 Hungary 348 Heard and familiar 33 27% 56 24% 41 17% 27 18% 29 14% 186 19% Heard but not at all familiar 59 48% 134 58% 147 60% 103 68% 141 67% 584 61% Never heard and not familiar 30 25% 40 17% 56 23% 21 14% 40 19% 187 20% 348 Total 122 100% 1.98 230 100% 1.93 244 100% 2.06 151 100% 1.96 210 100% 2.05 957 100% 2.00 Ireland 372 Heard and familiar 53 35% 66 26% 45 17% 17 12% 18 11% 199 20% Heard but not at all familiar 77 51% 141 55% 148 57% 81 59% 114 68% 561 58% Never heard and not familiar 22 14% 49 19% 65 25% 40 29% 36 21% 212 22% 372 Total 152 100% 1.80 256 100% 1.93 258 100% 2.08 138 100% 2.17 168 100% 2.11 972 100% 2.01 Italy 380 Heard and familiar 55 52% 69 35% 110 42% 54 34% 81 33% 369 38% Heard but not at all familiar 40 38% 102 52% 127 48% 95 59% 139 57% 503 52% Never heard and not familiar 10 10% 27 14% 25 10% 12 7% 26 11% 100 10% 380 Total 105 100% 1.57 198 100% 1.79 262 100% 1.68 161 100% 1.74 246 100% 1.78 972 100% 1.72 Latvia 428 Heard and familiar 40 35% 40 17% 30 13% 21 14% 34 16% 165 18% Heard but not at all familiar 43 37% 126 55% 144 64% 92 63% 123 59% 528 57% Never heard and not familiar 32 28% 63 28% 52 23% 34 23% 50 24% 231 25% 428 Total 115 100% 1.93 229 100% 2.10 226 100% 2.10 147 100% 2.09 207 100% 2.08 924 100% 2.07 Lithuania 440 Heard and familiar 42 34% 49 23% 40 18% 23 14% 31 16% 185 20% Heard but not at all familiar 56 45% 117 55% 132 60% 98 62% 112 57% 515 57% Never heard and not familiar 26 21% 46 22% 49 22% 38 24% 52 27% 211 23% 440 Total 124 100% 1.87 212 100% 1.99 221 100% 2.04 159 100% 2.09 195 100% 2.11 911 100% 2.03 Luxembourg 442 Heard and familiar 24 31% 45 35% 54 41% 39 53% 34 45% 196 40% Heard but not at all familiar 37 48% 59 46% 65 49% 27 36% 27 36% 215 44% Never heard and not familiar 16 21% 24 19% 13 10% 8 11% 15 20% 76 16% 442 Total 77 100% 1.90 128 100% 1.84 132 100% 1.69 74 100% 1.58 76 100% 1.75 487 100% 1.75 Malta 470 Heard and familiar 24 35% 44 31% 33 29% 25 38% 33 31% 159 32% Heard but not at all familiar 26 38% 69 49% 53 47% 31 47% 61 58% 240 49% Never heard and not familiar 19 28% 27 19% 27 24% 10 15% 12 11% 95 19% 470 Total 69 100% 1.93 140 100% 1.88 113 100% 1.95 66 100% 1.77 106 100% 1.80 494 100% 1.87 Netherlands 528 Heard and familiar 44 31% 73 33% 66 28% 42 28% 46 21% 271 28% Heard but not at all familiar 83 58% 128 58% 145 61% 100 66% 168 75% 624 64% Never heard and not familiar 17 12% 21 9% 25 11% 10 7% 10 4% 83 8% 528 Total 144 100% 1.81 222 100% 1.77 236 100% 1.83 152 100% 1.79 224 100% 1.84 978 100% 1.81 Poland 616 Heard and familiar 44 35% 99 37% 86 39% 68 44% 78 41% 375 39% Heard but not at all familiar 54 43% 137 51% 108 49% 74 48% 95 49% 468 49% Never heard and not familiar 27 22% 32 12% 26 12% 13 8% 19 10% 117 12% 616 Total 125 100% 1.86 268 100% 1.75 220 100% 1.73 155 100% 1.65 192 100% 1.69 960 100% 1.73 Portugal 620 Heard and familiar 19 16% 46 22% 44 16% 30 19% 29 12% 168 17% Heard but not at all familiar 81 67% 139 66% 191 71% 116 72% 188 78% 715 71% Never heard and not familiar 21 17% 25 12% 33 12% 16 10% 23 10% 118 12% 620 Total 121 100% 2.02 210 100% 1.90 268 100% 1.96 162 100% 1.91 240 100% 1.98 1001 100% 1.95 Romania 642 Heard and familiar 56 47% 78 34% 74 29% 37 25% 54 27% 299 31% Heard but not at all familiar 50 42% 125 55% 142 56% 92 61% 118 60% 527 55% Never heard and not familiar 14 12% 25 11% 37 15% 22 15% 26 13% 124 13% 642 Total 120 100% 1.65 228 100% 1.77 253 100% 1.85 151 100% 1.90 198 100% 1.86 950 100% 1.82 Slovakia 703 Heard and familiar 71 58% 159 61% 112 46% 71 48% 84 51% 497 53% Heard but not at all familiar 41 33% 76 29% 100 41% 60 40% 64 39% 341 36% Never heard and not familiar 11 9% 25 10% 33 13% 18 12% 16 10% 103 11% 703 Total 123 100% 1.51 260 100% 1.48 245 100% 1.68 149 100% 1.64 164 100% 1.59 941 100% 1.58 Slovenia 705 Heard and familiar 28 25% 51 23% 59 24% 30 18% 46 22% 214 22% Heard but not at all familiar 59 54% 134 59% 161 64% 106 64% 136 64% 596 62% Never heard and not familiar 23 21% 41 18% 31 12% 30 18% 29 14% 154 16% 705 Total 110 100% 1.95 226 100% 1.96 251 100% 1.89 166 100% 2.00 211 100% 1.92 964 100% 1.94 Spain 724 Heard and familiar 29 27% 60 27% 61 21% 27 17% 31 14% 208 21% Heard but not at all familiar 55 50% 136 60% 177 62% 109 68% 147 69% 624 63% Never heard and not familiar 25 23% 30 13% 49 17% 24 15% 36 17% 164 16% 724 Total 109 100% 1.96 226 100% 1.87 287 100% 1.96 160 100% 1.98 214 100% 2.02 996 100% 1.96 Sweden 752 Heard and familiar 30 23% 49 22% 40 18% 27 20% 36 17% 182 20% Heard but not at all familiar 67 51% 123 55% 134 61% 88 64% 148 68% 560 61% Never heard and not familiar 34 26% 50 23% 44 20% 22 16% 33 15% 183 20% 752 Total 131 100% 2.03 222 100% 2.00 218 100% 2.02 137 100% 1.96 217 100% 1.99 925 100% 2.00 Grand Total 3200 1.86 5831 1.89 6173 1.92 3907 1.90 5359 1.92 24470 1.90 B07. To what extent do you agree or disagree with each of the following statements regarding Hydrogen energy and technologies? B07.2. Hydrogen is a good solution for reducing the energy dependence of [Country] Table 13. Gender of respondents for ‘Hydrogen is a good solution for reducing the energy dependence’ (B07_2) D03 Gender N % x Male 1 10908 53% Female 2 9708 47% Grand Total 20616 100% 1.47 Table 14. Age of respondents for ‘Hydrogen is a good solution for reducing the energy dependence’ (B07_2) D02A Age N % x 15-24 1 2849 14% 25-39 2 5017 24% 40-54 3 5205 25% 55-64 4 3217 16% 65 and above 5 4379 21% Grand Total 20667 100% 3.06 Table 15. Country of respondents for ‘Hydrogen is a good solution for reducing the energy dependence’ (B07_2) Country Code N % x Austria 40 881 4% 1.85 Belgium 56 819 4% 1.95 Bulgaria 100 852 4% 1.94 Croatia 191 838 4% 1.94 Cyprus 196 352 2% 1.79 Czechia 203 793 4% 2.13 Denmark 208 704 3% 1.93 Estonia 233 769 4% 2.12 Finland 246 758 4% 1.99 France 250 795 4% 1.87 Germany 276 886 4% 1.82 Greece 300 832 4% 1.92 Hungary 348 794 4% 2.05 Ireland 372 790 4% 1.91 Italy 380 863 4% 1.81 Latvia 428 738 4% 2.18 372 Total 416 100% 1.83 340 100% 1.89 756 100% 1.86 Italy 380 Totally agree 173 40% 131 32% 304 36% Tend to agree 226 52% 228 56% 454 54% Tend to disagree 31 7% 42 10% 73 9% Totally disagree 6 1% 8 2% 14 2% 380 Total 436 100% 1.70 409 100% 1.82 845 100% 1.76 Latvia 428 Totally agree 98 26% 51 15% 149 21% Tend to agree 193 52% 218 65% 411 58% Tend to disagree 62 17% 56 17% 118 17% Totally disagree 19 5% 12 4% 31 4% 428 Total 372 100% 2.01 337 100% 2.09 709 100% 2.04 Lithuania 440 Totally agree 86 23% 54 17% 140 20% Tend to agree 211 57% 211 65% 422 61% Tend to disagree 64 17% 52 16% 116 17% Totally disagree 8 2% 10 3% 18 3% 440 Total 369 100% 1.98 327 100% 2.06 696 100% 2.02 Luxembourg 442 Totally agree 86 38% 47 26% 133 33% Tend to agree 104 46% 102 56% 206 50% Tend to disagree 28 12% 26 14% 54 13% Totally disagree 8 4% 8 4% 16 4% 442 Total 226 100% 1.81 183 100% 1.97 409 100% 1.89 Malta 470 Totally agree 110 46% 58 32% 168 40% Tend to agree 105 44% 113 61% 218 52% Tend to disagree 20 8% 9 5% 29 7% Totally disagree 2 1% 4 2% 6 1% 470 Total 237 100% 1.64 184 100% 1.78 421 100% 1.70 Netherlands 528 Totally agree 141 32% 93 25% 234 29% Tend to agree 227 52% 224 61% 451 56% Tend to disagree 48 11% 41 11% 89 11% Totally disagree 18 4% 10 3% 28 3% 528 Total 434 100% 1.87 368 100% 1.91 802 100% 1.89 Poland 616 Totally agree 122 30% 107 27% 229 28% Tend to agree 239 58% 245 61% 484 60% Tend to disagree 38 9% 33 8% 71 9% Totally disagree 12 3% 14 4% 26 3% 616 Total 411 100% 1.85 399 100% 1.88 810 100% 1.87 Portugal 620 Totally agree 167 38% 138 32% 305 35% Tend to agree 242 55% 258 59% 500 57% Tend to disagree 28 6% 33 8% 61 7% Totally disagree 5 1% 5 1% 10 1% 620 Total 442 100% 1.71 434 100% 1.78 876 100% 1.74 Romania 642 Totally agree 160 36% 131 31% 291 34% Tend to agree 224 51% 226 54% 450 53% Tend to disagree 46 10% 51 12% 97 11% Totally disagree 9 2% 10 2% 19 2% 642 Total 439 100% 1.78 418 100% 1.86 857 100% 1.82 Slovakia 703 Totally agree 103 26% 73 21% 176 23% Tend to agree 214 53% 209 59% 423 56% Tend to disagree 69 17% 60 17% 129 17% Totally disagree 16 4% 13 4% 29 4% 703 Total 402 100% 2.00 355 100% 2.04 757 100% 2.01 Slovenia 705 Totally agree 123 30% 79 24% 202 27% Tend to agree 187 45% 164 49% 351 47% Tend to disagree 84 20% 78 23% 162 22% Totally disagree 21 5% 12 4% 33 4% 705 Total 415 100% 2.01 333 100% 2.07 748 100% 2.03 Spain 724 Totally agree 148 32% 108 26% 256 29% Tend to agree 235 51% 242 57% 477 54% Tend to disagree 54 12% 59 14% 113 13% Totally disagree 20 4% 12 3% 32 4% 724 Total 457 100% 1.88 421 100% 1.94 878 100% 1.91 Sweden 752 Totally agree 89 24% 54 21% 143 22% Tend to agree 200 53% 132 50% 332 52% Tend to disagree 69 18% 55 21% 124 19% Totally disagree 19 5% 21 8% 40 6% 752 Total 377 100% 2.05 262 100% 2.16 639 100% 2.10 Grand Total 10682 1.89 9151 1.95 19833 1.91 B07.6. The use of Hydrogen is as safe as the use of any other energy source Table 23. Levels of Agreement about Hydrogen Safety (B07_6; Gender) D03 N % x Male 1 10346 55% Female 2 8370 45% Grand Total 18716 100% 1.45 Table 24. Levels of Agreement about Hydrogen Safety (B07_6; All Categories) B07_6 N % x Totally agree 1 4137 22% Tend to agree 2 9685 52% Tend to disagree 3 3954 21% Totally disagree 4 985 5% Grand Total 18761 100% 2.09 Table 25. Levels of Agreement about Hydrogen Safety (B07_6; All Categories, Gender) D03 Male Female Grand Total Safety B07_6 N % x N % x N % x Totally agree 1 2479 24% 1649 20% 4128 22% Tend to agree 2 5063 49% 4602 55% 9665 52% Tend to disagree 3 2208 21% 1733 21% 3941 21% Totally disagree 4 596 6% 386 5% 982 5% Grand Total 10346 100% 2.09 8370 100% 2.10 18716 100% 2.09 Table 26. Levels of Agreement about Hydrogen Safety (B07_6; All Categories, Gender and Country) D03 Male Female Grand Total COUNTRY B07_6 N % x N % x N % x Austria 40 Totally agree 121 28% 88 23% 209 26% Tend to agree 193 45% 204 54% 397 49% Tend to disagree 90 21% 77 20% 167 21% Totally disagree 22 5% 11 3% 33 4% 40 Total 426 100% 2.03 380 100% 2.03 806 100% 2.03 Belgium 56 Totally agree 105 26% 57 19% 162 23% Tend to agree 193 48% 164 54% 357 50% Tend to disagree 81 20% 70 23% 151 21% Totally disagree 27 7% 15 5% 42 6% 56 Total 406 100% 2.07 306 100% 2.14 712 100% 2.10 Bulgaria 100 Totally agree 80 20% 62 17% 142 18% Tend to agree 187 46% 171 47% 358 46% Tend to disagree 116 28% 108 30% 224 29% Totally disagree 26 6% 22 6% 48 6% 100 Total 409 100% 2.22 363 100% 2.25 772 100% 2.23 Croatia 191 Totally agree 130 31% 77 24% 207 28% Tend to agree 181 43% 172 54% 353 48% Tend to disagree 85 20% 51 16% 136 18% Totally disagree 24 6% 16 5% 40 5% 191 Total 420 100% 2.01 316 100% 2.02 736 100% 2.01 Cyprus 196 Totally agree 50 31% 39 29% 89 30% Tend to agree 69 43% 57 43% 126 43% Tend to disagree 27 17% 33 25% 60 20% Totally disagree 14 9% 5 4% 19 6% 196 Total 160 100% 2.03 134 100% 2.03 294 100% 2.03 Czechia 203 Totally agree 69 16% 34 11% 103 14% Tend to agree 207 49% 164 53% 371 51% Tend to disagree 116 28% 79 25% 195 27% Totally disagree 27 6% 33 11% 60 8% 203 Total 419 100% 2.24 310 100% 2.36 729 100% 2.29 Denmark 208 Totally agree 78 22% 43 17% 121 20% Tend to agree 187 54% 152 60% 339 56% Tend to disagree 67 19% 47 19% 114 19% Totally disagree 16 5% 12 5% 28 5% 208 Total 348 100% 2.06 254 100% 2.11 602 100% 2.08 Estonia 233 Totally agree 69 18% 36 12% 105 15% Tend to agree 179 46% 151 52% 330 48% Tend to disagree 107 28% 91 31% 198 29% Totally disagree 34 9% 15 5% 49 7% 233 Total 389 100% 2.27 293 100% 2.29 682 100% 2.28 Finland 246 Totally agree 87 21% 32 12% 119 17% Tend to agree 209 51% 158 57% 367 54% Tend to disagree 96 24% 71 26% 167 24% Totally disagree 16 4% 15 5% 31 5% 246 Total 408 100% 2.10 276 100% 2.25 684 100% 2.16 France 250 Totally agree 97 24% 72 23% 169 24% Tend to agree 198 49% 168 54% 366 51% Tend to disagree 84 21% 53 17% 137 19% Totally disagree 24 6% 18 6% 42 6% 250 Total 403 100% 2.09 311 100% 2.05 714 100% 2.07 Germany 276 Totally agree 130 30% 94 24% 224 27% Tend to agree 216 49% 214 55% 430 52% Tend to disagree 73 17% 71 18% 144 17% Totally disagree 21 5% 10 3% 31 4% 276 Total 440 100% 1.97 389 100% 1.99 829 100% 1.98 Greece 300 Totally agree 121 28% 56 19% 177 24% Tend to agree 219 51% 170 58% 389 54% Tend to disagree 67 16% 61 21% 128 18% Totally disagree 23 5% 7 2% 30 4% 300 Total 430 100% 1.98 294 100% 2.06 724 100% 2.02 Hungary 348 Totally agree 85 21% 55 15% 140 18% Tend to agree 202 49% 216 60% 418 54% Tend to disagree 99 24% 69 19% 168 22% Totally disagree 23 6% 21 6% 44 6% 348 Total 409 100% 2.15 361 100% 2.16 770 100% 2.15 Ireland 372 Totally agree 93 23% 68 22% 161 22% Tend to agree 233 57% 208 66% 441 61% Tend to disagree 68 17% 30 10% 98 14% Totally disagree 15 4% 7 2% 22 3% 372 Total 409 100% 2.01 313 100% 1.92 722 100% 1.97 Italy 380 Totally agree 111 26% 90 23% 201 25% Tend to agree 238 57% 219 57% 457 57% Tend to disagree 54 13% 61 16% 115 14% Totally disagree 18 4% 16 4% 34 4% 380 Total 421 100% 1.95 386 100% 2.01 807 100% 1.98 Latvia 428 Totally agree 53 15% 35 11% 88 13% Tend to agree 162 45% 156 51% 318 47% Tend to disagree 112 31% 97 31% 209 31% Totally disagree 36 10% 20 6% 56 8% 428 Total 363 100% 2.36 308 100% 2.33 671 100% 2.35 Lithuania 440 Totally agree 56 15% 41 13% 97 14% Tend to agree 171 47% 193 62% 364 54% Tend to disagree 114 31% 61 20% 175 26% Totally disagree 26 7% 15 5% 41 6% 440 Total 367 100% 2.30 310 100% 2.16 677 100% 2.24 Luxembourg 442 Totally agree 54 24% 33 18% 87 22% Tend to agree 100 45% 88 49% 188 47% Tend to disagree 57 25% 47 26% 104 26% Totally disagree 13 6% 11 6% 24 6% 442 Total 224 100% 2.13 179 100% 2.20 403 100% 2.16 Malta 470 Totally agree 82 36% 48 28% 130 32% Tend to agree 96 42% 94 55% 190 47% Tend to disagree 36 16% 22 13% 58 14% Totally disagree 15 7% 8 5% 23 6% 470 Total 229 100% 1.93 172 100% 1.94 401 100% 1.94 Netherlands 528 Totally agree 98 24% 57 19% 155 22% Tend to agree 202 49% 182 61% 384 54% Tend to disagree 87 21% 47 16% 134 19% Totally disagree 23 6% 11 4% 34 5% 528 Total 410 100% 2.09 297 100% 2.04 707 100% 2.07 Poland 616 Totally agree 98 24% 85 23% 183 24% Tend to agree 216 54% 224 61% 440 57% Tend to disagree 73 18% 46 13% 119 15% Totally disagree 15 4% 11 3% 26 3% 616 Total 402 100% 2.01 366 100% 1.95 768 100% 1.98 Portugal 620 Totally agree 129 31% 97 25% 226 28% Tend to agree 230 55% 233 61% 463 58% Tend to disagree 52 12% 42 11% 94 12% Totally disagree 6 1% 13 3% 19 2% 620 Total 417 100% 1.84 385 100% 1.92 802 100% 1.88 Romania 642 Totally agree 131 30% 108 27% 239 29% Tend to agree 214 50% 211 53% 425 51% Tend to disagree 65 15% 67 17% 132 16% Totally disagree 21 5% 10 3% 31 4% 642 Total 431 100% 1.94 396 100% 1.95 827 100% 1.95 Slovakia 703 Totally agree 76 19% 55 16% 131 18% Tend to agree 181 45% 168 50% 349 47% Tend to disagree 107 27% 96 28% 203 27% Totally disagree 38 9% 19 6% 57 8% 703 Total 402 100% 2.27 338 100% 2.23 740 100% 2.25 Slovenia 705 Totally agree 97 24% 55 18% 152 21% Tend to agree 164 40% 147 47% 311 43% Tend to disagree 117 29% 91 29% 208 29% Totally disagree 30 7% 21 7% 51 7% 705 Total 408 100% 2.20 314 100% 2.25 722 100% 2.22 Spain 724 Totally agree 119 27% 92 23% 211 25% Tend to agree 243 55% 219 55% 462 55% Tend to disagree 62 14% 77 19% 139 17% Totally disagree 14 3% 9 2% 23 3% 724 Total 438 100% 1.93 397 100% 2.01 835 100% 1.97 Sweden 752 Totally agree 60 17% 40 18% 100 17% Tend to agree 173 48% 99 45% 272 47% Tend to disagree 96 27% 68 31% 164 28% Totally disagree 29 8% 15 7% 44 8% 752 Total 358 100% 2.26 222 100% 2.26 580 100% 2.26 Grand Total 10346 55% 2.09 8370 45% 2.10 18,716 100% 2.09 B07.5. Hydrogen is as polluting as Diesel or gasoline Table 27. Respondents by gender for levels of agreement about Hydrogen Polluting (B07_5; Gender) D03 Gender N % x Male 1 10592 55% Female 2 8781 45% Grand Total 19373 100% 1.45 Table 28. Levels of Agreement about Hydrogen Polluting (B07_5; All Categories) B07_5 N % x Totally agree 1 1516 8% Tend to agree 2 3515 18% Tend to disagree 3 7305 38% Totally disagree 4 7087 36% Grand Total 19423 100% 3.03 Table 29. Levels of Agreement about Hydrogen Polluting (B07_5; All Categories, Gender) D03 Male Female Grand Total Polluting B07_5 N % x N % x N % x Totally agree 1 831 8% 677 8% 1508 8% Tend to agree 2 1746 16% 1762 20% 3508 18% Tend to disagree 3 3455 33% 3831 44% 7286 38% Totally disagree 4 4560 43% 2511 29% 7071 36% Grand Total 10592 100% 3.11 8781 100% 2.93 19373 100% 3.03 Table 30. Levels of Agreement about Hydrogen Polluting (B07_5; All Categories, Gender and Country) D03 Male Female Grand Total COUNTRY B07_5 N % x  N % x  N % x  Austria 40 Totally agree 24 6% 29 7% 53 6% Tend to agree 60 14% 67 17% 127 15% Tend to disagree 155 36% 173 44% 328 40% Totally disagree 193 45% 125 32% 318 38% 40 Total 432 100% 3.20 394 100% 3.00 826 100% 3.10 Belgium 56 Totally agree 49 12% 33 9% 82 11% Tend to agree 63 15% 68 19% 131 17% Tend to disagree 123 30% 133 38% 256 34% Totally disagree 173 42% 116 33% 289 38% 56 Total 408 100% 3.03 350 100% 2.95 758 100% 2.99 Bulgaria 100 Totally agree 36 9% 23 6% 59 8% Tend to agree 62 15% 76 21% 138 18% Tend to disagree 154 36% 166 46% 320 41% Totally disagree 170 40% 92 26% 262 34% 100 Total 422 100% 3.09 357 100% 2.92 779 100% 3.01 Croatia 191 Totally agree 31 7% 35 11% 66 9% Tend to agree 62 15% 59 19% 121 16% Tend to disagree 156 37% 154 49% 310 42% Totally disagree 176 41% 69 22% 245 33% 191 Total 425 100% 3.12 317 100% 2.81 742 100% 2.99 Cyprus 196 Totally agree 12 7% 17 12% 29 10% Tend to agree 16 10% 31 22% 47 16% Tend to disagree 45 27% 54 39% 99 33% Totally disagree 91 55% 36 26% 127 42% 196 Total 164 100% 3.31 138 100% 2.79 302 100% 3.07 Czechia 203 Totally agree 30 7% 18 6% 48 6% Tend to agree 76 18% 59 18% 135 18% Tend to disagree 155 36% 170 52% 325 43% Totally disagree 164 39% 79 24% 243 32% 203 Total 425 100% 3.07 326 100% 2.95 751 100% 3.02 Denmark 208 Totally agree 36 10% 20 7% 56 9% Tend to agree 71 19% 69 25% 140 22% Tend to disagree 128 35% 119 43% 247 39% Totally disagree 131 36% 66 24% 197 31% 208 Total 366 100% 2.97 274 100% 2.84 640 100% 2.91 Estonia 233 Totally agree 27 7% 14 4% 41 6% Tend to agree 67 17% 77 23% 144 20% Tend to disagree 153 38% 182 54% 335 46% Totally disagree 153 38% 63 19% 216 29% 233 Total 400 100% 3.08 336 100% 2.88 736 100% 2.99 Finland 246 Totally agree 25 6% 13 4% 38 5% Tend to agree 69 16% 52 17% 121 17% Tend to disagree 145 34% 149 49% 294 41% Totally disagree 183 43% 88 29% 271 37% 246 Total 422 100% 3.15 302 100% 3.03 724 100% 3.10 France 250 Totally agree 35 8% 38 12% 73 10% Tend to agree 85 20% 83 26% 168 23% Tend to disagree 114 27% 118 37% 232 32% Totally disagree 184 44% 78 25% 262 36% 250 Total 418 100% 3.07 317 100% 2.74 735 100% 2.93 Germany 276 Totally agree 47 10% 31 8% 78 9% Tend to agree 77 17% 68 17% 145 17% Tend to disagree 139 31% 161 41% 300 35% Totally disagree 191 42% 134 34% 325 38% 276 Total 454 100% 3.04 394 100% 3.01 848 100% 3.03 Greece 300 Totally agree 25 6% 17 5% 42 5% Tend to agree 70 16% 66 21% 136 18% Tend to disagree 143 32% 150 47% 293 38% Totally disagree 207 47% 86 27% 293 38% 300 Total 445 100% 3.20 319 100% 2.96 764 100% 3.10 Hungary 348 Totally agree 34 8% 30 8% 64 8% Tend to agree 71 17% 76 20% 147 19% Tend to disagree 114 28% 172 46% 286 36% Totally disagree 194 47% 100 26% 294 37% 348 Total 413 100% 3.13 378 100% 2.90 791 100% 3.02 Ireland 372 Totally agree 31 8% 23 8% 54 8% Tend to agree 79 20% 61 21% 140 20% Tend to disagree 141 35% 138 46% 279 40% Totally disagree 153 38% 75 25% 228 33% 372 Total 404 100% 3.03 297 100% 2.89 701 100% 2.97 380 Totally agree 44 10% 41 10% 85 10% Tend to agree 78 18% 81 21% 159 19% Tend to disagree 122 29% 155 39% 277 34% Totally disagree 184 43% 117 30% 301 37% 380 Total 428 100% 3.04 394 100% 2.88 822 100% 2.97 Latvia 428 Totally agree 28 8% 14 4% 42 6% Tend to agree 67 18% 80 24% 147 21% Tend to disagree 136 37% 164 49% 300 42% Totally disagree 141 38% 77 23% 218 31% 428 Total 372 100% 3.05 335 100% 2.91 707 100% 2.98 Lithuania 440 Totally agree 21 6% 19 6% 40 6% Tend to agree 55 15% 61 18% 116 16% Tend to disagree 143 38% 155 46% 298 42% Totally disagree 157 42% 103 30% 260 36% 440 Total 376 100% 3.16 338 100% 3.01 714 100% 3.09 Luxembourg 442 Totally agree 12 5% 16 9% 28 7% Tend to agree 40 17% 35 19% 75 18% Tend to disagree 68 30% 71 38% 139 33% Totally disagree 110 48% 65 35% 175 42% 442 Total 230 100% 3.20 187 100% 2.99 417 100% 3.11 Malta 470 Totally agree 14 6% 19 10% 33 8% Tend to agree 21 9% 35 19% 56 13% Tend to disagree 70 30% 58 31% 128 30% Totally disagree 130 55% 73 39% 203 48% 470 Total 235 100% 3.34 185 100% 3.00 420 100% 3.19 Netherlands 528 Totally agree 47 11% 18 5% 65 9% Tend to agree 63 15% 68 20% 131 17% Tend to disagree 123 30% 127 38% 250 33% Totally disagree 182 44% 122 36% 304 41% 528 Total 415 100% 3.06 335 100% 3.05 750 100% 3.06 Poland 616 Totally agree 40 10% 35 10% 75 10% Tend to agree 84 21% 63 17% 147 19% Tend to disagree 111 27% 178 49% 289 37% Totally disagree 172 42% 90 25% 262 34% 616 Total 407 100% 3.02 366 100% 2.88 773 100% 2.95 Portugal 620 Totally agree 24 5% 26 6% 50 6% Tend to agree 54 12% 61 15% 115 13% Tend to disagree 117 26% 159 39% 276 32% Totally disagree 249 56% 164 40% 413 48% 620 Total 444 100% 3.33 410 100% 3.12 854 100% 3.23 Romania 642 Totally agree 43 10% 41 10% 84 10% Tend to agree 64 15% 69 18% 133 16% Tend to disagree 144 33% 157 40% 301 36% Totally disagree 180 42% 127 32% 307 37% 642 Total 431 100% 3.07 394 100% 2.94 825 100% 3.01 Slovakia 703 Totally agree 27 7% 27 8% 54 7% Tend to agree 63 15% 73 21% 136 18% Tend to disagree 158 39% 165 48% 323 43% Totally disagree 159 39% 77 23% 236 32% 703 Total 407 100% 3.10 342 100% 2.85 749 100% 2.99 Slovenia 705 Totally agree 26 6% 23 7% 49 7% Tend to agree 62 15% 67 21% 129 17% Tend to disagree 159 38% 162 50% 321 43% Totally disagree 169 41% 73 22% 242 33% 705 Total 416 100% 3.13 325 100% 2.88 741 100% 3.02 Spain 724 Totally agree 38 8% 35 9% 73 8% Tend to agree 82 18% 86 21% 168 19% Tend to disagree 127 28% 154 37% 281 32% Totally disagree 207 46% 136 33% 343 40% 724 Total 454 100% 3.11 411 100% 2.95 865 100% 3.03 Sweden 752 Totally agree 25 7% 22 8% 47 7% Tend to agree 85 22% 71 27% 156 24% Tend to disagree 112 30% 87 33% 199 31% Totally disagree 157 41% 80 31% 237 37% 752 Total 379 100% 3.06 260 100% 2.87 639 100% 2.98 Grand Total 10592 3.11 8781 2.93 19373 3.03