Climatic Change

, Volume 93, Issue 3–4, pp 311–317 | Cite as

Zero is the only acceptable leakage rate for geologically stored CO2: an editorial comment

Editorial

Abstract

Leakage is one of the main concerns of all parties involved with the development of Carbon Capture and Storage. From an economic point of view, van der Zwaan and Gerlagh (2009) suggest that CCS remains a valuable option even with CO2 leakage rate as high as of a few % per year. But what is valuable is, ultimately, determined by social preferences and parameters that are beyond economic modeling. Examining the point of view of four stakeholder groups: industry, policy-makers, environmental NGOs and the general public, we conclude that there is a social agreement today: zero is the only acceptable carbon leakage rate.

References

  1. Anderson J, Chiavara J (2008) Understanding and improving NGO positioning on CCS. In: GHGT-9: ninth international conference on greenhouse gas control technologies. Washington DC, MIT/IEA-GHG, Elsevier. http://web.mit.edu/ghgt9/ Google Scholar
  2. Greenpeace International (2008) False hope. Why carbon capture and storage won’t save the climate, E. Rochon (lead author), J. Kuiper (editor). Report number JN 136Google Scholar
  3. Ha-Duong M, Keith DW (2003) Carbon storage: the economic efficiency of storing CO2 in leaky reservoirs. Clean Technol Environ Policy 5(2/3):181–189CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Ha-Duong M, Campos AS, Nadai A (2007) A survey on the public perception of CCS in France. Working Papers halshs-00200894_v1, HALGoogle Scholar
  5. Halsnæs K, Shukla P, Dilip A, Akumu G, Beale R, Edmonds JA, Gollier C, Grübler A, Ha-Duong M, Markandya A, McFarland M, Nikitina E, Sugiyama T, Villavicencio A, Zou J (2007) Framing issues. In: IPCC fourth assessment report, contribution of the working group III, chapter 2. http://www.mnp.nl/ipcc/pages_media/ar4.html
  6. Hill G (2008) Implementing CCS in Europe: ZEP’s vision of zero emissions power by 2020. In: GHGT-9: ninth international conference on greenhouse gas control technologies. Washington DC, MIT/IEA-GHG, Elsevier. http://web.mit.edu/ghgt9/ Google Scholar
  7. Itaoka K, Saito A, Akai M (2005) Public acceptance of CO2 capture and storage technology: a survey of public opinion to explore influential factors. Greenhouse Gas Control Technol 7:1011–1019. doi:10.1016/B978-008044704-9/50102-6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Solomon S (2007) Carbon dioxide storage: geological security and environmental issues—case study on the Sleipner Gas field in Norway. Bellona reportGoogle Scholar
  9. Tzimas E, Georgakaki A, Peteves S (2008) Reducing CO2 emissions from the European power generation sector—scenarios to 2050. In: GHGT-9: ninth international conference on greenhouse gas control technologies. Washington DC, MIT/ IEA-GHG, Elsevier. http://web.mit.edu/ghgt9/ Google Scholar
  10. van der Zwaan B, Gerlagh R (2009) Economics of geological CO2 storage and leakage. Clim Change. doi:10.1007/s10584-009-9558-6

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Centre International de Recherche sur l’Environnement et le DéveloppementCIRED/CNRSNogent-sur-Marne CedexFrance

Personalised recommendations