IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/hal/journl/hal-00348128.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

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

Author

Listed:
  • Minh Ha-Duong

    (CIRED - centre international de recherche sur l'environnement et le développement - Cirad - Centre de Coopération Internationale en Recherche Agronomique pour le Développement - EHESS - École des hautes études en sciences sociales - AgroParisTech - ENPC - École des Ponts ParisTech - CNRS - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique)

  • Rodica Loisel

    (CIRED - centre international de recherche sur l'environnement et le développement - Cirad - Centre de Coopération Internationale en Recherche Agronomique pour le Développement - EHESS - École des hautes études en sciences sociales - AgroParisTech - ENPC - École des Ponts ParisTech - CNRS - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique)

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.

Suggested Citation

  • Minh Ha-Duong & Rodica Loisel, 2009. "Zero is the only acceptable leakage rate for geologically stored CO2: an editorial comment," Post-Print hal-00348128, HAL.
    • Handle: RePEc:hal:journl:hal-00348128
    DOI: 10.1007/s10584-009-9560-z
    Note: View the original document on HAL open archive server: https://hal.science/hal-00348128
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://hal.science/hal-00348128/document
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10584-009-9560-z?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Minh Ha-Duong & David Keith, 2003. "Carbon storage: the economic efficiency of storing CO2 in leaky reservoirs," Post-Print halshs-00003927, HAL.
    2. Bob van der Zwaan & Reyer Gerlagh, 2008. "The Economics of Geological CO2 Storage and Leakage," Working Papers 2008.10, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei.
    3. Minh Ha-Duong & Ana Sofia Campos & Alain Nadaï, 2007. "A survey on the public perception of CCS in France," Working Papers hal-00866557, HAL.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Nduagu, Experience & Romão, Inês & Fagerlund, Johan & Zevenhoven, Ron, 2013. "Performance assessment of producing Mg(OH)2 for CO2 mineral sequestration," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 106(C), pages 116-126.
    2. Minh Ha-Duong & Rodica Loisel, 2011. "Actuarial risk assessment of expected fatalities attributable to carbon capture and storage in 2050," Post-Print halshs-00487175, HAL.
    3. Peter Stigson & Anders Hansson & Mårten Lind, 2012. "Obstacles for CCS deployment: an analysis of discrepancies of perceptions," Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, Springer, vol. 17(6), pages 601-619, August.
    4. García, Jorge H. & Torvanger, Asbjørn, 2019. "Carbon leakage from geological storage sites: Implications for carbon trading," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 127(C), pages 320-329.
    5. John Michael Humphries Choptiany & Ron Pelot & Kate Sherren, 2014. "An Interdisciplinary Perspective on Carbon Capture and Storage Assessment Methods," Journal of Industrial Ecology, Yale University, vol. 18(3), pages 445-458, May.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Narita, Daiju & Klepper, Gernot, 2015. "Economic incentives for carbon dioxide storage under uncertainty: A real options analysis," Kiel Working Papers 2002, Kiel Institute for the World Economy (IfW Kiel).
    2. Bob van der Zwaan & Reyer Gerlagh, 2016. "Offshore CCS and ocean acidification: a global long-term probabilistic cost-benefit analysis of climate change mitigation," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 137(1), pages 157-170, July.
    3. Hang Deng & Jeffrey M. Bielicki & Michael Oppenheimer & Jeffrey P. Fitts & Catherine A. Peters, 2017. "Leakage risks of geologic CO2 storage and the impacts on the global energy system and climate change mitigation," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 144(2), pages 151-163, September.
    4. Nadine Heitmann & Christine Bertram & Daiju Narita, 2012. "Embedding CCS infrastructure into the European electricity system: a policy coordination problem," Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, Springer, vol. 17(6), pages 669-686, August.
    5. Valentina Bosetti & Laurent Gilotte, 2005. "Carbon Capture and Sequestration: How Much Does this Uncertain Option Affect Near-Term Policy Choices?," Working Papers 2005.86, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei.
    6. García, Jorge H. & Torvanger, Asbjørn, 2019. "Carbon leakage from geological storage sites: Implications for carbon trading," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 127(C), pages 320-329.
    7. Grimaud, André & Rouge, Luc, 2014. "Carbon sequestration, economic policies and growth," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 36(2), pages 307-331.
    8. Claire Alestra & Gilbert Cette & Valérie Chouard & Rémy Lecat, 2023. "How Can Technology Significantly Contribute to Climate Change Mitigation?," Working papers 909, Banque de France.
    9. Sebastiano Cupertino, 2013. "Cost-benefit analysis of carbon dioxide capture and storage considering the impact of two different climate change mitigation regimes," ECONOMICS AND POLICY OF ENERGY AND THE ENVIRONMENT, FrancoAngeli Editore, vol. 2013(1), pages 73-89.
    10. Qian Wu & Qianguo Lin & Qiang Yang & Yang Li, 2022. "An optimization‐based CCUS source‐sink matching model for dynamic planning of CCUS clusters," Greenhouse Gases: Science and Technology, Blackwell Publishing, vol. 12(4), pages 433-453, August.
    11. Jian Xie & Xiaofeng Gou & Jian Guo, 2023. "Assessing a potential site for offshore CO2 storage in the Weixinan Sag in the northwestern Beibu Gulf Basin, northern South China Sea," Greenhouse Gases: Science and Technology, Blackwell Publishing, vol. 13(1), pages 99-119, February.
    12. Nikolaos Koukouzas & Marina Christopoulou & Panagiota P. Giannakopoulou & Aikaterini Rogkala & Eleni Gianni & Christos Karkalis & Konstantina Pyrgaki & Pavlos Krassakis & Petros Koutsovitis & Dionisio, 2022. "Current CO 2 Capture and Storage Trends in Europe in a View of Social Knowledge and Acceptance. A Short Review," Energies, MDPI, vol. 15(15), pages 1-30, August.
    13. Pierre-André Jouvet & Marie Renner, 2014. "Social Acceptance and Optimal Pollution: CCS or Tax?," Post-Print hal-01385960, HAL.
    14. Soren Lindner & Sonja Peterson & Wilhelm Windhorst, 2010. "An economic and environmental assessment of carbon capture and storage (CCS) power plants: a case study for the City of Kiel," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 53(8), pages 1069-1088.
    15. Wei Jin & ZhongXiang Zhang, 2018. "Capital Accumulation, Green Paradox, and Stranded Assets: An Endogenous Growth Perspective," Working Papers 2018.33, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei.
    16. Schmidt, Johannes & Leduc, Sylvain & Dotzauer, Erik & Kindermann, Georg & Schmid, Erwin, 2010. "Cost-effective CO2 emission reduction through heat, power and biofuel production from woody biomass: A spatially explicit comparison of conversion technologies," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 87(7), pages 2128-2141, July.
    17. Lilliestam, Johan & Bielicki, Jeffrey M. & Patt, Anthony G., 2012. "Comparing carbon capture and storage (CCS) with concentrating solar power (CSP): Potentials, costs, risks, and barriers," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(C), pages 447-455.
    18. Alain Jean-Marie & Michel Moreaux & Mabel Tidball, 2011. "Carbon sequestration in leaky reservoirs," Post-Print hal-00863230, HAL.
    19. Sven Bode & Martina Jung, 2006. "Carbon dioxide capture and storage—liability for non-permanence under the UNFCCC," International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 6(2), pages 173-186, June.
    20. Mathy, Sandrine & Fink, Meike & Bibas, Ruben, 2015. "Rethinking the role of scenarios: Participatory scripting of low-carbon scenarios for France," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 77(C), pages 176-190.

    More about this item

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:hal:journl:hal-00348128. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: CCSD (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.