Abstract
AbstractThis chapter presents a case study of the Groningen gas field. We study the role of science and knowledge in the assessment, monitoring and management of escalating earthquake risks. The case is relevant to climate change in several ways. Around 2006, gas extraction from Groningen was increased with the narrative that gas was the “ideal energy transition fuel”. Gas is more climate-friendly than burning coal or oil, and gas-fueled power plants combine well with renewables (Heath et al. in Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 111(31):E3167–E3176, 2014). Much less attention was devoted to known risks: subsidence, pollution and earthquakes. The latter caused a slow-onset disaster in Groningen. Lessons from this case are relevant to renewable energy initiatives such as hydrogen storage and geothermal energy, as well as to the future exploitations of gas fields, made more likely by the Ukraine war. At the end of the chapter, we reflect on governance of big industrial risks amid climate change.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
