Congress Deserves Better Info on Carbon Capture Technology

The Senate Subcommittee on Energy Oversight held a field hearing in Bismarck, North Dakota on Wednesday on carbon capture and sequestration technology. One of the major coal-producing areas of the country, North Dakota was an appropriate site for the event during this Congressional recess. Two panels presented the current and projected future development of CCS technology, the outlook ranging from very cautious optimism to an almost cynical pessimism. But the lack of an objective scientific voice among those testifying was conspicuous.

The technically complex nature of CCS encompasses the mineral, geological, and engineering sciences, and the inputs from specialists in any of these fields would have been an important contribution. The first panel was comprised of three government officials and the second panel of five industry representatives. Among the government officials were directors from the Interior department, the National Energy Technology Laboratory, and the Montana Department of Environmental Quality. The industry representatives included officers of both the fossil fuel industry itself, as well as directors of regional CCS partnerships, which have been organized by the Department of Energy. Industry reps explained that while current R&D efforts are managed and supported by the government, operations are actually in the hands of private industry.

Perhaps ignoring the state of the science behind CCS was intentional, since the purpose of the hearing was to present the challenges of the deployment of CCS technology. Yet a rigorous evaluation demands independent authentication from the research community, making it difficult to take these testimonies at face value. Towards the end of his presentation, Gary Loop the Chief Operating Officer and Senior VP of the Dakota Gasification Company, described the prospects for CCS as ranging from “hopeless” to “it might work,” prompting an astonished senator to ask, “do you have anything more positive to say?”

It is only to be expected that industry would demur at calls for change and technological innovation, given the motivating factor of the bottom line. But CCS is essential to the future of coal use in America. As the Center for American Progress has noted: “In the United States alone, about 145 gigawatts of new power from coal-fired plants are projected to be built by 2030, resulting in CO₂ emissions of 790 million metric tons per year in the absence of emission controls. By comparison, annual U.S. emissions of CO₂ from all sources in 2005 were about 6 billion metric tons.” In order to craft energy policy that reduces greenhouse gas emissions and supports the rapid development of CCS, Congress needs clear information about the where the technology stands. CAP outlined the path to CCS in a report released last year, “Global Warming and the Future of Coal.”

The panelists discussed ongoing research efforts in CCS technology, in addition to difficult questions about sequestration site appropriateness, transport of sequestered CO₂, economic feasibility, and uncertainty about geological consequences. They also tackled the tricky legal and political issues, including custody rights, liability, and appropriate designation of the CO₂, which is currently considered a mineral, but may be re-categorized as a pollutant.

John Harju of the PCOR partnership was particularly emphatic about the importance of retaining enhanced oil recovery, which involves pumping captured CO2 into depleted oil fields in order to force out more oil, as an acceptable use of sequestered CO₂. Mr. Harju’s concern regards policies under consideration that would exclude EOR as an option for sequestered CO₂. Gordon Criswell, the manager of the Montana division of the PPL power corporation undercut Harju’s argument and tried to restrain enthusiasm about CCS and EOR operations, citing difficulties with pressurized pipelines. Wide adoption, he said, would necessitate a massive pipeline construction effort for the quantity of sequestered CO₂.

But those minor points of disagreement were overshadowed by the strong consensus among the industry representatives about the many impediments to CCS as a significant means of emissions reductions from coal combustion. Scott Klara of the National Energy Technology Laboratory conveyed a similar government perspective. He said that the on a commercial scale, CCS would cause an 80 percent price increase in electricity from a new pulverized coal plant, and a 35 percent increase from a new advanced gasification-based plant. Nearly all the panelists emphasized the need for extensive government funding and flexible regulation. Mr. Criswell cited the Bingaman-Specter Low Carbon Economy Act (S.1766) as adhering “most closely with PPL’s climate change principles.” Not surprisingly, the recent EPA analysis of the Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act (S. 2191) indicated that in a cross-comparison of emissions control bills, S. 1766 was the weakest, with the greatest lenience towards industry.

Both bills establish cap-and-trade programs on greenhouse gases, but differ in their details. Lieberman-Warner would funnel up to a quarter of all technology funds from the allowance auctions to sequestration technology, a strong impetus for innovation, while the safety valve provision of Bingaman-Specter, which industry sees as a protective measure, actually amounts to being a disincentive for technological progress.

Tags: Energy, Innovation

Comments on this article

You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.