California has demonstrated leadership in setting ambitious goals for reducing greenhouse gas emissions by setting a target to reduce emissions to 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030. While California is reducing emissions and expanding clean energy through many means, including a cap-and-trade program, the state appears to be underestimating the effectiveness and readiness of carbon capture technology and how it could help California reach its goal. In consensus comments on the California Air Resources Board’s (CARB) draft 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan Update, a diverse group of nonprofits (including C2ES); environmental groups; and oil, gas, and ethanol companies outlined the current state of carbon capture deployment, the technology’s benefits, and how California could address roadblocks that may be hindering its deployment.
Carbon capture technology has been deployed in U.S. commercial-scale industrial facilities since the early 1970s, including at natural gas processing plants and fertilizer production plants. Most recently, Archer Daniels Midland’s Illinois Industrial Carbon Capture and Storage project – the world’s first commercial-scale project on ethanol — began operations in April. More than 1 million tons of CO2 will be captured and stored in Mount Simon sandstone. CO2 capture on biofuels could one day lead to negative emissions, since bioenergy crops absorb greenhouse gases as they grow. Also earlier this year, NRG finished – on time and under budget – the first American retrofit of a coal-fired power plant with CO2 capture technology and the largest of its kind in the world. The NRG Petra Nova project near Houston, Texas, is capturing about 1.6 million tons of CO2 annually for use in enhanced oil recovery (CO2-EOR). Studies have documented the net benefit to the climate of CO2-EOR using man-made CO2.
California has certainly taken positive steps on carbon capture. Looking forward, the pace of carbon capture deployment in the state may be determined largely by legal, regulatory and policy considerations. California should be commended for its leadership in setting an ambitious emissions-cutting goal and charting a path toward reaching it. California can also lead by addressing key policy and regulatory questions to ensure that carbon capture is part of its overall plan.
I largely agree with all the points in the consensus comments document that was referenced above. As to “what steps can California policymakers take”, I’d point to the last bulleted… Read more »
Thank you, Roger. These are excellent points. I appreciate your thoughtful comments.
I generally agree with Roger’s points above, though he is highlighting the complexity of the California system. It would be much simpler and more effective if we put a rising… Read more »
Thank you, Dan. This is very helpful context. I appreciate your pragmatic approach to reusing CO2.
This is an uphill battle for CCS. It would be useful if there were a 2017 bi-partisan (and not a CCS industry led or enhanced oil recovery focused) report that… Read more »
Thanks, Christophe. I appreciate your thoughtful reply. One of our recommendations was more analysis on the co-benefits that carbon capture technology could provide with respect to reducing emissions of conventional… Read more »
I’d second Roger’s point about there being far more economically producible oil than the climate can tolerate; it won’t be exhausted. Efforts to categorize oil sources by their carbon intensity… Read more »
Craig: I agree. While it is hard to fathom, the reality is that is already too late to avoid unacceptable consequences by emissions reduction alone (and, by the way, we… Read more »
Thanks, Craig. I appreciate your response. I will review the analysis on carbon intensity of oil sources that you cited. There is a lot to be said for efficient production… Read more »
Fatima: This brings up an interesting issue. Many people want to address climate change by growing more trees and taking other steps to fix carbon in the surrounding biosphere. But… Read more »
Thanks, Dan. Great points!
Hi Dan I would like to connect with you. You mentioned converting the CO2 into the “White Cliffs of Dover”. That is what our patented Carbon Capture Utilization System does.… Read more »
I think that advocacy of bioenergy and carbon capture and sequestration is a dangerous proposition. Large-scale deployment of BECCS (10 Gt.CO2/yr., for example), might require appropriation of 7-25% of net… Read more »
Thank you, Wil, for highlighting the important biodiversity concerns we must consider as we review climate change mitigation options. From a system perspective, carbon capture on point sources is cost-effective… Read more »
When you say that CCS on point sources is “cost-effective,” what do you mean? It’s my understanding that CCS adds a lot of cost to power production (including the 30%… Read more »
Will: You are correct about the recent state of CCS. But the next generation of solutions will use much less, energy, be much smaller, and much less expensive to own… Read more »
I have to say that I’m not nearly as sanguine as you are in terms of those cost projections, Dan. To some degree, there’s a chicken and egg sort of… Read more »
Will: One of our portfolio companies will be offering carbon capture at that price in a couple of years for industrial applications with volumes much less than than needed for… Read more »
Thanks, Dan; that gives me some hope. Keep up the good fight!
Thanks, Wil. The IPCC 5th Assessment shows that half of the models failed to limit global warming to 2 degrees Celsius without CCS. For those that could, mitigation costs rose… Read more »
Very good discussion so far. Thanks for initiating, Fatima. A few thoughts on some of the points raised so far: 1. Will injecting CO2 in oil fields and producing more… Read more »
Thank you, George. These are excellent comments. I appreciate you sharing your expertise on these issues.