The U.S. Is Racing To Revitalize Its Nuclear Industry

By Felicity Bradstock - Mar 17, 2023

• The U.S. is ramping up its investments in nuclear power to bring it back from the brink and use it to support a green transition.
• 
  
• By 2021, the U.S. had 93 nuclear reactors in operation, with a combined generation capacity of 95,492 MW and 19 sites at various stages of decommissioning.
• 
  
• Public opinion has swayed in favor of nuclear power due to its promotion as a clean energy source and last year's energy crisis, resulting in greater government funding for the energy source.

Unlike many other countries around the world, the U.S. has kept its nuclear power up and running, making it the biggest producer of nuclear power today. Nevertheless, after falling out of public favor, nuclear power was little talked about in previous decades, with many power plants going into debt and barely keeping afloat. At present, nuclear power provides around 20 percent of the electricity generated in the United States, and this is largely thanks to government grants helping power plants maintain operations. But now, as countries worldwide consider nuclear power once again, the U.S. is ramping up its investments in the low-carbon energy source in a bid to bring nuclear back from the brink and use it to support a green transition. 

The first nuclear power plant in the United States was opened in 1958, and by the end of 2021, the U.S. had 93 nuclear reactors in operation, across 55 nuclear power plants in 28 states. The combined generation capacity of these reactors totaled 95,492 MW. Many of the reactors are 40 years old or more, due to the reluctance to invest in new nuclear projects following several prolific disasters in previous decades. The last two nuclear reactors to come online were Watts Bar Unit 1 in 1996 and Watts Bar Unit 2 in 2016. In addition, several sites were closed over the last decade, with 19 sites at various stages of decommissioning by 2021. 

Despite the poor public opinion of nuclear power in past decades, it continues to contribute a significant proportion of U.S. electricity. And last year, the Department of Energy (DoE) announced a $6 billion investment to preserve America’s clean energy nuclear infrastructure. The funding comes from the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law’s Civil Nuclear Credit Programme, which identified nuclear power as America’s largest source of clean energy. The DoE highlighted that helping the country’s nuclear plants survive would support thousands of clean energy jobs, as well as prevent the release of unnecessary carbon emissions. Nuclear power is now being seen by the DoE as key to achieving President Biden’s climate pledges and supporting the country’s green transition. 

And it’s not only the government that has changed its stance on nuclear power, with recent polls showing greater public support for the energy source. A 2022 Gallup poll showed that public opinion has swayed in favor of nuclear power, with 51 percent for nuclear and 47 percent opposed. This marks a significant shift from 54 percent opposed in 2016. This change is likely largely in response to the energy crisis seen last year, which sent consumer energy bills soaring. In addition, the combination of nuclear power being promoted as a clean energy source and the length of time since the last major nuclear event has improved public perception. 

Several strides were seen in the nuclear industry in 2022, after years of stagnation. The country’s biggest nuclear plant, Diablo Canyon in California, received a $1.1 billion conditional award of credits from the DoE to extend operations. There were originally plans for the plant to be decommissioned in 2024 and 2025, but this changed after introducing the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law. Several advanced reactor firms saw progress toward deploying small modular reactors (SMRs) nationwide. And the DoE invested heavily in research and development, carrying out a study that determined that approximately 80 percent of U.S. coal power plant sites evaluated could be converted into nuclear power plants. 

And there are big plans for 2023 and beyond. In a movement away from U.S. reliance on foreign uranium, the DoE is investing in developing domestic high-assay low-enriched uranium (HALEU), with production expected to start this year. Meanwhile, at New York’s Nine Mile Point Nuclear Generating Station, we are seeing advances in combining clean energy projects with plans for the first production of clean hydrogen using low-temperature electrolysis this year. The hydrogen will be used to help cool the facility. This is one of four nuclear-powered hydrogen demonstration projects being supported by the DoE. 

As well as publicly-funded projects, several private projects are gaining traction. Bill Gates’ TerraPower and X-energy are advancing on each of their construction permit applications, expected to submit them to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) within the next year. This could support the launch of new types of nuclear technologies such as TerraPower’s Natrium reactor – a sodium-cooled fast reactor, and X-energy’s Xe-100 high-temperature gas reactor SMR plant.

But now, all eyes are on Georgia Power’s Vogtle nuclear reactor, which was launched this month. The Vogtle nuclear reactor Unit 3 started a nuclear reaction inside the reactor last week, a process called “initial criticality.” This is the process in which nuclear fission begins to split atoms and generate heat. The heat makes the water boil, and the steam created spins a turbine that’s connected to a generator, creating electricity. Unit 3 will become fully operational in May or June, according to the company. The CEO of Georgia Power, Chris Womack, stated: “This is a truly exciting time as we prepare to bring online a new nuclear unit that will serve our state with clean and emission-free energy for the next 60 to 80 years.” 

As both the U.S. government stance and public opinion shift in favour of nuclear power, we can expect to see investment in the sector increase substantially, and new operations come online. An increase in public funding for nuclear projects is helping to create momentum around research and development, supporting innovations in nuclear technology and the potential for creating non-traditional reactors. Meanwhile, private companies are responding to DoE investments by putting their money into nuclear power to support decarbonization aims and, ultimately a green transition.  

By Felicity Bradstock for Oilprice.com

Adding Up The Benefits Of Geothermal


Image credit: ORNL, U.S. Dept. of Energy

By U.S. Department of Energy

ORNL researchers have developed a free online tool for homeowners, equipment manufacturers, and installers to calculate the savings and energy efficiency of ground source heat pump systems compared to traditional heating, ventilation, and air conditioning systems.

A tool developed by Oak Ridge National Laboratory researchers gives building owners and equipment manufacturers and installers an easy way to calculate the cost savings of a heating and cooling system that utilizes geothermal energy and emits no carbon.

Ground source heat pumps, or GSHPs, operate with a heat exchanger that extracts heat from the ground in winter and serves as a heat sink in summer to provide cooling.

ORNL’s free web-based application identifies the benefits and implementation costs for GSHP installation in existing U.S. buildings. Users can modify utility prices for electricity, water and natural gas. A techno-economic analysis is provided in simple charts.

GSHP Screening Tool

A techno-economic analysis tool for ground source heat pump (GSHP) applications. It allows building owners, HVAC system designers, and installers to estimate the benefits and costs of implementing a GSHP system in various buildings at all climate zones in the Us.

“You can change building characteristics, ground properties and utility rates, and the annual return on investment is updated in real time based on these inputs,” said ORNL’s Xiaobing Liu. “This is the only tool available that can automatically simulate and predict performance of GSHP applications.”

Originally published by Oak Ridge National Laboratory

Capturing Carbon Isn’t Enough. We Need to Remove It.

Analysis
March 18, 2023

Is this British government, short of cash and political capital, nimble enough to take on the US for a leadership role in the race to net zero?

In the next fortnight, Britain plans to announce a raft of environmental policies in a big splash internally dubbed “Green Day.” So, news on much-needed planning reforms, green finance, electric vehicle manufacturing, domestic insulation, heat pumps and so on is likely.

But we got a first step this week with a spending pledge on a climate technology that many view as vital to the clean-energy transition.

Chancellor of the Exchequer Jeremy Hunt announced £20 billion ($24 billion) in funding for carbon capture, usage and storage (sometimes referred to as simply carbon capture and storage, or CCS) over 20 years. It’s a punchy investment that gives certainty where it was lacking, but something is missing.

A consensus is steadily forming that carbon dioxide removal (CDR) is an essential piece of the net-zero puzzle. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) now concedes that, due to slow action on emissions reduction, engineered carbon removal is now essential to limit warming to less than 2 degrees Celsius. In the UK, the Climate Change Committee (CCC), a government advisory body, says that 19% of the UK’s emissions abatement will come from a combination of carbon capture and removal by 2050. The UK government has already set targets to store 20-30 million tons of CO2 a year by 2050 and deploy at least 5 million tons of annual engineered greenhouse gas removals by 2030.

But CCS is not the same as CDR, and that distinction matters here.

Think of CCS as neutral emissions (or nearly neutral, as it’s not 100% efficient) – it refers to capturing carbon dioxide at the source, say a power plant or factory, and then injecting it underground. It is a proven technology, though has developed a bad reputation for its use in “enhanced oil recovery,” in which the captured CO2 is used to help to push deep or viscous oil out of wells. Not exactly good PR for a future climate technology. But there’s no doubt CCS will be helpful in the transition as an emissions reduction method, as long as it’s not used as an excuse to slow down the transition away from fossil fuels. Gas CCS is likely to play a small role in a net zero electricity grid, for example. It’ll also help reduce emissions from some hard-to-abate sectors like heavy industry.

Carbon removal, on the other hand, is about drawing down historical emissions by either utilizing nature – through reforestation, for example – or new technologies like direct air capture (DAC) and has the potential to essentially sweep up the excess CO2 we’ve pumped into the atmosphere. CDR – nature-based or otherwise – is projected to play a large role in healing our planet, but a lot of approaches are still in the early development stages and need more investment.

That’s why it’s a little disappointing that the UK’s £20 billion is only for CCS.

To be sure, many are happy to see the government finally getting behind the technology after years of lobbying. Plus, investment in CCS will benefit certain CDR methods that could share the same CO2 transport and storage infrastructure, such as DAC and bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS), as Devina Banerjee, policy and program manager at climate NGO Carbon Gap, told me.

But, as Ted Christie-Miller, head of carbon removal at the carbon market ratings firm BeZero Carbon, explained, if the UK doesn’t do something big to help foster novel carbon removal methods soon, it could lose out on an opportunity for green growth.

The US’s Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) and Bipartisan Infrastructure Act have together provided billions to support the development and deployment of carbon-removal approaches, including $3.5 billion for four DAC hubs alone. While the UK can’t compete in terms of cash, it could leverage its position as a world leader in research to nurture climate startups. Without more funding and regulatory support, UK climate innovations risk getting stuck in the so-called valley of death, a period in which a significant increase in funding is required to make the transition from academic research to commercialization. With the US offerings already tempting some startups to cross the pond, including Switzerland’s Climeworks AG, the UK could really miss out on the potential to create even more green jobs, level up its regional hubs and become an exporter of cutting-edge climate technology.

Although reducing emissions is a priority, and the government is right to put some money into developing CCS in the UK, we can’t wait to start fostering the tools of the future. Let’s hope the UK has something serious to say about supporting engineered carbon-removal methods – as well as throwing more weight behind planning reforms, renewables, heat pumps and more – later this month.

Scaling carbon removal requires a portfolio approach

BY PHILIP MOSS AND BEN RUBIN, OPINION CONTRIBUTORS 

- 03/18/23 

Steam rises from the coal-fired power plant with wind turbines nearby in Niederaussem, Germany, as the sun rises on Nov. 2, 2022. When world leaders, diplomats, campaigners and scientists descend on Sharm el-Sheikh in Egypt for talks on tackling climate change, don’t expect them to part the Red Sea or perform other miracles that would make huge steps in curbing global warming. (AP Photo/Michael Probst, File)


A preeminent climate report, co-authored by scientists from around the world and scheduled to be published next week, is expected to affirm that humans have released too many greenhouse gas emissions and that removing them is essential for a climate-safe future. A growing number of governments and corporations are responding to this climate challenge by investing in solutions that remove carbon emissions from the atmosphere. Many on the market are taking a portfolio approach, investing in a wide range of promising solutions and minimizing risk. To continue encouraging innovation and a menu of proven options, it’s imperative to keep a level playing field and avoid picking winners and losers.

The United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the author of the upcoming benchmark report, has previously found that gigatons of carbon already lodged in our atmosphere need to be scrubbed from the skies, in tandem with the crucial work of companies and governments reducing their emissions. While there is clarity on the need for massive amounts of carbon removal, the definition of removals is one that is still being grappled with.

The length of time that carbon stays locked away once it is removed from the atmosphere emerges as a key definitional question as the industry scales. Different forms of removal lock away carbon dioxide for different amounts of time — ranging from decades to hundreds of thousands of years. Projects should not be written off just because the carbon they sequester is shorter-term in duration. These approaches are more bountiful in the existing market and are generally more affordable. Shorter-term approaches also help give society a bit of breathing space as the crucial work of decarbonizing operations continues to ramp up. Locking away carbon today, even if it does not stay locked away forever, buys important time to avoid hitting climate tipping points.

But approaches that lock away carbon for shorter amounts of time are only one part of the equation. Solutions — such as geological mineralization or ocean alkalinity enhancement — can last for thousands and hundreds of thousands of years respectively, and help to ensure that the carbon removed from the atmosphere stays locked away. Approaches that address the fast and slow aspects of the carbon cycle should both be part of the solution, rather than facing the current competitive “either / or” approach that is at risk of roiling the carbon removal industry.

Taking an inclusive approach to carbon removals spurs private sector investment and leads to the scaling up of multiple solutions. In the same way that the cost of solar has decreased dramatically, carbon removal can follow a similar arc if tech-neutrality is enshrined in policies and investments. We see this with leadership like the U.S. Energy Department’s Carbon Negative Shot, which is designed to expedite innovation across multiple approaches to carbon removal. We also see it in the $100 million XPRIZE Carbon Removal competition, which encourages a diversity of carbon removal projects in the fast and slow carbon cycle.

Based on purchases of carbon removal credits today, there is evidence that many corporations already are taking a portfolio approach to support climate actions in a range of ways that remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. Doing so helps them to manage risk and ensures that as many climate solutions as possible are supported. A portfolio approach does not mean that each ton of carbon removed from the atmosphere is or should be priced the same. Longer-term storage solutions generally come with a higher price tag, with the costs of innovative approaches needing to be covered in order to continue scaling up.

Each carbon removal approach provides a unique series of benefits beyond just locking away carbon, from the local jobs that can be created to new sources or revenues for communities. While methods to remove carbon vary, there are points of commonality across all of them. At the project level, maximizing co-benefits and building community support are crucial elements of responsible deployment. For companies or governments realizing a net-zero or net-negative pledge, there is a benefit to supporting dual and reinforcing targets that provide clarity about how much carbon to limit from entering the atmosphere and how much to remove. We must break away from the status quo forestry policies of the last 30 years Texas ruling could not only harm women, but also the legitimacy of the judicial branch

In the race to reach gigaton-scale removals, the more crowded the playing field, the better. The key to success is keeping the field level so that multiple forms of carbon removal can scale to spur innovation and protect communities from the impacts of climate change.


Philip Moss is the global director of tech removals at South Pole, a company that develops and implements comprehensive emission reduction projects, and he is the chairman of the board for the NextGen CDR Facility.

Ben Rubin is the executive director of the Carbon Business Council, a tech neutral coalition with more than 80 carbon management companies.

IPC CEO urges Canada to offer more funding to build carbon capture

Mar 20, 2023

By Nia Williams

March 19 (Reuters) -International Petroleum Corp IPCO.TO, the first foreign oil company to sanction a project in Canada's oil sands in more than a decade, could add carbon capture and storage (CCS) to the plant if more government financial incentives become available, its CEO told Reuters.

Geneva-based IPC, part of Sweden's Lundin Group, sanctioned phase one of the 30,000 barrel-per-day (bpd) Blackrod thermal project in northern Alberta last month.

The company joins Canada's biggest oil producers in urging policymakers to boost public funding for the costly technology that is seen as key to cutting emissions from the carbon-intensive oil sands.

Industry says CCS projects need more government support to be financially viable, while Ottawa and the oil-rich province of Alberta are at odds over who should provide increased funding.

"There's still an opportunity - if we can have some sensible government decisions about getting serious about meeting climate targets - that if the right incentives come along, we're in a very good position to look at carbon capture down the line," CEO Mike Nicholson said in an interview in late February.

Until then, the company will pay Canada's carbon tax, set to rise to C$170 a tonne by 2030, Nicholson said.

IPC, a 50,000-bpd producer with assets in Canada, France and Malaysia, will spend $850 million developing phase one of Blackrod. First oil is expected in 2026, and IPC has regulatory approval to produce up to 80,000 bpd.

The plant is the first greenfield oil sands project to be sanctioned since Imperial Oil Ltd IMO.TO gave the go-ahead to its Aspen plant in 2018, only to shelve it indefinitely just months later.

It comes after years of tepid foreign investment in the oil sands, with international firms deterred by high upfront capital costs, crippling export pipeline congestion that hascurtailed production, and concerns about bitumen's high carbon intensity.

Nicholson said IPC's decision was underpinned by new Canadian export pipeline capacity and IPC's own strong financial position.

The petroleum industry's recent focus on paying down debt and buying back shares has also left global oil supplies extremely tight, he added.

"Our industry hasn't been invested in for more than a decade, all the recent investment has been very short-cycle," Nicholson said.

"There's still definitely a preference for shareholder returns. But that's not how you build long-term sustainable businesses."

RISING PRODUCTION, EMISSIONS

IPC's investment underlines the importance of Canada's vast bitumen deposits, the world's third-largest crude reserves, amid global concerns about energy security following Russia's invasion of Ukraine.

But Blackrod, though relatively small, also highlights how growing production risks derailing Canadian Prime Minister Trudeau's emissions-cutting goals and cementing Canada's place as a climate laggard.

Canada's oil sands produced a record 3.15 million bpd in 2022 and are forecast to hit 3.7 million bpd by 2030, according to S&P Global.

Meanwhile emissions from the oil sands have jumped 137%, or 48 megatons, between 2005 and 2021, according to the Canadian Climate Institute.

They are forecast to rise another 23 megatons by 2030 unless CCS projects take off and the federal government passes tougher climate legislation, including a controversial federal oil and gas emissions cap, the think-tank said.

Strong global crude prices mean oil sands production will likely continue to climb through existing project expansions, analysts said, even though a wave of greenfield projects like Blackrod are unlikely.

"The oil sands are long-life, low-decline assets," said Wood Mackenzie analyst Scott Norlin. "We use the term 'cash-flow generating machines'. They just print money, especially when oil is above $70."

Reporting by Nia Williams
Editing by Denny Thomas and Marguerita Choy

Carbon capture won’t fix our climate problem

By June Sekera | Opinion | March 20th 2023

According to the IPCC’s Working Group III report, carbon capture is one of the least-effective, most-expensive climate change mitigation options on Earth.

 Photo by Shutterstock

This week, oil and gas lobbyists are gearing up for a busy few days. Today, the IPCC — the UN experts on climate science — is publishing a new report on the impact of global warming and our best options to slow it down.

Expect lots of spin about carbon capture and storage (CCS): the machinery and chemicals that aim to capture CO2 as it emerges from the smokestacks of factories and power plants burning fossil fuels. Theoretically, the idea is to reduce the amount of CO2 pumped into the atmosphere and store it underground or use it elsewhere. Don’t be misled when fossil lobbyists once again push the message that UN scientists say it’s a technology we must rely on to limit climate change.

I’ve spent several years studying carbon capture and my research is cited in the IPCC Working Group III report. I can tell you that when you look at the details of the IPCC’s findings, the scientists say something quite different.

According to the IPCC’s Working Group III report, carbon capture is one of the least-effective, most-expensive climate change mitigation options on Earth. Scientists rank it close to the bottom of a long list of options, easily outstripped by more affordable solutions like wind and solar energy. And it scores fire-alarm red for cost.

Figure SPM.7: Overview of mitigation options and their estimated ranges of costs and potentials in 2030. Source: IPCC



The IPCC report notes that limiting warming to 2 C will require “rapid and deep and, in most cases, immediate” greenhouse gas emission reductions in all sectors, mainly through cuts to fossil fuel use.

The same IPCC report shows that rather than carbon “capture” or mechanical carbon “removal”, the more effective and faster way to remove billions of tons of CO2 from the atmosphere is to restore and expand the carbon sequestration capabilities of plants and soil. My latest research supports this finding. So long as biological sequestration is not connected to carbon “offset” schemes, it can be a powerful tool to address climate change.

What people are reading

The collapse of the Very Good Food Company
By Marc Fawcett-Atkinson | News | March 17th 2023

Carbon capture, on the other hand, is a placebo. It gives oil and gas companies a story to tell about acting on emissions while they keep extracting, and we keep burning, fossil fuels.


Take the case of the Boundary Dam in Saskatchewan. It captures some of the CO2 pumped out from the coal-fired power station — then pipes it directly to an oilfield where it’s injected underground to squeeze even more oil from the Earth.

Factor in emissions from burning that oil, it’s clear carbon capture doesn’t fix the fossil fuel emissions problem. Research on carbon capture processes, like that of the Boundary Dam, found they can emit three to four times as much CO2 as they inject underground.

Carbon capture is a placebo. It gives oil and gas companies a story to tell about acting on emissions while they keep extracting, and we keep burning, fossil fuels, writes June Sekera. #cdnpoli #CCUS #cdnpoli #ClimateAction #IPCC #IPCCSynthesisReport


Tellingly, the fossil fuel industry isn’t prepared to pay the price of this technology. In Canada and the U.S., CCS is enabled by massive public subsidies. In Canada, ratepayers have paid higher electricity prices triggered by the Boundary Dam carbon capture scheme. Under a proposal announced last year, Canadian taxpayers would be on the hook for a new carbon capture tax credit, despite pleas from over 400 scientists against it.

In the U.S., ExxonMobil wants to build a giant carbon capture “hub” in Texas, but says it needs government subsidies to make it feasible. Oil and gas firms are some of the world’s richest companies. If they really believe in this technology, why won’t they pay for it?

Carbon capture schemes don’t just fail as climate solutions — they harm people. Research shows that carbon capture at scale would require a network of tens of thousands of kilometres of pipelines across the country. Ask the town of Satartia, Miss., what happens when a CO2 pipeline ruptures. In 2020, people collapsed in their homes and trucks, dazed and nauseous when the fast-spreading, odourless, colourless gas displaced oxygen. Car engines died, so people couldn’t escape. Nearly 50 people were taken to hospital. As always, disasters like these hit rural communities, poor people, and people of colour first and worst.


With CCS, we are building “a taxpayer-financed sewer system for the fossil fuel industry,” says Kert Davies, director of the Climate Investigations Center. It’s time to end the era of public subsidy for CCS. It’s not taxpayers who should pay for these costly experiments, it’s the businesses profiting from pollution. You can’t reap record profits from high oil prices and then claim you don’t have the funds to deal with your emissions. Legislation should require that carbon capture at emissions sources is only ever done at the producer’s expense.

You may hear a lot of news about carbon capture this month. When you do, realize that — even with all this spin and all those subsidies — the great expectations for carbon capture have not been met.

Every dollar we spend on this dangerous and counter-productive technology is a dollar we can’t spend on real solutions to climate change — wind, solar, and energy efficiency. As climate change wrecks more of our homes, that’s a path we can’t afford to take.


June Sekera is a public policy practitioner and researcher whose work and publications are focused on the public economy and public goods production. She is a visiting scholar at the New School for Social Research, Heilbroner Center for Capitalism Studies, where she is the director of the Public Economy Project. Sekera's scientific research on carbon capture and storage (CCS) has been cited by the IPCC.

March 20th 2023

June Sekera

How Does Carbon Capture Work?

The idea of removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere to turn back the clock on climate change is an appealing one. 

Can these technologies deliver on their promise?


By Eden Weingart

The New York Times

March 19, 2023


The world has a carbon problem. To solve it will require moving away from burning carbon-emitting fuels and relying instead on cleaner energy sources like wind turbines and solar cells. But is there anything we can do about all the carbon dioxide that is already in the air, and the millions of tons being emitted every day?

For most of human history, carbon emissions were balanced out by nature, said Rebecca Benner, a deputy director of the Nature Conservancy, but now we are “producing CO2 much faster than nature can recapture it.”

Carbon capture is an umbrella term for technologies, some of them first proposed in the 1980s, that aim to take carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere or catch emissions and store them before they are released into the air.

Though carbon capture is not yet being done on a large scale, it is being pushed by companies and politicians as a key part of plans to guide the country to a carbon-neutral future. Encouraged by tax incentives included in the Inflation Reduction Act, some companies have proposed projects in the United States to capture CO2 and either use it or store it deep underground. Those proposals have been met with skepticism, though, by some environmentalists who say carbon capture could distract from efforts to reduce emissions in the first place.

What is carbon capture, exactly?

Natural ecosystems like wetlands and forests absorb carbon from the air and turn it into biomass, a part of Earth’s natural carbon cycle. So planting trees is a low-tech way to capture carbon, and one that we know works on a large scale. But with continued use of fossil fuels, the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is rising faster than natural processes alone have been able to counteract, and experts have sought ways to augment what nature can do.

Efforts to plant trees and other small-scale experiments are happening around the country. And two larger-scale methods are being developed: post-combustion capture and direct air capture.

Post-Combustion Capture

This technology captures emissions — called flue gas — from smokestacks at coal or natural gas power plants or factories that produce materials like concrete and steel. It is currently the main carbon-capture method being pursued in the United States, including projects in the Midwest that would trap emissions from ethanol plants. Industrial processes account for 24 percent of global carbon emissions.

Once the flue gas is captured, CO2 is separated from the gas’s other components and then either put to a new use or stored.

“There are different post-combustion technologies you can use,” said Howard Herzog, a research engineer at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology’s Energy Initiative. The “most mature” and commercially viable method, he said, uses chemicals called amines to “scrub” the CO2 out of the flue gas. The amines bind to CO2 at lower temperatures, and then will release it again when heated, yielding close to pure carbon dioxide.




4.

The separated CO2 is then pressurized and ready for transport or use.


2.

The gas is released through smokestacks.


5.

The amine solution is sent back to the first chamber.


1.

To isolate CO2, gas captured from a plant is put into a chamber with amine solution. The amine binds with CO2, separating it.


3.

In a second chamber, at a higher temperature, the amine releases the CO2.


Direct Air Capture

To a layman, the words “carbon capture” might suggest something like a giant air filter. A technology like that does exist, and the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, passed in 2021, includes money to finance a series of testing sites. But experts say that so far, direct air capture is too expensive and uses too much energy for the volume of carbon dioxide that it can capture.

Gas from an ethanol plant

Over 90% CO2


Gas from a cement plant

15% CO2


Air

0.04% CO2
The New York Times

Carbon capture is more efficient when it is used on sources with high concentrations of carbon dioxide, like the gas released during ethanol production, which is almost entirely CO2. Cement production releases a gas that is around 15 percent carbon dioxide. The atmosphere, by contrast, is about 0.04 percent carbon dioxide, so over one thousand tons of ordinary air would have to be processed in order to capture a single ton of CO2.

It’s been captured. Now what?

Once captured and isolated, the CO2 is pressurized into a liquid state so that it can be transported by a pipeline to a place where it can be used or stored. Two pipeline projects currently in the works would carry carbon dioxide from Midwestern ethanol plants to sites in North Dakota and Illinois.

A Different Kind of Pipeline Project Scrambles Midwest Politics
Plans that would bury carbon underground rather than release it in the air have stoked debate over climate and property rights, creating unlikely alliances and stirring memories of fierce battles over oil.
By Mitch Smith and Alyssa Schukar
March 20, 2023

There are risks: Like any pipeline, a CO2 pipeline can rupture, as one did in Mississippi in 2020, raising concerns about safety.

“We’re not just talking about pipelines in the Midwest, but a massive nationwide build-out,” said Jim Walsh, policy director for Food & Water Watch, an environmental group that opposes the Midwestern pipeline projects. “And there is no federal oversight body for CO2 pipeline projects.”

Putting carbon dioxide to use

There are commercial uses for carbon dioxide, but many of them result in the gas eventually being released back into the atmosphere. The CO2 used to carbonate beverages, for example, begins to escape the moment a soda can is cracked open, and dry ice returns to the air as it melts.

The other primary use of CO2 is in the energy industry. The gas is injected into dwindling older oil wells to try to force more crude out of the ground. Many environmentalists are skeptical of a process that uses captured carbon to obtain more fossil fuels that will release more carbon.

Oil well


CO2 injection well


CO2 pipeline


In enhanced oil recovery, CO2 is injected into an oil reservoir, creating enough pressure to push leftover oil to existing wells.


Water


CO2


Oil


The New York Times
Sequestration

The alternative to using the carbon dioxide is storing it where it cannot escape into the atmosphere. Today, this is done by injecting it deep underground.



CO2 injection well


Monitoring well


CO2 pipeline


Water aquifer


Nearby, a second well is drilled to detect leaks.


Shale layer


To store CO2 underground, it is injected at least 2,600 feet, under an impermeable layer of rock.


Porous rock


The New York Times

Only certain rock formations are suitable for storing carbon this way. The rock must be at least half a mile underground, deep enough to stay clear of ground water. It must be porous and permeable, like sandstone or limestone, so there will be space within it for the injected gas to occupy, the way water poured into a bucket of sand fills the spaces between the grains. And the formation must have a layer of dense rock, like shale, above it, so that the carbon dioxide won’t, in theory, be able to seep out to the surface.

Can these technologies make a significant difference to climate change?

Some experts and environmentalists have pushed back against efforts to develop carbon capture, saying it is at best only a partial solution, and at worst it may impede a global transition to clean energy by letting the fossil fuel industry continue doing business as usual.

“If you’re doing too little on the emissions mitigation side, then there is no point of carbon dioxide removal,” said Glen Peters, research director at the Center for International Climate Research in Norway.

A recent study found that after taking into account the energy used to capture and isolate CO2 from flue gas at a fossil fuel-burning industrial plant, the carbon capture system would reduce the plant’s net emissions by only 10 to 11 percent, not the estimated 80 to 90 percent cited by proponents.

Others say that we need to pursue multiple routes to slow climate change “There is no 100-percent solution,” Dr. Herzog of M.I.T. said. “We need a lot of 10- and 20- percent solutions, and this is one of them.”


Additional development by Leo Dominguez. Special thanks to Aatish Bhatia.

Canada to take ‘hard’ look at UN call to hit emissions targets 10 years sooner: minister

By Mia Rabson The Canadian Press
Posted March 20, 2023

IPCC releases 6th synthesis report on global climate change: ‘Humanity is on thin ice’

Canada will take a “hard long look” at a call from global climate scientists to hit its long-term greenhouse gas emissions targets 10 years earlier than planned, Environment Minister Steven Guilbeault said Monday.

But he wouldn’t promise that it’s possible.

His comments came after the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change issued a new report Monday warning the world is teetering dangerously close to missing its critical targets to keep global warming in check.

The panel’s previous reports have warned that global warming must be limited to less than 2 C, and as close to 1.5 C as possible.

READ MORE: UN warns ‘humanity is on thin ice’ in latest climate report. What does it say?

After 1.5 degrees, “the risks are starting to pile on,” said report co-author Francis X. Johnson, a climate, land and policy scientist at the Stockholm Environment Institute. The report mentions “tipping points” around that temperature of species extinction, including coral reefs, irreversible melting of ice sheets and sea level rise on the order of several metres.

The latest report published Monday said the world is getting close to its last chance to prevent the worst of climate change’s future harms.

The panel, made up of dozens of international climate scientists, said that means that by 2035, worldwide greenhouse-gas emissions need to be less than half of what they were in 2019, and that wealthy nations need to aim for net-zero emissions by 2040.

Most of them, including Canada, have targeted 2050 for their net-zero commitment, which means that emissions are reduced so much that whatever is left is captured by technology or nature.

“Humanity is on thin ice — and that ice is melting fast,” United Nations Secretary-General Antonio Guterres said. “Our world needs climate action on all fronts — everything, everywhere, all at once.”

0:52

Canadian government announces new procurement rules requiring companies to disclose emissions, set reduction targets

Guilbeault says Canada will study the report but it can’t change its targets on a whim, because a target is meaningless without a realistic plan to reach it.

“This is a new request from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change _ obviously, one that we will study very carefully in Canada,” he said.

“It’s one thing to simply say, ‘Well, you know, we want to reach this goal,’ but we have to give ourselves the means to get there. We do that now in Canada for 2050. We will obviously need to take a second hard long look at what the IPCC is proposing for 2040.”

Canada has set at least eight different emissions targets since 1988, and has failed to meet any of them to date. Its next target in 2030 hinges heavily on being able to ratchet down emissions from the oil and gas sector.

That 2030 target currently is to cut emissions so they are between 55 and 60 per cent of what they were in 2005. Based on emissions levels in 2020, meeting the 2030 goal would mean cutting about 23 million tonnes of emissions a year, on average. That’s the equivalent of taking five million passenger cars off the road every 12 months until the end of the decade.

READ MORE: Emissions cap coming for Canadian oil and gas by end of 2023: minister

Oil and gas production and transportation account for about one-quarter of Canada’s total emissions. Canada intends to cap those emissions this year and force them down at least 38 per cent by 2030. But it is getting pushback from Alberta and oilsands companies, which all say that target is not achievable.

The new UN report also says that by 2035, electricity needs to be entirely emissions-free, including no electricity from coal or natural gas.

Canada is already targeting a clean electricity grid by 2035, and the phasing out of unabated coal by 2030. Gas is still expected to play a role, but Guilbeault said that by 2035, gas plants will also have to employ carbon capture and storage technology.

“The choices and actions implemented in this decade will have impacts for thousands of years,” the report said, calling climate change “a threat to human well-being and planetary health.”

“We are not on the right track but it’s not too late,” said report co-author and water scientist Aditi Mukherji. “Our intention is really a message of hope, and not that of doomsday.”

’

2:13

CSIS warns climate change threatens national security, prosperity

The world has already warmed 1.1 C compared with pre-industrial times, and scientists stressed a sense of urgency around the 1.5 C goal.

“1.5 is a critical critical limit, particularly for small islands and mountain (communities) which depend on glaciers,” said report co-author and water scientist Aditi Mukherji, who’s also the climate change impact platform director at the research institute CGIAR.

Many scientists, including at least three co-authors, said hitting 1.5 degrees is inevitable.

“We are pretty much locked into 1.5,” said report co-author Malte Meinshausen, a climate scientist at the University of Melbourne in Australia. “There’s very little way we will be able to avoid crossing 1.5 C sometime in the 2030s.”

READ MORE: COP27: Canada has made ‘tremendous progress,’ says Guilbeault as emissions grow

But the big issue is whether the temperature keeps rising from there or stabilizes.

Scientists emphasize that the world, civilization or humanity won’t end suddenly if and when Earth passes the 1.5 degree mark. Mukherji said “it’s not as if it’s a cliff that we all fall off.”

But an earlier IPCC report detailed how the harms _ from Arctic sea ice absent summers to even nastier extreme weather _ are much worse beyond 1.5 degrees of warming.

“It is certainly prudent to be planning for a future that’s warmer than 1.5 degrees,” said IPCC report review editor Steven Rose, an economist at the Electric Power Research Institute in the United States.
ST
—With files from The Associated Press

 

Guilbeault wants stronger links with Alberta on issues of oilsands tailings ponds

The federal government says it was not made aware of waste water leaks at the Kearl oilsands in Alberta and is now inviting the Alberta Energy Regulator and Imperial Oil to Ottawa. 

Sarah Reid reports.

By Bob Weber The Canadian Press
Posted March 20, 2023 

Federal Environment Minister Steven Guilbeault has repeated his call for a stronger federal presence when it comes to environmental monitoring and communications in the oilsands, following a pair of wastewater releases from Imperial Oil’s Kearl mine in Alberta.

“The reason the federal government is proposing to change the way we do monitoring and communications on the tailings ponds is that in this instance (the current system) didn’t work,” he said Monday.

Guilbeault added Ottawa is considering recommendations from the Mikisew Cree First Nation, which include reforms to environmental monitoring, currently conducted by industry.

“We agree with them. We need a better monitoring system.”

READ MORE: Kearl oilsands leak exposes gaps in how Alberta and Canada oversee industry: experts

The first release was spotted and reported in May as discoloured water near a tailings pond. It was found to be tailings seepage but no further updates were provided to area First Nations until February, when it was disclosed to the public and federal and provincial environment ministers along with a second release of 5.3 million litres of tailings.

That’s not acceptable, Guilbeault said.

“The system we have in place is failing.”

Guilbeault repeated his plan for a new body with federal, provincial and First Nation members that would meet regularly to share information, especially on environmental emergencies like the Kearl releases.

1:59 Anger grows after Alberta oilsands leak kept from public for months

It would also discuss cleaning up tailings releases, how to keep the vast toxic ponds contained and long-term solutions for them — proposals contained in a letter Guilbeault sent last week to his provincial counterpart, Sonya Savage.

“We would find processes where everyone gets the information in a timely, transparent and accurate manner,” he said. “No one has to find out months later something has been going on.”

Guilbeault said he also wants the body to look at reform of water monitoring in the area.

“Many would feel relieved if monitoring was done in an independent manner.”

Billy-Joe Tuccaro, chief of the Mikisew Cree First Nation, said Guilbeault promised as much in a meeting.

“They promised to increase the monitoring program,” he said.

Alberta’s current $50-million, industry-funded monitoring program hasn’t had a budget increase in a decade. The program has been criticized by its own scientists for being good at collecting data but bad at doing anything with it.




Northern Alberta community not satisfied with province, Imperial Oil responses to Kearl spill

First Nation concerned about leak at Kearl oilsands site in northern Alberta

In public statements, Savage has agreed to the need to look at communication between the two levels of government as well as long-term solutions to oilsands tailings, which cover in total 300 square kilometres and hold 1.4 trillion litres of toxic tailings.

Guilbeault said Savage seems open to dialogue.

Meanwhile, Tuccaro said drinking water for the community of Fort Chipewyan, promised by Ottawa, has started to arrive. The water is being shared with all First Nations potentially affected by the spill, he said.

But Tuccaro said Ottawa has yet to approve his band’s long-standing request for a long-term community health study in the community of Fort Chipewyan.

READ MORE: Ottawa says Kearl leaks harmful to wildlife; issues order to stop seepage

“They haven’t committed to a community health study,” he said. “That’s a big one.”

Tuccaro said comments from Imperial and the provincial government that there have been no impacts to water or wildlife do not reassure his community.

“They couldn’t even tell us (the seepage) is being contained,” he said. “We want it 100 per cent contained.”

Guilbeault said officials from Imperial Oil and the Alberta Energy Regulator will be invited to appear before the House of Commons environment and sustainable development committee.

Alberta requiring oil and gas companies to pay municipal taxes before getting new licences

By Emily Mertz  Global News

Posted March 20, 2023

Global News has asked the province if there are any additional powers in place to hold companies who aren’t seeking licence transfers or licences accountable.

The Alberta government’s 2022 survey of oil and gas companies found $220 million in unpaid taxes reported by municipalities, with $130 million in tax arrears (including penalties and interest) and $90 million in cancellations.

READ MORE: Unpaid oilpatch taxes rise again despite energy industry boom, say rural Alberta municipalities

“Many of these taxes will not be recoverable outside insolvency proceedings because they are owed by companies no longer operating or because the taxes have already been written off by municipalities, or both,” the United Conservative government said in a news release Monday.

About $76 million of those unpaid taxes are owed by companies that are still operating, the province said, meaning that money is “potentially recoverable, including through repayment agreements.”

Municipalities have repayment agreements in place to help collect $48 million in unpaid taxes, the province said.

1:47Alberta government offering tool to municipalities to help collect taxes from energy firms

The ministerial order was issued under the Responsible Energy Development Act, requiring the AER to receive evidence that municipal taxes have been paid when approving licence transfers or new licences.

“While most companies pay their taxes regularly and on time, there are a few delinquent companies that owe overdue property taxes,” Energy Minister Pete Guthrie said. “That is why we’re putting in place this ministerial order – to continue building on our recent work. Our goal is to reduce unpaid taxes throughout the province.”

Under the ministerial order, companies will have to confirm that their unpaid municipal taxes across the province do not exceed the maximum threshold allowed or that they have a repayment agreement in place whenever they apply for new licences or for licence transfers because they’re seeking to sell their assets, the UCP government said.

The maximum threshold has not yet been determined. The province says it will be set after reviewing the AER’s analysis of current licensee information related to unpaid municipal taxes, and in consultation with municipal affairs and energy.

READ MORE: Alberta rural leaders on oil well cleanup plan: ‘How a fox would design a henhouse’

Unpaid municipal taxes from the Alberta oilpatch keep rising despite the industry’s boom, the province’s rural communities say.

“This is the worst ever,” said Paul McLauchlin, president of Rural Municipalities of Alberta, which released the data on March 7.

“We’ve got a serious problem.”

The group says energy companies now owe towns and villages in which they operate a total of $268 million. That’s up more than six per cent from last year and up 261 per cent since 2018, when the association began keeping track.

As well, the rate of nonpayment is increasing.

Previously, the province’s UCP government told the AER that it “may” use factors such as tax arrears in ruling on whether to allow transfers of energy assets.

Municipalities can submit statements of concern on applications for licence transfers if the companies involved have unpaid taxes. Municipalities can also attach liens to property if taxes go unpaid.

2:01Oil and gas tax changes in Alberta after rural municipality outcry

“The RMA is pleased to see the province taking action to hold oil and gas companies accountable for paying property taxes,” McLauchlin said in a news release Monday.

“Although only a small number of companies avoid their property tax payment obligations, this issue has had major fiscal impacts on rural municipalities across Alberta,” he said.

“As 41 per cent of unpaid taxes are owed by companies that are currently operating, we are optimistic that this change will have an immediate positive impact in rural Alberta.

“We look forward to working with the AER and relevant ministries to determine how our members can support the AER in enforcing this new requirement,” McLauchlin added.

READ MORE: Alberta rural municipalities say unpaid oilpatch taxes rising despite high energy prices

The province said its municipal affairs ministry and the AER will work together to create an annual list of companies whose unpaid municipal taxes exceed the threshold amount.

Companies on this list will be targeted by the AER to provide proof of tax payment.

READ MORE: Alberta to pilot oil and gas royalty breaks for legally required well cleanup

The Opposition NDP called the directive late and hypocritical.

“For years, the UCP let the issue of unpaid municipal taxes grow and ignored calls from rural municipal leaders and the Alberta NDP to use the power of the AER to withhold licences from these bad actors,” NDP municipal affairs critic Joe Ceci said in a statement.

“The government could withhold licenses to incentivize the cleanup of wells, and in fact, rural municipal leaders have been calling for this tool to be used. Instead, Danielle Smith wants to give away $20 billion of Albertans’ money to delinquent companies for something they are already obligated to do.”

1:45Pilot project plan aims to clean up inactive oil well sites in Alberta

–With files from Bob Weber, The Canadian Press