Search

Abstract: This paper explores the mismatch between the widely held public policy view of the long-term risk profile for carbon dioxide (CO2) storage with the emerging science and engineering of CO2 storage. We review the key issues of fit, interplay, and scalability associated with a trust fund funded by a hypothetical $ 1/ton CO2 tipping fee for each ton of CO2 stored in the United States under WRE450 and WRE550 climate policies. Left to grow unchecked, this hypothetical tipping fee fund would accumulate hundreds of billions to trillions of dollars before it would be expected to pay out claims caused by potential damage arising from CO2 storage. The authors conclude there is no intrinsic value in creating a trust fund predicated solely on collecting a tipping fee. Rather than mitigating the financial consequences of long-term CCS risks, this analysis suggests a blanket $ 1/ton CO2 tipping fee may increase the probability and frequency of long-term risk by eliminating financial incentives for sound operating behavior and site selection criteria–contribute to moral hazard. At a minimum, effective use of a trust fund requires: (1) strong oversight regarding site selection and fund management, and (2) a clear process by which the fund is periodically valued and funds collected are mapped to the risk profile of the pool of covered CCS sites. Without appropriate checks and balances, there is no a priori reason to believe that the amount of funds held in trust will map to the actual amount of funds needed to address long-term care expenses and delimited compensatory damages. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Abstract: Plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEVs) have the potential to be an economic means of reducing direct (or tailpipe) carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from the transportation sector. However, without a climate policy that places a limit on CO2 emissions from the electric generation sector, the net impact of widespread deployment of PHEVs on overall US CO2 emissions is not as clear. A comprehensive analysis must consider jointly the transportation and electricity sectors, along with feedbacks to the rest of the energy system. In this paper, we use the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory MiniCAM model to perform an integrated economic analysis of the penetration of PHEVs and the resulting impact on total US CO2 emissions. Under the assumptions used in this analysis where PHEVs obtain 50–60% of the market for passenger and light-duty trucks, the ability to deploy PHEVs under the two climate policies modeled here results in 6000–7300 Mt CO2 of additional cost -effective emissions reductions from the US economy over the period 2005–2050. The additional demand for geologic CO2 storage created by the introduction of the PHEVs is approximately equal to the cumulative geologic CO2 storage demanded by two to three large 1000 MW IGCC+CCS power plants over a 50 -year period. The introduction of PHEVs into the US transportation sector, coupled with climate policies such as those examined here, can also reduce US demand for oil by 20–30% by 2050 compared to today’s levels. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Abstract: This paper provides a preliminary assessment of the potential impact that future demand for groundwater might have on the commercial deployment of carbon dioxide capture and storage (CCS) technologies within the United States. A number of regions within the U.S. have populations, agriculture and industries that are particularly dependent upon groundwater. Moreover, some key freshwater aquifers are already over-utilized or depleted, and others are likely to be moving toward depletion as demand grows. The need to meet future water demands may lead some parts of the nation to consider supplementing existing supplies with lower quality groundwater resources, including brackish waters that are currently not considered sources of drinking water but which could provide supplemental water via desalination. In some areas, these same deep saline-filled geologic formations also represent possible candidate carbon dioxide (CO2) storage reservoirs. The analysis presented here suggests that future constraints on CCS deployment–due to potential needs to supplement conventional water supplies by desalinating deeper and more brackish waters–are likely to be necessary only in limited regions across the country, particularly in areas that are already experiencing water stress. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Abstract: Interest is growing regarding the potential size of a future U.S.-dedicated carbon dioxide (CO2) pipeline infrastructure if carbon dioxide capture and storage (CCS) technologies are commercially deployed on a large scale within the United States. This paper assesses the potential scale of the CO2 pipeline system needed under two hypothetical climate policies (WRE450 and WRE550 stabilization scenarios); a comparison is then made to the extant U.S. pipeline infrastructures used to deliver CO2 for enhanced oil recovery and to move natural gas and liquid hydrocarbons from areas of production and importation to markets. The analysis reveals that between 11,000 and 23,000 additional miles of dedicated CO2 pipeline might be needed in the United States before 2050 across these two cases. While either case represents a significant increase over the 3900 miles that comprise the existing national CO2 pipeline infrastructure, it is important to realize that the demand for additional CO2 pipeline capacity will unfold relatively slowly and in a geographically dispersed manner as new dedicated CCS-enabled power plants and industrial facilities are brought online. During the period 2010–2030, this analysis indicates growth in the CO2 pipeline system on the order of a few hundred to less than 1000 miles per year. By comparison, during the period 1950–2000, the U.S. natural gas pipeline distribution system grew at rates that far exceed these growth projections for a future CO2 pipeline network in the U.S. This analysis indicates that the need to increase the size of the existing dedicated CO2 pipeline system should not be seen as a major obstacle for the commercial deployment of CCS technologies in the United States. While there could be issues associated with siting specific segments of a larger national CO2 pipeline infrastructure, the sheer scale of the required infrastructure should not be seen as representing a significant impediment to U.S. deployment of CCS technologies. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]