Search

This paper is written in response to the paper "How green is blue hydrogen?" by R. W. Howarth and M. Z. Jacobson. It aims at highlighting and discussing the method and assumptions of that paper, and thereby providing a more balanced perspective on blue hydrogen, which is in line with current best available practices and future plant specifications aiming at low CO2 emissions. More specifically, in this paper, we show that: (i) the simplified method that Howarth and Jacobson used to compute the energy balance of blue hydrogen plants leads to significant overestimation of CO2 emissions and natural gas (NG) consumption and (ii) the assumed methane leakage rate is at the high end of the estimated emissions from current NG production in the United States and cannot be considered representative of all‐NG and blue hydrogen value chains globally. By starting from the detailed and rigorously calculated mass and energy balances of two blue hydrogen plants in the literature, we show the impact that methane leakage rate has on the equivalent CO2 emissions of blue hydrogen. On the basis of our analysis, we show that it is possible for blue hydrogen to have significantly lower equivalent CO2 emissions than the direct use of NG, provided that hydrogen production processes and CO2 capture technologies are implemented that ensure a high CO2 capture rate, preferably above 90%, and a low‐emission NG supply chain. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Many studies anticipate that carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) will be essential to decarbonizing the U.S. economy. However, prior work has not estimated the time required to develop, approve, and implement a geologic sequestration site in the United States. We generate such an estimate by identifying six clearance points that must be passed before a sequestration site can become operational. For each clearance point (CP), we elicit expert judgments of the time required in the form of probability distributions and then use stochastic simulation to combine and sum the results. We find that, on average, there is a 90% chance that the time required lies between 5.5 and 9.6 y, with an upper bound of 12 y. Even using the most optimistic expert judgements, the lower bound on time is 2.7 y, and the upper bound is 8.3 y. Using the most pessimistic judgements, the lower bound is 3.5 y and the upper bound is 19.2 y. These estimates suggest that strategies must be found to safely accelerate the process. We conclude the paper by discussing seven potential strategies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

To mitigate the dangerous impacts of climate change, anthropogenic CO2 emissions must be reduced drastically. In this context, carbon dioxide capture and storage (CCS) has been increasingly considered as an option. As a part of the energy and climate change package, the EU has for the first time provided a comprehensive legal framework for the regulation of CCS at the national level. CCS can also be implemented under the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) of the Kyoto Protocol, which allows industrial countries to fulfil part of their emission reduction targets in developing countries. This paper explores this option, illustrating how elements of the legal framework proposed for CDM projects in the EU could be utilised, assuming CCS is approved for the CDM. Demonstration of large-scale feasibility and long-term security of storage is still lacking, however. The German Advisory Council on Environment therefore calls for a new law addressing research instead of comprehensive regulation of commercial use under the CCS directive of the EU. To nonetheless provide developing countries with access to CCS technology, promotion as part of technology transfer agreements is a possible alternative. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Extracted water—water brought to the surface of the ground during carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) projects to create additional room for carbon dioxide injection—exists in a murky legal environment. As part of a broader attempt to identify the complex interactions between water resource policies and CCS, an analysis was undertaken at both the state and the federal level to scope the policy environments surrounding extracted water policies and laws. Six states (California, Illinois, Mississippi, Montana, North Dakota, and Texas) were chosen for this analysis because either active CCS work is currently underway, or the potential exists for future work. Although regulation of extracted waters could potentially occur at many points along the CCS life cycle, this paper focuses on regulation that may apply when the water is withdrawn—that is, accessed and removed from the saline aquifer—and when it is re-injected in a close but unconnected aquifer. It was found that no regulations exist for this source specifically. In addition, greater input is needed from regulators and policy makers in terms of defining this resource. In particular, regulation of extracted waters (and CCS activities broadly) often overlaps with the management of fluids produced during oil and gas development. Many regulations would apply to extracted waters if they were classified as such. Therefore, correct categorization is key as the industry in this space continues to grow. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: Geologic carbon dioxide (CO2) storage verification tests by the U.S. Department of Energy’s (DOE’s) seven Regional Carbon Sequestration Partnerships (RCSPs) provided the experience base for the Public Outreach and Education for Carbon Storage Projects, a best practices manual, published in December 2009. This paper summarizes these outreach best practices; discusses their application in Aquistore, a greenfield CO2 storage project under way in western Canada; and reviews the implications for applying the best practices to new projects during the Development Phase of the DOE’s RCSP Program. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Abstract: This paper provides a financial analysis for new supercritical pulverized coal plants with carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) that compares the effects of two relevant climate policies. First, an updated cost estimate is presented for new supercritical pulverized coal plants, both with and without CCS. The capital cost escalation of recent years can be attributed to rising materials, plant supply, and plant contractor constraints. This estimate is then compared with recent estimates from public sources. Second, several current and proposed public policies relevant to CCS are presented. Finally, a financial analysis is performed to evaluate the effectiveness of two likely US carbon regulations on deploying Nth-plant CCS technology. The major conclusion is that the leading US carbon cap-and-trade bills will likely not be sufficient to deploy CCS technology in a manner consistent with a 550 ppm CO2 stabilization scenario. A more aggressive carbon policy including CCS research, development, and demonstration must be considered to achieve this goal with significant CCS deployment. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Abstract: Three of the U.S. Department of Energy’s (DOE’s) Regional Carbon Sequestration Partnerships analyzed community perspectives on carbon capture and storage (CCS) through focus groups and interviews in five communities. These perspectives were analyzed in the context of each community’s history and its social and economic characteristics. The results were considered for their insights into specific concerns within each region, as well as to assess inter-region commonalities. In all cases, factors such as past experience with government, existing low socioeconomic status, desire for compensation, and/or perceived benefit to the community were of greater concern than the concern about the risks of the technology itself. This paper discusses the findings from the joint review of the focus groups and the potential lessons for application to CCS deployment. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Abstract: As a technology that may involve new risks, large-scale infrastructure, and significant government involvement, carbon capture and storage (CCS) faces a wide variety of deployment challenges. Because energy policy in the U.S. is negotiated at the state level, it is important to evaluate what might influence CCS related decisions in the U.S. at that level. This paper presents a detailed analysis of how deployment discussions and decisions regarding CCS are negotiated within Texas, Minnesota, and Massachusetts. These states were chosen based upon their current involvement in CCS research (high, medium, low), potential for deploying CCS (direct, indirect, or absent), and regulation (restructured, regulated). We explore nuances within the policy debates and public discourse surrounding CCS in these three states through the use of legislative and policy analysis, interviews with stakeholders, and media analysis. Using information generated from legislative dockets and state-level newspaper coverage we construct a template of CCS discussions, framing, and policy creation within each study state. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]