Switchboard, from NRDC › George Peridas's Blog

Obama Administration establishes Carbon Capture & Storage Task Force

2010-02-04T22:28:39Z

Yesterday, President Obama issued a memorandum directing several of his department and agency chairs to come together and works towards a Comprehensive Federal Strategy on Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS).

Under the memorandum, an Interagency Task Force is established, which is to be co-chaired by the Department of Energy (DOE) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The Task Force is given 180 days to develop “a proposed plan to overcome the barriers to the widespread, cost-effective deployment of CCS within 10 years, with a goal of bringing 5 to 10 commercial demonstration projects online by 2016”.

The Administration’s assessment of the needs around CCS is right on the mark: CCS is recognized as one of the (many) key technologies needed to curb global warming pollution, and as a technology that is ready to begin commercial deployment today if the relevant regulatory and economic barriers are addressed. Established interest groups have vigorously been pushing an agenda of perpetual research & development in the area of CCS, as part of an effort to delay its deployment and thereby argue that climate legislation is ill-advised (because, allegedly, no carbon emissions control technology for coal – the nation’s primary electricity production fuel – is commercially available yet). Thankfully, the President seems fully aware of the broad scientific consensus (by bodies such as the IPCC and MIT) and agreement among key stakeholders in the industry sector and environmental groups, that CCS technology can begin safe and effective deployment today. His goal of ensuring that commercial demonstration projects come online by 2016 is therefore worthy. In practical terms, taking into account the siting, permitting, financing and construction logistics for such plants, this means that projects need to begin development... now.

The Task Force’s remit is clearly very broad. Specifically, it is asked to:

explore incentives for commercial CCS adoption;
address any financial, economic, technological, legal, institutional, social, or other barriers to deployment;
consider how best to coordinate existing administrative authorities and programs, including those that build international collaboration on CCS; and
identify areas where additional administrative authority may be necessary.

These priorities again seem to recognize that the main barriers standing in the way of CCS deployment right now are economic and regulatory, with a view to addressing them as soon as possible.

On the incentive side, the memorandum gives the ultimate answer already: “[u]ltimately, comprehensive energy and climate legislation that puts a cap on carbon pollution will provide the largest incentive for CCS because it will create stable, long-term, market-based incentives to channel private investment in low carbon technologies”. This is something that NRDC and others have been arguing for some time now. Without a means to bridge the economic gap that CCS projects face today, deployment will remain from limited to non-existent. An economy-wide cap on emissions that sets a price signal on carbon pollution and provides additional incentives for CCS deployment in the early years is urgently needed.

In the meantime, as Congress enters the final stretch towards enacting such legislation, the Task Force has the potential to recommend and coordinate agency action on a number of remaining items that can affect CCS deployment. Such items include:

Deepening cooperation with China and other key countries where low-hanging fruit CCS opportunities exist and where the U.S. can offer expertise and funding;
Improving our knowledge on the nation’s underground CO2 storage capacity, with specific focus and on-site characterization in key basins around the country;
Clarifying who owns the subsurface pore space where the CO2 will be injected, and devising fair and equitable means that enable developers to obtain such rights while safeguarding and rewarding the owners of those rights;
Clarifying leasing procedures and safeguards for CCS under Federal lands;
Finalizing regulations by the EPA to govern injection of CO2, and both safeguard groundwater and prevent any emissions to the atmosphere from injection sites, for all leading types of storage reservoir (this involves EPA exercising both its Safe Drinking Water Act authority and its Clean Air Act authority to set siting, operational, monitoring, verification, accounting, reporting and closure requirements for all of the following: deep saline formations, gas fields and oil fields); and
Ensuring that an appropriate entity is tasked with the stewardship of geologic sequestration sites after injection ceases and the sites are closed, and is adequately funded to carry out these duties.

So the announcement of Task Force is both timely and welcome. However, a word of caution is in order. The work of the Task Force must be transparent, inclusive, and not fall hostage to special interests. Moreover, there can be a tendency for task forces like these to produce a laundry list of topics that need to be addressed. It is important for this Task Force to confine itself to what is truly necessary and prudent, and not suggest the removal of “barriers” to bad regulation and irresponsible behavior. Only then will CCS be able to earn the public’s trust.

Carbon Capture & Sequestration in China: Ripe for the Picking

2009-10-21T04:53:55Z

It's the Year of the Ox. And the Ox likes low-hanging fruit. On Friday last week NRDC released the Executive Summary of a report that examines the potential for near-term Carbon Capture & Sequestration opportunities in China. The full report will be released over the coming few weeks.

Why CCS? Why China? My colleague and co-author, Jingjing Qian, covers this and much more in her recent blog. Here, I draw on her and the report's conclusions, and examine the implications.

In short, when life deals you lemons, make lemonade. China is likely the world's largest emitter of carbon dioxide (CO2), and heavily reliant on fossil fuels. Even under the most aggressive, plausible scenarios of green and energy efficient development, fossil fuels (coal, in particular) still play far too large a role for us to breathe a sigh of relief when it comes to global warming. We need to reduce emissions from fossil fuels, and fast. CCS offers such an option.

Can CCS work in China? The answer seems to be a resounding "yes", for a number of reasons. The price tag for projects will be cheaper in China, due to lower labor, material and fuel costs. There are numerous large point sources where CO2 could be captured, in many cases cheaply (because of their high concentration). China's geology is conducive to sequestering this CO2 geologically, and could accommodate centuries worth of emissions on first examination. Transporting the CO2 from source to sink is far easier than in other parts of the world, since there is very good geographical matching between the two in many cases. The Chinese have made very encouraging moves, both in terms of developing proprietary CCS technology and in terms of pioneering projects within China's boundaries that either incorporate or lend themselves to CCS. China's policy and regulatory framework could be expanded to encompass CCS. Some, or many, of these factors cannot be found in several other parts of the world, making China a special opportunity when it comes to CCS.

Will CCS be taken up spontaneously in China, then? The answer is no. Without international involvement, China by itself is very unlikely to deploy this technology on any significant scale. The first missing component is funding. The second is technological expertise and knowledge transfer. And the third is a domestic policy and regulatory framework. Developed countries and corporations can fill these gaps.

The funding gap is relevant to the Major Economies Forum, to the global climate accord being sought in Copenhagen in December, and to a potential bilateral technology agreement between China and the U.S.. CCS is likely to be part of agreements that come out of all three forums, and has strong potential to pave the way for agreement on a broader climate deal between the two countries.

The technological know-how and expertise gap, (e.g. in areas such as reservoir engineering, CO2 pipeline construction and operation, subsurface modelling and monitoring) can be bridged most productively if Chinese and Western scientists, engineers and practicioners collaborate hands-on in the context of specific pilot projects.

The policy and regulatory gap is one that China will need to address itself, but related experiences from other countries' governments and regulators can prove invaluable. China does things its own way in the end, but its officials certainly look for ideas abroad.

Where to, from here? China's low-hanging fruit CCS opportunities are ripe for the picking. For a modest sum ($100M), the U.S. could help set up quickly 4-5 CCS pilot projects using high purity CO2 streams, spanning five years or so each, that could be pioneering on many fronts: knowledge and technology transfer and building, better geologic characterization of China's key sedimentary basins, and relationship building between the two heavyweights across the Pacific. The Major Economies Forum, and nations in Copenhagen in December, could then cement a deal that includes funding for a certain CCS capacity, arrangements for technology and knowledge transfer, as well as institutional exchange.

Next year is the Year of the Tiger - time for bold action. Lemonade, anyone?

Is the Future(Gen) here?

2009-06-12T19:30:16Z

FutureGen is alive. DOE Secretary Chu today announced an agreement with the FutureGen Alliance, the industrial consortium involved in the project, that moves the ball forward on its construction. This comes after several months of limbo, after the previous administration had decided to "restructure" the project because of escalating costs, which essentially put it in the freezer.

Sec. Chu should be commended for his prompt efforts in this area, and for finally honoring DOE's initial commitment from years ago to develop this project. The reputation of the U.S. government suffered when the project seemed destined for cancellation, with the international community questioning whether the U.S. was truly committed to advancing the deployment of Carbon Capture & Sequestration (CCS) technology. Today's announcement restores credibility in the government's efforts.

The broader question still remains, however. How big of a deal is this announcement, and what impact will it have on CCS deployment? As welcome as today's news might be, the fact remains that FutureGen still is "too much future, and too little gen", as David Hawkins had previously remarked. It is one of many projects out there, and does not hold the keys to CCS deployment.

The main reason is that the key barriers to CCS are not technological, but economic. In fact, there is a number of proposed commercial projects out there (by Hydrogen Energy, Tenaska, Summit Power and others) that are testament to the readiness of the technology, and most of which would feature a higher percentage of capture and sequestration than today's announcement suggests for FutureGen. The task at hand is not to "develop" or "prove" the technology, but to ensure that there is a market that will draw private sector investment. What CCS needs is a supportive policy framework that will place a price on carbon emissions and bridge the initial economic gap for CCS with targeted incentives.

There is a proposal in Congress that would do just that: the Waxman-Markey American Clean Energy & Security Act. Without a climate bill, CCS is at a dead end, and any DOE money spent on it will have been in vain. The House will be voting on the bill in the next few weeks. Let's hope that members will follow the lead of the Energy & Commerce committee, and make the right choice for our economy, energy security and our planet's health.

Empleos Verdes

2009-04-17T07:30:26Z

"No es fácil ser verde". La rana René ("It's not easy being green". Kermit the frog)

Seemingly, it is also hard for Foxes to be green. Shannon Bream at least seems to be having a tough time of it right now, and recently pitched a Spanish study showing that "for every green job created [in Spain], 2.2 jobs are lost", casting doubt on President Obama's green energy plans. As my colleague Pete Altman describes, even the business minded Wall Street Journal raised serious doubts about the validity of the study.

But another great irony was lost in the story, which I'd like to point out. The very policies and companies that have created green jobs in Spain have also created green jobs here in the U.S. How? It all starts with Spain's renewable electricity tariff.

Spain supports renewables through a feed-in tariff, which is considered among the most successful in Europe. From very modest beginnings, wind farms now abound in the Spanish countryside, and the country has the third largest installed capacity in the world. The market leader in wind turbines in Spain, Gamesa, fueled its growth on the back of this tariff to supply the domestic market - a classic example of business creation as a result of government policies.

Gamesa has now taken its success abroad, supplying turbines to 20 countries in total, and employing over 7,000 people in 2009. 300 or so of those are in Cambria County, PA. According to a report from the Spanish Trade Commission, Gamesa has said that it plans to bring all its wind turbine blade manufacturing activity to the company's plant in Pennsylvania by spring. Call me simplistic but, in the midst of a recession, we should be thankful for this and for the Spanish policies that drove the development of this industry.

Is it too much of a stretch to see that similar policies here in the U.S. that drive low carbon technologies, will also boost U.S. companies to create U.S. jobs? Is it not rather obvious that if the U.S. does not lead in this arena, other countries and their companies will? Why should Pennsylvania get its jobs from Spain?

Fortunately, President Obama does not suffer from the angst that plagues Kermit. We look forward to more good, stable, green jobs, and not the same old plate Breaming with Prof. Calzada's libertarian paella.

Waxman-Markey: Breaking the Deadlock on CCS

2009-04-03T08:09:38Z

The press seems to cover Carbon Capture & Storage (CCS) as a matter of routine these days - local, national and international. For someone who hasn't looked at the technology in detail, it can be hard to decipher its potential role, status and readiness. Things get even more confusing when policy debates enter the picture. Fortunately, reality is simpler.

Although it is often portrayed as a novel technology, few realize that CCS is something that has been tried before. Nature stored CO2 and other fluids in the subsurface well before we thought of it, often for millions to hundreds of millions of years (the age of oil fields). We have been operating a few CCS projects for a number of years now. Other closely related industrial activities such as natural gas storage and enhanced oil recovery have been ongoing for decades. The IPCC and MIT completed comprehensive studies that summarize the status of the technology a couple of years ago.

So where does it stand? The truth is that CCS technology is ready to begin deployment at large, commercial scale today. Why are there no commercial coal-fired power plants (the sector with the largest emissions and in most urgent need of CCS, but certainly not the only possible application) in operation today that capture and store their carbon, you might ask? Well, "it's the economy, stupid"... It makes no sense to invest in such a plant if there are no limits in carbon emissions in place or a price associated with venting your CO2 to the atmosphere. What muddies the waters sometimes is the reluctance of some in the coal and electric utility industries to phase out construction of conventional coal plants and replace them with plants that capture and sequester their emissions. They have argued, conveniently, that the technology is not proven and that, until it is, we should not cap emissions as it would mean a blow to the coal sector and the hence the economy. Other industry leaders, however, have been saying for some time now that the technology is available to reduce emissions today if the economic and legal issues are rectified. Companies like BP, Hydrogen Energy, NRG, and Tenaska have stated so clearly. They were effectively joined in January by the entirety of the U.S. Climate Action Partnership (USCAP), which included very specific recommendations to address the barriers to CCS deployment and coal plants. The bulk of those requirements have now been included in the Waxman-Markey Energy & Climate discussion draft. Let's take a closer look.

Sections 111-113 deal with the legal needs and barriers to CCS, andfill regulatory and other gaps on the logistics of permitting CCS projects. Section 111 calls for a study of legal and regulatory barriers to CCS that could be addressed by Federal agencies in the immediate term, so that these agencies can get going. Next, as you might be aware, EPA is in the midst of a Safe Drinking Water Act rulemaking right now for geologic sequestration of CO2 using underground wells for the purposes of protecting underground sources of drinking water. Section 112 directs EPA to issue a unified regulatory framework for CCS that safeguards human health and the environment, and also prevents atmospheric releases from subsurface reservoirs including hydrocarbon reservoirs. It also establishes authority for financial responsibility provisions for injection sites, for which EPA has limited authority currently. In other words, this section expands EPA's authority to fill current gaps or ambiguities. The next section, Section 113 calls for a report to be produced by an EPA-convened task force that studies legal and statutory issues relating to CCS and produces consensus recommendations if possible. DOE, with FERC's assistance, is to produce a study on CO2 pipeline needs and barriers.

Then we move on to economic and technological issues. Section 114 mirrors a bill that Rep. Boucher introduced last year (the Carbon Capture and Storage Early Deployment Act - see our testimony), and sets up a Carbon Storage Research Corporation that is tasked with the research and development of new CCS technologies, as well as a limited number of early demonstrations. The Corporation is funded through a small "wires charge" on existing fossil generation. A 10-year carbon assessment program is to be established to generate between $1-1.1bn of revenue annually and used to fund early commercial scale demonstrations of capture or storage.

Section 115, however, goes a step further and contains a funding mechanism for commercial CCS plants, which are unlikely to be economical under the lower carbon prices in the early years of a carbon cap. The section establishes a program for the broad commercial deployment of CCS-equipped power plants and certain other industrial sources. 85% of funds are reserved for power plants above 250MW that derive at least 50% of fuel input from coal and/or pet coke. 15% of funds are reserved for industrial sources emitting over 250,000 tons of CO2 per year and excludes producers of fossil-based transportation fuel. Payments are awarded according to a declining fixed feed in approach, based on tons of CO2 captured, that rewards higher payments for higher rates of capture as determined by EPA (payment rates yet to be determined but to be set based on reduced cost of compliance, capture technology, and other factors). The payment period is not yet specified, nor is the total capacity deployed. This mechanism avoids the risk involved in handing out allowances whose value would vary, thus making the incentive more bankable and predictable. If the funding levels are set right, this section would address the biggest stumbling block for CCS plants and bridge the economic gap. What about safeguarding against new conventional coal, though?

This where Section 116 comes in, which sets performance standards for new coal-fired power plants, effective from January 1st 2009 for facilities that have not received their permits. Those plants have to emit less than 1,100 pounds of CO2 per MWh if permitted after 2015, 800 pounds of CO2 per MWh or lower (if EPA so determines) if permitted after 2020. For plants permitted between 2009-2015 they will have to comply with 1,100 pounds of CO2 per MWh (just over the emissions rate of a modern natural gas plant) within 4 years if modest amounts of CCS plants are operational in the U.S. and internationally (2.5GW or 5 mn tons sequestered per year in the U.S.; or 5GW and 10mn tons sequestered globally per year, provided there are 2mn tons at least sequestered in the U.S.). This section therefore ensures that we do not continue on the dangerous path of constructing new coal plants that do not capture and sequester their emissions.

The Waxman-Markey draft therefore ensures the phase out of the most serious threat to meeting emission reduction limits - conventional coal-fired power plants - and provides a financial mechanism to move us to the next generation of plants that capture and dispose of their carbon. It also addresses outstanding legal issues and barriers. For those who claim that CCS needs another 15 years of research before it can be deployed, the race is on. The incentives will flow to those who are ready to claim them first, and our assessment is that major contracts would be signed within months of enactment.

What remains? Important details (such as the exact funding levels) need to be filled in of course. There is also work to be done on the issue of subsurface (pore) property rights to clarify ownership and dominance of estates - but states have to do that. Federal and State regulators also have to build staff and expertise on CCS, which means being appropriately funded. Overall though, the draft seems poised to finally break the deadlock in CCS and setting the stage for deployment at a scale that would make a meaningful dent in CO2 emissions. Chairmen Waxman and Markey deserve praise for their thoughtful treatment of the subject.

Now, there are a number of "FAQs" that arise around a topic like this. Each deserves a blog of its own, but let me at least provide some links and initial thoughts here.

If you are concerned about the safety of CCS, I urge you to read the IPCC and MIT reports that I mention above, as well as a series of other publications by the IEA and others. A bibliography can be found here, along with powerpoints from two public workshops that we co-hosted on the subject a few weeks ago.

If you are wondering why we need CCS when cleaner, truly sustainable solutions such as energy efficiency and renewables are available, the answer is urgency of action on climate change, the dominant role of coal in our electricity production today (close to 50% of supply) and politics. We simply cannot afford to take low carbon options off the table if we are to reduce emissions sufficiently in time to prevent dangerous climate change. Yes, other solutions are preferable to CCS, and should exploited first. NRDC has steadily advocated this, and the draft bill contains provisions that ensure the deployment of those technologies too (see David Doniger's blog).

Finally, CCS does not legitimize coal use nor does it make coal "clean". It simply disposes of its CO2 when otherwise it would have been emitted to the atmosphere. Despite millions of dollars being spent by industry outfits to perpetuate the myth of "clean" coal, we are far from it on a number of fronts: dangerous, abusive and poorly regulated mining practices, coal combustion waste management (the coal ash spill in Tennessee is still fresh in our memories) and emission of conventional pollutants like SOx and NOx and mercury from smokestacks. The toll from coal is heavy. And CO2 scrubbing is no absolution. But it is a necessity if we are to stop global warming. (For an analysis of these issues, read David Hawkins' recent Congressional testimony)

Boreal Burial

2009-02-18T09:26:56Z

As is customary, President Obama will make his first state visit to Canada this week. Prime Minister Harper will no doubt be waiting eagerly. There is a lot to talk about.

Energy security will be high on both leaders' list. To quote President Obama's predecessor, America is addicted to oil. And Canada, the gentle, friendly neighbor from the North can provide it. Lots of it. When tar sands are included in the resource base, Canada is second only to Saudi Arabia in oil wealth. Now, President Obama started his term on a stronger environmental footing than many, if not all, previous presidents, directing his agencies to pave the way towards cleaner, more fuel-efficient cars. What will he make of the Canadian tar sands, which are turned into oil in one of the most environmentally abusive and greenhouse gas intensive processes in use today?

In talking to the CBC yesterday, the president was well aware of the high carbon footprint associated with tar sands oil, and appeared committed to address it. What can be done about all the additional carbon dioxide from tar sands production and processing? The answer for tar sands proponents is to bury it underground in geologic reservoirs. A 21st century solution. Or is it? The answer is not quite that simple for the tar sands unfortunately.

First, although Carbon Capture & Sequestration (CCS) technology is available today to begin deployment today in some industrial sectors, the tar sands pose unique challenges. The reason is very eloquently summarised in a recent report written by an expert task force for the Alberta and the Federal governments:

"However, oil sands operations are very diverse (both geographically and technically) and only a small portion of the CO2 streams are currently amenable for CCS due to both the size of emissions streams and the concentrations. The problem is that lower concentration or smaller emission streams are more costly to capture because of the additional unit capital and operating costs (including energy use) associated with the capture, separation, and purification processes. The earliest oil sands opportunities are the bitumen upgrading facilities that use steam methane reforming or gasification technology and which produce higher concentration CO2 streams"

In other words, many of the golden rules of CCS are violated: there are many emission sources within a plant instead of one large one; plants are not standardized, with each utilizing slightly different technology; only one plant today uses gasification which produces a highly concentrated stream that is more amenable to capture; the diversity of locations makes investing in and building a pipeline more challenging. Is CCS then not a hope for the tar sands? It could be, and it should be a required practice to clean up existing operations - but it is not by any means an easy application of the technology or a foregone conclusion. CCS in the tar sands is more challenging than in the power sector, and we should be thinking very carefully about when, and if, it might be making a material difference to the carbon footprint of tar sands oil. Also, regardless of how much carbon could be reduced from its production, we are also still left with the downstream emissions from its combustion by cars, trucks and planes, unlike the power sector where the final electrons have been stripped of most of their carbon.

Second, production of oil from tar sands is wrought with a host of other environmental problems - greenhouse gases are only part of the worry, and CCS can barely absolve the sands' other sins. If President Obama were to take the trip to Fort McMurray as I did just over a year ago to tour the scene of the crime, he would hard pressed not to be as shocked and appalled as I was. No amount of reading can prepare you for the real thing. From deforestation, strip mining, waterway pollution and huge freshwater withdrawals to toxic air emissions, wildlife disturbance and severe disruption of indigenous communities and their environment, this tarry El Dorado can scarcely fit inside the technological cure confession box. This is not to say that technology cannot significantly improve current practices. It can, and it should, on many of these problematic fronts. But this is no slam dunk, especially when the driver for improvement is a post hotly contested by... the free market and the regulatory authorities of Alberta. It hardly fills one with confidence.

Which brings me to the third, and perhaps most important, point: it would be short sighted of the U.S. to sign off on the tar sands as environmentally acceptable by investing in technological development and improvement, either domestically only, or in cooperation with Canada. The heart of the problem with tar sands is adequate regulation, oversight and enforcement. The track record to date leaves a great deal to be desired, to put it very mildly. No matter how hard Mr. Harper tries to sell the process as modern and benign, the U.S. should be taking the lead in enforcing adequate protection measures for a treasure that does not just belong to Alberta or Canada but to the whole planet and to future generations, one of the world's last undisturbed ecosystems: the Boreal Forest. It is U.S. demand that is driving its destruction. Now it is time for the U.S. to assume responsibility for its protection too. Offloading the responsibility for good stewardship to the Canadian authorities and looking away would be a big mistake.

The answer lies not in carbon dioxide burial or other technological fixes, but in the very solutions that President Obama has prudently and repeatedly stressed for both their environmental and economic benefits. Clean energy sources and fuels. Efficient cars. The boreal forest itself is highly skilled at sequestering carbon - if only we let it be.

Connecting the Dots: U.S. CO2 Emissions

2008-12-05T12:28:58Z

Has a sunny morning in the middle of winter ever fooled you into thinking that spring has arrived? Or a brief let-up in traffic made you think that the jam was over? Do you remember back to your high school days and your science experiments, when you were plotting out data points on a graph and drawing straight lines through them? Apparently President Bush doesn't recall back that far. Instead, he prefers to deduce trends by looking at single data points, ignoring the rest of the graph...

The issue in question here? U.S. carbon dioxide emissions, the gas chiefly responsible for causing global warming. In 2006, the second warmest year on record in the U.S., emissions dropped compared to 2005 levels, causing an exultant President Bush, who until relatively recently of course did not accept that global warming was real or caused by human emissions, to claim victory. The Washington Post quoted him saying that "We are effectively confronting the important challenge of global climate change through regulations, public-private partnerships, incentives, and strong economic investment. [...] New policies at the federal, state, and local levels -- such as my initiative to reduce by 20 percent our projected use of gasoline within 10 years -- promise even more progress."

Not so fast, Mr. President. A quick look at emission trends from previous years paints a very different picture. Incoporating 2007 data from DOE-EIA's recent (Dec 2008) report on U.S. emissions, the trend looks like this:

Yes, emissions have been growing steadily for decades now in an unquestionable upward trend, with only a couple of downward blips since 1990. It seems that Mr. Bush needs to revisit his old science textbooks after his term is over and he has more free time in his hands. In fact, DOE's Energy Information Administration last year projected that carbon dioxide emissions between 2006-2030 in the U.S. will grow by 16%. The reference case for the 2009 Annual Energy Outlook is scheduled for release on Dec 17, 2008. Yet again it is expected to reaffirm the same alarming trend: without concerted policies to reduce global warming emissions, the steady climb is going to continue. The longer we wait before we take action, the harder it will be to reduce atmospheric CO2 levels to acceptable levels. The time to stop this uncontrolled experiment is now. Let's hope that the new Congress and Administration will listen to the world's scientists and act decisively.

EPA's Proposed Rule on Geologic CO2 Sequestration

2008-07-16T07:49:48Z

Today the EPA published a proposed rule on the Geological Sequestration of Carbon Dioxide. The decision to proceed with the rulemaking was made late last year, in answer to repeated calls by NRDC and other stakeholders to define appropriate regulatory requirements.

The proposed rule will not legitimize or enable sequestration as a new practice. Subsurface injection of CO2 is currently allowed through existing well classes under the Underground Injection Control Program. The EPA has repeatedly stated this, pointing to Class I, Class II or Class V wells as a way to permit projects at present. However, these well classes date back many years and were never written with geologic sequestration of CO2 in mind. It was pretty much uniformly assumed that a new rule would apply to sequestration projects in the future, begging the obvious question of what the regulatory requirements would be, what operators would have to comply with, and whether the rule would be protective enough of human health and environmental resources. The new proposed rule with its Class VI designation answers these questions by setting aside a whole new well class for sequestration, and clarifying those regulatory requirements.

As is often the case in rulemakings, the devil is in the detail and, over the 120 day comment period, stakeholders will no doubt be screening the rule diligently. No doubt, some parts will be well-crafted while some will need refining. However, several things stand out at first sight in the rule's architecture that embody sound thinking and sequestration best practice.Among those are:

Specific requirements for a comprehensive characterization before deeming a sequestration site as appropriate for injection
Monitoring requirements for tracking the behavior and location of CO2 in the subsurface, validating its confinement, or detecting unwanted behavior early to allow for corrective action
The need to compile a monitoring plan, a site care and closure plan and a remedial response plan prior to obtaining a permit
The requirement to update these plans, along with reporting parameters, the Area of Review and other quantities as monitoring and operational data becomes available
A requirement for a continuous feedback loop between monitoring and modeling, whereby one updates the other in order to optimize operations and refine simulations
A criterion for site closure that is not based on the mere passage of a set number of years, but on the finding that drinking water is not endangered and that the project meets the necessary performance standards

Some of these design elements might appear obvious or expected. Nonetheless, the fact that the proposed rule utilizes them is a significant development, and a very positive one. Next comes the task of screening the text word-for-word, and ensuring that it is both workable and protective of human health and environmental resources.

The proposed rule moves us one step closer to a regulatory framework specific to geologic CO2 sequestration. Notably, only a few days ago, Washington State finalized its own rules for geosequestration, while a number of other states are moving in this direction or considering action. Is this good news? Well, sequestration is a needed greenhouse gas reduction technology, one of the "mitigation wedges". It is not the preferred wedge, nor is it the cheapest. Improving energy efficiency and tapping our renewable energy potential should come first. But the country and the world needs all the tools we have at our disposal, and sequestration is one of those. A sound regulatory framework for sequestration will ensure that the technology results in much needed emission reductions while safeguarding human health and the environment.

The fact that the EPA and the states are writing down detailed requirements on how to regulate CO2 injection also reinforces a position that NRDC along with industry players such as BP, NRG, Rio Tinto, Tensaka and others have been arguing: that CCS is not an untested technology that needs to be "proven up" and that will be available at some point in the future, but rather one that is available to begin deployment today if the regulatory and economic gaps are addressed. This is the topic for a future blog. Suffice to say here that, those in the industry who have been arguing that CCS needs to be "proven up" and that it will be several years before it can be usable, are the same ones who have been calling for a go-slow approach on climate legislation and, strangely enough, some of the same ones who are doggedly trying to portray coal as "clean".

Mourning FutureGen(erations)

2008-01-31T20:01:52Z

Yesterday the Bush administration put an end to the long drawn FutureGen saga. Five years ago in February 2003, the President proudly announced a "10-year demonstration project to create the world's first coal-based, zero-emissions electricity and hydrogen power plant" in what he called an "important effort to meet the world's growing energy needs, while protecting the health of our people and our environment".

Doubts always existed about the future of the project. Some pointedly called it NeverGen. NRDC's David Hawkins took a lighter stance and remarked that the project was "too much future, too little gen". Having never missed an opportunity to tout the project's environmental value and credentials, the administration yesterday wrote FutureGen's sad obituary or, to use Sec. Bodman's code language, announced a "Restructured FutureGen Approach to Demonstrate Carbon Capture and Storage Technology at Multiple Clean Coal Plants". In other words, they propose to try and appropriate some of the money that would have gone to FutureGen and divide it up to many projects. Something for everybody. And, we environmentalists should be happy too, because the restructured approach will "at least double the amount of carbon dioxide sequestered compared to the concept announced in 2003". Let's all rejoice!

Or not. Did Sec. Bodman ask himself whether money spread more thinly between several projects is likely to result in a fate different to that of FutureGen? What reason do we have to believe that this will be the case? Then again, this will not be his problem for much longer. Something for the new administration to deal with. Looks like he might be taking a page out of EPA Administrator Johnson's book and his recent tactics on denying California the right to set its own standards for global warming pollution from new cars and SUVs.

For the geologists, engineers and numerous others who devoted a serious amount of their time and effort in the past few years to put together the FutureGen project, the announcement must come as a big disappointment. For the Illinois team that was recently awarded the project over Texas in a two-horse final race for selection, the news must be particularly distressing. Should we be disappointed too? FutureGen would have produced some valuable results, data and experience in operating an integrated power sector capture and sequestration project. However, there is ample reason to be upbeat after the announcement.

For many years, the Bush administration dismissed the reality and importance of climate change. When they finally conceded that point in the face of overwhelming scientific evidence, they claimed that technology would save the day, as if by magic and all by itself. FutureGen was a flagship project, and never an opportunity was missed to portray it as the gateway to a cleaner and secure energy future, the pathway to so-called "clean coal". But what yesterday's announcement said in the clearest of terms is that technology by itself in the absence of the right policy framework cannot save the day when it comes to clean energy and reducing greenhouse gas emissions. The key missing piece for the widespread deployment of low-carbon technologies is an economy-wide cap & trade system with mandatory emission reduction targets. Only under such a framework can projects like FutureGen flourish - not through scant government funding but by leveraging the vastly larger financial clout of the private sector, with reliable public funding as a complement.

The private sector is ready to build its own FutureGens if Congress changes the rules of the game. David Crane, CEO of NRG Energy, the 10th largest American power generation company, famously stated referring to the power industry that "We are carboholics. Make us stop. Congress needs to act now to change our ways. Lawmakers should regulate CO2 and other greenhouse gas emissions by introducing a federal cap-and-trade system, which would put a cap and a market price on CO2emissions. If Congress acts now, the power industry will respond. But we need to move as quickly as possible toward implementing the low-emissions ways of combusting coal that are under development or, in the case of 'coal gasification' technology, are ready for commercial deployment". In his written testimony to the Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming, U.S. House of Representatives (September 21, 2007), Robert Malone, Chairman and President, BP America stated that "Deploying CCS at scale is not as much a question of technology availability but of economic viability. CCS is available today to play a significant role in reducing greenhouse gas emissions and addressing climate change".

Pouring government money into carbon sequestration in the absence of carbon regulation is like trying to grow wine in an arid and unploughed field. Yesterday's announcement made that abundantly clear, and this is why we should take hope. In the absence of a flagship project like FutureGen, the way is clearer for getting on with what really needs to be done. The shortcomings of President Bush's approach have been highlighted yet again. Let's regulate carbon. FutureGens will sprout much faster. Then all the good work that Illinois and Texas put together will come to something. And let's do it fast or we will also be mourning the climate future generations will live in and not just FutureGen itself.

And while we are on the subject, let's not forget that coal just isn't "clean":

http://www.ilovemountains.org/

http://www.nrdc.org/globalWarming/coal/coalclimate.pdf

http://www.worc.org/issues/Coal/smcra-30.html

Even if CCS takes care of the CO2 from coal, we must also end abusive extraction practices and enforce compliance with mining laws.

Tarry, tarry night...

2008-01-15T19:48:41Z

No, not one of Vincent van Gogh's or Don McLean's version – there's a certain "s"omething missing here – the palette is black. Alberta’s Premier, Ed Stelmach, arrives in Washington this week to "enhance already strong economic ties between Alberta and the United States and to build on the success of the Alberta’s energy industry to create long term, multi-sector economic growth in the province through increased bilateral trade", together with the Alberta Enterprise Group, a "common sense public policy advocacy group" that is "focused on improving life for all Albertans". It appears that in pursuing their noble aim they forgot to consult with... most Albertans, who have repeatedly called for a slowdown of activities and stricter environmental standards for tar sands development, and who lament the high cost of living that those who do not jump on that bandwagon are faced with in the Province.

The trade mission is aimed at pitching the destruction of Alberta's Boreal North as an important element in the U.S.' energy security, and the Province as the friendly, non-fundamentalist neighbor to the north who will fill our gas tank with fuel derived through an extraction process that ironically amounts to holy war against Canada's unique natural heritage. For those of you unfamiliar with what the tar sands are and how oil makes its way to the pump from Northern Alberta, I recommend Andrew Nikiforuk's excellent article. If at the end of it you wonder whether the descriptions are somewhat far fetched, you are not the first. I reacted in the same way. Then I went to Alberta myself to witness the scene, and realized that there was not an element of exaggeration in his narrative – you can see an illustrated account of my trip here.

It is not the first time that Albertan leadership has come to Washington to strengthen ties and demonstrate, in Stelmach’s own words, how Alberta is an "excellent investment opportunity; a good place to do business". But this time the scene looks very different. On one hand, world oil prices are soaring near $100/barrel, making a once marginal practice a potentially lucrative venture. On the other hand though, the noose is tightening on those looking to make a buck out of environmental and social upheaval, and probably faster than they think. The reasons? Public awareness and legislation.

Last week, NRDC announced the launch of a new campaign urging 15 major U.S. and Canadian airlines and the Boeing Company to oppose publicly the use of jet fuel made from highly polluting sources including liquefied coal, oil shale, and tar sands. Perhaps unsurprisingly, it is not Canadians who are creating demand for tar sands oil – demand in Canada has remained more or less stable for a while. It is America’s addiction to oil that is causing Canada to become the country’s gas tank.

NRDC’s call is backed by legislation – enacted and planned – that simply makes tar sands an awfully heavy load to be carrying uphill. In wonky circles, this is known as an LCFS, or Low Carbon Fuel Standard. This is a requirement to gradually decrease the carbon footprint of transportation fuels used. Several States and Provinces have already adopted an LCFS: Ontario, British Columbia and California. Others are currently discussing proposals and will likely follow suit soon: Oregon, Washington, Colorado, Minnesota, Florida, and a coalition of nine Northeast states (NESCAUM). One of the strongest warning signs to tar sands developers came just before Christmas though, when Sen. Alexander (R-TN) offered an LCFS amendment to the Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act (S.2191) that was accepted when the bill cleared the Senate Environment & Public Works Committee. The amendment requires that "the average lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions per unit of energy of the aggregate quantity of transportation fuel produced, blended or imported by the fuel provider" be stabilized to current levels by 2011, reduced by 5% by 2015, and by 10% by 2020. Why is this bad news for tar sands oil? Because the emissions from its production are on average 3 times those of conventional oil.

The exact levels of a federal LCFS or its timing are not yet set in stone. But this year Congress legislated on CAFE standards, finally tightening them up after 32 years of inaction. Times are very different to two years ago. A carbon constrained world is already a reality, and in the next few months or years will see the signing of legislation on climate that will make this reality official in the U.S. also.

The circle of action by environmental groups, States and the Feds is completed by local opposition to pipelines and infrastructure expansions aimed at bringing tar sands oil into the U.S. for refining. In the summer of 2007, BP was forced to table expansion plans of its Whiting, IN refinery due to public uproar over pollution that would have ended up in Lake Michigan. The expansion would have been specifically to accommodate additional tar sands oil capacity. While the state EPA approved the permit, the outcry and resulting political pressure put the brakes on the project. Along the same lines, public concern is building over the proposed Enbridge pipeline extension that would send tar sands oil into central and southern Illinois.

When Mr. Stelmach tells us that he will "emphasize to political and business leaders that Alberta has the continued commitment and the capacity to be a secure, reliable, growing and environmentally responsible supplier of both food and energy to the U.S.", he seems to be overlooking both growing environmental awareness and the fast-approaching carbon control train. Those seeking to turn Canada into America’s gas tank may run out of gas sooner than they think, as Alberta’s sands seem destined for a tarry future.

One flew over the cuckoo's nest

2007-11-05T16:15:00Z

A few days ago I had the mixed fortune of visiting Canada's Fort McMurray, a small but rapidly expanding boom town at the frontier of the tar sands frenzy. I had been following the tar sands issue for a while as climbing oil prices made their development increasingly profitable, and was well aware of some of the environmental, social and economic terms in the equation. Mining, deforestation, wildlife disturbance, air pollution, water contamination and depletion, greenhouse gases, long shifts and abominable working conditions: all pretty standard terms in the environmentalist’s vocabulary, and the tar sands a textbook case. No amount of reading could have prepared me for the reality of Alberta’s tortured north. Insanity is a word far too general and widely used to capture the lengths to which humans, driven by need, hope, greed and unscrupulousness have gone to do what common wisdom has always considered impossible: squeezing blood out of stone.

We waited for our helicopter at the exposed banks of the Athabasca river as it ran at its lowest level in recent times, partly owing to the vast quantities of water withdrawn virtually for free by the sands operations. A small group of us representing environmental NGOs had flown in that morning to take part in a documentary on the tar sands. We watched a group of fishermen pull out a chunky walleye, wondering only half-jokingly whether HQ had sent a fish crew down to drive the point home that all was well and normal in front of the camera crew and the enviros… A few minutes later, as our pilot soared over one of the open-pit mining sites, our cameraman asked us to describe what we were seeing over the intercom. My confusion at that stage left me searching for intelligent comments.

On one side lay an expanse of Canada’s famed boreal forest, a scene of pristine wilderness. On the other, an industrial moonscape, a scene of devastation way beyond what articles and reports can capture. A vast expanse of dug out soil, a giant gaping wound in this once untouched corner of the world was populated not by caribou, lynx and wolves, but by herds of giant machinery – diggers, cranes and trucks with 14ft tires – that would make every aspiring Star Wars director envious. Contrasts are not new to me, I seek them out regularly in my photographs. That scene however… broke new ground, as I tried simultaneously to process two images so inherently foreign that even the sickest of imaginations would never combine.

The mother ship stood in the middle of the development area, upgrading the mere 10% of bitumen that is squeezed out of the mined tar sands. The remaining 90%, now a mining waste consisting of sand, clay, silt and water, rich in polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, naphthenic acids, heavy metals, salts and bitumen was being deposited through pipes in tailings ponds large enough that they can be seen from space. Alas, they came too late to outbid the Dead Sea for its name. A few hours earlier we had stood by the side of one of these ponds, listening to the highly toxic waste gurgling through the pipes before reaching its outlet. A couple of workers on their day shift were raising the banks of the pond in large bulldozers, minutes away from the main site and its smokestacks, where they were probably lucky enough to call one of the hundreds of identical cubicles "home". A battery chicken farm? On the contrary, probably spacious compared to the caravans and trucks in which several thousands of other workers sleep at one of the tens of camps that have sprouted up around Fort McMurray.

An electronic board close to the plant on the other side of Highway 63, Canada’s aptly named Highway of Death, read "Congratulations! Injury-free September, first time in 20 years", in a decidedly celebratory fashion. It took a whole thirty minutes before security guards came to greet us and our video cameras. A polite lady warned us that it was "dangerous to stand on the side of the highway due to heavy machinery traffic", and urged us to go. Syncrude had in fact provided the public with a more suitable observation platform with breathtaking views of its operations in the distance. A flimsy fence separated this well groomed and maintained vantage point where national, provincial and corporate banners flew proudly together in perfect harmony, from a tailings pond. Syncrude, diligent in its obligations towards the public had erected signs warning us off the fenced-off area and the toxic pond lest we be… attacked by bison. It is refreshing at least to see that black gold has not lost its black humor. Our suggested departure from the side of the highway came not a moment too soon though – for many of us the awful stench of the refinery was one of the most intrusive aspects of this surreal experience, making our eyes burn and the back of our throats accumulate gunk in a matter of minutes. This is the air that thousands of workers are forced to breathe 24/7 at these sites. The choice between that and sleeping in a truck further away would certainly not have been a tough one for me, even if it did add two hours of commuting. In any case, I hear that trucks can be outfitted with pretty good heat insulation and satellite TV these days.

What of Fort McMurray itself? Once a fur-trading town at the confluence of the Athabasca and Clearwater rivers, its character has been distinctly transformed. Its population has doubled in the last ten years, property prices have doubled during the last three years. We met Melissa Blake, the mayor, at the local Tim Hortons spending her last few hours before the morning of her hopeful reelection. She has been outspoken on the problems that such a rapid pace of development has brought to the area, unable to sway the regulators who continue to characterize the risks of tar sands development as "acceptable". Water and waste water treatment facilities have reached capacity. Millions of dollars worth of crack cocaine travels up Highway 63 every week. And yes, the roadside is indeed dotted with crosses and flower wreaths for the unfortunate ones that have fallen victim to accidents, mostly related to drug and alcohol abuse, giving the highway its morbid nickname.

Nobody I spoke to seemed happy to be there – they were there for the obvious reason that gave Fort McMoney its nickname. The "Oilcan" tavern did adorn the city center, - it’s no joke – although I did not get to enjoy one of its exotic dance shows. The "Oilsands" hotel was also aptly named. Large trucks dominated the streets, loaded with ATVs in the back for recreation, Fort McMurray style. Newfoundlanders in large numbers described how Alberta’s oil rush had attracted them, and how this move had disrupted the social fabric back home. My Ethiopian taxi driver explained that he had come there for a couple of years at most to save up for his family in Toronto – "I earn here in nine months what it takes me two years to earn over there". In the meantime he had to put up with "crackheads" in his cab, a word that was on the lips of most of the locals I spoke to. I always find conversations with taxi drivers illuminating. They spend their lives on the road, see everything, talk to everybody. Back in Calgary, a Toronto-raised Italian lamented how expensive life was getting for those who did not jump on the tar sands bandwagon, as a direct result of the rush. Renting in Calgary was already more expensive than Vancouver. An eccentric figure by the river in a downtown Calgary park had been singing:

"Calgary sucks, Calgary sucks
there’s nothing here to see
unless you work for the oil industry"

Having come back from the tar sands, I began to consider him a little less odd than I did a few days before, even though I enjoyed the city.

The tar sands workers themselves were the most candid in describing their dislike for the whole affair. The situation has been likened to Mordor, where orcs slave away feverishly underground – although the resemblance of the ones I spoke to with real people like you and me was uncanny. When Faust sold his soul to the devil, he did it in pursuit of knowledge and power. Workers are drawn to the tar sands in search of a better future, often out of need instead. In the process they forego their clean air and water, their health, their families and their happiness. Their soul too? That is not for me to answer.

Who is benefitting from this rush, then?

I don't think anyone will need any help in answering that. I saw the answer very clearly sitting in the Sawridge Inn, one of Fort McMurray’s high-end hotels. Cleanly shaven males with managerial jobs whose "Suncor" and "Syncrude" raincoats and a common employer was pretty much all they shared with their site worker counterparts. A look of comfort and confidence was on their faces, rather than the exhaustion of continuous twelve-hour shifts. For them the sands and Fort McMurray are not so much real places as numbers. Abstract projects and ventures whose human and natural dimensions have been conveniently stripped to leave a bunch of paperwork.

How unfamiliar a scenario, you might say, the environmentalist blaming Big Oil. As a matter of fact, I happen not to belong to the group of people who blame industry for everything and equate corporations with the devil. Not all corporations are the same. A large corporation itself has many different faces, and employs a host of people, ranging from the most decent and moral to the most unscrupulous. Corporations operate under rules and constraints that lead them to behavior that we are all too quick to criticize. Yet we, society collectively, devised the rules. Maximizing shareholder value, capitalism. Before we renounce those too, let’s stop for a moment and think of the many ways that all of us benefit from this system. I am not the greatest fan ideologically either, but I do feel that it is more important to strive and improve than it is to dismiss.

Who is driving the tar sands rush?

For that one, the finger should be pointed south of the friendly Canadian-American border, to you and me. Canada’s oil consumption has remained more or less stable, while the U.S. is "addicted to oil" in President Bush's words. 16% of American gas can be traced to Canada's north, and will soon amount to 25% if current trends continue. Canada is becoming America's gas tank, with dire local consequences.

Using tar sands oil amounts to a desperate search for hidden veins to feed our oil addiction. With ever rising oil prices, the slope can be slippery, with liquid coal and oil-shale in hot pursuit. Yet we seem to be overlooking the obvious fact that we can break the habit by driving more fuel-efficient vehicles and gradually substituting oil for sustainably grown biofuels. These are not solutions of the future, they are available to us today. We simply need to choose the right path.

Tar sands oil production, a process that produces three times as much CO2 as conventional oil, is a risky investment in a carbon constrained world. We are already seeing the majors with their deeper pockets and diversified portfolios displace smaller outfits. As we saw with the coal industry’s failed attempt to secure loan guarantees, direct subsidies and production mandates for turning coal into liquid transportation fuels in Congress this year, appetite for high-carbon fuels is decreasing. In the meantime, several states and provinces have either legislated or are discussing decreasing the carbon intensity of their fuels through Low Carbon Fuels Standards. Two Canadian provinces have already adopted measures similar to California: Ontario and British Columbia. In this kind of environment, tar sands developers should keep in mind that demand for their dirty fuels might be limited. One thing is certain: the expansions in pipeline and refining capacity needed to bring those fuels into the U.S. market will be bitterly contested.

We do not always connect the things we should connect, often through nobody's fault. I wish every American motorist had witnessed the images of destruction from Alberta that will now be on my mind when filling up at a gas station. The sight of a wasteland in the middle of the boreal wilderness, the sound of propane guns to scare birds away from the toxic tailings ponds, and the nauseating smell of the processing site.

There is nothing good to say about the tar sands. Their "development" is a runaway train that is already moving at breakneck speed before anyone has had the time to address the plethora of issues with which they are wrought: wildlife disturbance, air pollution, greenhouse gas emissions, water use and contamination, public health, local welfare and basic human rights, to name but a few. Albertans themselves have said it loudly and clearly numerous times in polls and consultations: they expect the environment to be protected, and development to be balanced with environmental sustainability. First Nations communities' livelihoods and health are being impacted heavily. The majority of the people of Alberta see very little, if anything, in return for the exploitation of a resource that rightfully belongs to them, a resource that is leased virtually for free by inadequate "regulators" who act as the executioners of a policy that is shamelessly paraded as progress, development and energy security in Edmonton, Ottawa and Washington alike, with disappointingly little political backlash.

A moratorium on new tar sands developments until outstanding issues are adequately addressed is the very least one could ask for. In the meantime however, for those of us south of the Canadian border, let us not look as far Alberta’s north. Both the cause and the solution lie in our hands. Let us not allow them to slip away from us – on four wheels. Tar sands oil is an unnecessary fuel: we can massively increase the efficiency of our vehicles at a fraction of the cost before we turn a wilderness area the size of Florida into a wasteland to feed our addiction.

As I was leaving the turmoil of Fort McMurray to return to San Francisco, the serenity of sunrise concealed the human endeavors and revealed the natural beauty of that part of the world. An illuminated sign inside the airport declared the pride of "one of the world’s largest oil companies", Total, to be part of the former. Yet the sign depicted the latter. The tailings ponds I had seen looked rather different.