Category Archives: Carbon Capture and Sequestration

El Paso Electric Inks Solar Deal That Is Cheaper Than Coal

By | Bio | Published: February 7, 2013

On the heels of our blog post last week, showing how competitive wind and solar power have become in recent years, is news of possibly the cheapest solar deal yet in the U.S. (that we know of publicly, at least).  Even more interesting is the fact that the deal was made between Texas-based El Paso Electric and First Solar, an Arizona-based solar manufacturer.  While it’s a little sad that a Texas-based company has to go to New Mexico to build solar, it’s at least heartening that they could partner with a U.S. company to get the project done.  First Solar has been one of the leading solar manufacturers for several years, and last year their suite of projects made them the #2 solar panel supplier in the world (up from #4.) 

Marty Howell, the City of El Paso’s Director of Economic Development and Sustainability, said that “El Paso Electric’s recent solar contract with First Solar is another example of our great partnership with El Paso Electric and how El Pasoans are working together to make our community more sustainable.”

This new 50 megawatt (MW) project in New Mexico comes in at 5.79¢/kilowatt hour (kWh), which is almost half the cost of a new “advanced” coal power plant (12-14¢/kWh), according to the Energy Information Administration.  It is helpful to note that the deal did benefit from subsidies, as detailed in an article by Renewable Energy World, including the Investment Tax Credit (ITC) – which provides renewable energy projects with a tax credit equal to roughly 30 percent of a project’s costs.  If we were to remove that credit and the benefit of local incentives, the project would come in right around the cost of a new advanced coal plant, even if the coal plant lacks carbon capture and storage technology.

Time will tell whether this deal is an exception or the new rule, but growing signs of price parity for solar power, and the continued growth of competitive wind energy, consistently point to a critical shift in our energy infrastructure.  With continued declines expected in both wind and solar prices, this First Solar project seems more likely to become the norm than not.  The only question is whether utilities and regulators are ready for such rapid growth in wind and solar power. 

In New Mexico, they certainly seem to be ready.  However, in many other states, including El Paso Electric’s home state of Texas, that’s still an open question.

Also posted in Renewable Energy, Solar, Wind | Tagged , , , | Comments closed

Do We Need Breakthroughs Or A Simple “Carbon Diet?”

By | Bio | Published: January 29, 2013

Over the weekend, The New Republic published an interview with President Obama, where he noted the following: "On climate change, it's a daunting task. But we know what releases carbon into the atmosphere, and we have tools right now that would start scaling that back, although we'd still need some big technological breakthrough."  How accurate is the call for breakthroughs and what do we really need?

First, let’s look at where we don’t need breakthroughs, but instead more deployment – energy efficiency, of course, being Exhibit A.  Creative financing, such as on-bill repayment (OBR), at scale can speed up deployment here.  Similarly, unlocking clean energy to reduce carbon emissions from the electricity sector hinges on affordability.  Wind energy is already competitive with fossil fuels, in large part because the cost of wind energy has come down around 65 percent in the last 20 years, according to the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (yes, declining natural gas prices provide new competition, but EIA projects that natural gas prices will begin to increase in 2018, and wind power purchase agreements are signed for around 20 years at a fixed price).  Residential solar is verging on the tipping point for “grid parity,” or the point at which a source of power becomes cost competitive with other sources.  Bell Labs first introduced solar cells in the 1950s.  Environment California’s Research & Policy Center recently reported that they expect solar to reach grid parity in mid-2014 to 2016 at the outset. 

Of course, progress in lowering costs and increasing efficiency comes on the heels of many smaller innovations.  For example, innovations in materials science underlie many of the most promising technology evolutions, such as the role of carbon fiber as a basic raw material for wind turbine blades or the use of Gallium Arsenide wafers to reduce manufacturing costs for solar cells.  But, nonetheless, given our country’s strength in materials science (think of our leadership with companies like Dow, Dupont and 3M), such innovations seem imminently feasible and in my mind don’t require a major “breakthrough.” 

We’ve also delivered numerous hardware and software innovations to transform our electric grid into a more resilient, smart, “green” grid.  Even carbon capture and storage, to some a high stakes technology bet, is actually just a new configuration or application of engineering equipment we have installed and used for decades, such as heat exchangers, chillers, absorbers, pumps and compressors.

Where would I wave a wand for a breakthrough?  A cheap, reliable and efficient energy storage system wouldn’t hurt, one that replaces the clunky compressed air systems or the size limitations of batteries.  But, overall, the declining cost curves for clean energy solutions, due to innovations large and small, tell us an important story:  solving the climate crises is not unaffordable or necessarily a drag on our recovering economy as many fear.  It is certainly not infeasible nor hinging on that one great technological breakthrough. 

We need non-technological breakthroughs.  Like the new head of the World Bank, Dr. Jim Kim, who in Davos described wanting to make “everything the Bank does aligned with the effort to slow down climate change.”  And it is certainly cheaper than repeating the $50 billion recovery price tags that we might face time and again as Superstorm Sandy becomes the new normal. 

Americans love the quick technical fix.  But, today we have affordable answers right in front of us, it’s the willpower we may be lacking.  So, just as most of us believe that rather than wait for a dieting breakthrough, the best answer to weight loss is reduced consumption and more exercise – we need to go on a carbon diet.  Our economic and environmental health depend on it.

Also posted in clean energy, Climate, Demand Response, Energy Efficiency, Energy Innovation Series, Innovation, On-bill repayment, Smart Grid, Solar, Washington, DC, Wind | Comments closed

First Of Its Kind Non-Profit Network On Carbon Capture And Sequestration Launched

By | Bio | Published: December 14, 2011

Last week, Environmental Defense Fund (EDF), along with eight other environmental advocacy organizations, announced the launch of the Environmental NGO Network on Carbon Capture and Sequestration (CCS) – a collaborative effort to ensure domestic and international policies and regulations allowing for CCS ensure that the highest standards are met for public safety, atmospheric and environmental protection.

Right now, CCS projects are being developed by some of the world’s biggest energy and oil companies, and international negotiations are looking to provide carbon credit opportunities for use in carbon control regulations.  The CCS Network will serve as a communications medium between EDF and other member environmental organizations as we work towards a responsible CCS industry, enabling the world’s top experts from the NGO community to contribute and share ideas. 

New CCS projects represent an opportunity for long term carbon reductions, though they must adhere to best operational and environmental standards to enable long-term success.  The CCS Network will work together to find common ground on CCS-related efforts and work toward ensuring responsible development.

For more information about the network, visit: www.engonetwork.org.

Posted in Carbon Capture and Sequestration | Tagged | Comments closed

EDF Releases Ten Recommendations For The First Offshore CCS Projects In Texas

By | Bio | Published: December 12, 2011

On December 2nd, Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) completed a 2-year long research project funded by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) to support a University of Texas (UT) project to find suitable sites to sequester carbon dioxide below ground in Texas’ offshore state waters.   The research report, which directs site selection, anticipates environmental risks and provides recommendations during project siting and development, was generated to safely and efficiently guide offshore carbon capture and geologic sequestration (CCS) projects to minimize risks to human health and the environment.

Source: Southeast Regional Carbon Sequestration Partnership Region

Given that a CCS project off the coast of Texas would likely be the first of its kind in U.S. history, the report offers valuable insight to help guide a future demonstration project which may open the door to a potentially huge CCS industry.  In 2010, the U.S. DOE evaluated the gulf coast region and found vast potential for storing CO2 in deep saline formations (underground salt-water deposits) as well as in depleted oil and gas fields throughout the area.  Similarly, in 2006 the University of Texas evaluated geologic formations across the coastal region, finding exceptional geology for engaging in CCS projects.

EDF’s recommendations, included in Section VII or the report, provide guidelines for use in site selection and development for offshore CCS projects in Texas, including:

  • Following threshold standards to avoid negative effects on human health or coastal natural resources;
  • Taking an overall precautionary approach wherever possible;
  • Performing site-specific evaluations within the full zone of potential impact, even if not required by law;
  • Choosing sites with the least potential for leakage;
  • Applying recently adopted U.S. EPA rules for groundwater protection even if not required by law;
  • Locating sites as far from shorelines and existing aquifers as feasible;
  • Reusing or collocating equipment new project footprints;
  • Selecting back-up sites where possible;
  • Developing site specific monitoring, verification, accounting, and reporting plan; and
  • Evaluating feasible mitigation measure prior to site operation.

To complete the research project, EDF energy and oceans experts performed an in-depth look into the current state of the Texas gulf coast environment and extrapolated lessons learned from operations analogous to CCS to analyze the potential for impact and recommend ways to mitigate overall risk.   EDF used examples and best management practices developed for offshore oil drilling, onshore enhanced oil recovery, acid gas and wastewater injection, and offshore CCS projects in other countries to make its suite of recommendations.

Also posted in Texas | Tagged | Comments closed

Some Bad Ideas We Can All Agree On

By | Bio | Published: April 19, 2011

Source: Bellona

EDF believes that, done right, carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) can be a safe and effective tool for reducing greenhouse gas emissions.  We also think it will be a necessary tool – especially for natural gas, which is poised to make up an increasing share of our national energy portfolio.

The environmental community doesn’t have a monolithic view of CCS, though.  Some groups are skeptical about its need.  Others have concerns about whether it can really work.  Fair enough!  We welcome debate and opportunities to learn from each other.

There are certain things, though, on which we can all agree.  More than 50 organizations recently came together to express our unanimous opposition to a couple of very bad ideas about how CCS projects should be treated – ideas that could lead to sloppy projects and put public health and the environment at risk.

The first is so-called “liability relief.”  Believe it or not, on the one-year anniversary of the Deepwater Horizon oil-spill disaster, some in the coal and utility industries continue to call for a “Get Out of Jail Free” card for CCS projects.  They are basically saying that once a CCS project is sealed up, operators shouldn’t be held responsible if carbon dioxide (CO2) starts to leak or if displace formation fluids pollute ground water.  We believe this is a set-up for dangerous short cuts in project planning and implementation.  It boggles my mind that, at the same time Congress is struggling to lift liability caps for offshore drilling, anyone would entertain the idea of taking steps that would reduce incentives to properly manage CCS projects.

The second bad idea might be even more perplexing than the first – and we’re especially disappointed that it’s coming from the good folks at the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).  Our environmental watchdogs at the agency are considering a proposal to exempt CCS projects from hazardous waste requirements under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, our nation’s landmark law that keeps us safe from the most toxic substances.  If CO2 streams at CCS projects get this exemption, it will eliminate important protections for clean-ups and remediation and for public participation.

EDF is helping lead the charge against these bad ideas – meeting with members of Congress and agency officials, sounding the alarm with the media, and working with other environmental groups to present a united front.  For more details, read our letter to the Administration, and stay tuned to the Energy Exchange.

Also posted in Washington, DC | Comments closed

Let The Science Do The Talking At Weyburn

By | Published: January 21, 2011

By: Tim O'Connor

Canadian academics, government officials and petroleum industry insiders have undoubtedly had their hands full these past two weeks. 

On January 11, EcoJustice, a Canadian non-profit organization broke a story that Canada’s most prominent carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) project in Weyburn, Saskatchewan had been leaking CO2 for several years, expressing concern that no one in Canada was doing anything about it.   

The press release, citing a recently published site assessment performed by Petro-Find, referenced measurements of high CO2 concentrations in the air and soil, nearby animal carcasses, visible oil sheens, algae growth and foaming gravel pits as indications that something was drastically wrong with the project that has been injecting CO2 1,500 meters below the surface for the past 11 years.  

If these observations reflect leaking CO2, the Petro-Find report would call into question one of the world’s best examples of a successful CCS project (more than 13 million tons sequestered up to this point), dealing a major setback to a technology that many consider a critical tool for fighting climate change.

To understand the issues raised by the report, the Canadian research institution Petroleum Technology Research Centre (PTRC), a group comprised of Canadian CCS experts from academia, government and industry, released its own report on January 19, questioning the methods and findings of the Petro-Find study. 

Where Petro-Find had concluded that high CO2 concentrations were from the CCS project, PTRC noted that natural soil biological processes were likely responsible for the observed patterns.  Where Petro-Find said it was practically irrefutable that Weyburn was leaking, PTRC found problems with the analysis and suggested that the conclusions were flawed, questionable at best, with little evidence that anything was happening.

So, what’s the truth?  Is this a case of whistle blowing, exposing problems with decades of international scientific research corroborated by the International Energy Agency, or is it, in the words of one skeptic, a hoax involving a dead cat?  Well, the truth has to be based on where good science leads us, and something that both CCS supporters and opponents need to focus on: the science, not the rhetoric.

In the rush to find the silver bullet to solve climate change, there will be some good ideas that work, and there will be some ideas that remind us of the early reports of cold fusion from the 1990s.  While we aggressively work on real solutions, it is important to remain outcome neutral and let the science do the talking.  If the science shows that the solution works, great.  If the science shows that we have a busted hand, let’s ask the hard questions and be open to exploring other ideas.

CCS is a solution that has been corroborated several times by science.  Yet science tells us that you can’t just dig a hole, stick a pipe in and expect it to work.  The trick is following the correct procedures, choosing an appropriate location and performing rigorous monitoring to make sure everything is going according to plan.  Weyburn, by all reports, seems to have been doing things right for years. 

Of course, the reports of oil sheens on surface ponds and bubbling soil pits near Weyburn are concerning– especially if people or animals have been affected.  The Canadian research institution IPAC-CO2 is said to be looking into the Weyburn situation and doing more scientific measurements at the site. This sounds like the right way to go to me.

Posted in Carbon Capture and Sequestration | Comments closed

New Carbon Sequestration Critique Disputed by Scientific Community

By | Bio | Published: April 30, 2010

By Tim O’Connor, Attorney / Climate Policy Analyst

A recent issue of the UK Guardian has brought to the forefront the findings of paper published in the Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering.[1] This paper, purporting to call into question the ability of carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) technology to serve as a solution for greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) is making waves in the scientific and climate change policy communities. Titled “Sequestering carbon dioxide in a closed underground volume,” the article suggests CCS is not a viable solution to the current problem of these emissions from fossil fuel power plants, an assertion flying in the face of accepted wisdom on the subject to date.[2]

Published by perhaps the only Texas-based husband and wife team specializing in petroleum and chemical engineering, Christine Ehlig-Economides and Michael Economides, the journal article has resulted in a significant amount of consternation[3] in the scientific community and an unfortunate level of attention by news outlets looking for a reason (scientifically supportable or otherwise) to undermine CCS as a bridge technology for greenhouse gas mitigation.[4] Read More »

Posted in Carbon Capture and Sequestration | Comments closed

Tenaska Coal Plant to Usher in New Era of Carbon Capture and Storage, Water Conservation

By | Bio | Published: April 19, 2010

You've heard us say before that we are not champions of coal, but we are realists.

Realists can also be idealists. We still want the same things – cleaner air and water, and clean, sustainable energy – and yet we know that the transition away from fossil fuels as a major energy source will take some time and require interim collaborative solutions.

We seek solutions that will work until the day comes that all energy is clean and non-polluting. So it is, that today we agreed not to oppose the Tenaska power plant in Sweetwater, Texas.  Read More »

Also posted in Coal, Texas | Comments closed

Recommendations for New CCS Task Force

By | Bio | Published: February 3, 2010

Scott Anderson, EDF Senior Policy Advisor

EDF welcomed today's announcement by President Obama establishing an Interagency Task Force on Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS).

In the next six months, the Task Force is charged with proposing a 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."

"By 2016?" a reporter asked me. "Is that doable?" I responded yes, absolutely. CCS as a technical matter is ready for deployment now. Read More »

Also posted in Climate, Coal, Washington, DC | Comments closed