• Projects to Capture Carbon Emissions Get New Boost Despite Dismal Recor

    From David P.@21:1/5 to All on Sat Feb 12 10:59:15 2022
    Projects to Capture Carbon Emissions Get New Boost Despite Dismal Record
    By Jennifer Hiller and Collin Eaton, Feb. 7, 2022, WSJ

    Petra Nova, once billed as the largest U.S. project to capture
    carbon-dioxide emissions from a coal-fired power plant, opened
    to considerable publicity in Texas in late 2016.

    Less than 4 years later, owner NRG Energy Inc. shut down the
    carbon-capture system, which cost $1 billion—not because the
    technology wasn’t working but because the expected end use for
    the carbon was no longer economically viable. The coal plant
    continues to generate electricity and emit carbon.

    Carbon-capture projects are attracting renewed attention from
    investors and governments world-wide as concerns mount about the greenhouse-gas emissions linked to climate change. But the
    initiatives have a dismal record.

    More than 80% of proposed commercial carbon-capture efforts
    around the world have failed, primarily because the technology
    didn’t work as expected or the projects proved too expensive to
    operate, according to a 2020 study by researchers at Canada’s
    Carleton University, UC San Diego and other institutions.

    The U.S. has spent $1.1 billion on carbon-capture demo projects
    since 2009, with uneven results, according to a December report
    from the Government Accountability Office. None of the 8 coal
    projects selected for $684 million of the funding during that
    time is operating, the researchers found. Projects to capture
    carbon from heavy industries met with some success.

    While some early projects have demonstrated that it's technolog-
    ically possible to collect carbon from power plants and industrial
    sites—or even directly out of the air—they have generally been
    very expensive. Many face a fundamental problem: there is no
    economic use for the carbon they capture.

    Currently, the only large-scale use for captured carbon is for
    pushing more oil and gas out of declining reservoirs, which in
    turn leads to additional emissions when the fossil fuels are
    burned for energy. In the U.S., there is no federal requirement
    that companies capture carbon emissions, or carbon taxes or other
    fees aimed at discouraging them from releasing the greenhouse gases
    into the atmosphere.

    As a result, most carbon-capture initiatives don’t save companies
    money or generate profits, and they represent an added business
    expense. Still, some companies are pursuing the projects to reduce
    their carbon footprint under pressure from investors and activists
    concerned about climate change.

    A fresh round of U.S. carbon-capture projects is in the works,
    bolstered by around $12.1 billion in funding in the $1 trillion
    infrastructure bill signed into law last year by President Biden.
    Oil, power, chemicals and biofuels companies are kicking off a wave
    of new proposed carbon-capture investments, including carbon-transport pipelines in Iowa, a coal-power plant in North Dakota and a hydrogen
    plant in Louisiana.

    Large fossil-fuel companies including Exxon Mobil Corp. & Occidental
    Petroleum Corp. are touting carbon capture as a part of their future
    plans to reduce emissions—and lobbying Congress to increase a tax
    credit to make the projects more economically sustainable.

    Many companies and climate activists say govts need to nurture
    innovative technologies to capture emissions that would otherwise
    be hard to cut. Accelerating such projects, they argue, is the only
    realistic way to reach the targets of the international Paris
    agreement, which seeks to keep rising temperatures to well below
    2 degrees Celsius from preindustrial levels to avoid the worst
    impacts of climate change.

    “To meet the goals of the Paris climate accords, there’s no way we
    can do it without direct-air capture,” Occidental Chief Executive
    Vicki Hollub said in an interview. The company, which uses carbon to
    extract oil, plans to build facilities to capture it straight from the
    air, but considers the potential tax-credit expansion vital to its efforts.

    Exxon is proposing a project with other companies in Houston to capture
    and bury the carbon from an array of industries. But it would be
    difficult to launch at its proposed size without policy changes such
    as a larger tax credit, said Erik Oswald, a vice president at Exxon.

    Congress is considering boosting the credit for collecting carbon
    emissions from smokestacks by 70% to $85 for a metric ton if the
    carbon is stashed in saline geologic formations, or $60 if it is sent
    down oil wells. Direct air projects would get $180 for a metric ton
    if the carbon is stored, or $130 for oil.

    Less generous tax credits have been on the books since 2008 but
    have failed to create a real carbon-capture industry. “There’s been
    little material impact on the deployment of carbon capture & storage,”
    said Scott Anderson, senior director of energy at the Environmental
    Defense Fund, a U.S.-based advocacy group.

    The infrastructure bill included funding for pipelines and storage
    to help build a missing puzzle piece: a spider’s web of infrastructure
    that could gather and ship carbon from multiple sites.

    “That’s a massive step forward for carbon capture and carbon storage,” said Cindy Crane, CEO of Enchant Energy Corp., which plans to retrofit
    a coal-fired power plant in New Mexico with carbon-capture equipment
    for around $1.3 billion. The project would also require up to roughly
    $390 million in plant improvements, a pipeline and storage field.

    Globally, industries will have to raise carbon-capture capacity by a
    factor of 50 to 100 times over what is in the development pipeline to
    achieve what the International Energy Agency estimates is needed to
    reach “net-zero” carbon emissions by 2070, said John Bradford, professor of geophysics and vice president for global initiatives at the Colorado
    School of Mines.

    Building those projects—and keeping them running—can be costly. Petra
    Nova was a joint venture of NRG and JX Nippon Oil & Gas Exploration
    Corp. that captured some emissions from a coal plant near Houston and
    piped them about 80 miles to an oil field, where they were used to push
    more crude out of the ground. The government awarded the project around
    $195 million in a proof-of-concept grant.

    Petra Nova closed in 2020 after the pandemic reduced demand for fuel
    and led to a collapse in oil prices, which made the oil that the
    captured carbon was helping produce less economically viable. It remains
    in mothball status, though NRG said it proved the technology could work
    on a coal-fired plant.

    “We continue to explore options to improve the economics,” said NRG spokesman Chris Rimel.

    In Mississippi, a carbon-capture initiative by utility Southern Co.
    has turned into a white elephant. The project known as Kemper aimed to
    use locally mined lignite coal to fuel a power plant, and capture the resulting carbon emissions, which were then to be sent to oil fields
    to prime crude production. The Energy Dept invested $387 million.

    Forecast to cost $3 billion in 2010, Kemper’s costs spiraled above
    $7 billion. Once constructed, the coal-gasification technology never
    quite worked as intended, and Southern abandoned its initial plans,
    burning natural gas in the power plant instead.

    The company imploded coal and carbon-capture equipment that couldn’t
    be dismantled for resale last October. Coal conveyors from Kemper are
    now available for sale online.

    “It was the end of a long, bad experiment,” said Mississippi Public Service Commissioner Brandon Presley, a Kemper critic. Presley said
    he favors innovation but believes government and business should bear
    the risk instead of utility ratepayers.

    Presley and other regulators didn’t allow Southern to pass Kemper’s
    full cost on to customers. The company, which had to assume some
    $6 billion on the project’s cost, is paying for demolition of the carbon-capture part, estimated at $10 million to $20 million annually
    through 2025, said a spokesman for Mississippi Power, the utility arm
    behind the project.

    The federal govt is now funding a $24 million feasibility study that
    includes the same plant—this time for capturing and storing carbon
    emissions from natural gas.

    https://www.wsj.com/articles/climate-change-concerns-revive-interest-in-carbon-capture-despite-checkered-history-11644235380

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Vincent@21:1/5 to All on Wed Feb 16 16:20:16 2022
    On 2/12/2022 12:59 PM, David P. wrote:



    Scientists has developed a method of making edible steak out of Carbon emissions with the aid of certain microbes/etc. Probably not cheap.


    Projects to Capture Carbon Emissions Get New Boost Despite Dismal Record
    By Jennifer Hiller and Collin Eaton, Feb. 7, 2022, WSJ

    Petra Nova, once billed as the largest U.S. project to capture
    carbon-dioxide emissions from a coal-fired power plant, opened
    to considerable publicity in Texas in late 2016.

    Less than 4 years later, owner NRG Energy Inc. shut down the
    carbon-capture system, which cost $1 billion—not because the
    technology wasn’t working but because the expected end use for
    the carbon was no longer economically viable. The coal plant
    continues to generate electricity and emit carbon.

    Carbon-capture projects are attracting renewed attention from
    investors and governments world-wide as concerns mount about the greenhouse-gas emissions linked to climate change. But the
    initiatives have a dismal record.

    More than 80% of proposed commercial carbon-capture efforts
    around the world have failed, primarily because the technology
    didn’t work as expected or the projects proved too expensive to
    operate, according to a 2020 study by researchers at Canada’s
    Carleton University, UC San Diego and other institutions.

    The U.S. has spent $1.1 billion on carbon-capture demo projects
    since 2009, with uneven results, according to a December report
    from the Government Accountability Office. None of the 8 coal
    projects selected for $684 million of the funding during that
    time is operating, the researchers found. Projects to capture
    carbon from heavy industries met with some success.

    While some early projects have demonstrated that it's technolog-
    ically possible to collect carbon from power plants and industrial
    sites—or even directly out of the air—they have generally been
    very expensive. Many face a fundamental problem: there is no
    economic use for the carbon they capture.

    Currently, the only large-scale use for captured carbon is for
    pushing more oil and gas out of declining reservoirs, which in
    turn leads to additional emissions when the fossil fuels are
    burned for energy. In the U.S., there is no federal requirement
    that companies capture carbon emissions, or carbon taxes or other
    fees aimed at discouraging them from releasing the greenhouse gases
    into the atmosphere.

    As a result, most carbon-capture initiatives don’t save companies
    money or generate profits, and they represent an added business
    expense. Still, some companies are pursuing the projects to reduce
    their carbon footprint under pressure from investors and activists
    concerned about climate change.

    A fresh round of U.S. carbon-capture projects is in the works,
    bolstered by around $12.1 billion in funding in the $1 trillion infrastructure bill signed into law last year by President Biden.
    Oil, power, chemicals and biofuels companies are kicking off a wave
    of new proposed carbon-capture investments, including carbon-transport pipelines in Iowa, a coal-power plant in North Dakota and a hydrogen
    plant in Louisiana.

    Large fossil-fuel companies including Exxon Mobil Corp. & Occidental Petroleum Corp. are touting carbon capture as a part of their future
    plans to reduce emissions—and lobbying Congress to increase a tax
    credit to make the projects more economically sustainable.

    Many companies and climate activists say govts need to nurture
    innovative technologies to capture emissions that would otherwise
    be hard to cut. Accelerating such projects, they argue, is the only
    realistic way to reach the targets of the international Paris
    agreement, which seeks to keep rising temperatures to well below
    2 degrees Celsius from preindustrial levels to avoid the worst
    impacts of climate change.

    “To meet the goals of the Paris climate accords, there’s no way we
    can do it without direct-air capture,” Occidental Chief Executive
    Vicki Hollub said in an interview. The company, which uses carbon to
    extract oil, plans to build facilities to capture it straight from the
    air, but considers the potential tax-credit expansion vital to its efforts.

    Exxon is proposing a project with other companies in Houston to capture
    and bury the carbon from an array of industries. But it would be
    difficult to launch at its proposed size without policy changes such
    as a larger tax credit, said Erik Oswald, a vice president at Exxon.

    Congress is considering boosting the credit for collecting carbon
    emissions from smokestacks by 70% to $85 for a metric ton if the
    carbon is stashed in saline geologic formations, or $60 if it is sent
    down oil wells. Direct air projects would get $180 for a metric ton
    if the carbon is stored, or $130 for oil.

    Less generous tax credits have been on the books since 2008 but
    have failed to create a real carbon-capture industry. “There’s been little material impact on the deployment of carbon capture & storage,”
    said Scott Anderson, senior director of energy at the Environmental
    Defense Fund, a U.S.-based advocacy group.

    The infrastructure bill included funding for pipelines and storage
    to help build a missing puzzle piece: a spider’s web of infrastructure
    that could gather and ship carbon from multiple sites.

    “That’s a massive step forward for carbon capture and carbon storage,” said Cindy Crane, CEO of Enchant Energy Corp., which plans to retrofit
    a coal-fired power plant in New Mexico with carbon-capture equipment
    for around $1.3 billion. The project would also require up to roughly
    $390 million in plant improvements, a pipeline and storage field.

    Globally, industries will have to raise carbon-capture capacity by a
    factor of 50 to 100 times over what is in the development pipeline to
    achieve what the International Energy Agency estimates is needed to
    reach “net-zero” carbon emissions by 2070, said John Bradford, professor of geophysics and vice president for global initiatives at the Colorado School of Mines.

    Building those projects—and keeping them running—can be costly. Petra Nova was a joint venture of NRG and JX Nippon Oil & Gas Exploration
    Corp. that captured some emissions from a coal plant near Houston and
    piped them about 80 miles to an oil field, where they were used to push
    more crude out of the ground. The government awarded the project around
    $195 million in a proof-of-concept grant.

    Petra Nova closed in 2020 after the pandemic reduced demand for fuel
    and led to a collapse in oil prices, which made the oil that the
    captured carbon was helping produce less economically viable. It remains
    in mothball status, though NRG said it proved the technology could work
    on a coal-fired plant.

    “We continue to explore options to improve the economics,” said NRG spokesman Chris Rimel.

    In Mississippi, a carbon-capture initiative by utility Southern Co.
    has turned into a white elephant. The project known as Kemper aimed to
    use locally mined lignite coal to fuel a power plant, and capture the resulting carbon emissions, which were then to be sent to oil fields
    to prime crude production. The Energy Dept invested $387 million.

    Forecast to cost $3 billion in 2010, Kemper’s costs spiraled above
    $7 billion. Once constructed, the coal-gasification technology never
    quite worked as intended, and Southern abandoned its initial plans,
    burning natural gas in the power plant instead.

    The company imploded coal and carbon-capture equipment that couldn’t
    be dismantled for resale last October. Coal conveyors from Kemper are
    now available for sale online.

    “It was the end of a long, bad experiment,” said Mississippi Public Service Commissioner Brandon Presley, a Kemper critic. Presley said
    he favors innovation but believes government and business should bear
    the risk instead of utility ratepayers.

    Presley and other regulators didn’t allow Southern to pass Kemper’s
    full cost on to customers. The company, which had to assume some
    $6 billion on the project’s cost, is paying for demolition of the carbon-capture part, estimated at $10 million to $20 million annually
    through 2025, said a spokesman for Mississippi Power, the utility arm
    behind the project.

    The federal govt is now funding a $24 million feasibility study that
    includes the same plant—this time for capturing and storing carbon emissions from natural gas.

    https://www.wsj.com/articles/climate-change-concerns-revive-interest-in-carbon-capture-despite-checkered-history-11644235380

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)