VentureBeat

Posts Tagged ‘co:futuregen’

In the cleantech world, carbon sequestration, or the practice of capturing CO2 emissions and trapping them underground or inside materials, is something of a black sheep. Environmentalists call it a “boondoggle”, some engineers think it’s “absolutely crazy”, and even some politicians have called it a risky bet. Yet a string of recent announcements show that the technique has enough support to compete with other green technologies for attention, and money.

The most recent is a United States Department of Energy funding, which will put $126.6 million toward two separate sequestration projects, one in California and one in Ohio. The DoE now funds six projects in total. However, a much larger chunk of money, up to $1.3 billion, may go toward a partial revival of the canceled FutureGen project, according to an almost simultaneous announcement by the DoE.

Also unveiled yesterday were Exxon Mobil’s plans for a new plant in LaBarge, Wyoming, which will aim to freeze CO2 and other gases out of the methane that the company is mining for in the state, turning them into a liquid that it can then sell.

The surge of interest in carbon capture, which also includes studies in Washington and the much older Weyburn Project, is inspired in large part by the growing worry, held by utilities, mining companies and oil firms like Exxon alike, that a cap-and-trade or carbon tax system might soon be enacted in the United States. The DoE, with its responsibility for energy supplies in the States, has a natural interest in seeing fossil fuel plants continue to operate, and so will continue putting money toward carbon sequestration.

What’s more surprising is seeing that China, which has heedlessly poured money into coal, the cheapest and dirtiest energy source, is also getting into the potentially expensive sequestration game. A state-sponsored company called GreenGen is working toward a 400 megawatt generation plant with carbon capture technologies, with construction planned to start in 2013.

That’s significantly more ambitious than most other projects, both those in the United States and international efforts like Statoil’s Sliepner in Norway, which captures about 2,800 tons of CO2 each day. However, another Norwegian company called Sargas is claiming 95 gas capture at $20 per ton, and looking for funding for its own 400MW plant, to be built even sooner than GreenGen’s.

While most of the efforts involve large companies working with somewhat older technology that’s known to be expensive — Exxon has been using various form of carbon sequestration for 25 years — there is still some capacity for startups to take part. Researchers in France, for example, just announced the development of a nanomaterial capable of holding CO2, which will allow companies to skip the step of pumping it underground. And of course, there’s Calera, a Khosla Ventures funded company that claims it can use captured CO2 to make cement.

But ultimately, for most known methods, the projected costs for carbon sequestration rapidly become unsustainable. The reason isn’t just a dollars-and-cents issue, it’s also an energy investment issue. Compressing and containing CO2 requires large amounts of energy. That means that if you’re sequestering CO2 emissions from coal, you may need to burn an additional 25 percent just to provide energy for the sequestration process — which in turn creates more CO2. Among many other potential problems, possible leakage of CO2 is sequestered underground also hasn’t yet been ruled out.

Most corporations are well aware of these problems. In a just-released PricewaterHouse Cooper report, in fact, utility executives quizzed about which technologies they think will limit emissions the most ranked carbon capture much lower than nuclear, renewables, and energy efficiency, with carbon capture from gas-fired plants coming in dead last. (More on this report here.)

So what if all of these attempts at carbon sequestration fail? Well, providing the existence of a cap-and-trade system for emissions, carbon credits for environmental processes that capture CO2 may suddenly become all the rage.

For a sense of how much CO2 natural systems can capture, consider that North America alone draws in about 505 million tons each year. The world’s oceans take in a great deal more, which is the motivation for startups like Climos, which want to stimulate plankton growth. The methods that achieve widespread recognition and approval may well make a mint for their originators.

biofuel.JPGIf you were following the breathless headlines a few days ago, you now know that new biofuel production (i.e. more farms) from some feedstocks, including corn, likely causes more global warming than if we continued to use fossil fuels.

A pair of of Princeton researchers found that corn-based ethanol doubles greenhouse gas emissions on a 30-year timeline, and increases overall levels for 167 years. Worse, converting land currently used for corn to switchgrass (a popular feedstock for cellulosic ethanol) will increase CO2 emissions by 50 percent, according to the report, summarized here by ABC News.

Soon after came the rejoinder from biofuel advocates, who picked apart certain assumptions of the study and said, in summary, that conclusions based on “speculative, limited land use change modeling” are likely to misguide future policy on the issues.

In short, the authors — two Department of Energy researchers — think the study doesn’t do biofuels justice. Unfortunately, we’re probably several years away from one that does. A comprehensive picture of the impact crops (like corn, switchgrass or sugars) have on the environment will be a massive undertaking, and will require the consensus of dozens of experts before anyone puts any real credence in it.

Meanwhile, investors might begin worrying about shifts in policy and public opinion affecting their businesses. People are gradually becoming aware that the high hopes (and cash) the Bush administration has invested in corn-based ethanol are driven more by farming interests than science or good judgment. A policy backlash in the form of reduced or unreliable subsidies could also cut into biodiesel, cellulosic ethanol and other biofuels.

Recent news indicates such a backlash isn’t likely to occur anytime soon. Take for example the record crude oil price struck yesterday of $100.10 per barrel. High demand and high prices for oil will translate into continued interest in alternatives, not to mention better margins for companies already producing biofuels.

Another squeeze is coming from coal. New coal projects are being canceled because of regulation fears, but other sources aren’t being built quickly enough to replace them. Industrial users will face power cuts within five to ten yeas, according to an energy executive speaking to Reuters, if more coal isn’t burned — and with the failure of the FutureGen project, any enthusiasm for new coal plants is unlikely in the near-term.

Cleantech projects can’t step in to fill the gap in that 5-10 year time frame, but energy shortages will spur demand for alternate energy sources, including biofuels.

And ultimately, even at full projected capacity two decades from now, biofuel production will likely still be far below demand. For more on why biofuels, and in particular cellulosic ethanol, are likely to remain a very partial solution, check out a past contributor post by UC Berkeley professor Ted Patzek. Also worth reading is this Biopact article on new land use practices that may invalidate more of the assumptions of the Princeton study.

Top Stories

Recent Comments

Powered by Disqus

Recent Guest Columnists

Job Board

Links

Venturebeat Writers

  • For advertising, contact .
  • Log in

Font Size