Geothermal Energy could get Boost from Congress
With Washington finalizing a last minute debt deal to avoid a default, some are preparing for what’s next. Frankly, the poorly pieced together debt deal will do little more than delay a default, in the meantime, both the public and private sectors will need to scramble to figure out how to kickstart the economy. One popular belief is that renewed investment in energy infrastructure development—particularly in renewables—could help create jobs and spur economic growth. In light of this, two new bills are making their way to congress for approval in the coming months that will boost geothermal energy development across the U.S.
Since the end of 2009, there has been little development in geothermal energy in the U.S. Analysts speculate the reasons for this are most likely the long permitting process and the expensive upfront costs of test drilling. However, the two new bills will likely ease these burdensome factors.
The first is a House bill that was already approved by the Natural Resources Committee. The bill is aimed at cutting down on the permitting process for geothermal exploration on federal land in cases where developers already own a lease. This would presumably save developers both time and money, making projects more attractive to investment.
SEE OTHER TOP STORIES IN THE WDM CONTENT NETWORK
In the U.S. Senate, the Geothermal Exploration and Technology Act of 2011 is up for vote. The act is designed to establish a revolving loan fund for exploratory geothermal drilling, create a demonstration program for large-scale geothermal heat pump systems, and allow those leasing federal land for oil and gas exploration to produce geothermal energy as well.
But unlike other renewable energy ventures, geothermal has a unique set of hurdles to overcome. “You don’t face the same resource risk with solar and wind as you do with geothermal,” says Geothermal Energy Association Executive Director Karl Gawell. “You have to spend a lot of money to find a resource and know how big it is. The process is really closer to a mining venture than it is to a wind or solar project. The upfront money is really hard to find and expensive because it’s high risk. Investors like to see faster returns. They like to see a project within two or three years.”
Geothermal projects tend to take anywhere from four to eight years to get up and running, and if these two new bills before congress pass, it is likely that the U.S. may see a boom period in geothermal investment. However, considering the political climate in the U.S. as of late, the likelihood of congress passing the bills is yet to be determined.
“The whole situation we have here—everything is in gridlock,” says Gawell. “The Senate Energy Committee continues to function, and do its job. The problem is nobody really knows if any of this is really going to go anywhere. One of the unspoken victims in all this is the legislative process. It’s just grinding to a halt.”
Carbon dioxide removal revenues worth £2bn a year by 2030
Carbon dioxide removal revenues could reach £2bn a year by 2030 in the UK with costs per megatonne totalling up to £400 million, according to the National Infrastructure Commission.
Engineered greenhouse gas removals will become "a major new infrastructure sector" in the coming decades - although costs are uncertain given removal technologies are in their infancy - and revenues could match that of the UK’s water sector by 2050. The Commission’s analysis suggests engineered removals technologies need to have capacity to remove five to ten megatonnes of carbon dioxide no later than 2030, and between 40 and 100 megatonnes by 2050.
The Commission states technologies fit into two categories: extracting carbon dioxide directly out of the air; and bioenergy with carbon capture technology – processing biomass to recapture carbon dioxide absorbed as the fuel grew. In both cases, the captured CO2 is then stored permanently out of the atmosphere, typically under the seabed.
The report sets out how the engineered removal and storage of carbon dioxide offers the most realistic way to mitigate the final slice of emissions expected to remain by the 2040s from sources that don’t currently have a decarbonisation solution, like aviation and agriculture.
It stresses that the potential of these technologies is “not an excuse to delay necessary action elsewhere” and cannot replace efforts to reduce emissions from sectors like road transport or power, where removals would be a more expensive alternative.
The critical role these technologies will play in meeting climate targets means government must rapidly kick start the sector so that it becomes viable by the 2030s, according to the report, which was commissioned by government in November 2020.
Early movement by the UK to develop the expertise and capacity in greenhouse gas removal technologies could create a comparative advantage, with the prospect of other countries needing to procure the knowledge and skills the UK develops.
The Commission recommends that government should support the development of this new sector in the short term with policies that drive delivery of these technologies and create demand through obligations on polluting industries, which will over time enable a competitive market to develop. Robust independent regulation must also be put in place from the start to help build public and investor confidence.
While the burden of these costs could be shared by different parts of industries required to pay for removals or in part shared with government, the report acknowledges that, over the longer term, the aim should be to have polluting sectors pay for removals they need to reach carbon targets.
Polluting industries are likely to pass a proportion of the costs onto consumers. While those with bigger household expenditures will pay more than those on lower incomes, the report underlines that government will need to identify ways of protecting vulnerable consumers and to decide where in relevant industry supply chains the costs should fall.
Chair of the National Infrastructure Commission, Sir John Armitt, said taking steps to clean our air is something we’re going to have to get used to, just as we already manage our wastewater and household refuse.
"While engineered removals will not be everyone’s favourite device in the toolkit, they are there for the hardest jobs. And in the overall project of mitigating our impact on the planet for the sake of generations to come, we need every tool we can find," he said.
“But to get close to having the sector operating where and when we need it to, the government needs to get ahead of the game now. The adaptive approach to market building we recommend will create the best environment for emerging technologies to develop quickly and show their worth, avoiding the need for government to pick winners. We know from the dramatic fall in the cost of renewables that this approach works and we must apply the lessons learned to this novel, but necessary, technology.”
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and International Energy Agency estimate a global capacity for engineered removals of 2,000 to 16,000 megatonnes of carbon dioxide each year by 2050 will be needed in order to meet global reduction targets.
Yesterday Summit Carbon Solutions received "a strategic investment" from John Deere to advance a major CCUS project (click here). The project will accelerate decarbonisation efforts across the agriculture industry by enabling the production of low carbon ethanol, resulting in the production of more sustainable food, feed, and fuel. Summit Carbon Solutions has partnered with 31 biorefineries across the Midwest United States to capture and permanently sequester their CO2 emissions.
Cory Reed, President, Agriculture & Turf Division of John Deere, said: "Carbon neutral ethanol would have a positive impact on the environment and bolster the long-term sustainability of the agriculture industry. The work Summit Carbon Solutions is doing will be critical in delivering on these goals."
McKinsey highlights a number of CCUS methods which can drive CO2 to net zero:
- Today’s leader: Enhanced oil recovery Among CO2 uses by industry, enhanced oil recovery leads the field. It accounts for around 90 percent of all CO2 usage today
- Cementing in CO2 for the ages New processes could lock up CO2 permanently in concrete, “storing” CO2 in buildings, sidewalks, or anywhere else concrete is used
- Carbon neutral fuel for jets Technically, CO2 could be used to create virtually any type of fuel. Through a chemical reaction, CO2 captured from industry can be combined with hydrogen to create synthetic gasoline, jet fuel, and diesel
- Capturing CO2 from ambient air - anywhere Direct air capture (DAC) could push CO2 emissions into negative territory in a big way
- The biomass-energy cycle: CO2 neutral or even negative Bioenergy with carbon capture and storage relies on nature to remove CO2 from the atmosphere for use elsewhere