Peter Folger
Specialist in Energy and Natural Resources Policy
Carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) is widely seen as a critical
strategy for limiting atmospheric emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2)—the principal “greenhouse
gas” linked to global climate change—from power plants and other large
industrial sources. This report focuses on the first component of a CCS
system, the CO2 capture process. Unlike the other two components of CCS,
transportation and geologic storage, the CO2 capture component of CCS is heavily technology-dependent. For CCS
to succeed at reducing CO2 emissions from a significant fraction of large sources in the
United States, CO2 capture technologies would need to be deployed widely. Widespread
commercial deployment would likely depend, in part, on the cost of the technology
deployed to capture CO2. This report summarizes prospects for improved,
lower-cost technologies for each of the three current approaches to CO2 capture: post-combustion
capture; pre-combustion capture; and oxy-combustion capture. CRS Report
R41325, Carbon
Capture: A Technology Assessment, provides a more detailed
analysis of these technologies.
While all three approaches are capable of high capture efficiencies (typically
about 90%), the major drawbacks of current processes are their high cost
and the large energy requirements for operation. Another drawback is that
at present there are still no full-scale applications of CO2 capture on a coal-fired or
gas-fired power plant; these plants produce over a third of total U.S. CO2 emissions from fossil fuel
combustion. However, a number of large-scale demonstration projects at
both coal combustion and gasification-based power plants are planned or
underway in the United States and elsewhere. Substantial research and
development (R&D) activities are also underway in the United States and
elsewhere to develop and commercialize lower-cost capture systems with
smaller energy penalties. Current R&D activities include development and
testing of new or improved solvents that can lower the cost of current
post-combustion and precombustion capture, as well as research on a
variety of potential “breakthrough technologies” such as novel solvents,
sorbents, membranes, and oxyfuel systems that hold promise for
even lower-cost capture systems.
The future use of coal in the United States will likely depend on whether and
how CCS is deployed if legislative or regulatory actions curtail future CO2 emissions. Congressional
interest in CCS was renewed when the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) re-proposed standards for carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from new
fossil-fueled power plants on September 20, 2013. These re-proposed
standards would not apply to existing power plants. As re-proposed, the
standards would limit emissions of CO2 to no more than 1,100 pounds per megawatt-hour of production from
new coal-fired power plants and between 1,000 and 1,100 for new natural
gasfired plants. According to EPA, new natural gas-fired stationary power
plants should be able to meet the proposed standards. However, new coal-fired
plants only would be able to meet the standards by installing CCS
technology, which could add significant capital costs.
In general, the focus of most current R&D activities is on cost reduction
rather than additional gains in CO2 capture efficiency. Key questions include: when would advanced CO2 capture systems be
available for commercial rollout; and how much cheaper they would be compared
to current technology. “Technology roadmaps” developed by governmental and
private-sector organizations anticipate that CO2 capture may be available
for commercial deployment at power plants by 2020. Some roadmaps also
project that some novel, lower-cost technologies may be commercial by
2020. Such projections acknowledge, however, that this will require aggressive efforts
to advance promising concepts to commercial viability.
Date of Report: November 5, 2013
Number of Pages: 12
Order Number: R43300
Price: $29.95
To Order:
R43300 .pdf
to use the SECURE SHOPPING CART
e-mail congress@pennyhill.com
Phone
301-253-0881
For email and phone orders, provide a Visa, MasterCard, American Express, or Discover card
number, expiration date, and name on the card. Indicate whether you want e-mail
or postal delivery. Phone orders are preferred and receive priority processing
Peter Folger
Coordinator, Specialist in Energy and Natural Resources Policy
Carbon capture and sequestration (or carbon capture and storage, CCS) is
widely seen as a critical strategy for limiting atmospheric emissions of
carbon dioxide (CO2)—the principal “greenhouse gas” linked to global climate change—from
power plants and other large industrial sources. This report focuses on
the first component of a CCS system, the CO2 capture process. Unlike the other two components of CCS, transportation
and geologic storage, the CO2 capture component of CCS is heavily technology-dependent. For CCS
to succeed at reducing CO2 emissions from a significant fraction of large sources in the
United States, CO2 capture technologies would need to be deployed widely. Widespread
commercial deployment would likely depend, in part, on the cost of the
technology deployed to capture CO2. This report assesses prospects for improved, lowercost technologies
for each of the three current approaches to CO2 capture: post-combustion capture; pre-combustion capture; and
oxy-combustion capture.
While all three approaches are capable of high CO2 capture efficiencies (typically about 90%), the major drawbacks of
current processes are their high cost and the large energy requirements for operation.
Another drawback in terms of their availability for greenhouse gas mitigation
is that at present, there are still no full-scale applications of CO2 capture on a coal-fired or
gas-fired power plant (i.e., a scale of several hundred megawatts of plant
capacity). To address the current lack of demonstrated capabilities for
full-scale CO2 capture at power plants, a number of large-scale demonstration
projects at both coal combustion and gasification-based power plants are
planned or underway in the United States and elsewhere. Substantial
research and development (R&D) activities are also underway in the United
States and elsewhere to develop and commercialize lower-cost capture
systems with smaller energy penalties. Current R&D activities include development and testing of new or improved solvents that can lower the cost of current
postcombustion and pre-combustion capture, as well as research on a
variety of potential “breakthrough technologies” such as novel solvents,
sorbents, membranes, and oxyfuel systems that hold promise for even
lower-cost capture systems.
In general, the focus of most current R&D activities is on cost reduction
rather than additional gains in the efficiency of CO2 capture (which can result
in cost increases rather than decreases). Key questions regarding the
outcomes from these R&D efforts are when advanced CO2 capture systems would
be available for commercial rollout, and how much cheaper they would be compared
to current technology. “Technology roadmaps” developed by governmental and private-sector
organizations in the United States and elsewhere anticipate that CO2 capture will be available
for commercial deployment at power plants by 2020. A number of roadmaps also project
that some novel, lower-cost technologies would be commercial in the 2020 time
frame. Such projections acknowledge, however, that this would require
aggressive and sustained efforts to advance promising concepts to
commercial reality.
Achieving significant cost reductions would likely require not only a vigorous
and sustained level of R&D, but also a significant market for CO2 capture technologies to
generate a substantial level of commercial deployment. At present such a
market does not exist. While various types of incentive programs can
accelerate the development and deployment of CO2 capture technology, actions that significantly limit emissions of
CO2 to
the atmosphere ultimately would be needed to realize substantial and
sustained reductions in the future cost of CO2 capture.
Date of Report: November 5, 2013
Number of Pages: 99
Order Number: R41325
Price: $29.95
To Order:
R41325 .pdf
to use the SECURE SHOPPING CART
e-mail congress@pennyhill.com
Phone
301-253-0881
For email and phone orders, provide a Visa, MasterCard, American Express, or Discover card
number, expiration date, and name on the card. Indicate whether you want e-mail
or postal delivery. Phone orders are preferred and receive priority processing
Carl E. Behrens
Coordinator, Specialist in Energy Policy
The Energy and Water Development appropriations bill provides funding for
civil works projects of the Army Corps of Engineers (Corps), for the
Department of the Interior’s Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation), the
Department of Energy (DOE), and several independent agencies.
FY2013 Energy and Water Development appropriations were considered in the
context of the Budget Control Act of 2011 (BCA, P.L. 112-25), which
established discretionary spending limits for FY2012-FY2021. On March 26,
2013, the President signed H.R. 933, the FY2013 Defense and Military
Construction/VA, Full Year Continuing Resolution (P.L. 113-6). The act
funds Energy and Water Development accounts at the FY2012 enacted level
for the rest of FY2013, with some exceptions. However, under BCA, an
automatic spending reduction process, consisting of a combination of
sequestration and lower discretionary spending caps, went into effect
March 1, 2013. The effect of these reductions on the budgetary resources
that will ultimately be available to an agency at the account level
remains unclear until further guidance is provided by the Office of Management
and Budget as to how these reductions should be applied.
President Obama’s FY2014 budget request for Energy and Water Development was
released in April 2013. The request totaled $34.4 billion. On June 26 the
House Appropriations Committee reported a bill, H.R. 2609, with a total of
$30.4 billion; the bill passed the House, with amendments, on July 10. The
Senate Appropriations Committee reported out a bill, S. 1245, on June 27,
with a total of $34.4 billion. On October 16, 2013, Congress passed the Continuing Appropriations
Act, 2014, H.R. 2775, P.L. 113-46, extending funding for all federal programs, including
Energy and Water Development, through January 15, 2014, at the FY2013 post sequestration
spending level.
For FY2014, as in previous years, the level of overall spending will be a major
issue. On March 21, 2013, the House passed H.Con.Res. 25, setting FY2014
spending at $2.77 trillion. On March 23, the Senate passed S.Con.Res. 8,
with a spending level for FY2014 of $2.96 trillion. On June 4 the House
Appropriations Committee issued budget allocations for the individual
subcommittees (H.Rept. 113-96). The suballocation for Energy and Water
Development programs was set at $30.4 billion. On June 20 the Senate
Appropriations Committee announced subcommittee allocations for FY2014;
the Energy and Water Development suballocation was $34.8 billion.
In addition to funding levels, issues specific to Energy and Water Development
programs include
• the distribution of appropriations for Corps (Title I) and Reclamation (Title
II) projects that have historically received congressional appropriations
above Administration requests;
• alternatives to the proposed national nuclear waste repository at Yucca
Mountain, Nevada, which the Administration has abandoned (Title III:
Nuclear Waste Disposal);
• proposed FY2014 spending levels for Energy Efficiency and Renewable
Energy (EERE) programs (Title III) that are more than 50% higher in
the Administration’s request than the amount appropriated for FY2012;
and,
• funding for the nuclear weapons program and other defense activities,
which make up half of the total Department of Energy budget.
Date of Report: November 1, 2013
Number of Pages: 70
Order Number: R43121
Price: $29.95
To Order:
R43121 .pdf
to use the SECURE SHOPPING CART
e-mail congress@pennyhill.com
Phone
301-253-0881
For email and phone orders, provide a Visa, MasterCard, American Express, or Discover card
number, expiration date, and name on the card. Indicate whether you want e-mail
or postal delivery. Phone orders are preferred and receive priority processing
Posts
