[House Hearing, 115 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
THE FUTURE OF FOSSIL:
ENERGY TECHNOLOGIES
LEADING THE WAY
=======================================================================
JOINT HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY &
SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
JULY 17, 2018
__________
Serial No. 115-70
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via the World Wide Web: http://science.house.gov
_________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
30-880 PDF WASHINGTON : 2018
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY
HON. LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas, Chair
FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas
DANA ROHRABACHER, California ZOE LOFGREN, California
MO BROOKS, Alabama DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois
RANDY HULTGREN, Illinois SUZANNE BONAMICI, Oregon
BILL POSEY, Florida AMI BERA, California
THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky ELIZABETH H. ESTY, Connecticut
RANDY K. WEBER, Texas MARC A. VEASEY, Texas
STEPHEN KNIGHT, California DONALD S. BEYER, JR., Virginia
BRIAN BABIN, Texas JACKY ROSEN, Nevada
BARBARA COMSTOCK, Virginia CONOR LAMB, Pennsylvania
BARRY LOUDERMILK, Georgia JERRY McNERNEY, California
RALPH LEE ABRAHAM, Louisiana ED PERLMUTTER, Colorado
GARY PALMER, Alabama PAUL TONKO, New York
DANIEL WEBSTER, Florida BILL FOSTER, Illinois
ANDY BIGGS, Arizona MARK TAKANO, California
ROGER W. MARSHALL, Kansas COLLEEN HANABUSA, Hawaii
NEAL P. DUNN, Florida CHARLIE CRIST, Florida
CLAY HIGGINS, Louisiana
RALPH NORMAN, South Carolina
DEBBIE LESKO, Arizona
------
Subcommittee on Energy
HON. RANDY K. WEBER, Texas, Chair
DANA ROHRABACHER, California MARC A. VEASEY, Texas, Ranking
FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma Member
MO BROOKS, Alabama ZOE LOFGREN, California
RANDY HULTGREN, Illinois DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois
THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky JACKY ROSEN, Nevada
STEPHEN KNIGHT, California JERRY McNERNEY, California
GARY PALMER, Alabama PAUL TONKO, New York
DANIEL WEBSTER, Florida BILL FOSTER, Illinois
NEAL P. DUNN, Florida MARK TAKANO, California
RALPH NORMAN, South Carolina EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas
LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas
------
Subcommittee on Environment
ANDY BIGGS, Arizona, Chair
DANA ROHRABACHER, California SUZANNE BONAMICI, Oregon, Ranking
BILL POSEY, Florida Member
MO BROOKS, Alabama COLLEEN HANABUSA, Hawaii
RANDY K. WEBER, Texas CHARLIE CRIST, Florida
BRIAN BABIN, Texas CONOR LAMB, Pennsylvania
GARY PALMER, Alabama EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas
CLAY HIGGINS, Louisiana
RALPH NORMAN, South Carolina, Vice
Chair
DEBBIE LESKO, Arizona
LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas
C O N T E N T S
July 17, 2018
Page
Witness List..................................................... 2
Hearing Charter.................................................. 3
Opening Statements
Statement by Representative Randy K. Weber, Chairman,
Subcommittee on Energy, Committee on Science, Space, and
Technology, U.S. House of Representatives...................... 4
Written Statement............................................ 6
Statement by Representative Marc A. Veasey, Ranking Member,
Subcommittee on Energy, Committee on Science, Space, and
Technology, U.S. House of Representatives...................... 8
Written Statement............................................ 10
Statement by Representative Andy Biggs, Chairman, Subcommittee on
Environment, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S.
House of Representatives....................................... 12
Written Statement............................................ 14
Statement by Representative Suzanne Bonamici, Ranking Member,
Subcommittee on Environment, Committee on Science, Space, and
Technology, U.S. House of Representatives...................... 16
Written Statement............................................ 18
Statement by Representative Lamar Smith, Chairman, Committee on
Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives.. 20
Written Statement............................................ 21
Statement by Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson, Ranking
Member, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House
of Representatives............................................. 23
Written Statement............................................ 25
Witnesses:
Dr. Roger Aines, Senior Scientist, Atmospheric, Earth and Energy
Division, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
Oral Statement............................................... 28
Written Statement............................................ 30
Dr. Klaus Brun, Program Director, Machinery Program, Fluids &
Machinery Engineering Department, Southwest Research Institute
Oral Statement............................................... 42
Written Statement............................................ 44
Ms. Shannon Angielski, Executive Director, Carbon Utilization
Research Council
Oral Statement............................................... 66
Written Statement............................................ 69
Mr. Jason Begger, Executive Director, Wyoming Infrastructure
Authority
Oral Statement............................................... 84
Written Statement............................................ 93
Discussion....................................................... 110
Appendix I: Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Mr. Jason Begger, Executive Director, Wyoming Infrastructure
Authority...................................................... 110
Appendix II: Additional Material for the Record
Document submitted by Representative Neal P. Dunn, Committee on
Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives.. 114
THE FUTURE OF FOSSIL:
AENERGY TECHNOLOGIES LEADING THE WAY
----------
TUESDAY, JULY 17, 2018
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Energy and
Subcommittee on Environment,
Committee on Science, Space, and Technology,
Washington, D.C.
The Subcommittees met, pursuant to call, at 10:10 a.m., in
Room 2318 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Randy
Weber [Chairman of the Subcommittee on Energy] presiding.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Weber. The Committee on Science, Space, and
Technology will come to order.
Without objection, the Chair is authorized to declare
recess of the Subcommittees at any time.
Good morning, and welcome to today's hearing titled, ``The
Future of Fossil: Energy Technologies Leading the Way.'' I now
recognize myself for five minutes for an opening statement.
This morning, we will examine the status of the early-stage
research performed by industry, nonprofit institutes, and the
Department of Energy national laboratories to enable
advancements in fossil energy technologies. Global demand for
fossil fuels will hold steady in the near term and is projected
to increase far into the future. Our abundant natural
resources, including coal, oil, and natural gas, can and should
be produced to meet this demand. However, these fuels should be
utilized with efficient technologies that minimize the
environmental impact.
Early-stage research funded by the Federal Government,
coupled with efforts to develop new technologies by the energy
industry, are critical to ensuring we can use our resources
long into the future. Over the years, this partnership between
the labs and industry has led to the development of advanced
scrubber technologies to significantly reduce the release of
NOx, SOx, and other unwanted byproducts from fossil-based power
plants.
Because of this technology-led success, today, we can often
focus on another byproduct of fossil power production, that
being carbon dioxide. But unlike other emissions, carbon
dioxide can potentially have a number of key uses in industrial
applications. As our knowledge in chemistry advances, so does
our ability to capture and repurpose carbon waste as an
industrial product. These utilization technologies have the
potential to convert carbon dioxide into building materials or
even reuse CO2 as part of the power generation cycle
instead of steam.
Because of the potential benefits to this technology,
industry is investing in research to advance carbon
utilization. This industry engagement has advanced
independently of any federal regulation and combines private-
sector investment and the tools and technical assistance
provided by national labs, state research facilities, as well
as universities.
Early-stage research in the national laboratory system also
supports the development of new energy production technologies.
An example, at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory,
researchers have developed a 3-D printed polymer that uses
bacteria to convert methane, the primary component of natural
gas, into methanol at room temperature and pressure. This
technology has the potential to reduce any methane leaked from
natural gas production by cost-effectively capturing and
converting it to liquid methanol at small scales. This research
led by the national labs can now be taken up by industry to
improve the extraction and efficient use of natural gas
products. This partnership is a win-win for science, for
energy, and for the environment.
However, in recent years, the use of our limited taxpayer
research and development dollars has kind of shifted away from
fundamental research like this to the support of large-scale
technology demonstration projects, one that industry has the
ability to fund on its own. The research community and the
private industry would be better served if we focused federal
investment on the early-stage research that has a proven track
record of producing transformative energy technologies.
I want to thank our panel of witnesses for their testimony
today, and I look forward to hearing what role Congress should
play in advancing fossil energy research.
[The prepared statement of Chairman Weber follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Weber. I now yield to the Ranking Member, Mr.
Veasey.
Mr. Veasey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this
hearing, and thank you to the witnesses for being here today.
Fossil fuels currently account for about 60 percent of our
electricity generation in the United States, and they will
likely continue to command a large market share of this for
decades to come. Power plants are now the second-largest source
of greenhouse gas emissions, just a bit behind the
transportation sector.
Reducing these emissions and finding technology solutions
to these realities is a very pressing challenge. It's going to
require stable public investment in our academic institutions
and national labs, alongside significant partnerships with the
private industry.
That is why in May I introduced H.R. 5745, the bipartisan
Fossil Energy Research and Development Act of 2018. I was
joined by my colleagues Mr. McKinley from West Virginia and our
committee's Ranking Member Ms. Johnson.
This bill would authorize critical activities within DOE's
Office of Fossil Energy. This office is responsible for
stewarding research to reduce emissions, improve efficiency,
and mitigate the environmental impacts of energy generation
from fossil fuels. A large portion of this research focuses on
developing carbon-capture technologies and demonstrating the
use and storage methods for the captured CO2.
H.R. 5745 would authorize and expand research, development,
and demonstration of these technologies for power plants,
including large-scale pilot projects that would fill a vital
gap in DOE's current portfolio of projects in this area.
The bill also authorizes R&D activities in carbon storage,
rare earth elements, and carbon utilization, which I understand
we will hear more about from Dr. Aines shortly. It also
supports significant improvements in efficiency, including the
development of supercritical CO2 technologies, which
I know we'll hear more about from Dr. Brun this morning.
In addition, the bill would launch important new
initiatives in carbon dioxide removal, methane leak detection,
mitigation, and carbon dioxide pipelines.
And finally, it would put in place key reforms to DOE's
fossil energy lab, the National Energy Technology Laboratory,
located in West Virginia and Oregon. Authorizing these
technologies would also benefit the environment, our economy,
and potentially provide technology solutions to global partners
aiming to cut emissions.
The critical work authorized in this bill is supported by a
diverse array of stakeholders, including representatives from
industry, academia, labor, and environmental organizations. Two
major U.S. coalition groups representing a large interested--
representing a large group of interested stakeholders on these
issues, the Carbon Utilization Research Council, represented by
its Director Ms. Angielski is here today; and the Carbon
Capture Coalition have endorsed this bill.
And without objection, Mr. Chairman, I would like to submit
this letter of support for the bill from the American federal
government Employees Union for the record.
Chairman Weber. Without objection.
[The information appears in Appendix II]
Mr. Veasey. In closing, I would like to strongly encourage
all of my colleagues on the committee to consider cosponsoring
H.R. 5745, and I look forward to discussing the best ways we
can move these technologies with this excellent panel of
witnesses that we have today.
And, Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Veasey follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Weber. Thank you, sir.
I now recognize Mr. Biggs, Arizona. Chairman?
Chairman Smith. Thank you--go on. I forgot. You go on.
Mr. Biggs. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Mr. Chairman.
Good morning, and welcome to today's joint Environment
Subcommittee and Energy Subcommittee hearing on fossil energy
technologies. I thank our witnesses for being here. I look
forward to hearing their interesting testimony today after
reading their submissions.
Today, we will discuss cutting-edge fossil energy
technologies that will both advance our Nation's environmental
interests, as well as maintain American energy dominance. Like
it or not, power generated by fossil fuels is and will continue
to be America's core source of base load electricity.
Unfortunately, due to regulations and a media-garnered negative
public perception, the fossil fuel industry is under constant
attack. Moreover, these regulations result in more economic
harm than environmental gain in the way of job loss and higher
utility bills for hardworking Americans.
Today's hearing will focus on technologies that, when
commercialized, can both boost the economy and clean our air
for generations to come. The reality is that there is no
reliable and affordable alternative to fossil-fuel-generated
power at this time. As a result, fossil fuels will continue to
support economic and infrastructure development both here in
the United States and abroad.
As we learned from our recent hearing on climate
adaptation, a strong economy and reliable infrastructure is
necessary to protect against potential environmental harm.
Shuttering a coal power plant in Arizona will not mitigate the
effects of sea level rise in California. That effort requires
advanced building materials and a reliable grid, all things
made possible by fossil fuels.
The question remains: How do we balance the apparent need
for fossil fuels with a call for lowering the amount of carbon
dioxide in our atmosphere? We do that by incentivizing the
creation of technologies that capture the carbon before it
leaves the power station and developing innovative ways to use
that captured carbon for commercial purposes.
Those technologies, known as carbon capture, utilization,
and sequestration--or CCUS--present a win-win for America.
Rather than be emitted into the atmosphere, CCUS gives us the
opportunity to convert carbon dioxide into a useful commodity.
Not only do these technologies allow for the continued
viability of the existing fleet of fossil fuel plants, but they
create the prospect for new industry sectors altogether.
While the Federal Government certainly plays a role in
foundational research in this area, the private sector is best
situated to innovate and scale up these technologies. One
example we will hear more about today is the Wyoming Integrated
Test Center, or ITC. The ITC is a public-private partnership
that has received no federal funds. Located at the coal-powered
Basin Electric Power Plant outside Gillette, Wyoming, the
facility is set up as a testing site for researchers to scale
up technologies designed to convert carbon dioxide into
commercially viable products like building materials and
plastics.
Facilities like the ITC are why America is the leader in
CCUS technology. As the production and demand for fossil fuels
continue to grow worldwide, it is essential for Congress to
continue to encourage innovation in this area.
Again, I thank the witnesses for being here today. I look
forward to learning more about their interesting work in
government and the private sector.
With that, I yield back.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Biggs follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Weber. Thank you, sir. The Chair now recognizes
the gentlelady from Oregon, Ms. Bonamici.
Ms. Bonamici. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Our Nation is facing a serious confluence of factors
affecting our energy policy: a growing global demand for
energy, a heavy reliance on fossil fuels, high energy prices,
and climate change resulting from harmful emissions.
In 2015, the Energy Information Administration found that
fossil fuel usage accounted for nearly 82 percent of all energy
consumption in the United States. This was the lowest share in
the previous 100 years but still demonstrates our dependence on
fossil fuels.
The dangers to our climate and environment from the carbon
emissions generated from fossil fuel production and use have
been studied and confirmed. It is more important than ever that
we develop a comprehensive national energy policy that includes
a greater emphasis on investing more, not less, in research and
development programs to improve efficiency and reduce emissions
to keep our air and water clean.
In Oregon, we are leading the nation to decrease our
reliance on fossil fuels with our robust renewable energy
portfolio of solar and wind resources. By focusing our
investments on renewable resources, we not only protect our
environment, but we also have the opportunity to support new
industries, new jobs, and innovative small businesses that are
developing clean-energy technologies. During the transition,
and for States not making similar commitments yet, fossil fuels
must be used in a responsible way that mitigates environmental
harm.
The Department of Energy's Office of Fossil Energy supports
research on ways to reduce the negative environmental effects
of using and developing fossil energy resources. This includes
improvements to the efficiencies of a wide range of fossil and
non-fossil-fueled power plants through the advancements of
technologies such as supercritical carbon dioxide power cycles.
Much of this cutting-edge research is conducted at DOE
laboratories, including the National Energy Technology
Laboratory, NETL, in Albany, Oregon. The lab is also advancing
affordable carbon-capture technologies that reduce emissions
and use captured carbon dioxide to increase domestic oil
production from depleted oil fields.
Despite these innovative efforts at the Department of
Energy, this Administration has sent inconsistent messages
about fossil energy technologies. President Trump has
highlighted the need for clean coal and has worked to bolster
fossil industries but has simultaneously attempted to slash
funding for the critical federal research supported by the
Office of Fossil Energy in his fiscal year 2019 budget request.
As a result of strong collaborative efforts between federal
and nonfederal partners, the United States is considered a
leader in the development of various innovative fossil energy
technologies such as carbon capture and storage. Underfunding
these activities could ultimately cede American leadership in
the rapidly developing low-carbon economy.
As members of the Science Committee, we should be
encouraging the Department of Energy to continue supporting
unparalleled research into environmental mitigation strategies
for fossil fuels that would otherwise not be pursued by the
private sector. Until we regulate carbon emissions in the
United States to drive innovation in the private sector,
government-sponsored research is critical to fill the gaps in
the market. Through these investments, there is tremendous
opportunity for the United States to promote a healthier
environment and become a leading exporter rather than importer
of the next generation of fossil energy technologies.
I am pleased to see a well-rounded witness panel today to
discuss the successful partnership between federal, state, and
private-sector researchers in this field. I look forward to
learning more about current technologies used to mitigate the
environmental effects associated with the production and use of
fossil fuels and the innovations that can support a new
national energy policy.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back the balance of my
time.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Bonamici follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Weber. Thank you, ma'am. The Chair now recognizes
the Chairman of the full committee, Mr. Lamar Smith of Texas.
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Energy produced from fossil fuel is abundant, affordable
and vital to America's security and competitiveness. As global
demand for fossil fuel energy increases, America is on tap to
become a net energy exporter.
The research done at Department of Energy national
laboratories is vital to increasing the fossil fuels'
efficiency and reducing environmental impacts of this vital
power source. Basic science discoveries at DOE national labs
have led to a range of technological innovations used by
private industry in fossil energy production and fossil power
systems.
From horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing, to
improved sensors and geologic mapping, we've seen dramatic
improvements in fossil fuel production technology that was
developed from research conducted in the DOE lab system. For
example, field engineers today are using augmented reality and
virtual reality technologies in maintenance, operations, and
exploration of reservoirs. Using this technology in the field
can reduce the environmental footprint of energy production and
increase oil and gas production as well.
And in fossil power production, new approaches like the use
of supercritical carbon dioxide power systems can replace the
use of steam power, improving efficiency and potentially
producing virtually carbon-free energy. The Southwest Research
Institute, located near my district in San Antonio, is
partnering with DOE to lead early-stage research efforts in
developing these supercritical CO2 systems.
In the past, the DOE's Office of Fossil Energy Research and
Development programs focused primarily on reducing emissions
from fossil power. While research on carbon capture, storage,
and sequestration technologies remains a priority, there is
also potential to research ways to use carbon as an energy
resource, rather than only considering it as a waste product.
At the National Energy Technology Laboratory, DOE is
funding basic research to create usable substances from carbon
waste, such as concrete or plastics. If these techniques are
commercialized by industry, they could provide added revenue
for fossil power plants, making carbon capture a cost-effective
method to reduce emissions.
DOE's early-stage research should focus on developing a
broad range of innovative technologies to improve the
efficiency and effectiveness of fossil fuels, allowing us to
use all our natural resources long into the future.
I look forward to hearing about the promise of fossil
energy technologies from our witnesses today and how DOE-funded
research supports technological innovations that improve the
efficiency, environmental impact, and safety of fossil fuels.
And I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Chairman Smith follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Weber. Thank you, sir. And the Chair now
recognizes the gentlelady from Texas, the Ranking Member of the
full Committee, Ms. Johnson.
Ms. Johnson. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and let me
welcome our witnesses. I want to express my appreciation to
both Chairman Weber and Chairman Biggs and our distinguished
Ranking Members for holding this hearing to discuss the future
of fossil energy.
Certainly, we have seen how advances in science and
engineering can produce large-scale economic value in this
sector, and historically, our federal R&D agencies have played
a major historic role in this process.
Just over a decade ago, we had a little--little idea of the
fossil resources that would be available to us today. However,
due to some critical research investments made by the
Department of Energy over 40 years ago, coupled with rising oil
prices in recent decades, the United States underwent the shale
gas revolution that brought major natural gas resources online,
and with it, a sharp increase in domestic oil production.
That DOE program wrapped up in the early '90s when a
private company took that federally supported research and used
it to trigger the oil and gas boom we see today. I think my
colleagues would agree that that is the model for DOE's energy
technology programs we all hope to see, federal investments
shepherding transformational technologies to the marketplace,
even when the endpoint is not clear at the beginning of the
process.
That brings us to what should be the fundamental question
we consider today: Where should the Department of Energy be
investing its limited dollars in this area? If the standard of
identifying a federal role rests on whether the private
industry has the capacity to invest in R&D, then I think the
answer to the question is that DOE should focus its investments
on reducing and wherever possible eliminating the environmental
impacts of the production and use of these resources. At
present, there is unfortunately little incentive for industry
to spend major R&D dollars to protect the environment and even
less incentive in the private sector to prevent the most
devastating potential impacts of climate change.
This is why I am so pleased to cosponsor H.R. 5745, the
bipartisan Fossil Fuel Research and Development Act of 2018,
which Ranking Member Veasey and Mr. McKinley and I introduced
in May. This bill would reauthorize and expand important
activities to develop and scale up innovative carbon capture,
utilization, and storage technologies. It would also launch
vital new initiatives on carbon dioxide removal and methane
leak detection and mitigation, among other areas.
In all likelihood, our society will continue to use and
develop our fossil energy resources for at least several more
decades, so these technologies will be absolutely critical to
minimizing the harm they would otherwise cause to our public
health and to the environment.
Before I close, I would note that I am surprised that we
are holding a hearing on DOE's fossil energy technology
development activities without inviting DOE's Assistant
Secretary for Fossil Energy to testify. It seems to me that it
would be important for us to ask him to provide a better
explanation for why the Administration is proposing a 31
percent cut to DOE's fossil energy research and development
activities. This is in stark contrast to the stated positions
of the President, who has been praising clean coal and vowing
to end a supposed war on clean coal throughout his time in
office so far. The rhetoric is not matched by the necessary
resources, and this committee needs to know why not.
So I hope that we will have Assistant Secretary Winberg
before our committee to discuss these issues further in the
near future. And I look forward to working with the
Administration and my colleagues on both sides of the aisle in
the months ahead to steer a better course as we aim to
accelerate the development and deployment of these next-
generation technologies that could significantly improve our
environment, our health, and our Nation's economy.
Thank you and I yield back.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Johnson follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Weber. I thank the gentlelady.
I will now introduce our witnesses. Our first witness today
is Dr. Roger Aines, Chief Scientist at Lawrence Livermore
National Laboratory, LLNL's Energy Program and Senior Scientist
in the Chemistry, Materials, Earth, and Life Science
Directorate. Dr. Aines has been at LLNL for over 30 years
working on nuclear waste disposal, environmental remediation,
and management of carbon emissions. He previously led LLNL's
carbon management program, which takes an integrated view of
the energy climate and environmental aspects of carbon-based
fuel production and use.
Dr. Aines holds a bachelor of arts in chemistry from
Carleton College and a Ph.D. in geochemistry from the
California Institute of Technology. Welcome, Dr. Aines.
I now recognize Chairman Smith to introduce our second
witness.
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
It's a privilege to introduce Dr. Klaus Brun, the Machinery
Program Director at Southwest Research Institute located in San
Antonio.
Southwest Research Institute specializes in advancing
science and applying technology to benefit government,
industry, and individual American lives.
Dr. Brun leads an organization of more than 60 scientists
who focus on research and development for the energy industry.
He is internationally recognized for his expertise in energy
systems, power generation, and turbomachinery.
Dr. Brun holds a bachelor of science from the University of
Florida and a master of science and Ph.D. both in mechanical
engineering from the University of Virginia. He is a Fellow of
the American Society of Mechanical Engineers and the current
Associate Editor of their Journal of Engineering for Gas
Turbines and Power.
Dr. Brun, we welcome you and look forward to your
testimony.
Chairman Weber. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Our next witness is Ms. Shannon Angielski, the Executive
Director of the Carbon Utilization Research Council, CERC.
Prior to her current employment, Ms. Angielski served as the
Associate Director--do we pronounce that CERC, C-E-R-C? Okay.
She is a member of the National Coal Council the American
League of Lobbyists, and the Environmental Law Institute and
serves on the board of the Washington Coal Club.
She earned a bachelor of art in political science and
international affairs from the University of New Hampshire and
a master of science in environmental and public policy from
Johns Hopkins University. Welcome.
Our final witness today is Mr. Jason Begger, the Executive
Director of the Wyoming Infrastructure Authority. Mr. Begger, I
understand your wife is very pregnant and due just almost any
time. We appreciate you choosing to be here. I guess you prove
that beggars can be choosers, so we'll see if she still lets
you back in in case that baby starts early, so we appreciate--
prayers and blessings for that young one's arrival.
Prior to this, Mr. Begger worked for two members of
Montana's congressional delegation focusing on Bureau of
Reclamation water projects and Department of Energy Office of
Fossil Energy funding. He went on to serve as the Vice
President of the Petroleum Association of Wyoming and then
Manager of Government Affairs for Cloud Peak Energy.
Mr. Begger holds a bachelor of art in history from Montana
State University Billings and a master of business
administration from the University of Denver.
Again, welcome this morning. We hope you the best, you and
your wife the best so--I now recognize Dr. Aines for five
minutes to present his testimony.
TESTIMONY OF ROGER DR. ROGER AINES,
SENIOR SCIENTIST,
ATMOSPHERIC, EARTH AND ENERGY DIVISION,
LAWRENCE LIVERMORE NATIONAL LABORATORY
Dr. Aines. I've submitted my full statement to the
Committee, which I ask to be made part of the hearing record.
If I may, I'll now summarize a brief opening statement.
Thank you, Chairman Smith, Ranking Member Johnson, Chairman
Weber, Ranking Member Veasey, and Chairman Biggs and Ranking
Member Bonamici, for this opportunity to share our insights
into the current status and future of fossil energy and carbon
capture, utilization, and storage.
My name is Roger Aines. I'm the Chief Scientist of the
Energy Program at Lawrence Livermore National Lab. I've worked
on fossil fuel technology and carbon management for 20 years.
At Lawrence Livermore Lab we're focused on tomorrow's clean
energy system. This testimony provides an update on emerging
fossil energy technologies, including carbon capture, carbon
storage, carbon utilization, and advanced energy systems,
finally removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. It
includes an assessment of the current state of CO2
utilization in American industry. This current state
foreshadows a future in which natural gas and CO2
become feedstocks for valuable products, just as we've noted
many times in the opening statements, creating an economic
opportunity for all regions of the United States using our
abundant resources and new technology.
The mission of the Department of Energy's national
laboratories is to advance science and technology that
addresses issues of today to anticipate pending national and
global challenges and help provide solutions to them in close
partnership with companies that can bring those solutions to
the market. The need for efficient fossil fuel technologies
that can provide an engine for enhanced U.S. competitiveness
has led to DOE research and analysis conducted at Lawrence
Livermore Lab, as well as other national labs.
Today, technology is rapidly transforming fossil energy,
but despite enormous progress in carbon capture, carbon dioxide
is still not being managed in the power and industrial sectors
because that is still too expensive. However, many businesses
are eager to turn carbon dioxide into products. Turning a waste
into a feedstock will help solve the cost problem. This is
called carbon utilization or I like to call it carbon
recycling, and it's poised to become a major industry.
Last month in Livermore, we held a roundtable discussion
with 20 corporations ranging from Exxon to 3M to Nike, all who
were interested in how they could improve their products with
materials made from carbon dioxide. This is a ripe area for
research with much work going on today at university labs such
as Stanford and Rice Universities. This is an opportunity for
new technology to aid multiple industrial and power generation
actors who want to manage their carbon dioxide. New technology
like 3-D printing, as Mr. Weber mentioned, will be important to
that transition.
Natural gas will also be an important part of the
transition to what we call the new carbon economy where carbon-
based products that we use every day are increasingly made from
simple feedstocks like carbon dioxide, natural gas, and
electricity. The chemical industry will be the first to be
impacted by the ease of using them to make the fibers and
plastics that are part of our lives. New industrial centers
will spring up in places where carbon dioxide, electricity, and
natural gas are abundant and cheap such as the center of the
country.
An important innovation is combining biology with 3-D
printing. My laboratory works with the National Renewable
Energy Laboratory to use engineered bacteria that they create,
and we then 3-D print, along with a binder, to actually make
the reactor out of the bacteria. Natural gas flows in and in
our most advanced case lactic acid, a valuable precursor for
synthetics, flows out. The bugs do all the work.
These kinds of new technology options will also allow us to
address the challenge of removing the excess carbon dioxide
from the atmosphere. A new carbon economy that values carbon
dioxide as a feedstock and not a waste will help with this
task. Much new science and technology development will be
required and is just beginning today.
The United States is poised to be the leader in the use of
CO2 and natural gas for new carbon products, a new
carbon economy. This will create new economic opportunity and
improve national security as it makes us more energy self-
sufficient. Development and demonstration of innovative fossil
technologies will be the key to that process. Because energy
and the necessary feedstocks--carbon dioxide and natural gas--
are abundant in the central United States, we anticipate that
new industries will thrive there.
Both basic research and development and transfer of that
research to corporate users will be important accelerators for
the new carbon economy. That research and development done by
national laboratories strives to bring that vision to fruition.
Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Aines follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Weber. Thank you, Dr. Aines.
Dr. Brun, you're recognized for five minutes.
TESTIMONY OF KLAUS BRUN DR. KLAUS BRUN,
PROGRAM DIRECTOR, MACHINERY PROGRAM,
FLUIDS & MACHINERY ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT,
SOUTHWEST RESEARCH INSTITUTE
Dr. Brun. Thank you. Good morning, Chairman Smith, Ranking
Member Johnson----
Chairman Weber. You want to turn on your mic there please,
sir.
Dr. Brun. Sorry. Good morning, Chairman Smith, Ranking
Member Johnson, Chairman Weber, Ranking Member Veasey, Chairman
Biggs, and Ranking Member Bonamici. My name is Klaus Brun, and
I'm the Machinery Program Director at Southwest Research
Institute in San Antonio, Texas. I'm honored to address you
today on behalf of Southwest Research Institute.
Southwest Research Institute, headquartered in San Antonio,
Texas, is one of the oldest and largest independent not-for-
profit applied research and development organizations in the
United States. For the last 70 years, our mission has been to
work in the public's best interest and toward betterment of
mankind. Southwest Research Institute currently executes
approximately $550 million in contract R&D per year and employs
about 2,600 staff members in Texas and throughout the United
States.
Cheap and reliable electricity is the cornerstone of our
economy. The supercritical carbon dioxide or SCO2
power cycle has been a major collaborative development effort
between industry, government, and research institutes to make
electricity cheaper, more reliable, and also cleaner. For the
last 250 years, a majority of fossil fuel power plants have
been using steam and air, but technology development never
stands still and we must pursue the next improvement in power
plants.
The SCO2 power cycle is not a new energy source.
It is a technology that incrementally but significantly allows
us to make better use of energy from conventional fossil fuels
and some non-fossil energy sources. SCO2 power
cycles replace steam or air of a conventional power plant with
carbon dioxide at very high pressures and high temperatures.
Carbon dioxide is a common gas that is abundantly available,
nontoxic, and easily handled.
Due to the high density and high heat capacity and low
viscosity of SCO2, plant efficiency gains of three
to five percent are easily realized versus conventional steam
plants. In industrial waste recovery, nuclear, and
concentrating solar power, plant efficiency improvements of 10
to 15 percent over steam are possible. Waste heat recovery from
thousands of currently underutilized energy streams in industry
and oil and gas becomes technically feasible and commercially
viable.
SCO2 plants are about five to ten times smaller
than conventional plants and do not require water. That
drastically reduces plant capital costs, reduces footprint
requirements, improves plant grid response, and allows for
sitings throughout the United States.
Finally, SCO2 technology provides a clear
development path toward oxy-combustion, which is a less-
expensive, higher-efficiency, and completely carbon-free
emission fossil fuel power plant technology.
So why now? The thermodynamic advantages of SCO2
power cycles have been known since the early 1950s, but at the
time, the manufacturing technology, the materials, and the
design tools did not exist to produce SCO2 power
cycles. Using advanced additive manufacturing, high-temperature
and high-strength superalloys, and state-of-the-art
computational engineering tools, all technologies have only
recently become available. We can now build the complex
microchannel heat exchangers and ultra-high-density energy
compressors and expanders that are needed for SCO2
power cycles. These technologies are advancing at a very rapid
pace, and we expect significant further benefits and efficiency
improvements to power plants in the near future.
SCO2 power cycles are on the verge of
commercialization, and the United States is clearly the leader
in this technology. A mix of nearly 120 government and industry
projects with approximately equal R&D funding of about $500
million from government and $500 million from industry has
allowed moving technology from concept stage to functioning
plants over a short period of less than eight years. Several
U.S. Department of Energy offices and labs, including NETL
NREL, EERE, ARPA-E, Sandia, Oak Ridge, have all constructively
collaborated in this major crosscutting effort.
We are now working on an SCO2 pilot research
facility called the Supercritical Transformational Electric
Power or STEP program that is designed to help industry address
precompetitive development problems and demonstrate key cycle
components. STEP is a $150 million DOE project led by Gas
Technology Institute, Southwest Research Institute, and General
Electric that aims to demonstrate 10 megawatt supercritical
CO2 power plants. The STEP facility will be located
at Southwest Research Institute in Texas and is scheduled to be
operational by 2020.
The STEP program and the many other industry- and
government-funded SCO2 R&D projects benefit the
United States economy through the development of better power
plants for cheaper, more reliable, and cleaner electricity for
U.S. consumers. In my opinion, the SCO2 power cycle
collaboration and crosscutting initiatives between government,
industry,, institute national labs, and academia is currently
one of the most successful cooperative R&D programs in the
world. Continued participation by DOE and other government
agencies in these efforts will result in major benefits to the
U.S. power industry, as well as U.S. energy technology
leadership.
I sincerely want to thank the U.S. Government, its
agencies, and its employees who continue to passionately
contribute to this very important work. I'm honored to have
been invited to talk about this exciting technology to the
Congressional Subcommittees on Energy and the Environment.
Rarely does a new technology emerge that is capable of offering
so many solutions. Thank you very much, and I look forward to
your questions.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Brun follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Weber. Thank you, Dr. Brun.
Ms. Angielski, you're now recognized for five minutes.
TESTIMONY OF MS. SHANNON ANGIELSKI,
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR,
CARBON UTILIZATION RESEARCH COUNCIL
Ms. Angielski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and to the Members
of both the Energy and Environment Subcommittees and to those
Committee Members that are here today for the invitation to
testify and discuss this topic with you.
CERC is an industry coalition that is focused on technology
solutions for the responsible use of our U.S. fossil energy
resources to support our Nation's need for secure, reliable,
and affordable electricity through a balanced portfolio.
CERC serves as an industry voice to identify technology
pathways that will enable our Nation to continue to enjoy the
benefits of our abundant and low-cost fossil fuels in a manner
that is both compatible with societal energy needs and
environmental goals and objectives. Members of CERC work
together to advance a common set of technology objectives that
can be met through public and private-sector collaboration
designed to expand technology choices for private-sector
commercialization.
I want to recognize that the United States has already made
significant strides in the development of advanced fossil
energy resource technologies to improve the utilization of
these resources. Similar to how a car, a new car today, can
travel further on a single gallon of gasoline than one that was
built back in the 1980s, the most advanced coal units operating
today are 25 percent more efficient than the previous
generation of coal units, and this is a direct result of the
public-private-sector collaboration, which many of my members
were involved with.
As already recognized in many of the opening statements,
consumption of fossil fuels is on the rise both domestically
and internationally, and this trend is projected to continue
well into the future. There's growing international consensus
that technologies are needed to further reduce the carbon
footprint from the use of fossil fuels. As a result, more
recent efforts have focused on technologies to reduce carbon
dioxide emissions.
There is a first-of-a-kind carbon-capture project
successfully operating on a coal-fired power plant in the
United States today that is selling its carbon dioxide in a
nearby oil field. Many of you from Texas may know this project,
the Petra Nova project. This innovative project relied on
federal financial support to launch.
And while research is advancing that will result in
improved technologies, carbon capture is not yet economic for
widespread application in the power sector, and further
technology innovation is needed.
Later this month, CERC and the Electric Power Research
Institute will release the 2018 Advanced Fossil Energy
Technology Roadmap that, if implemented, projects new
technologies can be available in the next decade, by 2035 time
frame, that generate electricity from fossil fuels with
significantly reduced carbon dioxide emissions and importantly
can be cost-competitive with other sources of electricity
generation.
By way of background, EPRI conducts research development
and demonstration projects for the benefit of the public in the
United States and internationally. As an independent, nonprofit
organization for public interest energy and environmental
research, they focus on electricity generation, delivery, and
use in collaboration with the electricity sector, its
stakeholders, and others to enhance the quality of life by
making electric power safe, reliable, affordable, and
environmentally responsible.
EPRI does not advocate or aim to influence policy or
regulation.
This will be the fifth roadmap that CERC and EPRI have
published together since 2003 and reflects the technology
development needs that can support an evolving U.S. power
sector that's impacted by several emerging trends driving
innovation and investment decisions for new generation. Some of
these trends include increased and low cost domestic supplies
of natural gas, slow and in some cases declining low growth in
electricity demand, as well as the need for generation to
rapidly adjust to cycling load demands with increased
intermittent renewables on the grid.
There are several technologies identified in the roadmap
that address these trends yet enable a transformation in the
way we use our fossil fuel resources. These include novel power
cycles like those already discussed, the supercritical CO2
cycles or key processes in those cycles that are designed to
facilitate the capture of carbon dioxide at a lower energy
penalty and cost than conventional methods. These processes are
inherently more efficient, resulting in fewer emissions of both
carbon dioxide and criteria emissions, less water use, and
require less--fewer fossil fuels to produce electricity.
The roadmap also outlines advances in carbon-capture
technologies designed to lower costs and the development and
testing of these technologies at test center such as the
Wyoming Integrated Test Center and the National Carbon Capture
Center in Alabama.
The roadmap also identifies research on breakthrough
technologies to ensure out-of-the-box thinking where
fundamentally new approaches for using fossil fuels are
developed and includes typical programs like those discussed by
Dr. Aines. Many of the technologies identified in the roadmap
are ready for pilot testing today and a few are preparing for
commercial-scale demonstration.
I also want to discuss a companion analysis conducted by
CERC and ClearPath Foundation with modeling provided by NERA
Economic Consulting and Advanced Resources International that
shows that there are significant economic benefits to the
United States of the technology development outlined in the
roadmap is undertaken under a wide range of scenarios.
Our analysis projects up to 87 gigawatts of market-driven
carbon-capture deployment paired with enhanced oil recovery by
2040, resulting in significant increase in domestic oil
production and lower cost retail electricity rates, all of
which contain--contribute to substantial increases in annual
GDP and are projected to result in over 800,000 new jobs
through 2040. These macroeconomic benefits are described in
more detail in my written testimony in a report summarizing the
study that will also be released next week.
While both CERC and EPRI developed the roadmap, I just want
to make sure it's understood I'm speaking only on behalf of
CERC today, and we're very pleased to support the House
Science, Space, and Technology Committee efforts to explore
next-generation fossil power technologies and to discuss
solutions that will enable our Nation to continue to
responsibly benefit from the utilization of our fossil energy
resources.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide you this
testimony.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Angielski follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Weber. Thank you, ma'am.
Mr. Begger, you're recognized for five minutes.
TESTIMONY OF MR. JASON BEGGER,
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR,
WYOMING INFRASTRUCTURE AUTHORITY
Mr. Begger. All right. Mr. Chairman, Members of the
Subcommittee, I appreciate the opportunity to speak to you
today about our carbon technology efforts in Wyoming. My name's
Jason Begger, and I'm the Executive Director of the Wyoming
Infrastructure Authority. The WIA is a state instrumentality
tasked with promoting and assisting the development of energy
infrastructure.
Currently, our largest project is the Wyoming Integrated
Test Center, the ITC, which is a private-public partnership
between the State of Wyoming, Basin Electric Power Cooperative,
Tri-State Generation and Transmission Association, and the
National Rural Electric Cooperatives Association. We have also
received various in-kind contributions from Black Hills Energy
and Rocky Mountain Power. I cannot stress enough the importance
of this private-sector partnership because we shouldn't be
focusing on projects and technologies that industry won't adopt
and commercialize.
While we believe there's an important role for the federal
government to play in advancing technology and we would welcome
a partnership, not one cent of federal dollars has been
utilized at this facility.
The ITC is a post-combustion flue-gas research facility
located at Basin Electric's Dry Fork power station near
Gillette, Wyoming. It is the largest facility of its kind in
the United States, delivering up to 18-megawatt-equivalent
worth of scrubbed flue gas to researchers testing CCUS
technologies. The power plant will provide flue gas to five
small research bays, each capable of hosting tests up to about
.4 megawatt equivalent and a large test bay that can host two
demonstration projects with a cumulative total of 18 megawatts.
Last month, we formalized a two-year partnership agreement
with the National Carbon Capture Center in Alabama, which
manages much of the Department of Energy's carbon-capture
efforts. In Wyoming, we don't want to duplicate the work
already being done; we want to complement the other test
centers by providing a place to scale up current research. Our
goal is to test technologies to both capture and manage the
carbon.
One of the most exciting partnerships we've developed is
with the XPRIZE Foundation. One of the best-known XPRIZE
competitions was the Ansari XPRIZE, which awarded the first
team to fly three people to space and back twice within 14
days. One $10 million prize spurred 27 teams to invest over
$100 million in technology development.
Eventually, Richard Branson licensed the technology to
create Virgin Galactic, and today, the private space travel
industry is worth $2 billion only 22 years after the idea was
created in the mid-'90s. The NRG COSIA Carbon XPRIZE will award
$20 million in prizes to teams that are best able to convert
CO2 into other valuable products.
Currently, there are ten teams from six countries working
in the final round to create things such as carbon nanotubes,
methanol, building materials, fish food, and plastics. The five
finalists testing at the ITC are working to Converse CO2
from a coal-fired power plant, and there are five teams testing
their technologies at a natural gas facility in Alberta,
Canada. In April, Wyoming and the Japan Coal Energy Center
announced a multiyear project, which will test Kawasaki Heavy
Industries' solid sorbent carbon-capture technology.
Stable, predictable, and adequate funding is necessary to
commercialize these technologies. H.R. 5745 is a great start,
but Congress may need to look at establishing other programs to
scale up the most promising technologies. Finding funding to
support a new program is always a challenge. However, the coal
mined in the United States provides an opportunity. The
majority of the coal mined in the United States is owned by the
Federal Government and leased to companies. These companies pay
a variety of taxes, including federal mineral royalties, bonus
bids, abandoned mine lands fees, and gross proceeds taxes.
Every year, the mineral royalties and bonus bids bring in about
$500 million. With a ten-year authorization, half of that
funding could provide about $2.5 billion to fund carbon
management research.
Technology is apolitical, and the United States can make
its best and greatest impact by investing in technology
development that could be utilized around the world. There is
considerable debate over the future of coal within the United
States. However, every credible energy analysis from the U.N.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change to DOE acknowledges
that large amounts of coal will be used globally for the
foreseeable future. Technology is the best way to ensure these
countries have access to power, yet can meet environmental
goals.
I appreciate the opportunity to speak with you today and
will gladly answer any questions. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Begger follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Weber. Thank you, sir. I now recognize myself for
five minutes.
Dr. Aines, in your prepared testimony, you highlight the
need for national labs and the private sector to work closely
together to develop carbon capture, use, and storage
technology. And just as an aside, in Port Arthur, Texas, in my
district we have probably the largest carbon-capture
sequestration unit in the country that I believe was funded by
the EERE open--went to the groundbreaking or the ribbon-cutting
probably three or four years ago I guess it was.
However, I want to point out it's the ultimate
responsibility of industry to commercially deploy these
technologies. So, in your opinion, when is the appropriate time
for the fossil energy industry to take innovations from the lab
to commercialization? And before you answer, do you have like a
pipeline of information and research? You're talking with
industry consistently so that you're able to keep them up-to-
date and then sufficiently or successfully hand that off to
them? How do you do that?
Dr. Aines. We do it best when we work in partnership early
on, which is why I mentioned this roundtable that we had where
we brought industry in to ask them what they wanted to do, and
we will be partnering with several of those companies to
develop technologies.
The concept of developing and throwing it over the fence,
as we call it, does not work well. We need to understand
exactly what industry needs and pass it off at the time that
they're ready to take it.
Chairman Weber. Right, and that's why I say not--you know,
that's why I say a pipeline of information. You want to keep
them involved and keep them working. And I guess you work with
some of the associations around that also are very attentive to
this process, and they would be able to keep, you know, their
members involved so that when we do get to that where it's
economically feasible, viable, then you can hand that off. Do
you have those relationships established?
Dr. Aines. Yes, sir. We try to develop those, but I have to
say that is a major challenge to maintain those relationships
because we need things to work on together to actually have a
relationship.
Chairman Weber. No, I got you. What tools do the national
labs and the nonprofit research institutions have in your
toolkit that make you all better-suited to conduct that early-
stage research in support of the innovative technology? How
would you describe that toolbox?
Dr. Aines. We have a broad base of science and technology
that we can use to look at the whole system. Rather than being
an advocate for one particular technology, we like to say
what's the problem that needs to be solved and then, you know,
somebody of the 7,000 scientists that work at my laboratory is
likely to have a solution, and if not, then one of the 17 other
national laboratories. So it's important not to be just out
there pushing a solution because we have one but to work on the
solutions that are required.
Chairman Weber. Right. And one of those tools we would
hope--going back to my previous question--would be that you
have robust relationships with industry, maintain those
relationships, and keep them interested, so that's a good
thing.
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, LLNL, what do you
all call it?
Dr. Aines. We call it Lawrence Livermore.
Chairman Weber. Maybe we should call it L's NL, get you a
new mantra. All's well and L's NL and so a shorter name would
be good.
But you all have supercomputers and tools like carbon-
capture simulation, innovative toolset, which provides end-
users in the energy industry with computational modeling tools
for the development of carbon-capture technologies. So how does
L's NL as I call it make sure that academic or energy sector
partners can access this research infrastructure and the
technical systems the lab can provide? How do you do that, and
how often do they access it?
Dr. Aines. We have a mechanism called the CRADA,
Cooperative Research and Development Agreement, which we use
when working with industry, and we do those commonly. They are
a little complicated to put together sometimes.
The second thing that we do that is a new program that has
been very effective is called HPC4 Energy. That stands for
High-Performance Computing for Energy, and that's a program
where the Department of Energy pays the staff at one of the
national labs that has expertise to work with an industry
problem. The industry competes to get their problems worked on,
and then we partner to bring the correct expertise to that
industry. And that's been an extremely effective way to bring
our high-performance computing expertise to the use of
industry.
Chairman Weber. Do you find industry from all across the
country or is it more sectionalized if you will?
Dr. Aines. Oh, all across the country. It's a very
competitive program.
Chairman Weber. Does the fact that you're a nuclear weapons
lab. Does that hamper or help in that program?
Dr. Aines. I would say it's not a factor.
Chairman Weber. Not a factor? Okay. Well, I appreciate
that. I'm going to yield back, and the Chairman recognizes Mr.
Mark Veasey.
Mr. Veasey. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much.
I wanted to ask Ms. Angielski a couple questions. In your
testimony, you describe the challenges of attracting private-
sector investment, not only for so-called early-stage
technology development activities but for each stage of the
path toward commercialization. I was wondering if you could
discuss that in a little bit more detail, and also if you could
just kind of provide a typical time frame from concept to
commercialization and what levels of investment and risk are
private companies willing to take so they can deploy these sort
of first-of-their-kind technologies without any kind of federal
support?
Ms. Angielski. Certainly. The early-stage research is at a
point in time where technical risk is low, as well as cost
risk. And so basic research can typically attract both public-
sector and private-sector financing, despite what might be long
lead times, as you just outlined, for return on that
investment. Typically what we see for generation technology,
which are very large capital-intensive baseload generation
technologies, from concept to commercialization it's typically
taken anywhere from 15 to 20 years to actually get a
commercialized technology from concept to commercialization, so
it's a very long lead time to actually look at what all the
scales of development are needed to actually have that
technology be able to be operational in commercial practice and
then adopted in commercial practice.
So when we look at going from that fundamental basic
research, the next step is to scale up to testing those
technologies under what we call real operating conditions, and
so that requires more investment, you're building equipment and
you need to actually spend time operating that facility under
those conditions that you can get the operational test data
needed to actually scale up and design for a commercial
project.
And so as we move through those stages of development and
you scale up, it's going to be significantly larger investment
in cost, but yet again, your timeline to that return on
investment is long enough that attracting both internal
financing from companies, as well as private-sector financing
can be somewhat difficult to justify, particularly if there
isn't a market pool for the technology at that time.
So that's essentially, you know, from just a timeline
perspective but also part of the challenge in attracting that
private or internal financing. It can be difficult to achieve,
which is essential for the federal support to get those
technologies actually tested and demonstrated and across the
finish line.
Mr. Veasey. Well, thank you very much.
I also wanted to ask you about the legislation that I'm
working on that I mentioned in my opening remarks, H.R. 5745, a
bipartisan Fossil Energy Research and Development Act of 2018.
You know, it helps bridge the gaps between what the private
sector is willing and able to do on its own and what we really
need to do to commercialize these technologies at a sufficient
pace to meet our national and economic goals. Could you talk a
little bit about that?
Ms. Angielski. So I will say that H.R. 5475--or 5745, I'm
sorry, is very consistent with the technology development
programs that we have identified in the CERC-EPRI roadmap,
which is why we were very pleased to support the legislation.
We--the legislation would authorize both basic research, as
well as pilot-scale development testing and commercial-scale
demonstrations, which we see as critical and necessary for
advancing these technologies up to commercialization.
It would authorize carbon-capture projects and accelerate
those projects with the funding that's provided through the
development or authorization of test centers like those
described by Jason both at a small pilot, as well as Jason
identified in his testimony, at a pilot scale, which is
necessary before jumping to commercial-scale operation.
The legislation also authorizes all of the technology
development pathways that we have identified in the roadmap for
new power systems, both transformational, as well as other
technology-development efforts like high-efficiency materials,
for example, that will be needed in order to support those new
processes in the future.
And then in order to fully address the reduction of carbon
emissions, the legislation also authorizes carbon storage
outside of utilizing CO2 and enhanced oil recovery
or converting CO2 for carbon dioxide, that that will
be really important in the future under any scenario in which
we find ourselves in a carbon-constrained future, and so that's
something we've outlined in our roadmap as well.
Mr. Veasey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm out of time. I
yield back.
Chairman Weber. I thank the gentleman. Chairman Biggs,
you're recognized for five minutes.
Mr. Biggs. Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
Again, thanks to all of you for being here today. And Dr.
Brun, can you please explain some of the environmental benefits
of super-clean CO2 power cycles?
Dr. Brun. Basically, what you're doing here is you're
providing a power cycle that's more efficient, and that's the
first generation of supercritical CO2 plants. So
just by a three to five sometimes seven percent efficiency of a
power plant, you're really reducing all criteria emissions by
that percentage.
The next generation of supercritical CO2 plants,
which is really what we're looking for as the Holy Grail of
supercritical CO2 is oxy-fuel combustion, and that
leads to a potential for a completely carbon-emissions-free
powerplant because what you end up doing is you are getting 100
percent concentrated stream of CO2 at the end that's
already pressurized, and so it's ready for sequestration.
So the short-term goal is really an incremental improvement
of efficiency, and obviously reduced power cost and cleaner
power. The long-term goal is completely carbon-free power
plants.
Mr. Biggs. This leads me to wonder: You must see a path to
that. I mean, obviously, you don't know all the technologies
and answers, but you do see a path to the Holy Grail I guess?
Dr. Brun. Yes, we have a development roadmap, and that's
Correlated between the different industries. And it's really
been a very, very positive collaborative industry, academia and
government process, over the last eight years. We really moved
the technology forward over the last ten years. Not only on the
power-generation side, it takes decades to move any technology
forward, and we've really moved supercritical CO2 in
the last eight years from concept to power plant technologies.
So we similarly have a roadmap to get ourselves to oxy-fuel
combustion, which is that next level of supercritical CO2
plant. I would say we're about five to ten years away from
that, and there needs to be continued aggressive funding both
from industry and from government to achieve that. But right
now, I think there's a clear path towards that.
Mr. Biggs. Okay. So--and when you talked about--in your
testimony today, you said we're on the verge of commercial
viability. Where in that path do you see commercial viability
coming in if we're, what, five to ten years away from oxy-fuel
combustion?
Dr. Brun. Right. It depends on what type of oxy fuel
supercritical CO2 plant you're looking at. So
supercritical CO2 plants at the lower temperatures,
for example, for waste heat recovery, those are now
commercially available. They have been. You can now go to
General Electric or you can go to other companies and say sell
me one, and they will sell you one. That was not the case three
years ago. That was certainly not the case eight years ago.
We're trying to get to that same level on other
technologies like, for example, concentrating solar power,
higher temperature supercritical CO2, so more for
fossil-type applications may be in the next three years. Oxy-
fuel combustion is probably going to take five years. So some
is already commercially available and some is not, and so there
is a development path that we need to follow really toward
higher temperatures.
Mr. Biggs. And so what regions of the country or what areas
do you see benefiting the most from this technology?
Dr. Brun. There's really no limits there. This is widely
applicable. The nice thing about supercritical CO2
is that it's site-able anywhere, and it doesn't have any water
requirements, and that makes it really site-able in places
where you have to have access to water.
Mr. Biggs. Like Arizona I'm thinking.
Dr. Brun. Arizona is fine.
Mr. Biggs. Very good. Thank you. With that, I yield back,
Mr. Chairman.
Dr. Brun. Thank you.
Chairman Weber. Thank you, sir. The gentleman from
California is recognized for five minutes.
Mr. McNerney. Well, I thank the Chairman.
Say, I thank the witnesses. I enjoyed your testimony. I
especially thank Mr. Aines and Christie Schomer from Livermore
Labs. I've been there many times. It's right inside of my
district. I appreciate the work that you're doing over there.
I've often implored my Republican colleagues to embrace
carbon sequestration, especially if their districts mine carbon
or burn coal or burn coal. That might help them in the long
run. Is there anyone on the panel that disagrees with that
sentiment?
I see headshaking that they agree with my sentiment. Thank
you.
Mr. Aines, you spoke about the need to transfer within the
DOD about carbon capture from coal-fired to gas-fired systems,
so how do you suggest that we accomplish that?
Dr. Aines. From the DOE.
Mr. McNerney. What did I say, DOD?
Dr. Aines. Yes.
Mr. McNerney. Thank you for the correction.
Dr. Aines. The most important thing is to engage
partnerships like what's going on in Wyoming so that the
researchers get to work together with industry.
Mr. McNerney. Well, that was simple. So I also appreciate
what you said in your written testimony about Mt. Poso
Generating Facility in Bakersfield. It's near an oilfield
that's well-suited to CO2 storage. Can you talk more
about the policy considerations such as the 45Q credit and
California's low carbon fuel standard for incentivizing that
development?
Dr. Aines. The issue with carbon capture today is that no
one can afford to do it, and so we need incentives to help
these first movers get the ability to have a business that's
going to make money doing it, just as we did with wind and
solar when we first started. Mt. Poso is going to take
advantage of two of those, the 45Q tax credit, and within
California if you're making a transportation fuel, the low
carbon fuel standard as of just last week was trading at $185 a
ton of CO2. So when you combine those two things
together, $220, $230 a ton is something that people are
absolutely looking at to make real money. And we expect that
places like Mt. Poso and places like the ethanol refineries
within the central part of the country are going to jump on
these opportunities to make money while controlling carbon
dioxide.
Mr. McNerney. So do you think that carbon capture and
sequestration can be viable without a price on carbon in the
long run in the Nation? And also, Ms. Angielski, could answer
that question as well.
Dr. Aines. I think that it's a difficult task that is going
to require prices like those mechanisms that I just discussed.
I don't think we're ever going to make enough money just from
selling the CO2 to do all the carbon management that
we need to do.
Mr. McNerney. Thank you.
Ms. Angielski. I am not sure to--that from CERC's
perspective commenting on whether regulation is necessary or
not is not a position that we take. I think what we take is the
position that Dr. Aines just described, which is improved
technology will be needed, particularly for deployment of
carbon capture in the power sector.
It, right now, is the differential between the cost of
capturing the CO2, which is where the 45Q credit
comes into place to help reduce those costs and actually
incentivize the deployment of these technologies in the power
sector, as well as in other industrial applications like the
ethanol industry, as you just described. However, right now,
those credits are not enough to offset the production of
CO2 in the power sector, so that's where we believe
that improved technologies through the public-private
partnerships with the Department of Energy will help to reduce
the cost of applying those technologies in the future. And that
will be needed in addition to some of these incentives like 45Q
to overall deploy the technologies in the market.
Mr. McNerney. Well, thank you. I'm really interested in the
technology, this high-pressure carbon technology, super
pressure. Can you describe a little bit, Dr. Brun, the--where
that fits in with the Carnot cycle? Where does the Allam cycle
fit in with the Carnot cycle?
Dr. Brun. If you're talking the Allam cycle, I mean--
Mr. McNerney. We're talking about the Allam cycle with----
Dr. Brun. Yes, that's one of the--there's a host of
supercritical CO2 cycles--supercritical CO2
really just replaces either steam or water in the cycle, so
there is a host of cycle--they're all called Brayton cycle. The
Carnot cycle is kind of like the idealized cycle.
Fundamentally, the supercritical CO2 cycles, the
host of cycles, one of them being the Allam cycle--and that's a
very promising cycle, by the way--they all end up benefiting
the efficiency of the cycle and the power output of the cycle
because supercritical CO2 is really carbon dioxide
at high pressure and high temperature--is a much better
thermodynamic fluid than steam or air. There's nothing wrong
with steam or air. We've been using it for 250 years; it's
good. It's abundantly available obviously, but carbon dioxide
is just, from a thermodynamic perspective, a better fuel.
Mr. McNerney. With the Chairman's indulgence, I mean,
you're going to have carbon dioxide left over eventually. I
mean, you're going to have to do something with it.
Dr. Brun. Right.
Mr. McNerney. And as it remain pressured after the cycle,
you can still----
Dr. Brun. You can utilize it.
Mr. McNerney. You can use it somehow?
Dr. Brun. Yes, the beauty of it is that you don't have to
do any flue gas or pre-combustion cleanup, right? All this
where you need to do something to get the carbon dioxide out of
the flue gas, out of your exhaust, you don't have to do that
because what you're getting out is 100 percent CO2
at pressure already, so you don't have to compress it either so
you don't have that compression penalties. So you're ready to
take that CO2 and do whatever you want to do with
it, sequester it or use it for advanced other products.
That's the nice thing about that cycle whereas in other air
cycles you have to take the CO2 and the stack
emissions out of the air at a low percentage, which is
expensive. In the CO2 cycle and the oxy-fuel cycles,
you don't have to worry about that. You get pure CO2
already ready for sequestration.
Mr. McNerney. With the Chairman's gratitude, I yield back.
Chairman Weber. Absolutely. I think in that instance, Dr.
Brun--I don't want to continue this because Mr. Rohrabacher is
straining at the halter over there--it's the infrastructure to
get that pure CO2 to work to where it's needed. Is
that--isn't that the challenge?
Dr. Brun. Yes, that's an additional challenge. Obviously,
you have to do something with the CO2 once you have
it, right?
Chairman Weber. Yes.
Dr. Brun. And so you're still going to need some pipelines.
You're going to have to inject it somewhere, into salt domes.
All that is additional cost. There's obviously been quite a bit
of work in those areas, but, yes, there is----
Chairman Weber. Thank you. And I thank the gentleman from
California. That was a great exchange.
The other gentleman from California, Mr. Rohrabacher, is
recognized.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And
it's been a very interesting discussion. And, I mean, no, I'm
not an engineer, so some of the things I'm still trying to come
to grips with of how we are accomplishing the various output
based on the input and what's in between there. I'm not really
sure about some of the engineering.
But the basic motive that we have supposedly or the basic
motive behind much of what's going on about CO2 is
based on the theory that CO2 is a major factor in
causing our planet to get hotter and hotter. I don't happen to
agree with that. I've talked to a lot of scientists who believe
that premise is not correct, that looking back at the ice cores
from ancient times to now actually has the planet getting
hotter, and then there's more CO2 being created.
I'm not going to ask you what your beliefs are on CO2
making the planet hotter. Let's just accept that today there--
also, the discussion today is based on there's CO2
that's being produced. Can we do something that is beneficial
to mankind even if you do not believe that CO2 is
causing the planet to get hotter? And that discussion I think
is very important for all of us to make, and we're very happy
to have you here to help direct that discussion.
In my own area in Orange County we have a company called
Newlight Technologies. Are you aware of this company? I'm very
proud of these young men, who are surfers and went off to
Princeton and got educated and realized that there was a
potential for getting something out of the air, straight out of
the air that would be of value. And they have just opened up
their first $50 million production site after spending years
perfecting it.
And let me just note for the record here its Newlight
Technologies, and they are taking carbon dioxide and methane
emissions right out of the air and producing high-quality
plastic that is actually at a lower cost than the current
method of producing plastic. And the plastic that they are
producing has biodegradable properties that make it even more
important because whales that are eating plastic bags, we know
that's bad and we don't want fish and other ingestion of
plastic is actually harmful for the environment.
These kids are taking that CO2 out of the air
and the methane out of the air and producing things that are
cheaper and better. And so I think that's a formula for
progress. And so whatever we do, we need to make sure that
actually there is not just the benefit of keeping the planet
from warming but instead other benefits that go with that.
Now, I'd like to talk about that. I'd like to ask about
whether or not--when we're talking about the Colorado--or the
Wyoming projects and--that are going on or--we have--well, let
me talk about the scrubbers first and all the--what you
presented for us, Dr. Brun, was very complicated. And again, I
was trying to get a non-engineer to understand this. In the
end, are you coming up with a product that actually is going to
be cost-effective, or is this going to be at an enormous cost?
Dr. Brun. No, all the models are predicting that it's cost-
effective. And what's important here is that this is not done
in a vacuum. We are working with industry. We're working with
all the major power players in the United States and companies
like General Electric and others that are investing
significantly of their own money, so they're not just taking
DOE money to develop this technology; they're investing their
own money. And so they're clearly seeing commercial viability
in that technology; otherwise, they wouldn't be pursuing it.
Mr. Rohrabacher. So this would be economically viable in
and of itself?
Dr. Brun. That is the aim.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Okay.
Dr. Brun. Yes.
Mr. Rohrabacher. And, Dr. Aines, in your prepared
statement, you mentioned the potential growth for using carbon
for manufacturing in industry and both carbon dioxide and
natural gas will be the main inputs for industry. And when you
think about natural gas and both carbon dioxide and natural gas
being used as inputs for this or for a--so why do we need to
then have tax benefits and R&D funding for all fossil fuels if
indeed we're just talking about the natural gas and carbon
dioxide?
Dr. Aines. I can't answer that question in detail. I look
to the future, and I see that industry is very interested in
using natural gas because of the simplicity and the cleanliness
but mostly the simplicity and its lower cost for them, and so
that is where the direction that a lot of industrial movers are
going.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Well, when it comes to CO2
and--you know, I drove across the country with my family a year
ago, and one thing that was interesting for my kids was to see
all of these fields that were covered with plastic and machines
pumping something into that plastic with the different plants
like tomatoes, et cetera, and they were--my kids were very
surprised to find out that they were pumping CO2
into these big coverings of agricultural products. Is--the end-
situation there we're utilizing CO2 for something
that's positive. You get more food out of it. Is that--so is
this not an example--is there more examples like this that we
could have that would actually--where we're using CO2
that will in a way benefit--like our friends are making plastic
out of it. Are we going to see more of this? And maybe you have
some examples specifically of how CO2 will be used
to have other uses that are beneficial.
Dr. Aines. That's a great example, and another example that
I would point to is the addition of carbon dioxide to cement
and concrete, which I know of about 20 companies that are
pursuing this. And the major advantage there is it makes the
concrete stronger, and so you can use less of it, you can have
a more efficient structure, and it's a terrific combination of
having a better product and using the CO2 that we
want to keep out of the air.
Mr. Rohrabacher. So we don't have to really agree on
whether or not global warming is caused by CO2 to be
very interested in this whole concept of science research and
expanding the use of CO2 in a positive way.
Chairman Weber. You don't. You just have to agree and yield
back.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Thank you.
Chairman Weber. Okay. All right. The Chair now recognizes
the gentleman, Mr. Tonko, for five minutes.
Mr. Tonko. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you to all of
our witnesses for being here today.
This is a critical topic because a modern society needs
energy, and the only way we are going to meet our energy
challenges are through investments in research and development.
We often hear about the need to reduce government spending, and
while that is certainly important, we cannot lose sight of the
vital role the government plays in investing in innovation.
The Federal Government must be an active partner with
universities, with independent laboratories, and certainly the
private sector. The only way we are going to meet our energy
challenges are through investments in research and development.
Having an R&D portfolio that covers the spectrum from basic
sciences to technology development, testing and deployment
greatly augments the work being done by the private sector and
in our university communities.
Sustained support of these efforts is essential to lowering
costs and improving performance of energy technologies. And
when it comes to a national energy policy, there are so many
areas that we should be further discussing, including battery
development, storage, alternative energy, grid investments,
energy efficiency and innovation, and how we generate and
transmit and conserve power.
This committee should be looking at how we can invest so
that our Nation can have the best options to choose from to
ensure that we protect our Nation by addressing our national
security and our public health and our Nation's economy. I
fully believe that across the field we need to develop
technologies to reduce our carbon footprint and to increase
efficiency in all areas, which is why I'm so proud of being a
supporter of a bill to make gas turbines more efficient.
Efficiency must be our fuel of choice, especially for
fossil fuels. The gas turbine R&D bill, which I have worked on
with Representative David McKinley, would authorize DOE's
Office of Fossil Energy to carry out a multiyear, multiphase
R&D program to improve the efficiency of gas turbines used in
power generation systems and to identify the technologies that
ultimately will lead to gas turbine combined-cycle efficiency
of some 67 percent. This includes high-temp materials, improved
heat transfer capability, manufacturing technology required to
construct complex parts, advance controls and systems
integration, among other topics. And expanded government
investment and research of gas turbine technology will lead to
more American jobs, increased American global competitiveness,
and reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
So for all of our witnesses, how important do you think it
is that we use our fossil fuels more efficiently if we continue
to rely in part on them? Anyone?
Ms. Angielski. I'm happy to answer. I think historically,
we've seen the benefits from improved efficiency in both gas
turbines through natural gas combined-cycle systems, as well as
coal-fired generation. And with every percentage point in
improvement, we see a significant reduction overall in
emissions, as well as fewer fossil fuels being needed for that
same amount of energy output. So it's very, very important.
Mr. Tonko. Anyone else? Thank you.
Mr. Begger. Yes. Mr. Chairman, Congressman, I completely
agree. You know, if you look back at the power plants, you
know, this generation of power plants have been retiring in the
last few years that were constructed in the '60s and '70s, you
had maybe a 30 percent efficiency factor. Today's power plants,
you look at the Turk facility in Arkansas, which is
supercritical, it's up over 40 percent. So one thing that if
the United States wanted to improve efficiencies and emissions
today is you would find a way to build more of those
supercritical Turk plants and close down the older plants
because efficiencies do matter and they do get us there.
Mr. Tonko. Oh, yes. They address the amount of electrons we
can save and the dollars we can save, so yes, sir. Dr. Brun?
Dr. Brun. Yes. I think gas turbine development is a really
wonderful example of how you have a collaboration between
academia, government funding, and industry, specifically GE in
the United States and Westinghouse before, where you've taken a
technology from after World War II maybe in the 30 percent
efficiency to now we're talking 67 percent efficiency, which is
by far the highest efficiency power plant technology that's out
there. That's higher than anything else, and that's--I mean,
that's been dramatically--even over the last 20 years we've
gone from about 55 to about--right now, we're probably at 63,
64, but we're aiming for that 67 percent. So that research has
been fantastic, and every percent that you save is one percent
less CO2----
Mr. Tonko. Right.
Dr. Brun. --and is one percent less fuel burned, and so
that's been very effective research, and that's been a great
collaboration between industry and government and academia.
Mr. Tonko. Right. It's hard to believe that there are think
tanks out there that fight this effort to offer these
challenges, develop these goals, and reduce the pollution, the
carbon pollution, but they're there and it's a force we have to
work against.
So with that, I thank you all for your input and I yield
back, Mr. Chair.
Chairman Weber. Thank you, Mr. Tonko.
And the gentleman from Texas, Dr. Babin, is recognized for
five minutes.
Mr. Babin. Yes, sir. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I
appreciate all of you being here today, very, very interesting.
Mr. Begger, can you please describe the misconceptions that
many people have of coal and why technological innovation can
help clear up some of these misconceptions? If you would
elaborate, please.
Mr. Begger. Mr. Chairman, Congressman, one of our biggest
goals--I mean, the reason why Wyoming is involved in this is to
figure out how can we ensure the long-term viability of a
natural resource the State has. You know, 1/3 of Wyoming's tax
revenue is directly dependent upon the coal industry. The
benefits of coal are pretty evident. It's the reason why the
country has been using it for years. It's why China is using
it. Why we see these industrialized nations using more and more
of coal is it's reliable, it's stable, you can put it on a pile
somewhere, you don't need a pipeline. It is a very great fuel
for beginning an energy industry.
And so I think our challenge now is how can we use that,
understanding society's drive and demand towards lower carbon
standards? You know, in the past, you know, nobody talks about
acid rain anymore. It's because we've developed scrubbers. The
smog, you know, you'd see those old pictures from Pittsburgh
and, you know, Detroit 50 years ago. We don't have those sort
of things anymore because we've developed, you know, baghouses
and electrostatic precipitators.
And so Wyoming's approach is let's look at climate change
as a political--or, excuse me, as an engineering challenge and
not a political football because industry time and time again
has shown that, given enough time and enough resources, we can
engineer a solution----
Mr. Babin. Absolutely.
Mr. Begger. --and find that win-win. You know, let's remove
CO2 and we can find an economic incentive to do so,
that's great.
Mr. Babin. I appreciate that. It's very fascinating. And
being from Texas, my district is over on the east side where we
produce a lot of natural gas, and yet 60 percent of our
electricity in my district comes from coal, coal-fired plants.
Thank you very much.
Dr. Aines, your research--excuse me. In your prepared
testimony, you mentioned the carbon economy and the future
potential for growth and utilizing carbon as an input for
manufacturing or industry. Both carbon dioxide and natural gas
will be the main inputs to produce products from a carbon
economy. Why is it important to have fossil energy research and
development funding focused on all fossil fuels?
Dr. Aines. There are many options needed in an economy as
large and diverse as ours, and we simply can't afford to pick
winners. It's certainly not my job to pick winners. It's my job
to deliver solutions, and that's why we need research across
the entire gamut.
Mr. Babin. Thank you very much.
And, Dr. Brun, in your opinion, if you've already spoken
about this, stop me, but I didn't--I don't think you have. Will
supercritical carbon dioxide power cycles begin to replace
traditional steam and air cycles? And could investments by the
energy sector in supercritical carbon technology help us to
continue to take advantage of our abundant and affordable
fossil energy?
Dr. Brun. Yes, I think we can see on the low temperature
wasted recovery side we can probably see something in the next
three to five years. Obviously, there is hundreds and hundreds
of powerplant, so it's not just an easy replacement. But I can
foresee in the next 10, 15 years quite an impact from
supercritical CO2 and replacement of it, especially
of steam cycles. On the air cycles, that's gonna take a little
longer, but probably 10 to 15 years.
Mr. Babin. Okay.
Dr. Brun. The technology is moving fairly fast there.
Mr. Babin. Glad to hear.
And, Ms. Angielski, can you give an example of carbon
capture, utilization, or storage research through investments
by fossil energy industry that could lead to an advanced
carbon-based technology?
Ms. Angielski. There are several that were discussed here
today, so certainly the supercritical CO2 cycles. We
identify several technologies in our roadmap, including
pressurized oxygen combustion, which was described here today.
We have some carbon-capture technologies that are looking for
testing right now that, once tested, could actually begin to
have commercial offerings available. So there are a suite of
technologies, which, from our perspective, is very important to
make sure that we have a diverse portfolio of technologies and
that we're not just picking winners, as already discussed.
Mr. Babin. Right.
Ms. Angielski. And so--but there are several technologies
identified in the roadmap that are readying for that testing to
be able to then take that piece of paper to a financer and say
we can offer commercial guarantees. So----
Mr. Babin. Thank you. And I yield back, Mr. Chairman. Thank
you.
Chairman Weber. Thank you, Doctor.
The gentleman from Alabama, Mo Brooks, is recognized for
five minutes.
Mr. Brooks. Mr. Chairman, I'll defer.
Chairman Weber. Then the other gentleman from Alabama--
we've got both of them here today--is recognized for five
minutes, Mr. Palmer.
Mr. Palmer. The one who will not defer. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman.
This is very interesting to me. I've worked for two
engineering companies prior to running a think tank for 24, 25
years. I worked for Combustion Engineering and Environmental
Systems Division. I see Dr. Brun nodding his head. We built
scrubbers, precipitators, baghouses.
And I just was wondering on the latest technology how
effective are we at capturing CO2 right now, Dr.
Brun?
Dr. Brun. It depends on how concentrated your stream of it
is. If you're doing flue gas--I mean, you can capture 100
percent of it, right? I mean, it's technically viable. It
becomes a cost issue. So it's easier to--the more concentrated
your stream and your flue gas is, the easier it is to capture
it. And that's why we're pushing for the oxy-fuel and
supercritical CO2-type cycles, but you can certainly
remove CO2 from the flue gas of a combined cycle
plant.
The only problem is that it is a low percentage, and so you
have to scrub a lot more gas to get the CO2 out. But
even there you can remove 100 percent of the CO2. It
just becomes a cost-of-electricity issue and how much cost you
want to add to your cost of electricity. There's a technology
there in that sense exists, and it's just a question of cost.
Mr. Palmer. Well, one of the reasons I'm asking this is
that when it comes to fossil energy, most of the time we're
talking about--when we're talking about capturing carbon, we're
talking about coal, but there are uses or potential uses for
capturing CO2 for unlocking oil resources from
shale. And we've got the Green River Formation. Are you
familiar with that?
Dr. Brun. No, I'm not.
Mr. Palmer. The Green River Formation--and I have a GAO
report, which was part of a committee hearing I think in 2012
that got very little attention in the media. ABC News reported
on it. But the Green River Formation holds three trillion
barrels of recoverable oil. That's three times what the entire
world has used in the last 100 years and five or six times the
known reserves of the Saudis. Just half of it would be more
than the known--all of OPEC combined. About half of it, 1.4
trillion, is the more recoverable, the richer deposits. But in
your research do you see the potential for using captured
carbon for releasing or having access to such oil deposits?
Dr. Brun. Yes, I think using CO2 for enhanced
oil recovery is certainly a recognized usage of carbon dioxide,
and the combination of oxy-fuel combustion plants where you get
CO2 out and then you inject that at high pressures
into the formation to get enhanced oil recovery is something
that has been discussed by many oil companies. I've given
presentations on the topic actually. It's certainly a viable
technology for----
Mr. Palmer. But is it economically viable?
Dr. Brun. Yes, it is. It is economically viable. It depends
on your formation. It depends on your application, but there
are certainly applications right now where it is economically
viable, yes.
Mr. Palmer. Do the Chinese or the Indian Government do
anything in regard to carbon capture?
Dr. Brun. The Chinese are doing quite a bit in that area.
Maybe you can answer that, too, but----
Mr. Palmer. Yes, anyone of the panel if you know the answer
to that.
Dr. Brun. Yes, the Chinese are very active, but you may
have more information.
Dr. Aines. Yes, the Chinese are in fact the most active
nation in the world in this area doing large demonstrations and
developing their own technology. The Indian Government has done
very little to this day.
Mr. Palmer. And the Indian economy is the fastest growing
economy in the world, and they're building quite a--done quite
a bit of building in regard to coal-fired power-generating
facilities. Is that accurate?
Dr. Aines. They are still building coal plants. It is
decreasing there. They are building more renewables now than
coal.
Mr. Palmer. Good. Mr. Begger, in your testimony you
mentioned the partnership between the Wyoming Integrated Test
Center and the National Carbon Capture Center near Wilsonville,
Alabama. That, by the way, is in my district. Can you give us a
little more detail about the work that ITC intends to do
through this partnership?
Mr. Begger. Sure. Mr. Chairman, Congressman, the way that
we see our role is complementing the work that National Carbon
Capture Center, NETL, and the other labs have done. And a few
years ago the state was looking about how to best get involved.
And through the course of about a year and a half of reviewing
critical gaps in testing infrastructure, what we recognized is
that there are a lot of places to do small testing like the
National Carbon Capture Center, on the backside of that coal-
fired power plant, they could test up to about 1-1/2-megawatt-
size projects. But utilities needed to see something larger
before making that leap.
And up until now really the only way to do that was a one-
on-one relationship between the technology developer going to a
utility and asking to basically cut a hole in the side of their
power plant and access some of their flue gas. And, as you can
imagine, they were pretty reluctant to do that unless there was
a long-standing relationship. So what we've done with that
facility is sort of create the infrastructure there, a plug-
and-play system.
And so what we would like to see, the most promising
technologies that make it through there be that sort of
graduate school for them to come and test. And another area is
access to all of the incredible resources. You know, over years
at Wilsonville, they've developed incredible institutional
knowledge, engineering skills, and so having the ability to
basically access their lessons learned and their best practices
can hopefully help us prevent making those sort of same
mistakes.
Mr. Palmer. Well, this is all fascinating to me, Mr.
Chairman. I, as I said, worked in engineering and environmental
systems, and my brother-in-law worked for Southern Research and
was an expert in scrubbers and baghouses, traveled all over the
world. I would love for him to have been here. He probably
would have had some better questions than me.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Chairman Weber. I thank the gentleman.
The Ranking Member from Texas is recognized for another
question.
Mr. Veasey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Ms. Angielski, you know, as you know--and you've seen it on
the news--the current Administration has strongly opposed
practically any regulating of greenhouse gases. And many
including the President and our former EPA Administrator have
publicly questioned the validity of the broad scientific
consensus on the current and growing threat of climate change.
So in this context, please help us to a better understand
why are there Carbon Utilization Research Council industry
members like Peabody, Arch Coal, and the American Coal Council
so supportive of developing carbon capture, utilization, and
storage technologies that may ultimately impact their profits
if they're ever required to deploy them? If you could kind of
help us understand that, I think it would really go a long way.
Ms. Angielski. Sure. Well, as indicated in my testimony,
there's growing international use of all of our fossil fuel
resources, and as a result of that, there's growing
international consensus that we will need to do something to
reduce the carbon footprint from the utilization of the fossil
fuels. That's the position that we take when we look at
evaluating technology development needs both for today, as well
as what we're going to need in the future.
As a result, and as I mentioned earlier, a lot of that
focuses on the ability to reduce emissions of CO2
and carbon dioxide. I think what's equally important about that
is that many stakeholders, not just industry stakeholders but
also those in the environmental community, also share in that
consensus, which is we recognize the growth in these fuels and
we will need to invest in these technologies in order to
achieve any global climate objectives.
At the same time, we've also heard that there's both
environmental benefits from investing in these technologies, as
well as economic benefits, and that's also another perspective
that we take. When you look at these environmental benefits,
for example, lower-cost CO2 will be needed for
enhanced oil recovery in the future. We have less and less
CO2 coming from natural sources that are currently
mined and used for producing more oil from our depleting
oilfields in this country. So a lot of the oil companies in
this country are looking to power generators for those large
volumes of CO2 coming off of fossil fuels to be able
to use that in enhanced oil recovery. So we're looking at that
as a market opportunity as well.
If we have, as was described earlier, maybe a waste product
and CO2 being vented in a flue gas stream, why not
put that to good use and get some economic value out of it
while also producing more domestic oil and ultimately producing
a low-carbon barrel of oil as well, which is important to
recognize?
So there's both tracks that can be pursued. I think over
the long term if--under any future scenario, I think we share a
view that we may be living in a carbon-constrained world, and
we want to make sure that we have those technologies available
to enable us to continue to utilize our fossil fuel resources
and to have them being competitive with all of the other low-
carbon generation sources that are available to us today as
well.
Mr. Veasey. Mr. Chairman, I yield back. Thank you.
Chairman Weber. I thank the witnesses for their testimony
and the Members for their questions. The record will remain
open for two weeks for additional written comments and written
questions from members.
The hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:50 a.m., the Subcommittees were
adjourned.]
Appendix I
----------
Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Responses by Mr. Jason Begger
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Appendix II
----------
Additional Material for the Record
Documents submitted by Subcommittee
Ranking Member Veasey
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]