[House Hearing, 116 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
FOSSIL ENERGY RESEARCH:
ENABLING OUR CLEAN ENERGY FUTURE
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
June 19, 2019
__________
Serial No. 116-29
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via the World Wide Web: http://science.house.gov
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
36-709PDF WASHINGTON : 2019
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office,
http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center,
U.S. Government Publishing Office. Phone 202-512-1800, or 866-512-1800 (toll-free).
E-mail, [email protected].
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY
HON. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas, Chairwoman
ZOE LOFGREN, California FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma,
DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois Ranking Member
SUZANNE BONAMICI, Oregon MO BROOKS, Alabama
AMI BERA, California, BILL POSEY, Florida
Vice Chair RANDY WEBER, Texas
CONOR LAMB, Pennsylvania BRIAN BABIN, Texas
LIZZIE FLETCHER, Texas ANDY BIGGS, Arizona
HALEY STEVENS, Michigan ROGER MARSHALL, Kansas
KENDRA HORN, Oklahoma RALPH NORMAN, South Carolina
MIKIE SHERRILL, New Jersey MICHAEL CLOUD, Texas
BRAD SHERMAN, California TROY BALDERSON, Ohio
STEVE COHEN, Tennessee PETE OLSON, Texas
JERRY McNERNEY, California ANTHONY GONZALEZ, Ohio
ED PERLMUTTER, Colorado MICHAEL WALTZ, Florida
PAUL TONKO, New York JIM BAIRD, Indiana
BILL FOSTER, Illinois JAIME HERRERA BEUTLER, Washington
DON BEYER, Virginia JENNIFFER GONZALEZ-COLON, Puerto
CHARLIE CRIST, Florida Rico
SEAN CASTEN, Illinois VACANCY
KATIE HILL, California
BEN McADAMS, Utah
JENNIFER WEXTON, Virginia
------
Subcommittee on Energy
HON. CONOR LAMB, Pennsylvania, Chairman
DANIEL LIPINKSI, Illinois RANDY WEBER, Texas, Ranking Member
LIZZIE FLETCHER, Texas ANDY BIGGS, Arizona
HALEY STEVENS, Michigan RALPH NORMAN, South Carolina
KENDRA HORN, Oklahoma MICHAEL CLOUD, Texas
JERRY McNERNEY, California VACANCY
BILL FOSTER, Illinois
SEAN CASTEN, Illinois
C O N T E N T S
June 19, 2019
Page
Hearing Charter.................................................. 2
Opening Statements
Statement by Representative Conor Lamb, Chairman, Subcommittee on
Energy, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House
of Representatives............................................. 7
Written Statement............................................ 8
Statement by Representative Randy Weber, Ranking Member,
Subcommittee on Energy, Committee on Science, Space, and
Technology, U.S. House of Representatives...................... 9
Written Statement............................................ 10
Statement by Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson, Chairwoman,
Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of
Representatives................................................ 11
Written statement............................................ 12
Statement by Representative Frank Lucas, Ranking Member,
Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of
Representatives................................................ 13
Written statement............................................ 14
Witnesses:
Ms. Shannon Angielski, Executive Director, Carbon Utilization
Research Council
Oral Statement............................................... 16
Written Statement............................................ 19
Mr. Elgie Holstein, Senior Director for Strategic Planning,
Environmental Defense Fund
Oral Statement............................................... 35
Written Statement............................................ 37
Mr. Jeff Bobeck, Director of Energy Policy and Engagement, Center
for Climate and Energy Solutions
Oral Statement............................................... 44
Written Statement............................................ 46
Ms. Erin Burns, Director of Policy, Carbon180
Oral Statement............................................... 54
Written Statement............................................ 56
Dr. Erik K. Webb, Senior Manager, Geoscience Research and
Applications, Sandia National Laboratories
Oral Statement............................................... 66
Written Statement............................................ 68
Discussion....................................................... 76
FOSSIL ENERGY RESEARCH:.
ENABLING OUR CLEAN ENERGY FUTURE
----------
WEDNESDAY, JUNE 19, 2019
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Energy,
Committee on Science, Space, and Technology,
Washington, D.C.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 3:25 p.m., in
room 2318 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Conor Lamb
[Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Lamb. OK. This hearing will come to order. Without
objection, the Chair is authorized to declare recess at any
time.
Good afternoon. Welcome to this afternoon's hearing
entitled, ``Fossil Energy Research: Enabling Our Clean Energy
Future.'' Thank you to our distinguished panel of witnesses for
joining us.
We have discussed on this Subcommittee previously that we
all believe we must develop policies that both support American
workers while also addressing climate change. I myself believe
in a jobs-first environmental policy. That's why I'm excited to
hold this hearing. We will focus on two draft bills that will
do exactly that today, support critical research to mitigate
the environmental impacts that come with the extraction and use
of fossil fuels.
Western Pennsylvania, where I'm from, plays a key role in
all of this. We are a net exporter of energy, second largest
producer of natural gas in the country. We have produced more
coal than any State in the Nation, and that has powered us
through the Industrial Revolution, two world wars, produced
most of the wealth that we enjoy in western Pennsylvania to
this day, to say nothing of employing thousands and thousands
of men and women supporting families, which also continues to
this day.
The energy industry remains a top employer in my district
and region. People are working in these jobs and feeding their
families tonight with this wealth, and we want to see it
continue but in a way that's environmentally responsible and
does not deny what we all know is coming with climate change
and the urgent need to emit less carbon and decarbonize our
economy.
Last month, we were able to have several Members of the
Committee join us at the National Energy Technology
Laboratory's (NETL's) Pittsburgh site near my district, and we
got to see firsthand some of the technologies and works that
the folks at NETL are doing. We are extremely proud of NETL and
happy that they are under new leadership, which is going to
keep them going strong for a long time.
It's the only national lab dedicated to fossil energy
research, so we are going to be talking first about the Fossil
Energy Research and Development Act of 2019, which will support
their research activities there. Specifically, I'd like to
highlight demonstration activities on carbon capture, and I
know some of our folks today will be talking about the
importance of that.
We'll also be boosting research to talk about efficiency
improvements, the prevention of methane leaks at every point in
the natural gas infrastructure, increasing our investment in
how to utilize carbon as well.
We also are going to look beyond the power sector in
today's hearing, which I think is vitally important. We tend to
focus on the power grid, but of course we need to find ways to
decarbonize the industrial and transportation sectors as well.
So we'll also be looking at the Industrial Decarbonization
Technology Development Act--it really rolls off the tongue--the
IDTD. The bill would authorize an interagency research program
led by DOE (Department of Energy) to develop technologies that
will help us eliminate lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions from
both the industrial and transportation sectors.
This can and should be a bipartisan issue, and I believe it
will be based on conversations with my colleagues. Secretary
Perry has said that you cannot have a real conversation about
clean energy without talking about CCUS (carbon capture,
utilization, and storage). Former Secretary Moniz has made very
similar comments. The Department of Energy under the Obama
Administration released a white paper on this technology saying
that CCUS would be a key pathway to where we need to go on
clean energy. And of course, as at least one of our witnesses
has noted in their written testimony, the IEA (International
Energy Agency) has also noted that it could be 2 or 2-1/2 or 3
times more expensive to reach our climate goals by 2050 if we
do not have carbon capture as part of the solution.
So I think we're all on the same page there. We will do
everything we can to push forward this knowledge and then have
this also be a source of American jobs in the future because we
all believe that others in the world will be burning fossil
fuels for a long time. We might as well have them buying carbon
capture technology from the United States.
So I thank our panel of witnesses again for being here
today, look forward to your input.
[The prepared statement of Chairman Lamb follows:]
Good afternoon and thank you to this distinguished panel of
witnesses for joining us today. As we've discussed on this
Subcommittee previously, we must develop policies that strongly
support American workers while addressing the critical issue of
climate change. I believe Carbon Capture, Utilization, and
Storage technologies represent that type of dual opportunity.
That is why I am excited to hold today's hearing, which focuses
on two draft bills that would support critical research
activities to mitigate the environmental impacts that come from
the extraction and use of fossil fuels and curtail emissions
from the industrial sector.
Western Pennsylvania plays a key role in this intersection.
Pennsylvania is a net-exporter of energy and the second-largest
producer of natural gas in the country. My home state has
produced more coal than any other in our nation's history -
coal that powered us through the industrial revolution and two
World Wars. We used this power and our resources to make the
steel that built our country.
These industries employed thousands and thousands of men
and women; generations supported their families through this
hard work. That continues to this day. The energy industry
remains a top employer in my district and region, and we have
world-class labs, companies, and universities conducting
cutting-edge research to ensure these resources and products
are made in environmentally responsible manners.
Last month, I was very proud to lead a Congressional
Delegation to the National Energy Technology Laboratory's
(NETL's) Pittsburgh site near my district, where we saw first-
hand the wide range of important technologies and methods that
NETL is developing to ensure that the production and use of
coal and natural gas are as efficient and environmentally
friendly as possible. NETL is the only U.S. Department of
Energy national laboratory dedicated to fossil energy research.
Accordingly, I'm pleased we are holding this hearing on the
Fossil Energy Research and Development Act of 2019. This bill
will support research, development, and demonstration
activities on carbon capture, storage, utilization, and removal
and bolster the work being done at NETL. It will also boost
research to advance significant efficiency improvements,
prevent methane leaks from natural gas infrastructure, and
increase our investment in carbon utilization research.
As we continue to develop ways to reduce the environmental
impact of fossil energy sources overall, we must also look
beyond the power sector. The industrial and transportation
sectors combined produced nearly half of all greenhouse gas
emissions in the U.S. in 2017. The second draft bill we are
considering today, the Industrial Decarbonization Technology
Development Act of 2019, is aimed at mitigating that. This bill
would authorize an interagency research program led by the
Department of Energy to develop technologies that will help
eliminate lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions from industrial
processes and long-distance transportation. Supporting these
types of research and technology can and should be a bipartisan
issue. Secretary Perry has said he doesn't believe ``you can
have a real conversation about clean energy without including
CCUS.'' I agree.
Similarly, Secretary Moniz often spoke of the importance of
CCUS technologies across industries, describing them as
``critical for reducing COCO2 and meeting our
climate goals,'' and stating that ``we need to continue this
innovation push.'' In 2016, the Department of Energy under the
Obama administration also released a great white paper on the
technology, heralding CCUS as ``a key pathway to address the
urgent U.S. and global need for affordable, secure, resilient,
and reliable sources of clean energy.'' We should be doing
everything we can to advance these technologies, from their
research and development to their deployment.
I thank our panel of witnesses again for being here today
and I look forward to their input and feedback on these
important topics and the discussion drafts.
Chairman Lamb. And I would like to recognize Ranking
Member, Mr. Weber, for an opening statement if he is ready and
his breath is caught.
Mr. Weber. Well, one out of two ain't bad, Chairman.
Chairman Lamb. All right. Go for it.
Mr. Weber. But I appreciate that. Thank you. I apologize
for being late. My bicycle had a flat tire.
Thank you, Chairman Lamb, for hosting this hearing. Today,
we will have the opportunity to hear about exciting new
research and development in fossil energy.
Last year in the United States, coal and natural gas
comprised 64 percent of net electricity generation, with that
number expected to only dip to 58 percent by 2040. The use of
fossil fuels in the power sector, as you kind of alluded to,
isn't going anywhere. We have incredible domestic fossil energy
resources, and our economic stability depends on the power they
produce.
So it's no surprise that we have a robust industry here at
home investing in the generation that you talked about,
developing technologies to produce and use American fossil
fuels more efficiently, more safely, and at a lower cost for
American consumers.
Today's hearing is an opportunity for private-sector
organizations and DOE national labs to highlight their leading
roles in fossil energy innovation. The scope and range of
technologies being pursued is as vast as the untapped oil
reserves in west Texas. We'll hear from expert witnesses about
research in materials science that can prevent CO2
leaks in storage formations under high temperatures, high
pressures, and chemical conditions.
I'm also excited to hear about a joint project between the
Nuclear and Fossil Offices at DOE that uses supercritical
carbon dioxide as the working fluid, rather than steam, to
dramatically increase energy conversion efficiency at one-tenth
the cost.
While there are significant opportunities for worthy and
exciting research in this field, it is our job here in Congress
to focus Federal agencies on the best use of Federal funds, and
that means directing the Department of Energy to focus on the
basic and early-stage research industry cannot do on its own.
They need to be collecting long-term data and maintaining
expertise to provide industry with the tools necessary to
achieve technology breakthroughs. Once that technology is
developed, industry is best suited to take the lead, building
on the DOE research to commercialize those very same
technologies.
We've seen incredible research and technology successes
through collaborative, public-private partnerships, and it's
clear that this is the model that ensures Federal research
investments give the American people the most bang for their
buck. One such example is the Air Products production facility
in my home district in Port Arthur, Texas. This facility, which
is one of only two industrial plants in the entire United
States where carbon capture is currently in use at scale,
captures over 1 million tons of carbon dioxide per year. Let me
restate that. It captures over 1 million tons of carbon dioxide
each year. This CO2 is then transported via pipeline
for use in EOR, what we call enhanced oil recovery. With
support from the Department of Energy, the technology developed
and deployed at this facility is reducing the emissions from
local refineries and producing affordable American fuel to
power our economy at the same time.
Today, DOE is making smart, targeted investments in early-
stage research to advance the next generation of production and
emissions control technologies through the DOE Fossil Energy
and Research or FER&D program. Funded at $740 million in FY
2019, the FER&D program conducts research that supports clean,
affordable, and efficient use of domestic fossil energy
resources. In order to ensure these limited research dollars
are spent wisely, we must focus funding toward projects that
are truly cutting edge, applying DOE's supercomputers, their
light sources, and expertise toward developing next-generation
materials while maximizing efficiencies.
The complex fossil energy research challenges we face today
will require an all hands-on-deck approach. Academia, industry,
and the DOE are the ideal partners to develop these solutions.
I look forward to hearing about these great partnerships from
our witnesses today. I'm particularly interested to hear from
Dr. Erik Webb, who joins us from Sandia National Lab--welcome,
Doctor--about how the DOE labs can take a leading role in this
effort.
I want to thank all the witnesses in advance for testifying
today and, Mr. Chairman, you for holding the hearing, and I
yield back.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Weber follows:]
Thank you, Chairman Lamb, for hosting this hearing. Today,
we will have the opportunity to hear about exciting new
research and development in fossil energy.
Last year in the United States, coal and natural gas
comprised 64% of net electricity generation, with that number
expected to only dip to 58% by 2040. The use of fossil fuels in
the power sector isn't going anywhere. We have incredible
domestic fossil energy resources, and our economic stability
depends on the power they produce.
So it's no surprise that we have a robust industry here at
home investing in developing the next generation of
technologies to produce and use American fossil fuels more
efficiently, more safely, and at a lower cost for American
consumers.
Today's hearing is an opportunity for private sector
organizations and DOE national labs to highlight their leading
roles in fossil energy innovation. The scope and range of
technologies being pursued is as vast as the untapped oil and
gas reserves in Texas!
We'll hear from expert witnesses about research in
materials science that can prevent CO2 leaks in
storage formations under high temperatures, pressures, and
chemical conditions. I'm also excited to hear about a joint
project between the Nuclear and Fossil Offices at DOE that uses
supercritical carbon dioxide as the working fluid, rather than
steam, to dramatically increase energy conversion efficiency at
1/10th the cost.
While there are significant opportunities for worthy and
exciting research in this field, it's our job in Congress to
focus federal agencies on the best use of federal funds.
That means directing the Department of Energy to focus on
the basic and early-stage research industry cannot conduct on
its own, collecting long term data and maintaining expertise to
provide industry with the tools necessary to achieve technology
breakthroughs. Once a technology is developed, industry is best
suited to take the lead, building on DOE research to
commercialize technologies.
We've seen incredible research and technology successes
through collaborative, public-private partnerships, and it's
clear this is the model that ensures federal research
investments give us the most bang for our buck.
One such example is the Air Products production facility in
my home district.
This facility, which is one of only two industrial plants
in the United States where carbon capture is currently in use
at-scale, captures over one million tons of carbon dioxide per
year. This CO2 is then transported via pipeline for
use in enhanced oil recovery.
With support from DOE, the technology developed and
deployed at this facility is reducing the emissions from local
refineries, and producing affordable, American fuel to power
our economy.
Today, DOE is making smart, targeted investments in early-
stage research to advance the next generation of production and
emissions control technologies through the DOE Fossil Energy
Research and Development (F-E-R and D) program.
Funded at $740 million in FY 2019, the FER&D program
conducts research that supports clean, affordable, and
efficient use of domestic fossil energy resources. In order to
ensure these limited research dollars are spent wisely, we must
focus funding towards projects that are truly cutting edge -
applying DOE's supercomputers, light sources, and expertise
towards developing next generation materials and maximizing
efficiencies.
The complex fossil energy research challenges we face today
will require an all hands-on deck approach. Academia, industry,
and the Department of Energy are the ideal partners to develop
these solutions. I look forward to hearing about these
partnerships from our witnesses today.
I'm particularly interested to hear from Dr. Erik Webb -
who joins us from Sandia National Lab - about how the DOE labs
can take a leading role in this effort.
I want to thank our all witnesses for testifying today, and
the Chairman for holding this hearing.
Chairman Lamb. Thank you.
I now recognize Chairwoman Johnson for an opening
statement.
Chairwoman Johnson. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and
good afternoon to everyone.
I do appreciate this hearing being held on the Department
of Energy's efforts to mitigate the environmental impacts of
fossil fuels used in the power sector, as well as in
manufacturing processes.
Historically, fossil fuels have served as a primary source
of U.S. energy as they provide reliable power at low cost. My
home State of Texas has played an important role in the fossil
fuels industry as the leading producer of crude oil and natural
gas in the United States. However, as our Nation's priorities
have evolved, we are now focused not only on using energy
resources that provide low cost, dispatchable energy, but also
ensuring that these are clean sources of energy.
That's why we must strengthen our investments in the
Department of Energy's Office of Fossil Energy, which supports
research to address the environmental impacts of fossil fuels.
This includes the development of technologies such as carbon
capture, carbon storage, and methane leak detection and
mitigation.
Last Congress, I was proud to support the bipartisan Fossil
Fuel Research and Development Act of 2018, which reauthorizes
and expands these important research activities. I look forward
to discussing our proposed updates to that legislation during
today's hearing.
While fossil fuels play an important role in power
generation, they are also an important resource for the
manufacturing sector, which is responsible for the third
highest level of carbon emissions economywide. Manufacturers
rely on the combustion of fossil fuels to provide high-
temperature heat needed for a variety of processes, including
the production of cement and glass.
Technologies already being developed, like carbon capture,
will play an important role in reducing industrial emissions,
but we need to develop a variety of technologies that reflect
the diversity of our Nation's manufacturing sector, from
traditional sectors like the automobile manufacturing, to more
innovative sectors like sustainable building materials.
That is why I am pleased that this hearing will also
consider another proposed bill today, the Industrial
Decarbonization Technology Development Act of 2019, which would
authorize a cross-agency research initiative led by the
Department of Energy to reduce emissions from long-distance
transportation and manufacturing. Investing in research to
reduce emissions from these important economic sectors is
essential to meeting our climate change mitigation goals.
I'm looking forward to hearing from our distinguished group
of witnesses today on the research investments we need to make
to make the transition toward a clean energy economy. I thank
you for being here today, and with that, I yield back.
[The prepared statement of Chairwoman Johnson follows:]
Good afternoon and thank you, Chairman Lamb, for holding
today's hearing on the Department of Energy's efforts to
mitigate the environmental impacts of fossil fuels used in the
power sector as well as in manufacturing processes.
Historically, fossil fuels have served as the primary
sources of U.S. energy as they provide reliable power at low
costs. My home state of Texas has played an important role in
the fossil fuel industry as the leading producer of crude oil
and natural gas in the U.S. However, as our nation's priorities
have evolved, we are now focused not only on using energy
sources that provide low cost, dispatchable energy, but also
ensuring that these are clean sources of energy.
That's why we must strengthen our investment in the
Department of Energy's Office of Fossil Energy, which supports
research to address the environmental impacts of fossil fuels.
This includes the development of technologies such as carbon
capture, carbon storage, and methane leak detection and
mitigation. Last Congress, I was proud to support the
bipartisan Fossil Energy Research and Development Act of 2018,
which reauthorizes and expands these important research
activities. I look forward to discussing our proposed updates
to that legislation during today's hearing.
While fossil fuels play an important role in power
generation, they are also an important resource for the
manufacturing sector, which is responsible for the third
highest level of carbon emissions economy-wide. Manufacturers
rely on the combustion of fossil fuels to provide high-
temperature heat needed for a variety of processes, including
the production of cement and glass.
Technologies already being developed, like carbon capture,
will play an important role in reducing industrial emissions,
but we need to develop a variety of technologies that reflect
the diversity of our nation's manufacturing sector, from
traditional sectors like automobile manufacturing, to more
innovative sectors like sustainable building materials.
That is why I am pleased that this hearing will also
consider another proposed bill today, the Industrial
Decarbonization Technology Development Act of 2019, which would
authorize a cross-agency research initiative led by the
Department of Energy to reduce emissions from long-distance
transportation and manufacturing. Investing in research to
reduce emissions from these important economic sectors is
essential to meeting our climate change mitigation goals.
I am looking forward to hearing from our distinguished
group of witnesses today on the research investments we need to
make to make the transition towards a clean energy economy.
Thank you for being here today.
With that, I yield back.
Chairman Lamb. The Chair now recognizes Ranking Member
Lucas for an opening statement.
Mr. Lucas. Thank you, Chairman Lamb, for hosting this
hearing, which is especially relevant to the natural gas
industry in my own Oklahoma district.
Fossil fuels provide over 80 percent of energy worldwide
and remain the dominant source of energy here in the U.S.
Petroleum, natural gas, and coal provided more than 80 percent
of total U.S. energy consumption for the past 100 years, with
energy reserves to power our Nation for the next century.
In order to responsibly use our vast energy resources, the
next generation of fossil fuel technologies must be more
efficient, cleaner, and less expensive for American consumers.
Fortunately, our country is uniquely positioned to prioritize
the basic and early-stage research that leads to groundbreaking
technology.
In the 3 years since the U.S. began exporting liquefied
natural gas, we've become the world's third largest supplier.
The U.S. is projected to double export capacity by the end of
2020 and become the top exporter by 2025. This is an incredible
achievement made possible by American science and technology.
Federally funded research programs have a history of paving the
way for industry innovation. DOE labs created the drill bit
technology that led to hydraulic fracturing and horizontal
drilling, revolutionizing the oil and gas sector.
Basic research in geology at the Department of Energy's
Sandia National Lab led to the development of microseismic
fracture mapping techniques for hydraulic fracking. And sensor
technologies originally developed for aerospace applications at
NASA and the Department of Defense have been used to improve
safety in oil and gas development. In all these cases, industry
partners adopted techniques developed in the laboratory for
commercial use, maximizing energy production across the
country. Today, DOE contributes to make key investments in
early-stage fossil energy research, while the private sector
takes the lead on efforts to deploy new technologies.
Innovators in our national labs are building on decades of
groundbreaking successes in oil and gas production. I'm
particularly interested to hear from Dr. Erik Webb on how
Sandia National Lab is using monitoring systems and
mathematical models to better understand the subsurface. His
research will help fossil energy producers make more informed
decisions before they drill a well, saving time, money, and
reducing their environmental footprint along the way.
We know that industry has the resources, the capital, and
the capacity to successfully commercialize new technology. What
they often don't have is the infrastructure to conduct early-
stage research and maintain historical data. This is where DOE,
national labs, and academia can help.
At the National Energy Technologies Laboratory, the
Nation's leading fossil fuel lab, researchers are speeding up
the process of high-performance computing. Using the
laboratory's Joule 2.0 supercomputer, which recently received a
$16.5 million upgrade that boosted this computing power by
roughly 8 times. DOE researchers have helped industry optimize
chemical reactor designs and measure and improve the efficiency
of gas turbines.
With DOE's research, industry can improve the next
generation of power plants, using computerizational models to
save time and money in planning and producing power more
efficiently with less impact on the environment. The Department
plays an important role in ensuring energy producers are
utilizing the most efficient, safe, and clean technologies. We
in Congress owe it to the American consumers to prioritize this
important research and responsibly provide the needed energy
for economic development, while maintaining environmental
stewardship.
I want to thank you, Chairman Lamb, for holding this
hearing, and I look forward to hearing from the witnesses today
about the path forward for our next generation of fossil fuel
technology.
I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Lucas follows:]
Thank you, Chairman Lamb, for hosting this hearing which is
especially relevant to the natural gas industry in my Oklahoma
district.
Fossil fuels provide over 80% of energy worldwide and
remain the dominant source of energy here in the U.S.
Petroleum, natural gas, and coal provided more than 80% of
total U.S. energy consumption for the past 100 years, with
energy reserves to power our nation for the next century.
In order to responsibly use our vast energy resources, the
next generation of fossil energy technologies must be more
efficient, cleaner, and less expensive for American consumers.
Fortunately, our country is uniquely positioned to prioritize
the basic and early-stage research that leads to groundbreaking
technology.
Federally funded research programs have a history of paving
the way for industry innovation. DOE labs created the drill bit
technology that led to hydraulic fracturing and horizontal
drilling, revolutionizing the oil and gas sector.
Basic research in geology at the Department of Energy's
Sandia National Lab led to the development of microseismic
fracture mapping techniques for hydraulic fracturing. And
sensor technologies originally developed for aerospace
applications at NASA and the Department of Defense have been
used to improve safety in oil and gas development.
In all of these cases, industry partners adapted techniques
developed in the laboratory for commercial use, maximizing
energy production across the country.
Today, DOE continues to make key investments in early-stage
fossil energy research, while the private sector takes the lead
on efforts to deploy new technologies. Innovators in our
national labs are building on decades of groundbreaking
successes in oil and gas production.
I am particularly interested to hear from Dr. Erik Webb on
how Sandia National Lab is using monitoring systems and
mathematical models to better understand the subsurface. His
research could help fossil energy producers make more informed
decisions before they drill a well - saving time, money, and
reducing their environmental footprint along the way.
We know that industry has the resources, capital, and
capability to successfully commercialize new technology. What
they often don't have is the infrastructure to conduct early-
stage research and maintain historical data. This is where DOE,
national labs, and academia can help.
At the National Energy Technologies Laboratory (NETL), the
nation's leading fossil energy lab, researchers are speeding up
this process with high performance computing. Using the lab's
Joule 2.0 supercomputer - which recently received a $16.5
million upgrade that boosted its computational power by roughly
eight times - DOE researchers are helping industry optimize
chemical reactor designs and measure and improve the efficiency
of gas turbines.
With DOE's research, industry can improve the next
generation of power plants, using computational designs to save
time and money in planning, and producing power more
efficiently with less impact on the environment.
The Department plays an important role in ensuring energy
producers are utilizing the most efficient, safe, and clean
technologies. We in Congress owe it to American consumers to
prioritize this important research, and responsibly provide the
needed energy for economic development while maintaining
environmental stewardship.
I want to thank you Chairman Lamb for holding this hearing,
and I look forward to hearing from our witnesses today about
the path forward for next generation fossil energy technology.
Chairman Lamb. Thank you.
If there are Members who wish to submit additional opening
statements, your statements will be added to the record at this
point.
Now, I'd like to introduce our witnesses. Ms. Shannon
Angielski is a Principal at Van Ness Feldman, LLP, a
Washington, D.C.-based law firm that specializes in energy
environment and national resource policy and law. She serves as
Executive Director of the Carbon Utilization Research Council
(CURC), which is a coalition of electric utilities that rely on
coal and natural gas for electricity production, gas
distributors, equipment manufacturers, national associations,
State universities, and technology research organizations.
CURC's stated mission is to advance technology systems
solutions for the responsible use of our fossil energy
resources in a balanced portfolio to support our Nation's need
for reliable and affordable energy.
Mr. Elgie Holstein is the Senior Director for Strategic
Planning at the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) in Washington,
D.C. Prior to joining EDF in 2009, he was Co-Director of the
DOE Presidential transition team and has held numerous senior
positions in government, including the role of Associate
Director for Natural Resources, Energy, and Science in the
Office of Management and Budget; Special Assistant to the
President for Economic Policy at the National Economic Council;
and Chief of Staff for the U.S. Department of Energy under
President Clinton.
Mr. Jeff Bobeck is the Director of Energy Policy Engagement
at the Center for Climate and Energy Solutions. Mr. Bobeck
leads the work of C2ES in co-convening the National Carbon
Capture Coalition, which includes executives from energy,
industrial and technology companies, labor unions,
environmental and energy policy organizations. The coalition's
stated mission is to simultaneously foster domestic energy
production, support jobs, and reduce emissions. Spoken like a
western Pennsylvanian because I believe he is one. Prior to his
current position, Mr. Bobeck served as Director of
Communications and External Affairs for the U.S. Department of
Energy under President George W. Bush, held senior positions
with the American Automobile Manufacturers Association, and the
Global CCS Institute.
Ms. Erin Burns is the Director of Policy at Carbon180, a
nongovernmental organization focused on carbon removal where
she works with scientists, entrepreneurs, academics, and
policymakers to create and inform Federal policy on carbon
capture, removal, and use. Prior to her current position, Ms.
Burns served on the staff of Senator Manchin where she handled
energy, environmental, labor, and agricultural issues and
worked as a Senior Policy Advisor for Third Way, a D.C.-based
think tank managing its carbon capture and removal innovation
and other clean energy policy issue areas.
And last but certainly not least, Dr. Erik Webb is the
Senior Manager of the Geoscience Research and Applications
Group at Sandia National Laboratories. Prior to his current
position, Dr. Webb managed Sandia's Global Security Systems and
Technologies Department, leading the second line of defense
program responsible for creating a nuclear detection network at
international ports of entry in 50 countries. He also served on
the staff of former Senator Domenici focusing on energy and
water policy issues and is a fellow on the Senate Energy and
Natural Resources Committee. Dr. Webb has a Ph.D. in hydrology
with an emphasis in modeling and applied math from the
University of Wisconsin.
As our witnesses should know, you will each have 5 minutes
for your spoken testimony. Your written testimony will be
included in the record of this hearing. And when you have all
completed your spoken testimony, we will begin with questions.
Each Member will have 5 minutes to question the panel.
And we will start with Ms. Shannon Angielski. And I
apologize if I pronounced that wrong. You can correct us so the
rest of us don't do that.
TESTIMONY OF SHANNON ANGIELSKI,
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR,
CARBON UTILIZATION RESEARCH COUNCIL
Ms. Angielski. No, I'm actually very impressed. Thank you.
I think this is the first time that anybody has actually
pronounced my last name the right way, so you must come from
Pennsylvania coal country----
Chairman Lamb. There you go.
Ms. Angielski [continuing]. Because that's where my name
comes from.
So let me just say thank you, Chairman Lamb, Ranking Member
Weber, and to the Members of the Subcommittee for the
invitation to testify and do so in support of the Fossil Energy
Research and Development Act of 2019.
As Chairman Lamb has already pointed out, the CURC is an
industry coalition that's really focused on technology
solutions for fossil utilization, fossil energy utilization.
What's important about our group is that members of CURC
believe that American fossil fuels and ingenuity and technology
innovation will satisfy our world's growing appetite for
affordable energy, improve our energy security, increase
exports, create high-paying jobs, and improve environmental
quality.
In order to meet these important objectives, members of
CURC are at the forefront of their organizations and partnering
with the Department of Energy to develop and commercialize
technologies that will transform the way that we use our fossil
fuels. Successfully achieving these objectives will require a
strong public-private partnership with the Federal Government
providing strategic investments in the research development and
demonstration that's needed, and that's why we are here to
support the bill that is before this Committee.
Consumption of fossil fuels, as you pointed out, Mr.
Chairman, it's on the rise both internationally, as well as
domestically, but I think the international aspect of this is
really important to focus on. It's because it's due to the role
the fossil fuels play in providing affordable, accessible, and
reliable energy.
According to the International Energy Agency and the United
Nation's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, carbon
capture utilization and storage or CCUS as we call it, it will
be a critical component of the portfolio of energy technologies
needed to reduce carbon dioxide emissions worldwide. And the
good news is that the U.S. has been the leader in the
development of this technology with the support of the
Department of Energy's world-class carbon capture and storage
programs.
By way of example, DOE supported the Nation's first
commercial-scale carbon capture demonstration project that is
successfully operating on a coal-fired power plant in Texas.
That's the Petra Nova project. And it's--as the U.S. continues
to invest in these types of projects and in the research that's
needed will benefit not only from cleaner power but also from
new markets for U.S. technologies both domestically and abroad.
I want to point out that Congress actually made a critical
step last year in catalyzing a CCUS industry in the U.S. due to
the enactment of the FUTURE Act, and this would extend and
expand the section 45Q carbon sequestration tax credits. And
they're already incentivizing CCUS projects across several
industries.
However, today's CCUS technology is still at the early
stages of deployment and thus relatively expensive to implement
in some industries like the power sector, and that's why
improved carbon capture technologies will be needed to help
reduce those costs when implemented in commercial practice.
I like to think of it as like the wind and solar industry
about 15 years ago actually. A combination of Federal
incentives such as those tax credits, when combined with
Federal funding for research and demonstration, it--that's
what's going to be needed to improve the technologies so the
cost of CCUS and carbon capture can be reduced and replicated
in commercial practice. That's again why the draft bill that's
the subject of today's hearing is really important to achieve
that objective.
Members of our organization and the Electric Power Research
Institute are constantly evaluating technology development
needs that reflect the changing markets and policies that
impact fossil fuel use in the power sector. And about every 3
years those technology assessments are communicated through the
publication of something we call an Advanced Fossil Energy
Technology Roadmap, which we published the most recent version
of last summer.
And this Roadmap identifies pathways to accelerate the
development of transformational coal and natural gas-generating
options that include carbon capture. And the Roadmap identifies
several transformational technologies that are also identified
in the draft bill that can be available in the next 10 to 15
years, and that can also provide dispatchable, low-carbon power
that's needed to support the growth of renewables on the grid.
These include novel fossil power cycles such as those that
I believe Dr. Webb will refer to later through supercritical
CO2 cycles, and they also include processes or other
technologies that are designed to facilitate the carbon--the
capture of carbon at lower energy penalty and at cost than
conventional methods that we have available to us today. These
processes are inherently more efficient, resulting in fewer
emissions and require less fossil fuel to be used to produce
electricity.
There's also specific research identified in the roadmap
that is necessary to support these new cycles, including
advancements in turbine technologies, high-temperature
materials that are necessary to achieve those efficiencies. And
their roadmap also outlines advances in carbon capture
technologies that are designed to lower costs, and the
development and testing of these technologies at test centers
such as the Wyoming Integrated Test Center and the National
Carbon Capture Center in Alabama. And again, all of these
elements of our Roadmap recommendations are embodied in the
draft legislation.
It's important to recognize that some of these technologies
are ready for testing today at some scale or even at some
commercial demonstration-scale projects, and that's why it's
critical that Federal policies support not only research and
development but also the piloting and demonstrating of these
innovative first-of-a-kind technologies, without which they
would not likely succeed in the commercial markets. And this
means annual Federal budgets should increase in the next
several years to support the scale-up of these efforts, as
outlined in the draft bill.
It's also important to note that Congress ensure that new
technologies that receive Federal funding through the research
program and are demonstrated at facilities such as Petra Nova
are not considered as a basis for regulating a federally
mandated emissions standard. CURC very much supports the intent
of Congress through the proviso included in the Energy Policy
Act of 2005, which was enacted to alleviate private-sector risk
with implementation of new early-stage technologies that are
not yet economic or commercial. CURC urges Congress to maintain
this proviso by adding it into the Fossil Energy Research and
Development Act of 2019.
I want to conclude by sharing some of the analysis that's
been conducted by the CURC in ClearPath with modeling provided
by NERA Economic Consulting and Advanced Resources
International that shows that there are significant economic
benefits to the U.S. if the technology development outlined in
the roadmap is undertaken under a wide range of scenarios. Our
analysis projects that up to 87 gigawatts of market-driven
carbon capture deployment, paired with enhanced oil recovery by
2040, could result in significant increase in domestic oil
production, lower cost--and lower cost retail electricity
rates, all of which contribute to substantial increases in
annual GDP, as well as over 800,000 new jobs that are created
by 2040. These macroeconomic benefits are described in more
detail in my written testimony.
Let me just close by saying we are pleased to testify and
happy to answer questions.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Angielski follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Lamb. Thank you very much. Mr. Holstein.
TESTIMONY OF ELGIE HOLSTEIN,
SENIOR DIRECTOR FOR STRATEGIC PLANNING,
ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE FUND
Mr. Holstein. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The clean energy revolution is indeed underway. It is
rapidly evolving into a global competition for market share in
a world that is coming to understand how little time remains to
avoid the disastrous impacts from climate change. As long as
fossil fuels remain a part of our energy profile, we will need
strategies to improve their environmental performance. The pace
of global climate change is simply too fast, and the
consequences of inaction too dire to do otherwise.
To fight climate change, American leadership is desperately
needed at home and internationally. It is crucial for us to
remember, however, that even as we invest in ways to reduce the
environmental impacts of fossil fuels and develop and deploy
noncarbon alternatives, we still need an overarching economic
policy framework. That framework should provide enforceable,
declining, and economy-wide limits on carbon emissions, all on
a timetable that avoids the worst tipping points associated
with unconstrained and rising greenhouse gas concentrations.
That means achieving net zero global greenhouse gas emissions
by 2050.
While we have not yet developed the bipartisan consensus
needed to enact a carbon price and limit, an aggressive program
to drive clean energy and climate innovation is within reach,
and it's needed right now. Such an innovation portfolio will
help build political confidence by accelerating the decline in
the cost of emissions reductions.
America has the intellectual capital, the research
infrastructure, the workforce, and the manufacturing prowess to
solve our technology and climate challenges, and we do need to
do it all. In the context of today's hearing and the draft
bills you are considering, that means mounting ambitious
research, development, demonstration, and commercialization
efforts.
To be sure, there are some efforts and technology
directions mentioned in the bills that may not prove out. That
is, they may not reach the goals of cost-effective
decarbonization and marketable, viable technology applications.
The point is to find out. The point is to find out.
The draft Fossil Energy R&D Act of 2019 wisely emphasizes
the need for environmental integrity safeguards as part of any
plan to develop and commercialize carbon management
technologies. Such measures are needed to protect against
haphazard and ineffective containment of CO2. We
strongly endorse such measures as a key element of any carbon
reduction policy or program.
The draft Fossil Energy R&D bill also instructs DOE to
undertake a research program to identify the best methods and
to assess the state of technology for preventing and detecting
methane emissions from the Nation's extensive natural gas
infrastructure. Now, I think many Members of this Committee
have heard me say in previous testimony that natural gas, as we
know, is mostly methane, and when it leaks or is vented into
the atmosphere, it is more than 80 times as potent as CO2
over the first 20 years following its release in terms of the
damage it does to the climate. In fact, methane is responsible
for about 25 percent of the global warming we are experiencing
today. We welcome the methane provisions in the draft bill.
The Industrial Decarbonization Technology Development Act
(IDTDA) tackles another aspect of controlling greenhouse gas
emissions. The power sector has seen many innovations that hold
the promise of decarbonizing and building resilience in our
electricity sector, but other sectors, including buildings,
process industries, shipping, aviation, and manufacturing have
not experienced the same level of technology innovation and
adoption.
That's why the IDTDA offers a promising new focus on
opportunities to drive industrial decarbonization. Of
particular value is the bill's creation of two new entities
designed to leverage those capabilities. First, it creates an
advisory committee to bring to the Department the best of
government and private-sector expertise in developing needed
new technologies.
Second, it helps the Department overcome an area of long-
standing weakness: Translating technology development into
commercial deployment. The clearinghouse function for best
practices and technology should be seen not only as a way to
accelerate emissions reductions but also as an ingredient of
national industrial competitiveness. And I think the Members of
this Committee have seen how ARPA-E (Advanced Research Projects
Agency-Energy) has done precisely that--taken new technologies,
helped to commercialize them, and get these industries moving
forward so that America can have a competitive edge in global
markets.
Taken together, these two draft bills represent a strong
step in the direction of answering the key question about
decarbonization: What works, and then getting solutions into
the market.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify today, and I look
forward to answering any questions you may have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Holstein follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Lamb. Thank you. Mr. Bobeck.
TESTIMONY OF JEFF BOBECK,
DIRECTOR OF ENERGY POLICY ENGAGEMENT,
CENTER FOR CLIMATE AND ENERGY SOLUTIONS
Mr. Bobeck. I'm here representing the Center for Climate
and Energy Solutions or C2ES. We're an independent, nonpartisan
organization with a mission of advancing real-world solutions
on climate-related policy. We convene the Business
Environmental Leadership Council, a group of 34 industry-
leading companies. We partner with the U.S. Conference of
Mayors and, relevant to today's topics, we co-convened the
Carbon Capture Coalition, which has grown to more than 60
participants.
C2ES considers carbon capture to be an essential component
in the comprehensive response to climate change for two
reasons. Despite the growth in renewables, we expect that some
level of dispatchable emissions-abated fossil-powered
generation will be needed for decades to come. Mr. Weber
mentioned 64 percent. Well, we're not going to turn that off by
2030.
Second, the manufacturer of products like steel, cement,
and methanol produce greenhouse gas emissions as part of their
basic processes. Carbon capture provides promising pathways to
address both issues.
The International Energy Agency repeatedly has concluded
that approximately 12 to 15 percent of greenhouse gas emissions
must come from carbon capture by 2050 if the 2-degree warming
scenario is to be met. Moreover, IEA found that removing carbon
capture from the emissions reduction toolbox would more than
double the cost of keeping warming below 2 degrees. In the
United States, the ongoing improvements in efficiency and cost
of carbon capture owe much to the work of DOE's Fossil Energy
R&D program and the work conducted by the National Energy
Technology Laboratory or NETL.
Mr. Chairman, as you mentioned, I grew up in Pennsylvania's
present-day 17th District, and I remember well our school field
trip to what was then called the U.S. Experimental Mine. That
facility became a national laboratory in 1999 and now, drawing
on more than a century of history, NETL is the home of some of
the most forward-looking energy research anywhere in the world.
However, the program still operates under its 2005
authorization, thus many of its current research objectives
such as carbon utilization and direct air capture were not
envisioned by Congress at that time. The Fossil Energy Research
and Development Act brings the program's statutory direction
into the modern era, providing updated program guidance while
allowing for flexibility as priorities change and technologies
develop. It would establish regional centers to address region-
specific capture, storage, and utilization needs, and it would
provide higher funding authorization levels, which a wide
variety of stakeholders, including industry, labor, and NGOs,
would support.
One area of research targeted by the bill I mentioned is
carbon utilization, which C2ES believes holds great promise as
a pathway for decarbonization, especially for industry. We will
soon publish a new report on the subject detailing how
utilization can be especially effective in addressing harder-
to-decarbonize industrial sectors. The legislation before the
Committee today could help to accelerate carbon utilization's
development and deployment.
The second bill before the Committee today, the Industrial
Decarbonization Technology Development Act, would elevate the
issue of industrial emissions to provide better cross-agency
coordination of policy. Because industrial challenges for
steelmaking in Pennsylvania are different from those for
chemical processing in Texas, the bill would also seek better
intergovernmental cooperation and would require development of
a national roadmap for decarbonization of difficult-to-
decarbonize industries.
Allow me to close by saying a word about innovation.
Innovation is not an end in itself but rather a means to
deploying a more effective and economical greenhouse gas
reduction. The seeds planted by federally supported innovation
will not bear fruit without the enactment of other
complementary policies without commensurate action at the local
and State levels and certainly not without strong commitment by
the private sector to shoulder some of the risk.
And we're behind. While nearly 40 million metric tons of
carbon dioxide are currently stored or utilized annually around
the world, the amount of carbon dioxide capture needs to grow
by a factor of 100 by 2040 if carbon capture's necessary
contribution to greenhouse gas reduction is to keep pace.
No proposed single policy reform offers a silver bullet,
but rather a portfolio of policies is needed to address
technology development, financing, and marketing preferences.
But one thing at a time. We commend the Committee for
proactively proposing thoughtful climate policies within its
jurisdiction, and we look forward to working with you going
forward. Thank you for your attention.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Bobeck follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Lamb. Thank you. Ms. Burns.
TESTIMONY OF ERIN BURNS,
DIRECTOR OF POLICY, CARBON180
Ms. Burns. Thank you for the opportunity to testify today.
I'm the Director of Policy at Carbon180, which is an NGO
focused on carbon capture, removal, and use with the goal of
building an economy that sequesters more carbon dioxide than it
emits. We choose to work on these issues for one reason:
Climate. We have a responsibility to take immediate and
ambitious steps to avoid the worst impacts of climate change,
and carbon removal, alongside renewables, energy efficiency,
and other emissions reduction efforts, can play an integral
role in eliminating global emissions.
At the same time, we also have an opportunity to turn these
carbon emissions into an asset, spurring American innovation
and growth. We are supportive of the Fossil Energy Research and
Development Act, as well as the Industrial Decarbonization
Technology Development Act. My testimony will focus primarily
on the first bill, which we support for three major reasons.
First, this bill establishes the first-ever dedicated
carbon removal program at the Department of Energy. That term
carbon removal refers to a broad set of technologies and
practices that remove carbon dioxide from the ambient air all
around us and includes a technology called direct air capture.
While direct air capture is a relatively new technology, there
are nearly a dozen small-scale plants deployed today with plans
recently announced to build a plant that would build remove
half a million tons of carbon dioxide a year.
To bring this technology to scale in time to meet climate
goals and to maintain American leadership on innovation it's
time for the Federal Government to significantly increase
support for carbon removal. Luckily, we know how best to do
that. Toward the end of last year, the National Academies of
Sciences (NAS) released a report that detailed how the Federal
Government can effectively move carbon removal forward. One of
their most important recommendations was to implement an
ambitious Federal Research, Development, Demonstration, and
Deployment program for direct air capture and other carbon
removal approaches.
To date, the Department of Energy has spent around $11
million ever on direct air capture, far below the tens and
hundreds of millions of dollars of annual funding recommended
in this NAS report. This legislation would scale up those
efforts and get us far closer to the levels recommended. The
Office of Fossil Energy has a long history of work on carbon
capture technologies, and that expertise is well-suited to
tackling the challenges around other technologies like direct
air capture.
The second reason we support this bill is because it
expands the carbon capture program to include natural gas and
industrial applications. With the rapid growth of natural gas
in the U.S., it is essential that the Office of Fossil Energy
expand its historical focus beyond carbon capture applications
for coal power plants to also include work on natural gas
plants.
Carbon capture is also essential to reducing emissions in
the industrial sector, which represent about around one-fifth
of total U.S. emissions. We need to begin decarbonizing the
production of steel, cement, and other industrial processes
today. Efficiency, certain renewables, applications, and
advanced nuclear can all play a role. However, carbon capture
will continue to be an important part of decarbonizing this
sector. The provisions in this bill to incorporate work on
carbon capture for natural gas and industrial plants reflect
the reality of our changing electricity generation mix and are
key to helping us meet climate goals.
We are also very supportive of the Industrial
Decarbonization Technology Development Act. It is essential
that the U.S. work on a broad set of technologies, including
but not limited to carbon capture, to rapidly reduce and
eliminate industrial emissions. This bill is an enormously
important step toward that goal.
The third and final reason we support the Fossil Energy
Research and Development Act is because it builds on the Office
of Fossil Energy's great work on carbon utilization. Taking
carbon dioxide from smokestacks or the ambient air and turning
it into commercial products such as plastics, fuels, or
building materials is what we call carbon tech, and it offers a
promising near-term opportunity to begin commercializing the
technologies needed for an economy where we remove more carbon
than we emit. There are dozens of these carbon tech companies
and startups in the United States today, and the U.S. is home
to more of these projects than any other country in the world.
We have an opportunity to build a significant domestic
carbon tech industry. In fact, according to our analysis,
there's a $1 trillion total available market for these products
in the U.S. alone and a nearly $6 trillion total available
market globally.
To date, the Office of Fossil Energy has spent only about
$10-$12 million annually on carbon tech research and
demonstration funding. They've done some really great work, but
they can do more and better work. This bill would nearly triple
our current annual investment in these technologies and put the
U.S. in a much stronger position to fully take advantage of
this enormous economic opportunity.
Carbon capture and removal are key to addressing climate
change and can help drive economic growth, and Federal policy
action today can help unlock both opportunities. As Congress
considers climate policies like this bill, we recommend looking
to examples like the Carbon Capture Coalition and similar
efforts where a broad set of participants, including
environmental organizations, labor unions, startups, large
companies, and others have helped drive policy development and
advocacy. Engagement with labor unions in particular, who have
been foundational for carbon capture work historically, is key
to unlocking the full economic potential of carbon capture,
removal, and use.
Thank you again for the opportunity to be here today.
Carbon180 strongly supports the Fossil Energy Research and
Development Act and the Industrial Decarbonization Technology
Development Act, and we are grateful for the hard work of the
Committee, staff, and others who have put these bills together.
And I look forward to your questions. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Burns follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Lamb. Thank you. And, Dr. Webb.
TESTIMONY OF DR. ERIK K. WEBB,
GEOSCIENCE RESEARCH AND APPLICATIONS,
SANDIA NATIONAL LABORATORIES
Dr. Webb. Chairman Lamb, Ranking Member Weber, and
distinguished Members of the Committee, I want to thank you for
the opportunity to testify today regarding the importance of
fossil energy research.
I'd like to make four points. First, subsurface science is
extremely complex and requires a spectrum of research
activities that are applied from 10 kilometers below to the
surface of the earth and over 12 orders of magnitude in scale.
They address the interplay of mechanical, thermal, chemical,
biological, and hydrological behavior. Our most challenging
program is getting accurate in situ data that represents the
heterogeneity in these deep high-temperature and high-pressure
environments. Thus, basic materials science and
microelectronics research are essential to build new sensing
systems to withstand these subsurface conditions.
Sandia is working to integrate this basic science with
geomechanical testing, modeling, drilling technology, data
tools, and high-performance computing to build a next
generation of real-time sensing decision approaches and tools
to address this complexity.
Second, subsurface research that is applicable to oil and
gas production is equally valuable to enhanced geothermal
production, understanding and implementing carbon
sequestration, nuclear waste disposal, environmental
restoration, basic research in geosciences, water resources
management, and multiple national security needs.
Historically, we can see this in the development and
application of the polycrystalline diamond compacts that are
embedded in drill bits which were successful due to DOE's
investment and are now used for the vast majority of oil and
gas wells. They are also essential for enhanced geothermal
energy production and carbon sequestration, accessing deep
crustal basic science research and national security
applications.
A more recent example is the EGS Collab project funded by
DOE's Geothermal Technologies Office that involves nine
national labs and numerous academic and industry partners. This
project is studying the interplay of stress, seismicity, and
permeability. This understanding is also essential for
preventing induced seismicity and accurate global nuclear test
detection programs. Additionally, this type of research builds
knowledge and tools and human competence to--in preparation for
national emergencies such as the Deepwater Horizon, the Aliso
Canyon methane leak disaster, and the emerging challenge of
wellbore integrity. Utilizing research across these challenges
is enhanced when the sponsoring organizations recognize and
encourage cross-use of the science space.
Third, the complexity of these earth systems motivates
cutting-edge research. The Earth is itself our largest and most
complex data set. Efforts such as NASA's Earth-Observing Data
and Information System are rapidly digitizing the Earth.
However, they estimate the volume of data in this one archive
will increase to 247 petabytes by 2025. This is very big data
and will truly tax our data analytic and artificial
intelligence tools. One of Sandia's investments in this area is
the development of a Real-Time Subsurface Event Assessment and
Detection capability we call RESEAD to enable a step change in
real-time continuous monitoring, advanced analysis, and
decision-based management of the subsurface.
Fourth, the Nation benefits from utilizing the technical
capabilities of the whole national laboratory system. The labs
do not replace or compete with industry but instead fill a role
in early-stage research of high fiscal risk or integrating
across multiple disciplines. The National Energy Technology
Laboratory is the Department of Energy's lead for fossil energy
research. However, investments by other DOE offices builds
capability in each of the national laboratories that can
benefit fossil energy missions. This works best when the
Department of Energy encourages connection across the whole of
the national laboratories, academia, and industry. Sandia
National Laboratory's experience bears out these four main
points.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony on the
importance of fossil energy research. I would like to express
my gratitude to the team of colleagues at Sandia who helped
prepare for this hearing. We are energized by the challenges
that face our Nation and are grateful for the attention your
Committee pays to them. Thank you for convening this hearing,
and I look forward to your questions.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Webb follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Lamb. Thank you. We will now begin our first round
of questions, and I will recognize myself for 5 minutes.
Ms. Burns, if I could start with you, you talked a little
bit about the economic potential of carbon utilization in the
growing market that we have. I believe you sort of implicated
in your comments we have an example of it already happening in
my district with the cracker plant that the Shell Corporation
is building basically in order to create polyethylene out of
the runoff from natural gas drilling. There was a note in the
table in your testimony about polyethylene being an example of
what you refer to as carbon tech.
So could you maybe address that in a little bit more detail
about the economic potential that you see and how it's
currently connected to things that are implicated in this bill?
You know, what are the investments that we are making that may
be likely to build on the progress we're already seeing in that
space?
Ms. Burns. Absolutely. We did a market-sizing report that I
mentioned that showed that there's a $1 trillion total
available market in the U.S. for this carbon tech--for carbon
tech goods. And in particular, as you mentioned, we see
opportunities in certain sectors. Building materials, chemicals
and plastics, and fuels are, I think, three of really the
biggest. There are also things like specialty materials.
There's a startup near D.C. actually making carbon nanotubes
out of captured carbon dioxide.
And though--this bill does I think a couple of really
important things for the carbon tech industry. The first is it
really ramps up the investments we make in these technologies.
To date, we spend about $10-$12 million a year. A lot of that's
really focused on algae applications. That's really great, big
fans of algae. There's a lot more out there. And so scaling
this up is going to allow us to support other applications of
carbon dioxide and carbon tech.
The other thing it does is to scale up deployment of carbon
capture and direct air capture technologies where we're going
to have more feedstocks of captured carbon dioxide, there are
already I think 80-plus projects here in the U.S. We have more
than any other country in the world, and if we invest in these
companies today, many of which are small-scale startups though
there are some larger examples like you talked about, as well
as LanzaTech and other companies, that we have an ability to
take advantage of that and reap those economic benefits here in
the U.S.
Chairman Lamb. I agree, thank you. And we've already seen
great success at NETL with the development of new membranes,
which is exactly the type of technology that if we develop here
we would be able to sell probably anywhere in the world, so
that's been great work by them.
This is a question for the group. It seems to me that a lot
of the demonstration-scale projects in the power sector that
have done in the past were done sort of before or during the
early phases of the natural gas revolution, and many of them
were focused on coal rightly. That made a lot of sense at the
time. But we're in a new era that has happened very quickly. So
if anyone is prepared to talk about the practicalities of a
demonstration-scale natural gas plant with carbon capture, how
soon we can get there, how our legislation or future
legislation that we might do would impact that or help us, that
would be very helpful.
Ms. Angielski. I'll start with this. One thing that I want
to point out at least with post-combustion carbon capture is
that it is a very--has a lot of broad applications among a
variety of industries. So in the power sector it can have a
broad application in both coal or natural gas applications, and
then on the other industrial sectors that are covered in the
other bill that you're looking at, it's really sort of the
solvents that are inside the equipment that need some of these
slight modifications that can be utilized among a variety of
industry applications.
So it's important to note that I think that the Federal as
well as the private-sector investments that are going into
these technologies, no matter what the fuel type is that
they're being designed for, are going to have a lot of
applicability to other sources of natural gas or other
industrial flue gases. I think where we are right now is that
we need to take that research and we need to start testing it
in other industries or more broadly across these other fuel
sources. And I think----
Chairman Lamb. Yes. No, I agree with that, absolutely. I
just think that when you look at the numbers, for example, of
what it could do to the electricity cost coming out of a coal
plant versus a natural gas plant, they might be very different.
I think we would probably learn things along the way if we were
able to demonstrate that.
The last point I wanted to make before I ran out of time
was, Mr. Holstein, you did talk a little bit about methane
detection and the prevention of leakage, and I wanted to
commend the Environmental Defense Fund, which did some great
work in the Pittsburgh area on our residential gas delivery
system in detecting leaks. I think CMU (Carnegie Mellon
University) and Google were a partner and actually drove all
around the city of Pittsburgh to do that.
So can you describe maybe in just slightly more detail, and
then I'm out of time, the way that our efforts in this bill
will help us do that on a wider scale throughout sort of the
lifecycle of natural gas as it comes out of the ground through
the distribution network?
Mr. Holstein. Absolutely. And the two questions you've
asked are clearly linked at least in my mind in that the best
starting place is to stop the leaking we already know about.
And the good news there is that the private sector has
responded with the development of lots of new advanced leak
detection tools that, according to one of the companies, are
1,000 times more sensitive in detecting methane leakage than
they were just a short time ago.
Those tools are being mounted on vehicles, as we did in
Pittsburgh and nine other American cities and will be rolling
out in other cities around the world soon or they can be in
drones or light manned aircraft. So there are multiple
opportunities to put in place the technologies that can help
decarbonize the oil and gas sector in significant ways using
technologies that are available right now.
And, what do they cost? About a 40 percent reduction in
methane emissions from the oil and gas sector can be cut right
off the top using current technologies costing less than 1
penny per 1,000 cubic feet of gas produced annually. So these
are definitely cost-effective technologies that are in the
marketplace.
My description of the applicability of these bills to those
challenges simply is that, as I said in my testimony, it's
terribly important that, as we move forward with any of the
technology pathways that are discussed in the legislation, we
have environmental guardrails, if you will, around that work.
So for example, we have to monitor and keep track of what is
potentially leaking into the atmosphere. If we sequester
carbon, we need to be sure that it stays there, let's say in a
geologic formation, and so these technologies begin to multiply
in terms of their benefits as----
Chairman Lamb. Thank you. And I probably have to cut you
off there to get to the other Members.
Mr. Holstein. Sure.
Chairman Lamb. Thank you very much. I now recognize Mr.
Weber for 5 minutes.
Mr. Weber. Well, Mr. Chairman, I would have yielded you
another minute if you'd yield me 2. So I thank you, Mr.
Chairman, for that.
This actually is for all the witnesses. We talk a lot about
developing technologies to capture CO2 from existing
power plants, but we also know that the economics for capturing
CO2 won't work, and I can give you the ARA money
spent on the air products CO2 capture sequestration
storage unit in my facility in my district in Port Arthur and
some of the others. It's got to be in the right place, it's got
to be close to a pipeline, it's got to have somebody that can
use it. And of course the example we use most often is enhanced
oil recovery. All of those factors have to fit.
So I'm aware that not every region has those kind of
properties where all of this fits nicely together. So my
question is what about the rest of the country? Is it carbon
capture in the way we often think about it, or is it a new way
of producing power like using supercritical CO2
instead of steam? How do we make sure we're developing these
truly kinds of revolutionary technology for the future across
the country?
And, Ms.--
Ms. Angielski. Angielski.
Mr. Weber. Angielski, I'll start with you.
Ms. Angielski. OK. Thank you. I think that it's important
to point out that there are at least a number of storage
reservoirs that we are blessed with geology in this country,
and so those storage reservoirs are not just enhanced oil
recovery reservoirs. And so I think that will help to expand
our regional opportunities for actually siting some of these
projects or the technologies even in the Midwest, I mean, in
Ohio, in those regions there are regions where we have really
good secure geologies that we can store CO2 for
millennia. And we're--and the DOE is actually working----
Mr. Weber. For a millennia?
Ms. Angielski. Well, that's my word, but yes, for at
least----
Mr. Weber. A long time.
Ms. Angielski [continuing]. A very long time. And so--and
then, you know, others on the panel can speak to--you know, as
Erin has already pointed on some of the CO2
utilization pieces of this but----
Mr. Weber. Well, if I may, so would you be in favor of
building a pipeline system that actually helped us transport
that across the country for use, taking methane and CO2
out of the air and actually sending it through pipelines to the
various industrial areas where they could actually use it?
Ms. Angielski. So there are analysis--there is analysis
that is looking at building some of those pipelines and some
larger pipelines that they call trunk lines that could take the
CO2 from those industrial sources and actually move
it to those storage reservoirs either through enhanced oil
recovery or otherwise.
Mr. Weber. OK. Let me go to you, Mr. Holstein.
Mr. Holstein. You know, that's a darn good question. A lot
of the answer to the question about the need for a national
pipeline network will be driven by the demand for, in this
case, CO2. I think it's more likely, as we sit here
today--and others on the panel may disagree with this--but I
think it's more likely that we're going to find other ways to
use CO2 if we're able to----
Mr. Weber. So would you transport it by tank car or by 18
wheeler----
Mr. Holstein. Well----
Mr. Weber [continuing]. Put more trucks or vehicles on the
highway?
Mr. Holstein. Well, first, I would say that the markets are
likely to develop regionally. In other words, if these
technologies are applicable nationwide, there's no reason why
we couldn't develop regional and even local markets for that
CO2 that is captured. And so we may not need a
national network of pipelines.
Mr. Weber. But would you agree the economy of scale for an
area that's unlike Texas where we have a lot of refining on the
Gulf Coast--for example, 65 percent of the Nation's jet fuel is
produced in my district--it's a little more difficult than in
some of the other States where you don't have that kind of
industry to capture CO2 whether it's out of the air
or whether it's from a power-generating facility, which we
have, which is in Pete Olson's district. And I've been there.
It's a little more difficult for those more rural areas to
really have a market for that, so how do you capture that
CO2 and get it to market?
Mr. Holstein. Well, I think under this scenario I was
discussing I'm not necessarily talking about concentrations of
petrochemical production but rather suppose you're capturing
the CO2 from power generation, as you just
mentioned----
Mr. Weber. Sure.
Mr. Holstein. There's no reason why that couldn't be
useful, let's say, in the Northeast or the Midwest.
Mr. Weber. But it's for enhanced oil recovery for the most
part.
Mr. Holstein. And for enhanced oil recovery is exactly what
I meant when I talked about----
Mr. Weber. All right. So if they don't have----
Mr. Holstein [continuing]. Regional uses.
Mr. Weber [continuing]. Oil wells up there like we do in
Texas, there's not really much of a market, is there?
Mr. Holstein. Potentially in Pennsylvania if you're asking
about enhanced oil recovery.
Mr. Weber. Right. Well, I'm out of time, so I apologize to
the rest of you.
So, Mr. Chairman, I'm going to yield back.
Chairman Lamb. Thank you. I recognize Mrs. Fletcher for 5
minutes.
Mrs. Fletcher. Thank you very much, Chairman Lamb and
Ranking Member Weber, who is my neighbor at home in Houston, so
I have a similar interest in a lot of these issues. And of
course I represent Texas' 7th Congressional District. I
represent the energy corridor, and it is of course the heart of
the energy renaissance that we've been experiencing over the
last decade or so. And so a lot of these issues are really
critical, and I think technology is a huge piece of our path
forward, and carbon capture technology in particular.
So we've already touched on a couple of things that I want
to follow up on and give some of you a chance to expand some of
your answers with the time constraints. But I want to start
first with a question for Ms. Burns. In your testimony you were
talking about turning carbon capture into an asset, and I think
it would be very helpful if you could just elaborate on that
and also touch a little bit on the difference between--or kind
of describe the technologies associated with the direct air
capture, which I think is very different from what we've seen
in these pilot plants, one of which is in Mr. Weber's district,
and of course my other neighbor Mr. Olson, who has the Petra
Nova plant in his district. If you could touch on those, I
think that would be helpful.
Ms. Burns. Absolutely. So to your first question about what
we can do with the carbon dioxide once it's captured, you had a
question about enhanced oil recovery and where these might be
located. That's obviously where we see a lot of CO2
utilization today. However, we think that there's a huge
potential to create more markets for CO2 in other
types of applications. Right now, we do see some applications
for things like beverages and food or some niche applications
like greenhouses.
But we think that being able to--you can take these and
turn them into things like fuel. So I would use an example.
LanzaTech is a company that has a project here in the U.S. They
actually recently flew--they partnered with I think it was--was
it Virgin? To fly a plane from Florida to London on fuels made
from captured carbon oxides. We have a huge opportunity there.
And a lot of these fuels compared with conventional
gasoline, if you make them from--if you capture carbon dioxide
with direct air capture, those fuels that you can create from
that captured carbon dioxide can be as much as 90 percent less
carbon-intensive than traditionally produced gasoline.
To your second question about technologies for direct air
capture, there are a bunch of options. The one that we hear the
most about is direct air capture. There are three leading
companies right now, one of which is a U.S. company, and they
have about 11 projects between them. And what this technology
does is instead of carbon capture technology that's installed
on a smokestack so at a power or industrial facility, you're
actually able to take it from the ambient air.
So again to your point, where you're going to see these,
you don't run into the same kind of challenges around geology,
pipelines, enhanced oil recovery when you're thinking about
direct air capture. You can actually site them in lots of
different places.
And the other thing I would say--the last thing I would say
is that there are three companies we're really excited about
the work they're doing. There was recently a project announced
that will capture half a million tons a year. That's huge.
That's a really big deal. But we want a really robust ecosystem
of companies in this space. We want more than three. We want
more than three technologies. We want to help drive down the
cost of innovation. And the provisions in this bill to create
the carbon renewable program will help get us there.
Mrs. Fletcher. Thank you. And I just have a quick follow
up. You mentioned the three companies. So it seems like this is
an opportunity for the United States to have a leading role.
Who are the other companies or where are they located the
companies that are working on this as well?
Ms. Burns. Sure. So Global Thermostat is a U.S. company and
they have a facility in Alabama I believe. Then we've got
Carbon Engineering, which is a Canadian company, and then
Climeworks, which is a company in Switzerland.
Mrs. Fletcher. OK. Terrific. Thanks. And I also want to
follow up and maybe I can just put this out to the panel for
anyone who wants to take this on. But I think one of the
comments that you made, Mr. Holstein, was about kind of the
other ways we can use the carbon. And we heard a little bit
from Ms. Burns about that. But I think one of the challenges
that we've seen across the board is, for whatever these other
uses are, how can we move this from sort of interesting ideas
and technologies to something that is--how do we make it
economic and something that is commercially viable so that we
can start having this direct air capture or we can have
increased CCUS activity given where we are now? How do we move
that forward?
Mr. Holstein. Two quick answers, and I'm sure other
panelists would have ideas. One is that's why we have
provisions in these bills that emphasize commercialization.
We've been too afraid of commercialization. When I say we, I
don't just mean Congress. I mean the environmental community
and others. We don't like the idea of choosing technology
winners, but that's not what this is about. This is about
identifying sectors in which we need to make a leap forward
technologically speaking just as we did with the space program,
just as we've done in health and medicine. And as I say in the
very first paragraph of my testimony, this is a competitive
economic race, not just a race against time as far as climate
change is concerned.
So one part of the answer is we're going to focus more on
commercialization and fund those activities, and number two,
it's been great to see how Congress has come around on a
bipartisan basis to fund organizations like ARPA-E that know
how to move things from the workbench past the technology
``valley of death'' and into the marketplace.
Mrs. Fletcher. Thank you very much, and I see I've gone
over my time, so I will yield back. Thank you all.
Chairman Lamb. I recognize Mr. Cloud for 5 minutes.
Mr. Cloud. Thank you, Chairman. I think I'm the third Texan
in a row, so I appreciate you, Chairman, on hosting this
important topic, Ranking Member Weber. This is a very key topic
certainly with national security, economic implications.
I come from Texas as well, and we have a very diverse
energy portfolio with wind energy, oil, LNG all in our
district, and so I really appreciate the fact that we can have
some of the discussions that have gone on here, a real
pragmatic, solution-oriented discussion in this Committee, and
so I appreciate that, Chairman and Ranking Member.
Dr. Webb, I was wondering if you could talk to us--we just
mentioned commercialization. How does Sandia encourage private
companies to take on the commercialization of basic research
applications? Your written testimony talks about the bayonet
reactor and other projects. Could you expand on that?
Dr. Webb. The basic approach to commercialization involves
one of two processes. If we have identified something in the
early research stage that's promising, we'll make an
announcement--a public announcement, so there's fairness of
opportunity--to U.S. industries to come and join us in that
research process. And so we would then share that intellectual
property between the U.S. Government and the industry, and they
would at the end of that research process be experts in that
technology. And that's an excellent sort of process we call
cooperative research and agreement process.
Second, if we've made investments whether it's through DOE
funding or through our internal lab-directed research and we
have breakthroughs, we will go through a process of patenting
that research and then again we make that available in a
fairness-of-opportunity process. And there are a number of
other tech transfer mechanisms that are used. Sometimes we
would allow staff to go for a 2-year leave of absence to work
for those companies to carry that research into application.
And so it's really our objective to ensure it gets used, and we
have multiple of those mechanisms to do that. So the examples
in my testimony really are examples of individual technologies
that have gone out, but embedded in there are these processes
that allow us to do it.
Mr. Cloud. Would you care to mention a couple of those
projects that have been successful that you----
Dr. Webb. Well, certainly, the one that I mentioned in my
initial testimony, the PDC bits, we did not patent that, but
that was done with industry, and now it's being used for 90
percent of the wells and holes drilled in the--on the planet.
That's an extremely obvious successful example.
The bayonet technology that you brought up that I also
mentioned is one that converts methane to farm fertilizers and
other kinds of precursor chemicals. That's been commercialized.
It's been transferred to small industry. There are wellhead-
scale demonstration projects under our commercial process
underway.
And then we've got this Memzyme technology, which is
another one of these CO2 capture technologies that's
basically biomimetic. It's patterned after the wall of a cell
in the human body, and that technology has been commercialized
through a partnership with the University of New Mexico and is
now getting put into application.
Mr. Cloud. And could you speak to some of the work that the
lab has done on carbon capture in underground reservoirs?
Dr. Webb. So we have really two focal areas. One is to
understand what happens to CO2 when it is injected
into the subsurface. It goes into pores, fractures and pores in
the subsurface, but does it stay in a liquid form? Is it
mineralized? Does it become permanent in that place? And a lot
of that work was funded under the DOE Office of Science in a
series of research projects, 9 years with the University of
Texas, and that was very successful in producing a science base
for what happens in the subsurface.
We're also part of one of the field demonstration
activities where we're doing an enhanced oil recovery
demonstration project in the Farnsworth Formation in the
Panhandle of Texas. And that's allowing us to monitor the front
or the movement of the carbon dioxide into the subsurface using
geophysics and other tools to watch that process and understand
where it goes and how long does it stay there, and is it
captured?
Mr. Cloud. I only have 10 seconds left, but let me just say
I appreciate the work on practical solutions for an American
solution. I thought that technology is more the answer than it
is retreating to a pre-industrial age America, so I appreciate
the work that all of you all are doing in this area. Thanks so
much for being here.
Chairman Lamb. I recognize Ms. Horn for 5 minutes.
Ms. Horn. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and thank you
for holding this hearing, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member. And
thank you to the witnesses for being here.
I agree with many of my colleagues. This is a critical
issue that we have to solve in a thoughtful, intentional
manner.
Coming from Oklahoma, it may sound a little bit like Texas.
We of course have a strong presence of diverse energy sources
from hydrocarbon to natural gas, wind, and solar. And since
2005, we've seen in Oklahoma and other places, reductions in
greenhouse gas emissions in part because of increased
deployment of renewable energy sources, as well as less
reliance on coal-fired electric generation, especially through
the use of natural gas.
And this I'm going to open up to the whole panel is I'm
curious for any of the witnesses what you see as the role of
natural gas playing in this transition process to more
renewable sources?
Mr. Bobeck. Thank you for that question. That's a great
question. C2ES has convened an advisory committee of industry
precisely because there's not a lot of talk about what the path
forward for carbon capture and natural gas is. There's been
such a great gain in terms of greenhouse gas reduction from
fuel switching that some people want to rest and say, well,
we're OK now.
Well, eventually, we will have to capture the emissions
from natural gas for a variety of reasons. One of those reasons
is it is a world market. The world will demand low-carbon fuel.
So--or, excuse me, low-carbon power. So we've really been
trying to focus on what are the answers for the path forward.
One is obviously a reduction in cost, and that's what this bill
before us today is all about. You know, the carbon capture
program is aimed at lowering costs across the board. The other
is building out a network of pipelines that will reduce the
cost of transportation.
But, you know, again, we expect this all to begin to
intersect in around the 2030 range, but it needs help. There
are a variety of policies that you all should be looking at
that can help it. And I'll leave it there.
Ms. Horn. Thank you very much. This question is for Mr.
Bobeck and Ms. Burns. As you know--and this is follow-on from
the first part of the question, that over half of our
electricity generation in this country still comes from coal
and natural gas. And even as the percentage of electricity from
fossil fuel generations continues to reduce, we still have work
to do to manage this transition.
So, as we do that, not only thinking about the
environmental cost but also the economic cost and how we can
incentivize this, I'm curious to hear your opinion about the
realistic transition in technologies and the movement between
these sources that it's going to take and what innovative ways
that you might suggest that we look at as a Congress to help
move this along.
Ms. Burns. Sure, I'm happy to make a couple comments, and
then I'm sure Shannon has some that are even more insightful.
So I'll tell you I think this bill is a very--is a really
important first step. As you mentioned, a lot of the carbon
capture research has been really coal-focused. As Jeff
mentioned, this is operating off of an authorization from 2005.
Our reality today is very different. Those kinds of--the robust
R&D programs that we're seeing here are really important.
I think another provision that's really important in this
bill or something else that's really important in this bill
that goes to both of your questions about changing electricity
mixes is that there are places in here were the Office of
Fossil Energy also has to work with the Office of Energy
Efficiency and Renewable Energy. And as we see more integration
across different types of electricity generation, that type of
collaboration across offices is really, really important.
The last thing I'll say and give Shannon time to talk is
that policies like 45Q, that was really important. I think, you
know, we--we are huge supporters of that. There are other
policies like that, market-pull policies that can help the
deployment of carbon capture in addition to R&D.
Ms. Horn. Thank you. And I only have a few moments left, so
if anybody has a quick comment.
Ms. Angielski. I would just add that I think from a
technology perspective, the need for flexible operations in the
power sector is going to be increasingly more important with
the growth of renewables, as you mentioned, on the grid. And by
that I mean we need to have still dispatchable generation on
the grid, but that can follow the load that is being provided
by wind and solar. And so that is one of the critical areas of
research that's identified I think in this draft bill that will
be important for fossil fuel generation, which is still going
to provide a significant amount of that electricity well into
the 2040 timeframe, so----
Ms. Horn. Thank you very much, and my time is expired. I
yield back.
Chairman Lamb. Thank you. I recognize Mr. Norman for 5
minutes.
Mr. Norman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank each
of you for taking the time to come today.
Mr. Bobeck, I think in your earlier testimony you mentioned
there are some industries like steel, cement, paper production
that have no alternative to carbon dioxide emissions. With a
demand for steel and materials--and I'm a general contractor.
With steel and materials set to only increase, some companies
like companies in our areas have made it a go to be carbon-
neutral by 2050. To what extent is the Office of Fossil Energy
exploring the application of carbon capture to industrial
sources such as steel?
Mr. Bobeck. They've done some great work in this area, and
that's why we all--I think everyone at this table is very
bullish on the future of carbon utilization, especially for its
application in those areas. One of the things we think about--
you know, we've talked about building out large pipeline
networks, but something carbon utilization does is help you in
geographic areas that are more difficult to decarbonize. For
instance, if you've got a cement plant, you don't have to
necessarily build a pipeline 200 miles away to store it. If you
can build some sort of utilization plant nearby, you can
utilize that CO2 right there so it cuts the cost of
the transportation obviously, and it creates something of
value. So it's a very, very important thing.
The FER&D program has led the way on many of these
technologies, but it is very explicit in this bill, and we see
that as something very important going forward.
Mr. Norman. OK. In line with that, how should the Office of
Fossil Energy prioritize decarbonizing the industrial-sector
emissions?
Mr. Bobeck. Well, we think it's critical. It's a little
over one-fifth of all CO2 emissions in the U.S.,
and, again, because there isn't a simple renewable solution,
say, because these are intrinsic to the processes of making
these products, it's very important to look at different ways
of decarbonizing, for instance, pre-combustion decarbonization.
We were talking about jet fuel before. It's very hard to
decarbonize or to capture the carbon from jet fuel post-
combustion. It's much easier to lower the carbon content pre-
combustion. So we would say it's a very important thing, and we
commend the Committee for actually having a bill that focuses
on this.
Mr. Norman. OK. I've got 2 minutes, but quickly, I guess
for all of you, the Department of Energy's Advanced
Manufacturing Office has been a leader in increased industrial
energy efficiency. However, it has not paid much attention to
more transformative zero-emissions pathways. It's been
recommended that the AMO (Advanced Manufacturing Office), FE
(Fossil Energy), and other relevant DOE offices develop
technology roadmaps that could help achieve these pathways with
carbon capture being the main component. Do you agree with this
strategy? And we'll start with you.
Ms. Angielski. So I obviously have not given that as much
thought as you have, so I would say that there's always
opportunities to leverage across the program offices within DOE
and cross-fertilize their areas of expertise to get real and
much better and more efficient results. So----
Mr. Norman. And we need your help on that, getting a
roadmap on literally what to do because you're flying in the
dark----
Ms. Angielski. Right.
Mr. Norman [continuing]. Unless you have specifics.
Ms. Angielski. Yes, I agree.
Mr. Holstein. And I might add, Congressman--as the Chairman
mentioned I'm a former Chief of Staff at the Department of
Energy, so I have enormous respect for the Fossil Energy Office
and for the national labs that are playing such a key role in
all this. And I would simply say that one of the things about
the draft legislation that's so impressive is that it does
encourage this broad look, but it also brings forward, as I say
in my testimony, the very best expertise from outside the
Department, in the form of an advisory committee.
The need for technology advice I think is terribly
important. I think Congress needs it, too, which is why I'll
throw in my 2 cents and endorse the legislative appropriations
bill that the House has moved forward that would reconstitute
the Office of Technology Assessment (OTA), which 25 years ago
was doing a fabulous job of advising the Congress on technology
matters, including the kinds of questions you were just asking.
OTA needs to be reconstituted, and I think Congress is right to
do that.
Mr. Norman. Thank you. I'm out of time. I wish we could've
gotten to the others. Thank you so much.
Chairman Lamb. Thank you. I recognize Mr. McNerney for 5
minutes.
Mr. McNerney. Well, I thank the Chairman, and I thank the
witnesses this afternoon.
Ms. Angielski, I thought I heard you say that the U.S.
leads in carbon capture and storage technology. Is that right?
So what would be the economic benefits to the United States
with that leadership by 2040?
Ms. Angielski. So I think that there are a number of
different ways that you can look at the economic benefits. One
of the more immediate would be through--carbon utilization has
been discussed by many of the panelists, whether that's through
additional oil production by putting CO2 into
enhanced oil recovery, whether it's through creating new carbon
conversion and utilization markets.
I think it's through the manufacture of equipment, it's
through additional new jobs that will be created through a new
industry that will hopefully emerge in the near future. So I
think that there's a number of different ways. And then of
course if we can manufacture equipment that can be sold
overseas in addition to selling more oil overseas, I mean, we
can see some real improvements from just exports in GDP.
Mr. McNerney. Thank you. Mr. Holstein, you said that
significant safeguards are critical to CCUS. What might that
look like? How would that be implemented, safeguards?
Mr. Holstein. Certainly. You need to use monitoring
technology, which is now pretty commonly available, to ensure
that you're not experiencing the leak of CO2 into
the atmosphere. It would defeat the whole purpose of all your
efforts to remove CO2 from the atmosphere if it just
sneaked its way right back out again.
On detection technology--the Chairman referenced earlier
the project that EDF has had in 10 cities. It's a different
purpose, but from a technology standpoint, advanced leak
detection is very cost-effective. I'd be happy to provide to
you, if you're interested in following up, examples of
companies that are doing this kind of very sophisticated leak
detection work now.
Mr. McNerney. So that could be applied to CH4
fugitive emissions as well then?
Mr. Holstein. Absolutely, is being applied to fugitive
emissions from the oil and gas sector right now. And we need
more of it.
Mr. McNerney. That's--I should say--I should say so.
Mr. Bobeck, I thought I heard you say the cost of carbon
capture and sequestration would be greatly exceeded by the cost
of not doing it. Was I incorrect in hearing you say something
like that?
Mr. Bobeck. I don't think I put it in exactly that way, but
it depends on if you take all the societal cost into account.
Mr. McNerney. So you agree that that's the case?
Mr. Bobeck. Well, you know, again, we're behind, and this
is such an important technology if we hope to reach the 2-
degree warming targets. And what I didn't address was if you
take it out of the toolbox, it makes everything else more
expensive.
Mr. McNerney. OK. That's another way of saying it. Thank
you.
Dr. Webb, I worked at Sandia National Labs in Albuquerque
as a contractor for many years, so I appreciate the great work
that you guys do there.
Dr. Webb. Sure.
Mr. McNerney. Could you describe what the subsurface carbon
storage looks like chemically? What happens when you put carbon
in the deep subsurface?
Dr. Webb. So one of the things that happens is it bonds
with or mixes with water in the subsurface and/or any other
fluids--oil, gas--that may be in the enhanced oil recovery
process. And then it--as it reaches certain pressures, it gets
into a liquid form, the CO2 does, and this becomes a
caustic material. It has a tendency to dissolve things that are
in there in mineral form. And so it's a very complex chemistry.
And, as a result, you can have precipitation of minerals in
various pores. That would potentially be a good situation
because it creates something that's more permanent. Or you
could have things that are--areas of the formations that you're
pushing into that effectively become blocked by those and you
can't access all the pores.
Mr. McNerney. So is there a danger of contaminating
groundwater then?
Dr. Webb. Well, carbon dioxide by itself would not
contaminate groundwater per se, and all of the formations that
we've looked at as prospective sequestrationsites are much,
much deeper than groundwater formations at this point. But in
addition, in order for carbon sequestration to work, there has
to be a caprock. There has to be something that holds the
carbon dioxide in place, and that caprock would also be then
the barrier between the lower sequestration and the surface
water would be the groundwater systems.
Mr. McNerney. If the Chairman will indulge me, are there a
lot of sites like that around the world or is that a rare
thing?
Dr. Webb. The--one of the first parts of this carbon
sequestration program was that the--was NETL did a national map
of potential locations in the subsurface that would work for
this particular activity, and there are a lot of potential
sites.
Mr. McNerney. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Lamb. Thank you. I recognize Mr. Casten for 5
minutes.
Mr. Casten. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you to our
panelists.
In order to get the CO2 down to where we are all
safe as a species, I kind of divide all of our universe of
things we have to do--we don't have a choice about--we have to
do all three of these, put into three buckets. We've got the
first bucket of things where we invest capital and then save
money on energy. Renewables, efficiency, conservation, we will
earn a return on that investment. It may not be a return we
like, but we'll earn a return.
The second bucket is stuff that we have to invest capital
in, and we may or may not earn a return, which I broadly
characterize as R&D, right? We're going to do our best and
hopefully, if we succeed, we move some things into that first
bucket.
And then the third is that even if we do all of that and we
stop emitting CO2 tomorrow, we've got to get the
atmospheric CO2 down below 400 again, which means
we're going to have to do a lot of air-side separation in some
fashion or another, and that's going to be capital-intensive
and it's going to cost a lot of money to operate.
And I take your point; the social cost of carbon is higher,
so we have to do all three, but that's the hardest bucket
economically.
For obvious reasons, let's focus on the two buckets in this
panel, and I want to start with Mr. Holstein and Mr. Bobeck.
It's always struck me that the hardest piece in the industrial
space is that slate of industries that use fossil carbon as a
reducing agent. Fertilizer production, cement, steel, silicon,
we need those products to have the kind of lifestyle we want,
but it's really hard to think of how to do that without coal
and natural gas.
As you look at those sectors, are we doing enough? Are
there technologies you're particularly excited about? And if we
can't get those sectors decarbonized, what residual of carbon
emissions are we looking at that we just have to deal with
continuing to emit that level to maintain the current lifestyle
that we have?
Mr. Bobeck. Well, I'm going to bring up something that is
not within the jurisdiction of this Committee, and that's a
carbon pricing system, which would spread the cost of carbon
across the economy and help us decarbonize, you know, as a
foundation building up. So that's the one thing I would like to
bring up.
Mr. Holstein. That actually was exactly what I was going to
say. It's the fourth bucket. And in my testimony I said we
needed this overall economic framework putting limits on carbon
emissions that ratchet down over time and putting a price on
carbon. And the reason you need that is because that's the only
way you can be sure that all of this R&D work and all of this
deployment that we are seeing in noncarbon energy sources, for
example, are actually going to get us where we need to go.
Mr. Casten. To----
Mr. Holstein. Below that 400 parts per million----
Mr. Casten. You----
Mr. Holstein. Yes.
Mr. Casten. You don't need to persuade me of the need to
price carbon. That's fine. I do want to stay within the
jurisdiction of the Committee, though, because there are
practical thermodynamic constraints that are jurisdiction over
this Committee. There are market-structuring constraints that
are subject to other committees. And in those fields like
steelmaking, like solar, I mean, how do you make a solar panel
without silicon? How do you convert quartz into silicon without
coal? I don't know how to do that. And, you know, how do you
make fertilizer without natural gas? I don't know how to do
that. And my question for you is are we doing enough in those
fields from an R&D perspective, and do you guys see a path
where we will have those sorts of tools available, or do we
have to assume that those sectors are going to be
undecarbonizable?
Mr. Holstein. I think it's neither of those. I think once
you send a strong signal from Congress, from the States,
Governor Cuomo just yesterday with his announcement of a
climate plan, you send a signal about where the country is
headed and the need to develop these technologies and pass
bills like the ones we're discussing today that push toward
commercialization. You start creating demand for and strong
signals to encourage the private sector to make the innovations
to either change those products or perform the same functions
of those products using different approaches.
Mr. Casten. OK. Well, with the minute or so I've got left--
I want to believe you're right. I just get nervous when it's
the innovation will save us when I don't see the technology
path.
So if I can move to Ms. Angielski--I'm sure I'm saying your
name wrong, and I apologize--and Dr. Webb, same question on the
air-side capture. These technologies are thermodynamically
going to be very large and going to cost money to operate. As
you look at the technologies that are out there, if you've got
to start picking some, are there some that are inherently going
to be cheaper? And I'm staying on the economics for
environmental reasons. The lower the cost it takes to lower the
carbon, the more carbon we can reduce with finite resources, so
I'm not for a second saying that economics trumps, but I want
to understand in your expertise as we look at ways to pull
CO2 out of the atmosphere, are there technologies
you're really excited about?
Dr. Webb. A short answer from me, I think that the only way
we'll do this efficiently is to follow biomimetic--biological
processes, and so that's the source of research that we should
be looking at.
Ms. Angielski. I would actually defer to Erin Burns on this
question if I might do that because we focus on industrial flue
gases----
Mr. Casten. OK.
Ms. Angielski [continuing]. And the capture from that
source.
Ms. Burns. Yes, so we think the economics are really
important, too. I would say a recent Rhodium report had shown
that without additional innovation just by learning by doing,
with the current technologies from the three leading companies
we have out there today, we might get as low as $46 per ton.
That's not zero, that's not positive. That's still a really
long way.
Mr. Casten. It's below the social cost.
Ms. Burns. Exactly. And I think when we're talking about
that, when we're talking about the scale of deployment for
direct air capture and the timeline, we're looking at really
large scale in the 2030 and 2050 timeline.
That's also why we're really excited about this bill.
There's a lot of innovation to be done. Right now, the Federal
Government has spent a total of $11 million ever on direct air
capture. That is a drop in the bucket. We need a lot more. And
the fact that this bill would establish the first-ever carbon
renewable program is really exciting. It's also really well-
funded.
I would also say to your earlier question really quickly, I
think there's a lot of technology we're excited about, and I
think part of the reason we're so excited about the industrial
decarbonization bill in conjunction with a fossil energy bill
is that it does open up--we haven't done a lot of industrial
R&D.
Mr. Casten. Yes.
Ms. Burns. It hasn't been on carbon capture. There's been
less at DOE. And this bill would look at things like innovative
renewables applications that could replace some of the heat
from fossil fuel. Carbon capture is actually cheaper on some
industrial applications. We see a lot of small-scale deployment
in the U.S. on carbon capture, and a lot of that's in the
industrial sector, so when you're talking about fertilizers.
I would also say that there are new and innovative ways to
make some of these materials. Some of that's using captured
carbon dioxide, but there are other pathways that aren't just
the Portland cement pathway that could help reduce those
emissions further. So that's all to say there's a lot of really
cool stuff happening, but we need more R&D, and that's why
we're really excited about these bills.
Mr. Casten. Thank you all. I'm drastically over my time----
Ms. Burns. Sorry.
Mr. Casten [continuing]. But thank the Chairman for
allowing me to extend.
Chairman Lamb. And last but certainly not least, I
recognize Ms. Stevens for 5 minutes.
Ms. Stevens. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And great to be with
you all here. It was actually great that my colleague from
Illinois was going over because it was picking up with some of
the things that I wanted to talk about. And actually let it be
known for the record--I say this all the time about the Science
Committee at our hearings--it's the Midwesterners who rule the
roost here, so thank you to our Chairman, you know, from
Michigan and, you know, delighted to be talking about this.
But just kind of picking up where we left off with Mr.
Casten. OK, carbon capture, you make--you're all making a nice
case for it. We're glad to hear about the legislation and what
it means to you, but let's drill down a little bit further. Ms.
Burns, you're talking about $11 million that we've invested, a
drop in the bucket. How far behind are we? What happens in the
aftermath with the carbon capture? Are we burying it? Is it
producing another economic opportunity or technological
opportunity for us?
Ms. Burns. Absolutely. So the $11 million is specific to
direct air capture. We've actually spent--I don't know the full
number, but right now, we spend about $100 million a year on
our carbon capture program. Still, we need more, and again,
this bill pushes us in the right direction.
Once you capture that carbon dioxide, there are a couple of
different things you can do with it. We think that if you
deploy carbon capture and carbon removal at the scale that you
see in climate models, the vast majority of that carbon dioxide
you're going to need to store underground. And as--like Dr.
Webb has said, we have a ton--we are blessed with a ton of
great geology for this. We know how to do it. Also, carbon
storage program at Department of Energy and the Office of
Fossil Energy has done some great work with this.
The other thing that you can do and something we're really
excited about is you can convert it into commercial products,
and this is a new industry. We got some companies who are at
the forefront, but we've got dozens of projects in the U.S. And
I think right now we have an opportunity--there are more
projects in the U.S. than any other country. I think with more
R&D funding, more Federal support in the form of provisions
like 45Q that we can maintain American leadership on this. We
can really help develop this industry, and we can take
advantage of a $1 trillion total available market.
Ms. Stevens. Yes. That's what we talk about a lot here in
terms of the Science Committee and our agenda, which is
catalyzing new channels for economic opportunity, as well as
addressing some of the larger challenges that stand before our
environment.
And picking up also with Casten's comments about the
fertilizer and some of the industries that scale, we obviously
have a reliance and, you know, some ways a reliance that I'm
proud of as a Representative from southeastern Michigan on
traditional manufacturing materials like steel and concrete and
aluminum.
And, you know, in terms of how we think about the
investments needed to decarbonize the production of these
materials, some of which rely on decades-old processes without
putting these companies out of business, what's at play here?
You know, how do we do that? Is it a grants program? Is it
leveraging something through DOE? Is it something we can tie
into the legislation, anything that any of you guys have
thought about that you can weigh in here in terms of that?
Ms. Burns. I would say I think there's been a lot of talk
about--we use the term research and development, but we think
that those questions around demonstration and deployment,
later-stage work with the private sector is really, really
important. The Office of Fossil Energy has done a lot of that,
but there are companies like ArcelorMittal who is a steel
company in the Carbon Capture Coalition. They are looking at
projects for industrial carbon capture. The Steelworkers Union,
all of these groups have been really involved.
And I think if we look at ways where we cannot just do that
kind of lab-scale R&D, which is really important, but later-
stage partnerships where we have cost shares between private
companies and the Department of Energy, we've seen that
catalyze technology deployment, and I think that's a really
important piece of this, and we're glad to see it reflected in
the legislation.
Ms. Stevens. Yes. And, Mr. Bobeck, did you want to chime in
here at all on any of this?
Mr. Bobeck. One thing I'd like to say about that particular
issue is something in this bill we like very much is the focus
on large-scale pilots. We've all heard of the valley of death,
and so I think I said somewhere in my testimony that there's
nothing worse than a project that doesn't get built after all
this innovation and research goes into it. So it is very
important in this bill we believe that there is interest in
taking this through at least close to the commercialization
stage.
Ms. Stevens. Yes. No, that's great. And it's obviously also
something, as we think about the mark that we want to make and
as we're legislating, it's the built environment, right? So
we're navigating within that.
I just led a big initiative on clean tech tax credits and
getting that back rolling and what that means, and it's not
that we're leaving industry.
So, Holstein, did you want to chime in? And, by the way,
great background. We're delighted you're here. But did you have
something you wanted to add?
Mr. Holstein. I think in the interest of time I think Jeff
said it----
Ms. Stevens. OK.
Mr. Holstein [continuing]. Beautifully. I would just add
that Dr. Webb mentioned in the course of I think one of his
answers that the national laboratories, not just his but most
of them if not all of them, have programs in which they
generate patents, work with the private sector, and even let
their own researchers and scientists take leaves of absence to
help commercialize the technologies that in many cases they
spend years developing.
I also mentioned ARPA-E, and the Loan Programs Office at
DOE. All of these things are moving us more in the direction of
the late-stage commercialization that we really need and that
other countries like China do just routinely, reflexively. We
need to be less afraid of being accused of being, you know,
industrial policy-focused, crazy people.
Ms. Stevens. Yes. Thank you for chiming in. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman. I yield back.
Chairman Lamb. I think at this point we'd be crazy not to
do what you're saying, you know?
So, lastly, Mr. Foster for 5 minutes.
Mr. Foster. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I guess as
one of those Members who did visit NETL just a few weeks ago,
you know, it's just amazing. I worked for most of my career at
a national laboratory, and yet there are these jewels scattered
all around our country that certainly Congress is not as aware
of as they should be. And they're doing all these great things.
Just trying to understand the fundamental physics of combustion
is a field which will have a huge benefit because, as I'm sure
has been mentioned a multiple times, we're not going to stop
burning fossil fuels anytime soon.
I'd also like to second the Ranking Member's endorsement of
R&D into using supercritical CO2 as the working
fluid for a high-temperature, high-Carnot efficiency method of
generating electricity.
And so as one of the frontiers in fossil fuels is trying to
deal with the high temperatures, which is, you know, obviously
hard on materials but potentially very good for the efficiency.
And so are we looking down all of the relevant, you know, caves
of possible technology development along those lines? Because
it's one of the ways of making fossil fuel combustion, you
know, more efficient.
Dr. Webb. Let me take that question, please, Congressman
Foster. So the material science element of this Brayton cycle
supercritical CO2 energy conversion process is the
focal point of a joint research program that's shared between
the Nuclear Energy Office and the Fossil Energy Office in
particular focusing on materials. And these are both metals and
the sort of gasket seals and other things that are needed in
the system that are eaten away by CO2 at those
pressures and temperatures.
If it's effective, then it provides not only a more
efficient energy conversion process, but it also potentially
removes the water demand for cooling. And that allows us then
to move energy generation to different places in the country.
And I know that you've held a water hearing--water-energy
hearing here recently, and that would also address some of the
concerns that were brought up in that hearing.
Mr. Foster. Yes. Yes?
Ms. Angielski. I just wanted to add that DOE actually has a
pretty robust high-temperature and pressure materials program
through the Office of Fossil Energy that they are working in a
consortium with private-sector and public-sector interests. And
through that consortium, they are about ready to undertake
testing of components at these higher temperature and
pressures, and so that way they can also move those materials
into a phase where they can be kind of standardized and we can
actually start using them in these either new technologies or
more commercial applications. And that program is ever-evolving
to look at some of these future applications of supercritical--
when I say future I mean more near-term future but
supercritical CO2 cycles, whether direct-fired or
indirect-fired cycles that we see as really promising to
achieve those efficiencies that you're talking about.
Mr. Foster. Yes. It's also an issue--I guess right now in
the horserace but when you separate out the nitrogen to throw
it away, you know, whether you burn the carbon-hydrogen in with
a stream of pure oxygen or whether you try to deal with it
later, which is looking like the low-cost solution to that? And
are there solutions to the very high temperatures that you come
to when you burn in pure oxygen?
Ms. Angielski. So I--we don't want to pick winners and
losers, but I will say from a promising perspective, they're--
this--as Jeff mentioned earlier, the pre-combustion aspect of
these new power cycles is really very appealing because you are
dealing with nitrogen in a post-combustion capture more
diverse--I'm sorry, low concentration source of CO2.
And that's really what the real difficulty is in carbon capture
today.
So if you have these new process cycles where the carbon
dioxide is merely a byproduct of that cycle or water along with
it----
Mr. Foster. Right.
Ms. Angielski [continuing]. You're producing this
concentrated source of CO2 that you then can just do
what you need to do with it. So from a cost perspective, that's
clearly much more appealing.
Mr. Foster. Yes, but then you have to find a way to
generate the oxygen for cheap.
Ms. Angielski. That's----
Mr. Foster. And that's one of the challenges. Are there any
prospective improvements in the efficiency of oxygen plants to
do that, or is that pretty much immature technology?
Dr. Webb. I'm not in a position to answer that question.
I'd have to----
Mr. Foster. OK.
Dr. Webb [continuing]. Do my own homework.
Mr. Foster. OK.
Ms. Angielski. I would just add that DOE and a lot of the
industrial gas separation companies are very much invested in
looking at improvements in those technologies, and there are
some other novel approaches to it that--such as chemical
looping, for example, the different form of oxygen that is
concentrated that you can put into a combustion chamber. So
there are some innovative things that are taking place to look
at other ways of providing that oxygen----
Mr. Foster. That's----
Ms. Angielski [continuing]. For combustion.
Mr. Foster. Yes. That's really wonderful. But you do
actually have to, at some level, place bets and pick winners
and losers, and it's difficult and you don't want to have too
heavy a hand, but, you know, both Congress and you, you know,
have to choose the most promising technologies to put your
money on, and it's a problem that none of us can hide from. And
it's nice to see, you know, really top-notch people working to
make the best calls on behalf of the taxpaying public, so
thanks. I'll yield back.
Chairman Lamb. OK. Before we bring the hearing to a close,
I want to thank our witnesses again for testifying before us
today.
The record will remain open for 2 weeks for additional
statements from the Members and for any additional questions
the Committee may ask of the witnesses.
The witnesses are now excused, and the hearing is
adjourned. Thank you.
[Whereupon, at 5:15 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
[all]