Regional Carbon Sequestration Partnerships

“Developing Infrastructure And Validating Carbon

Sequestration Technologies”

John LitynskiEnvironmental Projects Division

Presented at: USDA Symposium on Greenhouse Gases

and Carbon Sequestration in Agriculture and Forestry

21-24 February 2005

Drivers

Renewables 7%98 Quads

Fossil fuels provide 86% of energy

2002

2025

136 Quads

By 2020, reliance on fossil fuels remains

stable at 87%

Coal23%

Nuclear 8%

Renewables 6%

Oil 39%

Gas24%

Coal23%

Nuclear 6%

Oil 40%

Gas24%

+ 40%

Source: AEO 2004

Fossil Energy America’s Energy Foundation

0

4

8

12

1990 2001 2012 2025 2050

Speculative GHG Stabilization Scenario to Meet Goals of the Global Climate Change Initiative

Gt

CO

2 e

q /

yea

r Business As Usual

U.S. emissions stabilization at 2001 level

Gap:5.3 GtCO2 / yr

NETL/ARI/Energetics 2004

Other Potential Drivers

Federal Policy – Senate bills introduced McCain Lieberman – Mandatory cap and trade Hagle – Voluntary reduction, tax incentives

State policy – both mandatory and voluntary Over 25 states drafted and/or passed GHG legislation NE (RGGI) States and CA most aggressive

1605(b) GHG Voluntary Registry GHG Exchange Markets

Overseas Markets (Kyoto) U.S. Voluntary Markets – Chicago Climate Exchange

Part of the Solution

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

200,000

Storage Option

DeepOcean

DeepSaline

Formations

DepletedOil & Gas

Reservoirs

CoalSeams

Terrestrial

Ca

pac

ity

(G

tC)

AnnualWorld

Emissions

Storage Options: IEA Technical Review (TR4), March 23, 2004

Carbon Capture & Sequestration Program @MITWorld Emissions: DOE/EIA, International Energy Outlook 2003, Table

A10

6.5Gigatons

Potential Capacity Range

Large Potential Worldwide Storage Capacity

Sequestration Enables StabilizationCould Account For > 60% of “Gap” in 2050

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

2004 2012 2025 2050DOE/FE/NETL Analysis 2004

Efficiency and Renewables

Forestation and Agriculture

Non-CO2 GHGs

CO2 Capture and Storage

H2 w/ sequestration

Gt

CO

2 e

q /

yea

r

Agriculture Significant Role in 2012 (~30%)

Smaller role in 2050 (~3%)Bridge to Technology

U.S. DOE/ Fossil Energy Sequestration Program

IntegrationIntegrationFutureGenFutureGen

Regional Partnerships

Regional Partnerships

InfrastructureInfrastructure

Break-through

Concepts

Break-through

Concepts

Monitoring, Mitigation & Verification

Monitoring, Mitigation & Verification

Non-CO2 GHG

Mitigation

Sequestration

Separation & Capture

of CO2

Separation & Capture

of CO2

Core R&D

InternationalInternationalCarbon

Sequestration Leadership

Forum

Carbon Sequestration

LeadershipForum

Midwest

Southeast

IllinoisBasinSouthwest

West Coast

PlainsBig Sky

Representing: 244 Organizations40 States 4 Canadian Provinces3 Indian Nations 34% cost share

Cost Share 34%

`

PartnershipPartnership$6.9M$6.9M

PartnershipPartnership$6.9M$6.9M

DOEDOE$13.3M$13.3M

Seven Regional Carbon Sequestration PartnershipsAwarded Sept 2003

Baseline region for sources and sinks

(geologic and terrestrial)

Create action plans for regulatory, liability, environmental, and outreach issues

Establish monitoring and verification protocols

Assess benefits to region Validating sequestration

technology & infrastructure Phase 1 - design

Phase 2 - testing

Regional Carbon Sequestration Partnerships Developing Infrastructure for Wide Scale Deployment

These partnerships - 4 to 10 across the country, each made up of private industry, universities, and state and local governments - will become the centerpiece of our sequestration program. They will help us determine the technologies, regulations, and infrastructure that are best suited for specific regions of the country.

Energy Secretary Spencer AbrahamNovember 21, 2002

Two-Phased Approach

Phase I (Characterization) 7 Partnerships (40 states) 6 considering terrestrial 24 months (2003-2005)

Phase II (Field Validation Tests) $100 million 4 years (2005-2009) ~$14.3 million DOE funding / project Approximately 7 regions

Phase III – 2009-2013 ??

Big Sky Regional Carbon Sequestration PartnershipMontana State University - Bozeman

Agriculture, rangelands, and forestry Conducting regional, aggregate

analysis in support of policies for GHG reductions

Appropriate MMV technologies Advanced systems (NIR, LIBS)

Carbon Accounting Frameworks C-Lock (Expand to WY, MT, and ID) National Carbon Offset Coalition

Source: SDSMT

Midwest Regional Carbon Sequestration PartnershipBattelle Memorial Institute / Ohio State University

Early deployment options at low cost No-till Afforestation Conversion

Grasslands Wetland Restoration

Biophysical potential of increased C in soils, biomass and litter

MRCSP region represents significant CO2 offset technical potential Total Annual C Accumulation: 39.1

MMT MRCSP region may offset 20% of

CO2 emissions in region in Terrestrial Sinks

MRCSP 20 Year C Accumulation: 773 MMT

Source: MRCSP

Plains CO2 Reduction PartnershipUniv. of N.D. – Energy and Environmental Research Center

Focus on two significant regional sinks Agricultural soils (152 MMTCE) Wetlands (374 MMTCE)

Agricultural Soils (NDSU) Conversion to no-till or grass lands Economic vs. technical potential Perennial grasses are promising

Glaciated North American Prairie Wetlands (USGS and Duck Unlimited Canada) Active sink for 2-3X longer than Ag soils Long term offset of other GHG emissions Couple with perennial grasses

Source: USGS

Southwest Partnership on Carbon SequestrationN.M. Institute of Mining and Technology

Focusing on in Agriculture, Rangelands, and Forests Terrestrial sequestration in region is naturally

limited by low average annual precipitation and the variability in precipitation

Even in systems managed for carbon storage, wet years followed by a series of dry years may result in a net carbon flux from the system.

Requires large scale implementation to reduce risks caused by variability in rainfall

West Coast Regional Carbon Sequestration PartnershipCalifornia Energy Commission

Afforestation of Suitable Range Lands 9.3 million suitable hectares in CA Offset up to 12% of current CO2

emissions in entire region

Forestry Lengthen rotations of existing stands Thinning to reduce fire risk matched

with bio energy production Fire is single largest source of CO2

from Terrestrial

MMV Key technical issue – MMV Test California Climate Registry

accounting protocolsSource: Winrock Int

Southeast Regional Carbon Sequestration PartnershipSouthern States Energy Board

Afforestation

Underproductive farm and grazing lands

Bio-energy plantations

Large potential in LMAV

16 M acres bottom land hardwoods available

Existing stand management

Outreach and education mechanisms

Stakeholders – power companies, utilities, NGOs

Public (stakeholder meetings, Public TV, Factsheets)

Carbon Sequestration Atlases

GIS based regional systems & support to NATCARB

Decision support tools

Identify best opportunities

MMV technologies and protocols being identified

satisfy DOE/USDA 1605b voluntary guidelines and State registries

Address permitting guidelines

Other Phase I Accomplishments

Phase II Goals

1. Perform regional technology validation tests for 2012 technology assessment (15-25 field sites)

2. Refine and implement MMV protocols

3. Continue regional characterization

4. Regulatory compliance activities

5. Implement public outreach and education

6. Identify commercially available sequestration technologies ready for large scale deployment

7. Regional partnerships program integration

Not a technology development program!Not a technology development program!

ConclusionConclusion

Fossil fuels, especially coal, are plentiful and

important to the United States energy security

Terrestrial sequestration can play a significant role

in offsetting carbon emissions

Regional partnerships needed to speed acceptance

and adoption by emitters and future markets

Fossil fuels, especially coal, are plentiful and

important to the United States energy security

Terrestrial sequestration can play a significant role

in offsetting carbon emissions

Regional partnerships needed to speed acceptance

and adoption by emitters and future markets

Visit the NETL Sequestration Website www.netl.doe.gov/coalpower/sequestration/