217
(Kramer 2018). Obviously, the economics have a way to go. However, proponents
of DAC think they can turn this into a profitable operation.
Humanity currently captures and stores about five million metric tons of CO 2 per
year, primarily in demonstration or pilot plant projects. This is a drop in the bucket
considering that we release about 36 billion metric tons to the atmosphere annually
(Source AAPG). We have the technology to prevent this carbon from entering the
atmosphere, and it is past time to stop testing and start doing. The capture and storage of CO 2 in the subsurface is no more of a technical challenge than producing
O&G in the first place. It comes down to a question of cost, and a question of policy.
Some people think we should wait for breakthrough technologies like nuclear
fusion, solar power satellites, or zero point energy to save us from climate change.
If these happen, great, but the problem with technological breakthroughs is that they
are unpredictable. As mentioned earlier, the longer we wait, the harder this will be
to fix. We have to work with the technology we have currently available. It boils
down to one basic question: Are we willing to pay more for energy to have a stable
climate? If we agree as a society that this is necessary, government policy will be
needed to produce laws, taxes and tax credits to make this work. Emitting GHG
must have a cost penalty. Not emitting GHG through the use of CCS or by employing non-GHG forms of energy like renewals must have a cost benefit. The most
sure-fire way to influence human behavior is with money. A combination of technology, economics, and policy will be required to achieve climate stability and sustainable energy.
Cost of Electricity The technical details of CO 2 capture and storage are fairly well
understood. The reason this has not been widely implemented is cost. Coal or natural gas power plants that allow CO 2 and other combustion products to freely vent
into the atmosphere produce the cheapest electricity. Any other option, be it carbonfree nuclear, renewables, hydro, or adding CCS to coal or gas plants raises the price
of electricity. The challenge is to convince the energy-using public that this extra
cost is worth it.
The U.S. Energy Information Administration (USEIA 2018) collects cost-ofelectricity data and distills them down for side-by-side comparisons (Fig. 11.1). The
cost of electricity shown on this chart has been “levelized” to allow different sources
to be fairly compared. Levelizing makes adjustments for things like tax credits that
might give one power source an economic advantage over another.
There are a number of factors that go into the final cost of electricity. These
include capital expense (CAPEX), which is the funding needed to construct a power
plant. It must be paid back to investors over time using a percentage of the proceeds
obtained from ratepayers via their electric utility bills. Some power plants like
nuclear facilities have a much higher CAPEX to recover than other power sources
such as hydroelectric, where much of the cost is usually borne by government dam
building programs.
The second category of expense is called operation and maintenance (OPEX),
which is the revenue needed from ratepayers to actually run the power plant day-today and generate electricity. OPEX can vary considerably among different primary
11.3 Energy and Climate Sustainability
(Kramer 2018). Obviously, the economics have a way to go. However, proponents
of DAC think they can turn this into a profitable operation.
Humanity currently captures and stores about five million metric tons of CO 2 per
year, primarily in demonstration or pilot plant projects. This is a drop in the bucket
considering that we release about 36 billion metric tons to the atmosphere annually
(Source AAPG). We have the technology to prevent this carbon from entering the
atmosphere, and it is past time to stop testing and start doing. The capture and storage of CO 2 in the subsurface is no more of a technical challenge than producing
O&G in the first place. It comes down to a question of cost, and a question of policy.
Some people think we should wait for breakthrough technologies like nuclear
fusion, solar power satellites, or zero point energy to save us from climate change.
If these happen, great, but the problem with technological breakthroughs is that they
are unpredictable. As mentioned earlier, the longer we wait, the harder this will be
to fix. We have to work with the technology we have currently available. It boils
down to one basic question: Are we willing to pay more for energy to have a stable
climate? If we agree as a society that this is necessary, government policy will be
needed to produce laws, taxes and tax credits to make this work. Emitting GHG
must have a cost penalty. Not emitting GHG through the use of CCS or by employing non-GHG forms of energy like renewals must have a cost benefit. The most
sure-fire way to influence human behavior is with money. A combination of technology, economics, and policy will be required to achieve climate stability and sustainable energy.
Cost of Electricity The technical details of CO 2 capture and storage are fairly well
understood. The reason this has not been widely implemented is cost. Coal or natural gas power plants that allow CO 2 and other combustion products to freely vent
into the atmosphere produce the cheapest electricity. Any other option, be it carbonfree nuclear, renewables, hydro, or adding CCS to coal or gas plants raises the price
of electricity. The challenge is to convince the energy-using public that this extra
cost is worth it.
The U.S. Energy Information Administration (USEIA 2018) collects cost-ofelectricity data and distills them down for side-by-side comparisons (Fig. 11.1). The
cost of electricity shown on this chart has been “levelized” to allow different sources
to be fairly compared. Levelizing makes adjustments for things like tax credits that
might give one power source an economic advantage over another.
There are a number of factors that go into the final cost of electricity. These
include capital expense (CAPEX), which is the funding needed to construct a power
plant. It must be paid back to investors over time using a percentage of the proceeds
obtained from ratepayers via their electric utility bills. Some power plants like
nuclear facilities have a much higher CAPEX to recover than other power sources
such as hydroelectric, where much of the cost is usually borne by government dam
building programs.
The second category of expense is called operation and maintenance (OPEX),
which is the revenue needed from ratepayers to actually run the power plant day-today and generate electricity. OPEX can vary considerably among different primary
11.3 Energy and Climate Sustainability