Happy Nice Mall

This is the final installment in Visionaries. serieslooks at figures trying to transform our way of life.

Humans pump about 50 billion tons of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases into the atmosphere each year. According to numerous consecutive and increasingly powerful reports from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, that number needs to drop from zero to zero to avoid the worst effects of a warming planet. 2050.

But after decades of inactivity in the face of this scientific consensus, emissions have risen so high that reductions from things like improving energy efficiency and switching to renewable electricity will only get us so far. “We know how to make 40 gigatons,” said Julio Friedmann of Columbia University’s Center for Global Energy Policy. “That means you need 10 gigatons of lift.”

He was talking about carbon capture and storage, known as CCS – essentially by withdrawing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere or source of emissions and locking it somewhere.

Nearly two decades ago, Jennifer Wilcox realized that the key to achieving net zero emissions would be elimination. A professor of chemical engineering at Stanford University, Dr. Wilcox says nature-based solutions such as planting trees and rehabilitating wetlands both of these really good absorbing carbon dioxide – it could only do so much: Carbon would also have to be captured from the air. So, he wrote a textbook on how to do it in 2012. National Academies of Sciences, in 2018 Dr. It came out from Wilcox’s perspective, reporting He said technologies need to be developed and advanced to eliminate the amount needed.

Wilcox, 45, currently has a leading role in the US Department of Energy’s Office of Fossil Energy and Carbon Management, and is tasked with doing just that. But channeling $10 billion into investments in carbon capture and storage is only part of the job. Proven technologies must be made cheaply and at scale, and in some cases integrated with other systems. They must be placed both at sources of carbon dioxide, such as power stations and factories, and directly into the wilderness through systems known as air capture. And there must be places where the captured gas can be stored for centuries and become difficult. Having known him for years, Dr. Friedman, Dr. Wilcox “described every aspect of this work path,” said Wilcox. “He wakes up every day thinking about how we’re going to use clean energy technology.”

This interview has been edited and shortened.

What hinders carbon capture and storage today? Is it technology?

Types of carbon capture are often confused with each other. There is point source carbon capture, which strengthens an existing facility and prevents emissions from entering the atmosphere. Then there’s carbon dioxide removal – direct air capture. Technology is available for both approaches.

But then there’s the question, what do you do with all the CO2? A scaling approach is depleted oil and gas reservoirs: injecting it underground. So to me, it’s definitely not technology.

Is underground storage safe, accessible and cost-effective in the long run?

Deep underground storage of CO2 is not new – the oil industry has been doing this for nearly 40 years through advanced oil production, which is today a commercial-scale activity. Through this industry, we have gained expertise in safe and secure storage, and the same skills, workforce and expertise will apply to specific CO2 storage projects. Similar capture mechanisms that allowed oil and gas to form underground over millions of years will eventually trap CO2 as we work to return the carbon flow underground and build infrastructure.

Where do you think carbon capture and storage will be in 10 years? Do you see point welding systems in place by then?

I see CCS deployed within a decade to industrial point sources – primarily cement and in some cases steel – that are difficult to decarbonize today. Carbon capture in a cement plant really helps to lower the carbon density of that product. We also look at pulp and paper.

Do customers want to buy low carbon paper?

Yes. Apple, Amazon — anyone who uses a lot of paper. They are willing to pay for low-carbon supply chains, but these are not available today. So they have to pay for very high-priced carbon removal.

What I mean is this: How about financing low carbon cement, low carbon steel, low carbon paper by adding CCS to their production? It’s much cheaper to prevent emissions than to recycle them later. I do not think it is difficult to decarbonize these sectors today.

I certainly don’t see carbon capture as a tool to offset the emissions we know to decarbonize. But asking the question of who is willing to pay for these projects can help guide some and bipartisanship. infrastructure law The deal President Biden signed in November will support at least two demonstrations.

When we spoke a year and a half ago, you said, “There needs to be government spending and incentives and investments related to economic benefits to put more carbon into the world from the products we use and the products we use.” Now, that’s actually your job description.

Can you believe this? Thank you for reminding me of this. Because to be honest, this is hard work. But every day I am thankful that I should have been selected for this position. My previous work has only provided model estimates of what the costs might be, but the truth is we need funding to actually build them. And it needs to be transparent so that policies are priced right for the private sector and then take the rest of the way. The work of the Office of Fossil Energy and Carbon Management can generate more costly demonstrations that are the first of their kind.

How do you realize your vision through government bureaucracy?

We overturned the mission. The previous mission of the Fossil Energy Office was to increase the domestic production of fossil fuels. It now focuses on investing in approaches and technologies that minimize the climate and environmental impacts of our continued dependence on fossil fuels.

What do you see as the challenges facing carbon capture and storage for widespread deployment at the scale required to achieve 10 gigatons of removal per year?

Lack of education and effective communication. An example I have in my textbook is that the chemistry that captures CO2 captures acid rain gases, sulfur oxides, and nitrogen oxides, which also affect human health. The first stage of carbon capture is actually removing particulate matter. There are air pollution concerns in some communities where this technology can be applied, so understanding these aspects is really important. And part of what we’re doing in this administration is being very thoughtful about citing projects and making sure we make it clear that there are benefits for communities to see.

One possible use of CO2 captured via CCS is to inject it into oil wells to facilitate fossil fuel extraction. What do you say to critics who argue that carbon capture and storage may be a license for oil and gas companies to pollute, and that this is a dangerous strategy given the need to focus on emissions reduction?

I say they are right. It can. But this administration is about installing guardrails, it’s about valuing other metrics like health benefits, benefits to communities, reducing air pollution. But in the near term, if we get distracted and think that the only result of these investments is fossil fuel extraction, we freeze, we become paralyzed, we do not move, and that is more harmful.

You raise chickens, you grow vegetables, you have solar panels in your house. Will individual efforts be enough to reduce the carbon footprint? Do you think that time would be better to put pressure on governments and companies to step up the energy transition and stop deforestation because they are much bigger drivers of climate change?

I’m considering all of the above. But I think people’s individual decisions are a form of communication. If your neighbor sees that you are installing solar panels, you talk about it. And I think sending a message as an example is a really critical element. So efforts that begin with people’s individual decisions ultimately have an impact.