DOE Unable to Gauge Maturity of CCS Technologies, Says GAO Report
The Department of Energy’s (DOE) failure to systematically assess development of carbon capture and storage (CCS) technologies renders it unable to gauge their maturity and to provide resources required to move these technologies toward commercial demonstration, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) found in a report released to the public last week.
“This lack of information limits congressional oversight of the hundreds of millions of dollars DOE is currently spending annually on efforts to advance coal technologies, and it hampers policymakers’ efforts to gauge the maturity of these technologies as they consider climate change policies,” the GAO said in the report.
The report, titled “Coal Power Plants: Opportunities Exist for DOE to Provide Better Information on the Maturity of Key Technologies to Reduce Carbon Dioxide Emissions,” was requested by Sens. James Inhofe (R-Okla.) and George Voinovich (R-Ohio). In light of proposed regulatory efforts and legislation that seek to curb power plant emissions, the senators were seeking an assessment of how mature carbon-abating technologies were, how possible it was that they would be commercially deployed, and if there were any implications concerned with their deployment.
The GAO found that while the DOE plays a key role in accelerating the commercial availability of two key technologies (CCS and plant efficiency improvements that allow plants to use less coal), it does not set benchmarks or terms to describe the maturity of key coal technologies.
The agency found from discussions with stakeholders, however, that CCS is less mature than efficiency technologies, and its applications remain at a small scale in coal power plants. The GAO noted that only one fully integrated CCS project operating at a coal plant exists in the U.S.—the Mountaineer Plant in West Virginia, which aims to capture and store more than 100,000 metric tons of CO2. That project captures CO2 from only a portion of the plant’s exhaust—20 MW or about 4% the size of a typical 500-MW coal plant. The DOE has announced funding for several integrated CCS projects in coal plants at larger scales—60 to 450 MW.
Efficiency technologies, on the other hand, are in wider commercial use, the GAO said. “For example, a number of ultrasupercritical plants ranging from 600 to more than 1,000 MW have been built or are under construction in Europe and Asia, and there are five IGCC plants in operation around the world, including two in the United States.” These included the 600-MW John W. Turk ultrasupercritical plant under construction in Arkansas, scheduled for completion in 2012, and the 630-MW integrated gasification combined-cycle (IGCC) Edwardsport plant under construction in Indiana. That plant is also scheduled to be completed in 2012.
Regarding how soon the technologies could be commercially deployed, the GAO said CCS was possible in 10 to 15 years, while “many efficiency technologies have been used and are available for use now.” It said both technologies would face a variety of economic, technical, and legal challenges, however.
CCS stakeholders pointed to the large costs to install and operate current CCS technologies, the fact that large-scale demonstration of CCS is needed in coal plants, and the lack of a national carbon policy to reduce CO2 emissions or a legal framework to govern liability for the permanent storage of large amounts of CO2.
CCS would help the U.S. limit greenhouse gas emissions, but it would raise power prices tremendously, the GAO found. The organization cited a study from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), which found that plants with post-combustion capture have a 61% higher cost of electricity, and IGCC plants with pre-combustion capture have a 27% higher cost compared to plants without these technologies. It also pointed to a DOE finding that suggested post-combustion capture would raise electricity costs 83%, while IGCC plants with pre-combustion capture would have a 36% higher cost.
Another concern raised by the DOE was water consumed by the CCS process. The federal agency estimated that post-combustion capture technology “could almost double water consumption at a coal plant, while pre-combustion capture would increase water use by 73 percent,” the report said.
“With respect to efficiency improvements, stakeholders highlighted the high cost to build or upgrade such coal plants, the fact that some upgrades require highly technical materials, and plant operators’ concerns that changes to the existing fleet of coal power plants could trigger additional regulatory requirements,” it said.
The GAO recommended that the DOE develop “a standard set of benchmarks to gauge and report to Congress on the maturity of key technologies.” The GAO said that the DOE had concurred with its recommendation.
Sources: GAO, DOE