For me the key thing was for the first time DAC was included . This will
enable a level playing field with CCS (flue) and i predict will result in
finally getting rid of the fantasy of clean coal
(or natural gas for that matter) as both the ecomomic and environmetal
benefits of DAC followed by beneficial use are demonstrated . We at GT are
in the process of demonstrating CO2 from air to plastic and to
fertizer (replacing the energy intensive Haber Bosch process) and producing
biochar that seqiesters the carbon.. Carbon fiber from CO2 from the air is
not too far in the future . In the end i hope only negative carbon will
qualify for credits and LAC will be truly cradle to grave and show what a
farce EOR really is
It boggles my minfd that you can take CO2 out of a natural dome , pipe line
it for many hundreds of miles , stick it underground where it started and
push out oil that burns and adds CO2 and gets tax credit for ptting about
30% of it
where it started . This is the legacy we live with because of the many
years of policy and DOE focus on clean coal .

On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 2:29 PM, Hawkins, David <> wrote:

> It's a bit more complicated.
> Yes, a tax credit for CCS with no EOR eligible would be better.  Better
> still would be a bill requiring CCS on fossil plants older than X years.
> But such bills can't be enacted this year and won't be until there is a big
> shift in US politics.  So choice for this year was this bill or nothing.
> Opinions can (and do ) differ on this choice.  But there is value in buying
> down the cost of CCS.  As for impact on oil production: a barrel of EOR oil
> incented by this bill will be coupled with a CO2 reduction from industrial
> capture and thus have a lower CO2 intensity than any other barrel of oil.
> So the net CO2 impact will be driven by the amount of other oil the
> incremental EOR barrel displaces.  This is uncertain but the math is easy
> to figure out how much displacement is required to achieve net reductions.
> One additional point to note: there is a lot of EOR going on today in the
> US.  80% of the CO2 used for that production is extracted from natural
> reservoirs.  The tax credit in the bill for captured CO2 makes captured CO2
> less costly than buying "natural reservoir" CO2.  Shifting from natural to
> captured CO2 for whatever EOR happens is also a plus.
> The bill requires regulations be written to demand a demonstration of
> secure geological storage for any CO2 used in EOR.
> David
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [mailto:geoengineering@
>] On Behalf Of Jonathan Marshall
> Sent: Wednesday, February 14, 2018 5:13 PM
> To: geoengineering <>;
> Subject: Re: [geo] Federal Budget Bill Includes Massive Tax Credits for
> Carbon Capture
> So yes there is money for CC, and no money or help for decreasing
> emissions.
> And not surprisingly "Enhanced oil recovery (EOR), an important pathway to
> geologic carbon dioxide sequestration" in other words using CO2 to increase
> oil production and produce more emissions, probably without bothering to
> see whether the CO2 being used stays down the wells or not?
> This could be a political decision to keep pollution going, rather than to
> increase research.
> jon
> ________________________________________
> From: <>
> on behalf of Andrew Lockley <>
> Sent: Thursday, 15 February 2018 9:07 AM
> To: geoengineering
> Subject: [geo] Federal Budget Bill Includes Massive Tax Credits for Carbon
> Capture
> includes-tax-credits-carbon-capture/
> Federal Budget Bill Includes Massive Tax Credits for Carbon Capture
> Friday’s short government shutdown culminated in a potentially huge win
> for the climate, business and investors. Among a slew of spending and tax
> credits tucked into the budget bill<
> 115/bills/hr1892/BILLS-115hr1892enr.pdf> signed by U.S. President Trump,
> one of them, known as 45Q<
> blog-posts/2017/7/13/the-future-of-ccus?rq=future%20act>, expands tax
> incentives for carbon capture, including from the air.  With advocates from
> both sides of the aisle<
> blog-posts/2017/7/13/the-future-of-ccus>, the act shows bipartisan
> support for carbon capture technology. The policy also signals a shift
> toward greater development and deployment for something known as carbon
> dioxide removal<>.
> Broadly speaking, carbon dioxide removal involves two crucial steps:
> trapping carbon dioxide (the main greenhouse gas causing climate change)
> and reliably storing it. For every qualifying project, 45Q generates a tax
> credit: $50 per ton of carbon dioxide (CO2) buried in underground storage<
> storage/geological-co2-storage>, $35 per ton for either utilization <
> good-the-bad-and-the-ugly-of-co2-utilization?rq=eor> or enhanced oil
> recovery.
> With no cap on the available tax credits and 12 years to claim them, 45Q
> is poised to do for carbon capture what similar incentives did for wind and
> solar power: unleash private sector investments that catapult the
> technology into its maturity. Tax credits are the first step in that
> direction. The policy makes a stronger business case for development, which
> in turn will drive necessary innovations that make it easier and more
> attractive to take these technologies to scale.
> This scaling is vital. Scientists agree<http://www.
> report-1-5c-global-warming-limit/> that cleaning up past emissions of
> carbon dioxide is essential to meeting safe climate targets<http://www.
>>. And 45Q is the
> first federal acknowledgement of the role that carbon utilization and air
> capture technologies will play in getting us there.
> Money for mechanical trees
> Direct air capture<
> blog-posts/2015/9/20/direct-air-capture-explained-in-10-questions> (DAC)
> is a method for literally removing carbon from the atmosphere. Mechanical
> trees suck in ambient air and chemically separate out the carbon dioxide.
> From there, the captured CO2 is pumped deep underground into sealed
> chambers. The end result of direct air capture, in other words, is
> permanently stored CO2.
> The best part? This technology is far from theoretical. ClimeWorks<
>> is one of three startups–along with Global
> Thermostat<> and Carbon Engineering<http://
>>–to pull it off: Their negative emissions plant<
> removal-solution-through-direct-air-capture/> in Iceland “stores the
> air-captured CO2 safely and permanently in basalt, leading us closer to our
> efforts to achieve global warming targets.”
> [
> climeworkds-direct-air-capture-plant-zurich-designboom-06-01-2017-818-016-
> 818x460.jpg]ClimeWorks’ direct air capture machine in Switzerland could
> allow companies to earn up to $50 per ton of CO2, depending on where it is
> stored after capture.
> Thus far, however, all of ClimeWorks plants have been located outside the
> U.S and have been highly subsidized. Direct air capture has a near
> limitless potential for carbon removal, making it a critical tool for
> carbon dioxide removal. But the high cost of the technology in pilot
> projects has been a barrier to wide adoption. 45Q takes an important step
> toward lowering these costs. As the first instance of explicit federal
> support, the bill sends a clear signal to DAC investors to continue funding
> innovations that further bring down costs.
> Waste to value
> 45Q designates a $35 per ton tax credit for the beneficial recycling or
> utilization of captured CO2 emissions.<http://www.
> good-the-bad-and-the-ugly-of-co2-utilization?rq=eor> Rather than storing
> emissions underground, CarbonTech businesses recycle waste carbon dioxide
> by converting it into consumer products and materials like plastics,
> transportation fuels, and chemicals. That credit is likely to drive a
> handful of industrial carbon capture projects, according to a recent study.<
> CarbonCure makes a stronger, faster-curing cement by injecting <
>> waste carbon dioxide into cement mixers.
> CarbonCure’s technology repurposes greenhouse gas emissions, injecting them
> into concrete to yield a superior and greener product. Positively, the
> extension of 45Q will incentivize more companies to reuse CO2 in novel and
> creative ways by making the processes and technologies more investable and
> affordable. In turn, this can help build early markets and broader
> political will for carbon removal.
> Public money unlocks private dollars
> Even before the extension of 45Q, innovative investors, corporations, and
> startups were already working to build an industry around recycling carbon
> emissions. More than $2 billion dollars in private capital gathered at
> Center for Carbon Removal’s CarbonTech Investor Roundtable last week to
> explore investment opportunities. They asked for more CarbonTech
> businesses. They also said policy support is critical to creating large
> markets for CarbonTech, in turn increasing revenue and mitigating climate
> change.
> It’s like the bipartisan authors of 45Q were in the room. With federal
> support for carbon recycling, building a business or investing in the
> carbon recycling space is less risky and potentially more profitable than
> ever before.
> Strange bedfellows
> 45Q gathered diverse backers<>, ranging from fossil fuel
> companies to unions and environmentalists. While these stakeholders touted
> different benefits for the economy and the environment, they generally
> agreed on the importance of federal incentives for carbon capture and
> utilization. Enhanced oil recovery (EOR), an important pathway to geologic
> carbon dioxide sequestration<
> blog-posts/2014/06/24/the-pros-and-cons-of-enhanced-oil-recovery-eor-for-
> commercializing-cdr?rq=eor>, will likely receive many of the 45Q tax
> credits.
> But even EOR projects would help carbon capture companies reduce their
> costs and get to scale.
> With these learnings from EOR projects under their belt, carbon capture
> companies could more easily transition to storing CO2 underground without
> EOR when carbon prices increase to make such standalone sequestration
> economically viable
> Cementing the victory
> Here at Center for Carbon Removal, we work to grow nascent carbon removal
> activities into large-scale climate solutions. Technological, commercial,
> and policy barriers must be overcome in order to do so. 45Q starts to
> tackle all three of these obstacles by reducing the risks and increasing
> the profitability of carbon removal.  This is why CCR, as part of a diverse
> coalition<>, has advocated for this policy for years.
> This victory calls for even more tenacious work on carbon removal. Center
> for Carbon Removal invite you to join us in pioneering the future of carbon
> removal.  We need your intellect, passion and expertise.  Here is how you
> can get involved:
>   *   Subscribe This Week in Carbon Removal<http://www.
>> to keep abreast of the latest carbon
> removal news, events, job postings, and journal articles.
>   *   Join Center for Carbon Removal Investor Network<http://www.
>> for exclusive
> connections to other investors and the hottest startups.
>   *   Got a good CarbonTech business idea? Sign up to compete in Carbon
> Removal 
> Labs<>business
> accelerator.
> Rory Jacobson is a Policy Analyst at the Center for Carbon Removal where
> he researches policies with the potential to support carbon removal
> solutions.
> Elizabeth Reali is a Communications Intern at the Center for Carbon
> Removal, where they work to build out educational materials, design digital
> assets, and communicate with stakeholders about carbon removal.
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "geoengineering" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to<mailto:geoeng
> To post to this group, send email to
> <>.
> Visit this group at
> For more options, visit
> UTS CRICOS Provider Code: 00099F DISCLAIMER: This email message and any
> accompanying attachments may contain confidential information. If you are
> not the intended recipient, do not read, use, disseminate, distribute or
> copy this message or attachments. If you have received this message in
> error, please notify the sender immediately and delete this message. Any
> views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender, except
> where the sender expressly, and with authority, states them to be the views
> of the University of Technology Sydney. Before opening any attachments,
> please check them for viruses and defects. Think. Green. Do. Please
> consider the environment before printing this email.
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "geoengineering" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to
> To post to this group, send email to
> Visit this group at
> For more options, visit
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "geoengineering" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to
> To post to this group, send email to
> Visit this group at
> For more options, visit

CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION: This email message and all attachments contain
confidential and privileged information that are for the sole use of the
intended recipients, which if appropriate applies under the terms of the
non-disclosure agreement between the parties.

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
To post to this group, send email to
Visit this group at
For more options, visit

Reply via email to