Sunrun and Tesla Unveil Texas Power Plant

BC Energy Debate: Nuclear Power and LNG divides British Columbia, as a new survey weighs zero-emission clean energy, hydroelectric capacity, the Site C dam, EV mandates, energy security, rising costs, and blackout risks.

Key Points

A BC-wide debate on power choices balancing nuclear, LNG, hydro, costs, climate goals, EVs, and grid reliability.

✅ Survey: 43% support nuclear, 40% oppose in BC

✅ 55% back LNG expansion, led by Southern BC

✅ Hydro at 90%; Site C adds 1,100 MW by 2025

There is a long-term need to produce more electricity to meet population and economic growth needs and, in particular, create new clean energy sources, with two new BC generating stations recently commissioned contributing to capacity.

Increasingly, in the worldwide discourse on climate change, nuclear power plants are being touted as a zero-emission clean energy source, with Ontario exploring large-scale nuclear to expand capacity, and a key solution towards meeting reduced emissions goals. New technological advancements could make nuclear power far safer than existing plant designs.

When queried on whether British Columbia should support nuclear power for electricity generation, respondents in a new province-wide survey by Research Co. were split, with 43% in favour and 40% against.

Levels of support reached 46% in Metro Vancouver, 41% in the Fraser Valley, 44% in Southern BC, 39% in Northern BC, and 36% on Vancouver Island.

The closest nuclear power plant to BC is the Columbia Generating Station, located in southern Washington State.

The safe use of nuclear power came to the forefront following the 2011 Fukushima nuclear disaster when the most powerful earthquake ever recorded in Japan triggered a large tsunami that damaged the plant’s emergency generators. Japan subsequently shut off many of its nuclear power plants and increased its reliance on fossil fuel imports, but in recent years there has been a policy reversal to restart shuttered nuclear plants to provide the nation with improved energy security.

Over the past decade, Germany has also been undergoing a transition away from nuclear power. But in an effort to replace Russian natural gas, Germany is now using more coal for power generation than ever before in decades, while Ontario’s electricity outlook suggests a shift to a dirtier mix, and it is looking to expand its use of liquefied natural gas (LNG).

Last summer, German chancellor Olaf Scholz told the CBC he wants Canada to increase its shipments of LNG gas to Europe. LNG, which is greener compared to coal and oil, is generally seen as a transitionary fuel source for parts of the world that currently depend on heavy polluting fuels for power generation.

When the Research Co. survey asked BC residents whether they support the further development of the province’s LNG industry, including LNG electricity demand that BC Hydro says justifies Site C, 55% of respondents were supportive, while 29% were opposed and 17% undecided.

Support for the expansion of the LNG is highest in Southern BC (67%), followed by the Fraser Valley (56%), Metro Vancouver (also 56%), Northern BC (55%), and Vancouver Island (41%).

A larger proportion of BC residents are against any idea of the provincial government moving to ban the use of natural gas for stoves and heating in new buildings, with 45% opposed and 39% in support.

Significant majorities of BC residents are concerned that energy costs could become too expensive, and a report on coal phase-outs underscores potential cost and effectiveness concerns, with 84% expressing concern for residents and 66% for businesses. As well, 70% are concerned that energy shortages could lead to measures such as rationing and rolling blackouts.

Currently, about 90% of BC’s electricity is produced by hydroelectric dams, but this fluctuates throughout the year — at times, BC imports coal- and gas-generated power from the United States when hydro output is low.

According to BC Hydro’s five-year electrification plan released in September 2021, it is estimated BC has a sufficient supply of clean electricity only by 2030, including the capacity of the Site C dam, which is slated to open in 2025. The $16 billion dam will have an output capacity of 1,100 megawatts or enough power for the equivalent of 450,000 homes.

The provincial government’s strategy for pushing vehicles towards becoming dependent on the electrical grid also necessitates a reliable supply of power, prompting BC Hydro’s first call for power in 15 years to prepare for electrification. Most BC residents support the provincial government’s requirement for all new car and passenger truck sales to be zero-emission by 2035, with 75% supporting the goal and 21% opposed.
 

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

California Electricity Rate Hikes strain households as CPUC weighs fixed charges, utility profit caps, and stricter oversight. Wildfire mitigation, transmission upgrades, and aging grid costs push bills higher amid renewable integration and consumer protection debates.

Key Points

California power rates are rising from wildfire mitigation, transmission costs, and grid upgrades under CPUC review.

✅ CPUC mulls fixed charges to stabilize bills and rate design.

✅ Advocates push profit caps; utilities cite investment needs.

✅ Stronger oversight sought to curb waste and boost transparency.

California residents and consumer groups are demanding relief as their electricity bills continue to climb, putting increasing pressure on state regulators to intervene.  A recent op-ed in the San Francisco Chronicle highlights the growing frustration, emphasizing that California already has some of the highest electricity rates in the country, as coverage on why prices are soaring underscores, and these costs are only getting more burdensome.

Factors Driving High Bills

The rising electricity bills are attributed to several factors:

• Wildfire Mitigation and Liability: Utility companies are investing heavily in wildfire prevention measures, such as vegetation management and infrastructure hardening. The costs of these initiatives, along with the increasing financial liabilities associated with wildfire risk, are being passed on to consumers.
• Transmission Costs: California's vast geography and move towards renewable energy sources necessitate significant investments in transmission lines to deliver electricity from remote locations. These infrastructure costs also contribute to higher bills.
• Aging Infrastructure: California's electricity grid is aging and requires upgrades and maintenance, and the expenses associated with these efforts are reflected in consumer rates.

Proposed Solutions and Debates

Consumer advocates and some lawmakers are calling for various actions to address the issue, including a potential revamp of electricity rates to clean the grid:

• Fixed Charge Proposal: The California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) is considering a proposal to introduce an income-based fixed charge on electricity bills. This change aims to make rates more predictable and encourage investment in renewable energy sources. However, opponents argue that it could disproportionately impact low-income households and discourage conservation.
• Utility Profit Caps: Some advocate for capping utility companies' profits. They believe excessive profits should be returned to customers in the form of lower rates. However, utility companies counter that they need a certain level of profit to invest in infrastructure and maintain a reliable grid.
• Increased Oversight: Consumer groups are calling for stricter oversight of utility company spending, and legislators are preparing to crack down on utility spending through upcoming votes as well. They demand transparency and want to ensure that funds collected from customers are being used for necessary investments and not for lobbying or excessive executive compensation.

Comparisons and National Implications

Similar concerns about rising utility bills are emerging in other parts of the country as more states transition to renewable energy and invest in infrastructure upgrades.

A report by the Energy Information Administration (EIA) shows that average residential electricity rates across the country have been on the rise for the past decade. While California currently ranks amongst the highest, major changes to electric bills are being debated, and other states are following suit, demonstrating the nationwide challenge of balancing affordability with necessary investments.

Uncertain Future

The California Public Utilities Commission is reviewing the fixed charge proposal and is expected to make a decision later this year, with income-based flat-fee utility bills moving closer in the process. The outcome of this decision and potential additional regulatory changes will have significant ramifications for California residents, and some lawmakers plan to overturn income-based charges if adopted, which could set a precedent for how other states handle the rising costs associated with the energy transition.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Pennsylvania Electric Rate Increases hit Peco, PPL, and Pike County, driven by natural gas costs and wholesale power markets; default rate changes, price to compare shifts, and time-of-use plans affect residential bills.

Key Points

Electric default rates are rising across Pennsylvania as natural gas costs climb, affecting Peco, PPL, and Pike customers.

✅ PPL, Peco, and Pike raising default rates Dec. 1

✅ Natural gas costs driving wholesale power prices

✅ Consider standard offer, TOU rates, and efficiency

Energy costs for electric customers are going up by as much as 50% across Pennsylvania next week, the latest manifestation of US electricity price increases impacting gasoline, heating oil, propane, and natural gas.

Eight Pennsylvania electric utilities are set to increase their energy prices on Dec. 1, reflecting the higher cost to produce electricity. Peco Energy, which serves Philadelphia and its suburbs, will boost its energy charge by 6.4% on Dec. 1, from 6.6 cents per kilowatt hour to about 7 cents per kWh. Energy charges account for about half of a residential bill.

PPL Electric Utilities, the Allentown company that serves a large swath of Pennsylvania including parts of Bucks, Montgomery, and Chester Counties, will impose a 26% increase on residential energy costs on Dec. 1, from about 7.5 cents per kWh to 9.5 cents per kWh. That’s an increase of $40 a month for an electric heating customer who uses 2,000 kWh a month.

Pike County Light & Power, which serves about 4,800 customers in Northeast Pennsylvania, will increase energy charges by 50%, according to the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission.

“All electric distribution companies face the same market forces as PPL Electric Utilities,” PPL said in a statement. Each Pennsylvania utility follows a different PUC-regulated plan for procuring energy from power generators, and those forces can include rising nuclear power costs in some regions, which explains why some customers are absorbing the hit sooner rather than later, it said.

There are ways customers can mitigate the impact. Utilities offer a host of programs and grants to support low-income customers, and some states are exploring income-based fixed charges to address affordability, and they encourage anyone struggling to pay their bills to call the utility for help. Customers can also control their costs by conserving energy. It may be time to put on a sweater and weatherize the house.

Peco recently introduced time-of-use rates — as seen when Ontario ended fixed pricing — that include steep discounts for customers who can shift electric usage to late night hours — that’s you, electric vehicle owners.

There’s also a clever opportunity available for many Pennsylvania customers called the “standard offer” that might save you some real money, but you need to act before the new charges take effect on Dec. 1 to lock in the best rates.

Why are the price hikes happening?
But first, how did we get here?

Energy charges are rising for a simple reason: Fuel prices for power generators are increasing, and that’s driven mostly by natural gas. It’s pushing up electricity prices in wholesale power markets and has lifted typical residential bills in recent years.

“It’s all market forces right now,” said Nils Hagen-Frederiksen, PUC spokesperson. Energy charges are strictly a pass-through cost for utilities. Utilities aren’t allowed to mark them up.

The increase in utility energy charges does not affect customers who buy their energy from competitive power suppliers in deregulated electricity markets. About 27% of Pennsylvania’s 5.9 million electric customers who shop for electricity from third-party suppliers either pay fixed rates, whose price remains stable, or are on a variable-rate plan tied to market prices. The variable-rate electric bills have probably already increased to reflect the higher cost of generating power.

Most New Jersey electric customers are shielded for now from rising energy costs. New Jersey sets annual energy prices for customers who don’t shop for power. Those rates go into effect on June 1 and stay in place for 12 months. The current energy market fluctuations will be reflected in new rates that take effect next summer, said Lauren Ugorji, a spokesperson for Public Service Electric & Gas Co., New Jersey’s largest utility.

For each utility, its own plan
Pennsylvania has a different system for setting utility energy charges, which are also known as the “default rate,” because that’s the price a customer gets by default if they don’t shop for power. The default rate is also the same thing as the “price to compare,” a term the PUC has adopted so consumers can make an apples-to-apples comparison between a utility’s energy charge and the price offered by a competitive supplier.

Each of the state’s 11 PUC-regulated electric utilities prepares its own “default service plan,” that governs the method by which they procure power on wholesale markets. Electric distribution companies like Peco are required to buy the lowest priced power. They typically buy power in blind auctions conducted by independent agents, so that there’s no favoritism for affiliated power generators

Some utilities adjust charges quarterly, and others do it semi-annually. “This means that each [utility’s] resulting price to compare will vary as the market changes, some taking longer to reflect price changes, both up and down,” PPL said in a statement. PPL conducted its semi-annual auction in October, when energy prices were rising sharply.

Most utilities buy power from suppliers under contracts of varying durations, both long-term and short-term. The contracts are staggered so market price fluctuations are smoothed out. One utility, Pike County Power & Light, buys all its power on the spot market, which explains why its energy charge will surge by 50% on Dec. 1. Pike County’s energy charge will also be quicker to decline when wholesale prices subside, as they are expected to next year.

Peco adjusts its energy charge quarterly, but it conducts power auctions semi-annually. It buys about 40% of its power in one-year contracts, and 60% in two-year contracts, and does not buy any power on spot markets, said Richard G. Webster Jr., Peco’s vice president of regulatory policy and strategy.

“At any given time, we’re replacing about a third of our supplied portfolio,” he said.

The utility’s energy charge affects only part of the monthly bill. For a Peco residential electric customer who uses 700 kWh per month, the Dec. 1 energy charge increase will boost monthly bills by $2.94 per month, or 2.9%. For an electric heating customer who uses about 2,000 kWh per month, the change will boost bills $8.40 a month, or about 3.5%, said Greg Smore, a Peco spokesperson.
 

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Site C Dam Update outlines hydroelectric budget overruns, geotechnical risks, COVID-19 construction delays, BC Hydro timelines, cancellation costs, and First Nations treaty rights concerns affecting renewable energy, ratepayers, and Peace Valley impacts.

Key Points

Overview of Site C costs, delays, geotechnical risks, and concerns shaping BC Hydro hydroelectric plans.

✅ Cost to cancel estimated at least $10B

✅ Final budget now about $16B; completion pushed to 2025

✅ COVID-19 and geotechnical risks drove delays and redesigns

The cost to cancel a massive B.C. energy development project would be at least $10 billion, provincial officials revealed in an update on the future of Site C.

Thus the project will go ahead, Premier John Horgan and Energy Minister Bruce Ralston announced Friday, but with an increased budget and timeline.

Horgan and Ralston spoke at a news conference in Victoria about the findings of a status report into the hydroelectric dam project in northeastern B.C.

Peter Milburn, former deputy finance minister, finished the report earlier this year, but the findings were not initially made public.

$10B more than initial estimate
On Friday, it was announced that the project's final price tag has once again ballooned by billions of dollars.

Site C was initially estimated to cost $6 billion, and the first approved budget, back in 2014, was $8.775 billion. The budget increased to $10.8 billion in 2018.

But the latest update suggests it will cost about $16 billion in total.

And, in addition to a higher budget, the date of completion has been pushed back to 2025 – a year later than the initial target.

Among the reasons for the revisions, according to the province, is the impact of COVID-19. While officials did not get into details, there have been multiple cases of the disease publicly reported at Site C work camps.

Additionally, fewer workers were permitted on site to allow for physical distancing, and construction was scaled back.

Also cited as a cause for the increased cost were "unforeseeable" geotechnical issues at the site, which required installation of an enhanced drainage system.

Speaking to reporters Friday, the premier deflected blame.

“Managing the contract the BC Liberals signed has been difficult because it transfers the vast majority of the geotechnical risk back to BC Hydro,” said Horgan.

Former Premier Christy Clark vowed to get the project to a point of no return, and in 2017 the NDP decided to continue with the project because of the cost of cancelling it.

The Liberals now say the clean energy project should continue, but deny they shoulder any of the blame.

“Someone has to take ownership – and it's got to be government in power,” said MLA Tom Shypitka, BC Liberal critic for energy. 

There are also several reviews underway, including how to change contractor schedules to reflect delays and potential cost impacts from COVID-19, and how to keep the work environment safe during the pandemic.

A total of 17 recommendations were made in Milburn's report, all of which have been accepted by BC Hydro and the province.

Among these recommendations is a restructured project assurance board with a focus on skill-specific membership and autonomy from BC Hydro.

Cost of cancelling the project
The report looked into whether it would be better to scrap the project altogether, but the cost of cancelling it at this point would be at least $10 billion, Horgan and Ralston said.

That cost does not include replacing lost energy and capacity that Site C's electricity would have provided, according to the province.

A study conducted in 2019 suggested B.C. will need to double its electricity production by 2055, especially as drought conditions are forcing BC Hydro to adapt power generation. 

The NDP government says the cost to ratepayers of cancelling the project would be $216 a year for 10 years. Going forward will still have a cost, but instead, that payment will be split over more than 70 years, the estimated lifetime of Site C, meaning BC Hydro customers will pay about $36 more a year once the site goes live, the NDP says, even as cryptocurrency mining raises questions about electricity use.

“We will not put jobs at risk; we will not shock people's hydro bills,” said Horgan.

"Our government has taken this situation very seriously, and with the advice of independent experts guiding us, I am confident in the path forward for Site C," Ralston said.

"B.C. needs more renewable energy to bridge the electricity gap with Alberta and electrify our economy, transition away from fossil fuels and meet our climate targets."

The minister said the site is currently employing about 4,500 people.

Arguments against Site C
While there are benefits to the project, there has also been vocal opposition.

In a statement released following the announcement that the project would go ahead, the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs suggested the decision violated the premier's commitment to a UN declaration.

"The Site C dam has never had the free, prior and informed consent of all impacted First Nations, and proceeding with the project is a clear infringement of the treaty rights of the West Moberly First Nation," the UBCIC's secretary treasurer said.

Kukpi7 Judy Wilson said the UN's Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination has called for a suspension of the project until it has the consent of Indigenous peoples.

"B.C. did not even attempt to engage First Nations about the safety risks associated with the stability of the dam in the recent reviews," she said.

"It is unfathomable that such clear human rights violations are somehow OK by this government."

Chief Roland Wilson of the West Moberly First Nation said he was disappointed the province didn’t consult his and other communities prior to making this announcement. In an interview with CTV News, he said he was offered an opportunity to join a call this morning.

“We signed a treaty in 1814,” he said. “Our treaty rights are being trampled on.”

Wilson said his nation has ongoing concerns about safety issues and the plans to flood the Peace Valley. West Moberly is in a bitter court battle with the province.

At the BC Legislature, Green Party Leader Sonia Furstenau slammed the government’s decision.

“It is an astonishingly terrible business case in any circumstances, but considering that we lose the agricultural land, the biodiversity, the traditional treaty lands of Treaty 8, this is particularly catastrophic,” she told reporters.

She went on to accuse the NDP government of keeping bad news from the public. She alleged the NDP knew of serious problems before last fall’s unscheduled election, but chose not to release information.

Prior to the decision former BC Hydro president and a former federal fisheries minister are among those who added their voices to calls to halt work on the dam.

They were among 18 Canadians who wrote an open letter to the province calling for an independent team of experts to explore geotechnical problems at the site.

In the letter, signed in September, the group that also included Grand Chief Stewart Phillip of the UBCIC wrote that going ahead would be a "costly and potentially catastrophic mistake." 

According to Friday's update, independent experts have confirmed the site is safe, though improvements have been recommended to enhance oversight and risk management.

Earlier in the project, a B.C. First Nation claimed it was a $1-billion treaty violation, though an agreement was reached in 2020 after the province promised to improve land management and restore traditional place names in areas of cultural significance.

The Prophet River First Nation will also receive payments while the site is operating, and some Crown land will be transferred to the nation as part of the agreement. 

Additionally, residents of a tiny community not far from the site is suing the province over two slow-moving landslides they claim caused property values to plummet.

Nearly three dozen residents of Old Fort are behind the allegations of negligence and breach of their charter right to security of person. The claim is tied to two landslides, in 2018 and 2020, that the group alleges were caused by ground destabilization from construction related to Site C.

One of the landslides damaged the only road into the community, leaving residents under evacuation for a month.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Climate Change News

Freedom Cannabis solar array powers an Acheson cannabis facility with 4,574 rooftop panels, a 1,830-kilowatt system by Enmax, cutting greenhouse gas emissions, lowering energy costs, and advancing renewable energy, sustainability, and operational efficiency in Edmonton.

Key Points

A 1,830-kW rooftop solar system with 4,574 panels, cutting GHG emissions and energy costs at the Acheson facility.

✅ 1,830-kW array offsets 1,000+ tonnes GHG annually

✅ Supplies ~8% of annual power; saves $200k-$300k per year

✅ 4,574 rooftop panels installed by Enmax in Acheson

Electricity consumption is one of the biggest barriers to going green in the cannabis industry, where the energy demands of cannabis cultivation often complicate sustainability, but an Edmonton-area pot producer has come up with a sunny solution.

Freedom Cannabis unveiled the largest rooftop solar system used by a cannabis facility in Canada at its 126,000-square foot Acheson location, 20 kilometres west of Edmonton, as solar power in Alberta continues to surge, on Tuesday.

The "state-of-the-art" 1,830-kilowatt solar array—made up of 4,574 panels—was supplied by Enmax and will offset more than 1,000 tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions each year, reflecting how new Alberta solar facilities are undercutting natural gas on price, the company said.

The state-of-the-art solar array—made up of 4,574 panels—was supplied by Enmax and will offset more than 1,000 tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions at Freedom Cannabis every year. Nov. 12, 2019. (Freedom Cannabis)

That will supply roughly eight per cent of the building's annual power consumption and reduce costs by $200,000 to $300,000 annually.

"This strategy will supplement our operating costs for power by up to eight to 10 per cent, so it is something that in time will save us costs on power requirements," said Troy Dezwart, co-founder of Freedom Cannabis.

Dezwart said sustainability was an important issue to the company from its outset, aligning with an Alberta renewable energy surge that is expected to power thousands of jobs.

"We're fortunate enough to be able to have these types of options and pursue them," said Dezwart.

The entire system cost Freedom Cannabis $2.6 million to build, but nearly a million of that came from a provincial rebate program that has since been cancelled by the UCP government, even as a federal green electricity deal with an Edmonton company signals ongoing support.

The company cited a 2017 report that found cannabis growers in the U.S. used enough electricity to power 1.7-million homes, and said cannabis-related power consumption is expected to increase by 1,250 per cent in Ontario over the next five years, even though Canadian solar demand has been lagging overall.

“It’s more important than ever for businesses to manage their energy footprint, and solar is an important part of that solution,” Enmax director Jason Atkinson, said. “This solar installation will help reduce operating costs and offset a significant portion of GHG emissions for decades to come.”

Freedom says it has other initiatives underway to reduce its footprint, in a region planning the Edmonton airport solar farm among other projects, including water remediation and offering 100 per cent recyclable cannabis packaging tins.

The company's first crops are expected to go to market in December.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News

CO2 Removal Technologies address climate change via negative emissions, including carbon capture, reforestation, soil carbon, biochar, BECCS, DAC, and mineralization, helping meet Paris Agreement targets while managing costs, land use, and infrastructure demands.

Key Points

Methods to extract or sequester atmospheric CO2, combining natural and engineered approaches to limit warming.

✅ Includes reforestation, soil carbon, biochar, BECCS, DAC, mineralization

✅ Balances climate goals with costs, land, energy, and infrastructure

✅ Key to Paris Agreement targets under 1.5-2.0 °C warming

The world is, on average, 1.1 degrees Celsius warmer today than it was in 1850. If this trend continues, our planet will be 2 – 3 degrees hotter by the end of this century, according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

The main reason for this temperature rise is higher levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide, which cause the atmosphere to trap heat radiating from the Earth into space. Since 1850, the proportion of CO2 in the air has increased, with record greenhouse gas concentrations documented, from 0.029% to 0.041% (288 ppm to 414 ppm).

This is directly related to the burning of coal, oil and gas, which were created from forests, plankton and plants over millions of years. Back then, they stored CO2 and kept it out of the atmosphere, but as fossil fuels are burned, that CO2 is released. Other contributing factors include industrialized agriculture and slash-and-burn land clearing techniques, and emissions from SF6 in electrical equipment are also concerning today.

Over the past 50 years, more than 1200 billion tons of CO2 have been emitted into the planet's atmosphere — 36.6 billion tons in 2018 alone, though global emissions flatlined in 2019 before rising again. As a result, the global average temperature has risen by 0.8 degrees in just half a century.

Atmospheric CO2 should remain at a minimum
In 2015, the world came together to sign the Paris Climate Agreement which set the goal of limiting global temperature rise to well below 2 degrees — 1.5 degrees, if possible.

The agreement limits the amount of CO2 that can be released into the atmosphere, providing a benchmark for the global energy transition now underway. According to the IPCC, if a maximum of around 300 billion tons were emitted, there would be a 50% chance of limiting global temperature rise to 1.5 degrees. If CO2 emissions remain the same, however, the CO2 'budget' would be used up in just seven years.

According to the IPCC's report on the 1.5 degree target, negative emissions are also necessary to achieve the climate targets.

Using reforestation to remove CO2
One planned measure to stop too much CO2 from being released into the atmosphere is reforestation. According to studies, 3.6 billion tons of CO2 — around 10% of current CO2 emissions — could be saved every year during the growth phase. However, a study by researchers at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology, ETH Zurich, stresses that achieving this would require the use of land areas equivalent in size to the entire US.

Young trees at a reforestation project in Africa (picture-alliance/OKAPIA KG, Germany)
Reforestation has potential to tackle the climate crisis by capturing CO2. But it would require a large amount of space

More humus in the soil
Humus in the soil stores a lot of carbon. But this is being released through the industrialization of agriculture. The amount of humus in the soil can be increased by using catch crops and plants with deep roots as well as by working harvest remnants back into the ground and avoiding deep plowing. According to a study by the German Institute for International and Security Affairs (SWP) on using targeted CO2 extraction as a part of EU climate policy, between two and five billion tons of CO2 could be saved with a global build-up of humus reserves.

Biochar shows promise
Some scientists see biochar as a promising technology for keeping CO2 out of the atmosphere. Biochar is created when organic material is heated and pressurized in a zero or very low-oxygen environment. In powdered form, the biochar is then spread on arable land where it acts as a fertilizer. This also increases the amount of carbon content in the soil. According to the same study from the SWP, global application of this technology could save between 0.5 and two billion tons of CO2 every year.

Storing CO2 in the ground
Storing CO2 deep in the Earth is already well-known and practiced on Norway's oil fields, for example. However, the process is still controversial, as storing CO2 underground can lead to earthquakes and leakage in the long-term. A different method is currently being practiced in Iceland, in which CO2 is sequestered into porous basalt rock to be mineralized into stone. Both methods still require more research, however, with new DOE funding supporting carbon capture, utilization, and storage.

Capturing CO2 to be held underground is done by using chemical processes which effectively extract the gas from the ambient air, and some researchers are exploring CO2-to-electricity concepts for utilization. This method is known as direct air capture (DAC) and is already practiced in other parts of Europe.  As there is no limit to the amount of CO2 that can be captured, it is considered to have great potential. However, the main disadvantage is the cost — currently around €550 ($650) per ton. Some scientists believe that mass production of DAC systems could bring prices down to €50 per ton by 2050. It is already considered a key technology for future climate protection.

The inside of a carbon capture facility in the Netherlands (RWE AG)
Carbon capture facilities are still very expensive and take up a huge amount of space

Another way of extracting CO2 from the air is via biomass. Plants grow and are burned in a power plant to produce electricity. CO2 is then extracted from the exhaust gas of the power plant and stored deep in the Earth, with new U.S. power plant rules poised to test such carbon capture approaches.

The big problem with this technology, known as bio-energy carbon capture and storage (BECCS) is the huge amount of space required. According to Felix Creutzig from the Mercator Institute on Global Commons and Climate Change (MCC) in Berlin, it will therefore only play "a minor role" in CO2 removal technologies.

CO2 bound by rock minerals
In this process, carbonate and silicate rocks are mined, ground and scattered on agricultural land or on the surface water of the ocean, where they collect CO2 over a period of years. According to researchers, by the middle of this century it would be possible to capture two to four billion tons of CO2 every year using this technique. The main challenges are primarily the quantities of stone required, and building the necessary infrastructure. Concrete plans have not yet been researched.

Not an option: Fertilizing the sea with iron
The idea is use iron to fertilize the ocean, thereby increasing its nuturient content, which would allow plankton to grow stronger and capture more CO2. However, both the process and possible side effects are very controversial. "This is rarely treated as a serious option in research," concludes SWP study authors Oliver Geden and Felix Schenuit.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Climate Change News