New Jersey nuclear plant shut down after problem

Ontario Electricity Policy debates rates, subsidies, renewables, nuclear baseload, and Quebec hydro imports, highlighting grid transmission limits, community consultation, conservation, and the province's energy mix after cancelled wind projects and rising costs to taxpayers.

Key Points

Ontario Electricity Policy guides rates, generation, grid planning, subsidies and imports for reliable, low-cost power.

✅ Focuses on rates, subsidies, and consumer affordability

✅ Balances nuclear baseload, renewables, and Quebec hydro imports

✅ Emphasizes grid transmission, consultation, and conservation

When Kathleen Wynne’s Liberals went down to defeat at the hands of Doug Ford and the Progressive Conservatives, Ontario electricity had a lot to do with it. That was in 2018. Now, two years later, Ford’s government has electricity issues of its own, including a new stance on wind power that continues to draw scrutiny.

Electricity is politically fraught in Ontario. It’s among the most expensive in Canada. And it has been mismanaged at least as far back as nuclear energy cost overruns starting in the 1980s.

From the start Wynne’s government was tainted by the gas plant scandal of her predecessor Dalton McGuinty and then she created her own with the botched roll-out of her green energy plan. And that helped Ford get elected promising to lower electricity prices. But, rates haven’t gone down under Ford while the cost to the government coffers for subsidizing them have soared - now costing $5.6 billion a year.

Meanwhile, Ford’s government has spent at least $230 million to tear up green energy contracts signed by the former Liberal government, including two wind-farm projects that were already mid-construction.

Lessons learned?
In the final part of a three-part series, the six candidates vying to become the next leader of the Ontario Liberals discuss the province's electricity system, including the lessons learned from the prior Liberal government's botched attempts to fix it that led to widespread local opposition to a string of wind power projects, and whether they'd agree to import more hydroelectricity from Quebec.

“We had the right idea but didn’t stick the landing,” said Steven Del Duca, a member of the former Wynne government who lost his Vaughan-area seat in 2018, referring to its green-energy plan. “We need to make sure that we work more collaboratively with local communities to gain the buy-in needed to be successful in this regard.”

“Consultation and listening is key,” agreed Mitzie Hunter, who was education minister under Kathleen Wynne and in 2018 retained her seat in the legislature representing Scarborough-Guildwood. “We must seek input from community members about investments locally,” she said. “Inviting experts in to advise on major policy is also important to make evidence-based decisions."

Michael Coteau, MPP for Don Valley East and the third leadership candidate who was a member of the former government, called for “a new relationship of respect and collaboration with municipalities.”

He said there is an “important balance to be achieved between pursuing province wide objectives for green-energy initiatives and recognizing and reflecting unique local conditions and circumstances.”

Kate Graham, who has worked in municipal public service and has not held a provincial public office, said that experts and local communities are best placed to shape decisions in the sector.

In the final part of a three-part series, Ontario's Liberal leadership contenders discuss electricity, lessons learned from the bungled rollout of previous Liberal green policy, and whether to lean more on Quebec's hydroelectricity.
“What's gotten Ontario in trouble in the past is when Queen's Park politicians are the ones micromanaging the electricity file,” she said.

“Community consultation is vitally important to the long-term success of infrastructure projects,” said Alvin Tedjo, a former policy adviser to Liberal ministers Brad Duguid and Glen Murray.

“Community voices must be heard and listened to when large-scale energy programs are going to be implemented,” agreed Brenda Hollingsworth, a personal injury lawyer making her first foray into politics.

Of the six candidates, only Coteau went beyond reflection to suggest a path forward, saying he would review the distribution of responsibilities between the province and municipalities, with the aim of empowering cities and towns.

Turn back to Quebec?
Ford’s government has also turned away from a deal signed in 2016 to import hydroelectricity from Quebec.

Graham and Hunter both said they would consider increasing such imports. Hunter noted that the deal, which would displace domestic natural gas production, will lower the cost of electricity paid by Ontario ratepayers by a net total of $38 million from 2017 to 2023, according to the province’s fiscal watchdog.

“I am open to working with our neighbouring province,” Hunter said. “This is especially important as we seek to bring electricity to remote northern, on-reserve Indigenous communities.”

Tedjo said he has no issues with importing clean energy as long as it’s at a fair price.

Hollingsworth and Coteau both said they would withhold judgment until they could see the province’s capacity status in 2022.

“In evaluating the case for increasing importation of water power from Quebec, we must realistically assess the limitations of the existing transmission system and the cost and time required to scale up transmission infrastructure, among other factors,” Coteau said.

Del Duca also took a wait-and-see approach. “This will depend on our energy needs and energy mix,” he said. “I want to see our energy needs go down; we need more efficiency and better conservation to make that happen.”

What's the right energy mix?
Nuclear energy currently accounts for about a third of Ontario’s energy-producing capacity, even as Canada explores zero-emissions electricity by 2035 pathways. But it actually supplies about 60 percent of Ontario’s electricity. That is because nuclear reactors are always on, producing so-called baseload power.

Hydroelectricity provides another 25 percent of supply, while oil and natural gas contribute 6 per cent and wind adds 7 percent. Both solar and biofuels account for less than one percent of Ontario’s energy supply. However, a much larger amount of solar is not counted in this tally, as it is used at or near the sites where it is generated, and never enters the transmission system.

Asked for their views on how large a role various sources of power should play in Ontario’s electricity mix in the future, the candidates largely backed the idea of renewable energy, but offered little specifics.

Graham repeated her statement that experts and communities should drive that conversation. Tedjo said all non-polluting technologies should play a role in Ontario’s energy mix, as provinces like Alberta demonstrate parallel growth in green energy and fossil fuels. Coteau said we need a mix of renewable-energy sources, without offering specifics.

“We also need to pursue carbon capture and sequestration, working in particular with our farming communities,” he added.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News

NRC Advanced Reactor Licensing streamlines a risk-informed, performance-based, technology-inclusive pathway for advanced non-light water reactors, aligning with NEIMA to enable predictable regulatory reviews, inherent safety, clean energy deployment, and industrial heat, hydrogen, and desalination applications.

Key Points

A risk-informed, performance-based NRC pathway streamlining licensing for advanced non-light water reactors.

✅ Aligned with NEIMA: risk-informed, performance-based, tech-inclusive

✅ Predictable licensing for advanced non-light water reactor designs

✅ Enables clean heat, hydrogen, desalination beyond electricity

The US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) voted 4-0 to approve the implementation of a more streamlined and predictable licensing pathway for advanced non-light water reactors, aligning with nuclear innovation priorities identified by industry advocates, the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) announced, and amid regional reliability measures such as New England emergency fuel stock plans that have drawn cost scrutiny.

This approach is consistent with the Nuclear Energy Innovation and Modernisation Act (NEIMA), a nuclear innovation act passed in 2019 by the US Congress calling for the development of a risk-informed, performance-based and technology inclusive licensing process for advanced reactor developers.

NEI Chief Nuclear Officer Doug True said: “A modernised regulatory framework is a key enabler of next-generation nuclear technologies that, amid ACORE’s challenge to DOE subsidy proposals in energy market proceedings, can help us meet our energy needs while protecting the climate. The Commission’s unanimous approval of a risk-informed and performance-based licensing framework paves the way for regulatory reviews to be aligned with the inherent safety characteristics, smaller reactor cores and simplified designs of advanced reactors.”

Over the last several years the industry’s Licensing Modernisation Project, sponsored by US Department of Energy, led by Southern Nuclear, and supported by NEI’s Advanced Reactor Regulatory Task Force, and influenced by a presidential order to bolster uranium and nuclear energy, developed the guidance for this new framework. Amid shifts in the fuel supply chain, including the U.S. ban on Russian uranium, this approach will inform the development of a new rule for licensing advanced reactors, which NEIMA requires.

“A well-defined licensing path will benefit the next generation of nuclear plants, especially as regions consider New England market overhaul efforts, which could meet a wide range of applications beyond generating electricity such as producing heat for industry, desalinating water, and making hydrogen – all without carbon emissions,” True noted.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News

Drax Biomass Conversion accelerates renewable energy by replacing coal with wood pellets, sustainable forestry feedstock, and piloting carbon capture and storage, supporting the UK grid, emissions cuts, and a net-zero pathway.

Key Points

Drax Biomass Conversion is Drax's shift from coal to biomass with CCS pilots to cut emissions and aid UK's net-zero.

✅ Coal units converted to biomass wood pellets

✅ Sourced from sustainable forestry residues

✅ CCS pilots target lifecycle emissions cuts

A power station that used to be the biggest polluter in western Europe has made a near-complete switch to renewable energy, mirroring broader shifts as Denmark's largest energy company plans to end coal by 2023.

The Drax Power Station in Yorkshire, England, used to spew out millions of tons of carbon dioxide a year by burning coal. But over the past eight years, it has overhauled its operations by converting four of its six coal-fired units to biomass. The plant's owners say it now generates 15% of the country's renewable power, as Britain recently went a full week without coal power for the first time.

The change means that just 6% of the utility's power now comes from coal, as the wider UK coal share hits record lows across the national electricity system. The ultimate goal is to stop using coal altogether.

"We've probably reduced our emissions more than any other utility in the world by transforming the way we generate power," Will Gardner, CEO of the Drax Group, told CNN Business.

Subsidies have helped finance the switch to biomass, which consists of plant and agricultural matter and is viewed as a promising substitute for coal, and utilities such as Nova Scotia Power are also increasing biomass use. Last year, Drax received £789 million ($1 billion) in government support.

Is biomass good for the environment?

While scientists disagree over the extent to which biomass as a fuel is environmentally friendly, and some environmentalists urge reducing biomass use amid concerns about lifecycle emissions, Drax highlights that its supplies come from from sustainably managed and growing forests.

Most of the biomass used by Drax consists of low-grade wood, sawmill residue and trees with little commercial value from the United States. The material is compressed into sawdust pellets.

Gardner says that by purchasing bits of wood not used for construction or furniture, Drax makes it more financially viable for forests to be replanted. And planting new trees helps offset biomass emissions.

Forests "absorb carbon as they're growing, once they reach maturity, they stop absorbing carbon," said Raphael Slade, a senior research fellow at Imperial College London.

But John Sterman, a professor at MIT's Sloan School of Management, says that in the short term burning wood pellets adds more carbon to the atmosphere than burning coal.

That carbon can be absorbed by new trees, but Sterman says the process can take decades.

"If you're looking at five years, [biomass is] not very good ... If you're looking at a century-long time scale, which is the sort of time scale that many foresters plan, then [biomass] can be a lot more beneficial," says Slade.

Carbon capture

Enter carbon capture and storage technology, which seeks to prevent CO2 emissions from entering the atmosphere and has been touted as a possible solution to the climate crisis.

Drax, for example, is developing a system to capture the carbon it produces from burning biomass. But that could be 10 years away.

The Coal King is racing to avoid bankruptcy

The power station is currently capturing just 1 metric ton of CO2 emissions per day. Gardner says it hopes to increase this to 10,000 metric tons per day by the mid to late 2020s.

"The technology works but scaling it up and rolling it out, and financing it, are going to be significant challenges," says Slade.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change shares this view. The group said in a 2018 report that while the potential for CO2 capture and storage was considerable, its importance in the fight against climate change would depend on financial incentives for deployment, and whether the risks of storage could be successfully managed. These include a potential CO2 pipeline break.

In the United Kingdom, the government believes that carbon capture and storage will be crucial to reaching its goal of achieving net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050, even as low-carbon generation stalled in 2019 according to industry analysis.

It has committed to consulting on a market-based industrial carbon capture framework and in June awarded £26 million ($33 million) in funding for nine carbon capture, usage and storage projects, amid record coal-free generation on the British grid.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

Ontario IESO Accounting Dispute highlights tensions over public sector accounting standards, auditor general oversight, electricity market transparency, KPMG advice, rate-regulated accounting, and an alleged $1.3B deficit understatement affecting Hydro bills and provincial finances.

Key Points

A PSAS clash between Ontario's auditor general and the IESO, alleging a $1.3B deficit impact and transparency failures.

✅ Auditor alleges deficit understated by $1.3B

✅ Dispute over PSAS vs US-style accounting

✅ KPMG support, transparency and co-operation questioned

The bad blood between the Ontario government and auditor general bubbled to the surface once again Monday, with the Liberal energy minister downplaying a dispute between the auditor and the Crown corporation that manages the province's electricity market, even as the government pursued legislation to lower electricity rates in the province.

Glenn Thibeault said concerns raised by auditor general Bonnie Lysyk during testimony before a legislative committee last week aren't new and the practices being used by the Independent Electricity System Operator are commonly endorsed by major auditing firms.

"(Lysyk) doesn't like the rate-regulated accounting. We've always said we've relied on the other experts within the field as well, plus the provincial controller," Thibeault said.

#google#

"We believe that we are following public sector accounting standards."

Thibeault said that Ontario Power Generation, Hydro One and many other provinces and U.S. states use the same accounting practices.

"We go with what we're being told by those who are in the field, like KPMG, like E&Y," he said.

But a statement from Lysyk's office Monday disputed Thibeault's assessment.

"The minister said the practices being used by the IESO are common in other jurisdictions," the statement said.

"In fact, the situation with the IESO is different because none of the six other jurisdictions with entities similar to the IESOuse Canadian Public Sector Accounting Standards. Five of them are in the United States and use U.S. accounting standards."

Lysyk said last week that the IESO is using "bogus" accounting practices and her office launched a special audit of the agency late last year after the agency changed their accounting to be more in line with U.S. accounting, following reports of a phantom demand problem that cost customers millions.

Lysyk said the accounting changes made by the IESO impact the province's deficit, understating it by $1.3 billion as of the end of 2017, adding that IESO "stalled" her office when it asked for information and was not co-operative during the audit.

Lysyk's full audit of the IESO is expected to be released in the coming weeks and is among several accounting disputes her office has been engaged in with the Liberal government over the past few years.

Last fall, she accused the government of purposely obscuring the true financial impact of its 25% hydro rate cut by keeping billions in debt used to finance that plan off the province's books. Lysyk had said she would audit the IESO because of its role in the hydro plan's complex accounting scheme.

"Management of the IESO and the board would not co-operate with us, in the sense that they continually say they're co-operating, but they stalled on giving us information," she said last week.

Terry Young, a vice-president with the IESO, said the agency has fully co-operated with the auditor general. The IESO opened up its office to seven staff members from the auditor's office while they did their work.

"We recognize the work that she's doing and to that end we've tried to fully co-operate," he said. "We've given her all of the information that we can."

Young said the change in accounting standards is about ensuring greater transparency in transactions in the energy marketplace.

"It's consistent with many other independent electricity system operators are doing," he said.

Lysyk also criticized IESO's accounting firm, KPMG, for agreeing with the IESO on the accounting standards. She was critical of the firm billing taxpayers for nearly $600,000 work with the IESO in 2017, compared to their normal yearly audit fee of $86,500.

KPMG spokeswoman Lisa Papas said the accounting issues that IESO addressed during 2017 were complex, contributing to the higher fees.

The accounting practices the auditor is questioning are a "difference of professional judgement," she said.

"The standards for public sector organizations such as IESO are principles-based standards and, accordingly, require the exercise of considerable professional judgement," she said in a statement.

"In many cases, there is more than one acceptable approach that is compliant with the applicable standards."

Progressive Conservative energy critic Todd Smith said the government isn't being transparent with the auditor general or taxpayers, aligning with calls for cleaning up Ontario's hydro mess in the sector.

"Obviously, they have some kind of dispute but the auditor's office is saying that the numbers that the government is putting out there are bogus.

Those are her words," he said. "We've always said that we believe the auditor general's are the true numbers for the
province of Ontario."

NDP energy critic Peter Tabuns said the Liberal government has decided to "play with accounting rules" to make its books look better ahead of the spring election, despite warnings that electricity prices could soar if costs are pushed into the future.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Texas Electric Cooperatives outperformed during Winter Storm Uri, with higher customer satisfaction, equitable rolling blackouts, and stronger grid reliability compared to deregulated markets, according to ERCOT-area survey data of regulated utilities and commercial providers.

Key Points

Member-owned utilities in Texas delivering power, noted for reliability and fair outages during Winter Storm Uri.

✅ Member-owned, regulated utilities serving local communities

✅ Rated higher for blackout management and communication

✅ Operate outside deregulated markets; align incentives with users

Winter Storm Uri began to hit parts of Texas on February 13, 2021 and its onslaught left close to 4.5 million Texas homes and businesses without power, and many faced power and water disruptions at its peak. By some accounts, the preliminary number of deaths attributed to the storm is nearly 200, and the economic toll for the Lone Star State is estimated to be as high as $295 billion. 

The more than two-thirds of Texans who lost power during this devastating storm were notably more negative than positive in their evaluation of the performance of their local electric utility, mirrored by a rise in electricity complaints statewide, with one exception. That exception are the members of the more than 60 electric cooperatives operating within the Texas Interconnection electrical grid, which, in sharp contrast to the customers of the commercial utilities that provide power to the majority of Texans, gave their local utility a positive evaluation related to its performance during the storm.

In order to study Winter Storm Uri’s impact on Texas, the Hobby School of Public Affairs at the University of Houston conducted an online survey during the first half of March of residents 18 and older who live in the 213 counties (91.5% of the state population) served by the Texas power grid, which is managed by the Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT). 

Three-quarters of the survey population (75%) live in areas with a deregulated utility market, where a specified transmission and delivery utility by region is responsible for delivering the electricity (purchased from one of a myriad of private companies by the consumer) to homes and businesses. The four main utility providers are Oncor, CenterPoint CNP -2.2%, American Electric Power (AEP) North, and American Electric Power (AEP) Central. 

The other 25% of the survey population live in areas with regulated markets, where a single company is responsible for both delivering the electricity to homes and businesses and serves as the only source from which electricity is purchased. Municipal-owned and operated utilities (e.g., Austin Energy, Bryan Texas Utilities, Burnet Electric Department, Denton Municipal Electric, New Braunfels Utilities, San Antonio’s CPS Energy CMS -2.1%) serve 73% of the regulated market. Electric cooperatives (e.g., Bluebonnet Electric Cooperative, Central Texas Electric Cooperative, Guadalupe Valley Cooperative, Lamb County Electric Cooperative, Pedernales Electricity Cooperative, Wood County Electric Cooperative) serve one-fifth of this market (21%), with private companies accounting for 6% of the regulated market.

The overall distribution of the survey population by electric utility providers is: Oncor (38%), CenterPoint (21%), municipal-owned utilities (18%), AEP Central & AEP North combined (12%), electric cooperatives (6%), other providers in the deregulated market (4%) and other providers in the regulated market (1%). 

There were no noteworthy differences among the 31% of Texans who did not lose power during the winter storm in regard to their evaluations of their local electricity provider or their belief that the power cuts in their locale were carried out in an equitable manner.  

However, among the 69% of Texans who lost power, those served by electric cooperatives in the regulated market and those served by private electric utilities in the deregulated market differed notably regarding their evaluation of the performance of their local electric utility, both in regard to their management of the rolling blackouts, amid debates over market reforms to avoid blackouts, and to their overall performance during the winter storm. Those Texans who lost power and are served by electric cooperatives in a regulated market had a significantly more positive evaluation of the performance of their local electric utility than did those Texans who lost power and are served by a private company in a deregulated electricity market. 

For example, only 24% of Texans served by electric cooperatives had a negative evaluation of their local electric utility’s overall performance during the winter storm, compared to 55%, 56% and 61% of those served by AEP, Oncor and CenterPoint respectively. A slightly smaller proportion of Texans served by electric cooperatives (22%) had a negative evaluation of their local electric utility’s performance managing the rolling blackouts during the winter storm, compared to 58%, 61% and 71% of Texans served by Oncor, AEP and CenterPoint, respectively.

Texans served by electric cooperatives in regulated markets were more likely to agree that the power cuts in their local area were carried out in an equitable manner compared to Texans served by commercial electricity utilities in deregulated markets. More than half (52%) of those served by an electric cooperative agreed that power cuts during the winter storm in their area were carried out in an equitable manner, compared to only 26%, 23% and 23% of those served by Oncor, AEP and CenterPoint respectively

The survey data did not allow us to provide a conclusive explanation as to why the performance during the winter storm by electric cooperatives (and to a much lesser extent municipal utilities) in the regulated markets was viewed more favorably by their customers than was the performance of the private companies in the deregulated markets viewed by their customers. Yet here are three, far from exhaustive, possible explanations.

First, electric cooperatives might have performed better (based on objective empirical metrics) during the winter storm, perhaps because they are more committed to their customers, who are effectively their bosses. .  

Second, members of electric cooperatives may believe their electric utility prioritizes their interests more than do customers of commercial electric utilities and therefore, even if equal empirical performance were the case, are more likely to rate their electric utility in a positive manner than are customers of commercial utilities.  

Third, regulated electric utilities where a single entity is responsible for the commercialization, transmission and distribution of electricity might be better able to respond to the type of challenges presented by the February 2021 winter storm than are deregulated electric utilities where one entity is responsible for commercialization and another is responsible for transmission and distribution, aligning with calls to improve electricity reliability across Texas.

Other explanations for these findings may exist, which in addition to the three posited above, await future empirical verification via new and more comprehensive studies designed specifically to study electric cooperatives, large commercial utilities, and the incentives that these entities face under the regulatory system governing production, commercialization and distribution of electricity, including rulings that some plants are exempt from providing electricity in emergencies under state law. 

Still, opinion about electricity providers during Winter Storm Uri is clear: Texans served by regulated electricity markets, especially by electric cooperatives, were much more satisfied with their providers’ performance than were those in deregulated markets. Throughout its history, Texas has staunchly supported the free market. Could Winter Storm Uri change this propensity, or will attempts to regulate electricity lessen as the memories of the storm’s havoc fades? With a hotter summer predicted to be on the horizon in 2021 and growing awareness of severe heat blackout risks, we may soon get an answer.   

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Methane Hydrate CO2 Sequestration uses carbon capture and nitrogen injection to swap gases in seafloor hydrates along the Gulf of Mexico, releasing methane for electricity while storing CO2, according to new simulation research.

Key Points

A method injecting CO2 and nitrogen into hydrates to store CO2 while releasing methane for power.

✅ Nitrogen aids CO2-methane swap in hydrate cages, speeding sequestration

✅ Gulf Coast proximity to emitters lowers transport and power costs

✅ Revenue from methane electricity could offset carbon capture

The world is quickly realizing it may need to actively pull carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere to stave off the ill effects of climate change. Scientists and engineers have proposed various carbon capture techniques, but most would be extremely expensive—without generating any revenue. No one wants to foot the bill.

One method explored in the past decade might now be a step closer to becoming practical, as a result of a new computer simulation study. The process would involve pumping airborne CO2 down into methane hydrates—large deposits of icy water and methane right under the seafloor, beneath water 500 to 1,000 feet deep—where the gas would be permanently stored, or sequestered. The incoming CO2 would push out the methane, which would be piped to the surface and burned to generate electricity, whether sold locally or via exporters like Hydro-Que9bec to help defray costs, to power the sequestration operation or to bring in revenue to pay for it.

Many methane hydrate deposits exist along the Gulf of Mexico shore and other coastlines. Large power plants and industrial facilities that emit CO2 also line the Gulf Coast, where EPA power plant rules could shape deployment, so one option would be to capture the gas directly from nearby smokestacks, keeping it out of the atmosphere to begin with. And the plants and industries themselves could provide a ready market for the electricity generated.

A methane hydrate is a deposit of frozen, latticelike water molecules. The loose network has many empty, molecular-size pores, or “cages,” that can trap methane molecules rising through cracks in the rock below. The computer simulation shows that pushing out the methane with CO2 is greatly enhanced if a high concentration of nitrogen is also injected, and that the gas swap is a two-step process. (Nitrogen is readily available anywhere, because it makes up 78 percent of the earth’s atmosphere.) In one step the nitrogen enters the cages; this destabilizes the trapped methane, which escapes the cages. In a separate step, the nitrogen helps CO2 crystallize in the emptied cages. The disturbed system “tries to reach a new equilibrium; the balance goes to more CO2 and less methane,” says Kris Darnell, who led the study, published June 27 in the journal Water Resources Research. Darnell recently joined the petroleum engineering software company Novi Labs as a data scientist, after receiving his Ph.D. in geoscience from the University of Texas, where the study was done.

A group of labs, universities and companies had tested the technique in a limited feasibility trial in 2012 on Alaska’s North Slope, where methane hydrates form in sandstone under deep permafrost. They sent CO2 and nitrogen down a pipe into the hydrate. Some CO2 ended up being stored, and some methane was released up the same pipe. That is as far as the experiment was intended to go. “It’s good that Kris [Darnell] could make headway” from that experience, says Ray Boswell at the U.S. Department of Energy’s National Energy Technology Laboratory, who was one of the Alaska experiment leaders but was not involved in the new study. The new simulation also showed that the swap of CO2 for methane is likely to be much more extensive—and to happen quicker—if CO2 enters at one end of a hydrate deposit and methane is collected at a distant end.

The technique is somewhat similar in concept to one investigated in the early 2010s by Steven Bryant and others at the University of Texas. In addition to numerous methane hydrate deposits, the Gulf Coast has large pools of hot, salty brine in sedimentary rock under the coastline. In this system, pumps would send CO2 down into one end of a deposit, which would force brine into a pipe that is placed at the other end and leads back to the surface. There the hot brine would flow through a heat exchanger, where heat could be extracted and used for industrial processes or to generate electricity, supporting projects such as electrified LNG in some markets. The upwelling brine also contains some methane that could be siphoned off and burned. The CO2 dissolves into the underground brine, becomes dense and sinks further belowground, where it theoretically remains.

Either system faces big practical challenges, and building shared CO2 storage hubs to aggregate captured gas is still evolving. One is creating a concentrated flow of CO2; the gas makes up only .04 percent of air, and roughly 10 percent of the smokestack emission from a typical power plant or industrial facility. If an efficient methane hydrate or brine system requires an input that is 90 percent CO2, for example, concentrating the gas will require an enormous amount of energy—making the process very expensive. “But if you only need a 50 percent concentration, that could be more attractive,” says Bryant, who is now a professor of chemical and petroleum engineering at the University of Calgary. “You have to reduce the [CO2] capture cost.”

Another major challenge for the methane hydrate approach is how to collect the freed methane, which could simply seep out of the deposit through numerous cracks and in all directions. “What kind of well [and pipe] structure would you use to grab it?” Bryant asks.

Given these realities, there is little economic incentive today to use methane hydrates for sequestering CO2. But as concentrations rise in the atmosphere and the planet warms further, and as calls for an electric planet intensify, systems that could capture the gas and also provide energy or revenue to run the process might become more viable than techniques that simply pull CO2 from the air and lock it away, offering nothing in return.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Climate Change News