Regional differences in carbon dioxide capture and storage markets within the United States

Author(s):  
R DAHOWSKI ◽  
J DOOLEY ◽  
C DAVIDSON ◽  
N MAHASENAN
2018 ◽  
Vol 115 (38) ◽  
pp. E8815-E8824 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ryan W. J. Edwards ◽  
Michael A. Celia

In February 2018, the United States enacted significant financial incentives for carbon capture, utilization, and storage (CCUS) that will make capture from the lowest-capture-cost sources economically viable. The largest existing low-capture-cost opportunity is from ethanol fermentation at biorefineries in the Midwest. An impediment to deployment of carbon capture at ethanol biorefineries is that most are not close to enhanced oil recovery (EOR) fields or other suitable geological formations in which the carbon dioxide could be stored. Therefore, we analyze the viability of a pipeline network to transport carbon dioxide from Midwest ethanol biorefineries to the Permian Basin in Texas, which has the greatest current carbon dioxide demand for EOR and large potential for expansion. We estimate capture and transport costs and perform economic analysis for networks under three pipeline financing scenarios representing different combinations of commercial and government finance. Without government finance, we find that a network earning commercial rates of return would not be viable. With 50% government financing for pipelines, 19 million tons of carbon dioxide per year could be captured and transported profitably. Thirty million tons per year could be captured with full government pipeline financing, which would double global anthropogenic carbon capture and increase the United States’ carbon dioxide EOR industry by 50%. Such a development would face challenges, including coordination between governments and industries, pressing timelines, and policy uncertainties, but is not unprecedented. This represents an opportunity to considerably increase CCUS in the near-term and develop long-term transport infrastructure facilitating future growth.


Author(s):  
R.G. Nelson, ◽  
C.H. Hellwinckel, ◽  
C.C. Brandt, ◽  
T.O. West, ◽  
D.G. De La Torre Ugarte, ◽  
...  

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andrew Duguid ◽  
Diana Bacon ◽  
Dan Blankenau ◽  
Dana Divine ◽  
Isis Fukai ◽  
...  

Author(s):  
P. C. Kemeny

Although Presbyterians have long professed a strong commitment to church unity, Presbyterian denominations have often been divided by schism. Major disagreements over theology have always played a central role in precipitating these schisms. However, class, ethnic, gender, racial, and regional differences and also personal conflicts have often also contributed significantly to schisms. An examination of the 1843 Great Disruption in Scotland, the 1837 Old School–New School Presbyterian Church schism in the United States, the 1903 formation of the Independent Presbyterian Church of Brazil, and the 1952 rupture that led to the establishment of the Korean Presbyterian Church (Kosin) illustrate this argument.


2012 ◽  
Vol 199 (12) ◽  
pp. 1642-1651 ◽  
Author(s):  
Suttichai Assabumrungrat ◽  
Janewit Phromprasit ◽  
Siriporn Boonkrue ◽  
Worapon Kiatkittipong ◽  
Wisitsree Wiyaratn ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document