systems, and oceans; technologies to track the fate of CO2 in storage; and CO2 conversion to either fuels or benign solids through biological or chemical means (DOE, 2004).
In 1999, DOE began formulating a carbon sequestration technology roadmap and overall program plan that incorporated input from a diverse set of stakeholders, including academia, industry, and other federal agencies. DOE issued a final report on carbon sequestration R&D, which set out the technology roadmap, identifying a framework of R&D through demonstration that would allow carbon sequestration to play a significant role in reducing carbon emissions if that objective became a national priority (DOE, 1999). DOE has updated and reissued the Carbon Sequestration Technology Roadmap and Program Plan twice since its initial release (DOE, 2003c, 2004).
The Carbon Sequestration Technology Roadmap and Program Plan concentrates in three areas: core R&D, infrastructure development, and program management. The first of these, core R&D, is the laboratory and pilot-plant work and fieldwork aimed at developing new technologies and new systems for greenhouse gas (GHG) mitigation. It includes CO2 capture, sequestration and storage, monitoring, mitigation and verification, breakthrough concepts, and non-CO2 GHG control.
The second area of concentration, infrastructure development, establishes the basis for future carbon sequestration deployments. Seven regional carbon sequestration partnerships, which are composed of state agencies, universities, and private companies, have been established to identify CO2 sources and potential sinks in their regions and to begin to develop the infrastructure and a framework for future deployment of sequestration technologies. Table G-1 presents DOE’s top-level roadmap for core R&D and infrastructure development.
The third area of concentration, program management, sets out the Carbon Sequestration Program’s approach to R&D management of industry, including government partnerships, cost sharing, education and outreach, environmental activities, and resource requirements.
DOE has projected that, for the years 2006 through 2010, funding of approximately $55 million per year is required to achieve the program goals. Actual and requested funding for the Carbon Sequestration Program for the period 1997 through 2005 is shown in Table G-2, together with the expected budget amounts for 2006 through 2010. In the panel’s view, funding to date has not kept pace with the budget requirements that DOE has projected to be necessary for achieving the program goals. The DOE Carbon Sequestration Program does not contain all of the elements necessary to bring new concepts to a point at which they could be considered for industrial or utility deployment. Large investments are necessary to provide demonstrations at size sufficient for deployment by the industry. Some of these resources could be provided by other DOE programs that are focused on new-concept demonstration. However, these programs were not part of the assessment by this panel.
The committee’s proposed benefits methodology requires an estimation of the expected economic, environmental, and national security benefits in three global economic/environmental scenarios. In order to perform this evaluation, the sequestration panel divided itself into two subpanels—a benefits assessment subpanel and a probability assessment subpanel. The results of these two subpanels were combined into a probability tree that was used to calculate expected benefits. The full sequestration panel reviewed these methodologies and specified probabilities for use in the probability tree analysis.
The committee identified three scenarios in which program benefits should be evaluated: (1) the Reference Case, based on Energy Information Administration (EIA) forecasts for energy costs and energy supply and demand in the United States as reported in the Annual Energy Outlook 2004 (EIA, 2004), (2) the High Oil and Gas Prices scenario, and (3) the Carbon Constrained scenario. The sequestration panel reviewed these three scenarios and concluded that the DOE Carbon Sequestration Program would have benefits only in the Carbon Constrained scenario. The Carbon Constrained scenario considered by this panel matched that used by DOE in its own evaluation of the Carbon Sequestration Program.
The Carbon Constrained scenario assumes that the goals of the Bush administration’s Global Climate Change Initiative are met. The objective of this initiative is to decrease the greenhouse gas intensity to 18 percent below the 2002 level by 2012. “Greenhouse gas intensity is the ratio of greenhouse gas emissions to economic output. The President’s goal seeks to lower our rate of emission from an estimated 183 metric tons per million dollars of gross domestic product (GDP) in 2002, to 151 metric tons per million dollars of GDP in 2012” (White House, 2002). Following DOE, the sequestration panel assumed that the electric power generation sector will have achieved an 18 percent reduction in emissions by 2012. This translates into a reduction to 600 million tons of carbon equivalent per year by 2012 for the power generation sector. Also following DOE, the sequestration committee assumed that the emissions would be held constant at 2012 levels thereafter.
In addition to the three global scenarios identified by the NRC committee, the proposed benefits methodology invites program evaluators to identify one or more additional “op-