November 14, 2019
WASHINGTON, D.C. – Today, the U.S. Department of Energy’s (DOE) Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy (ARPA-E) announced up to $43 million in funding to develop carbon capture and storage (CCS) technologies that enable power generators to be responsive to grid conditions in a high variable renewable energy (VRE) penetration environment.
The FLExible Carbon Capture and Storage (FLECCS) program seeks to develop technologies that address difficulties in decarbonization of electricity systems, focusing specifically on complications in CCS design, operations, and commercialization potential with the increasing penetration of high VRE sources such as wind and solar power.
“Flexible CCS technology has the potential to achieve unprecedented carbon capture that will revolutionize the market,” said Deputy Secretary Dan Brouillette. “The FLECCS program will quickly advance our carbon capture technology to bring us closer to flexible, low-cost, net-zero carbon electricity systems.”
FLECCS projects will develop retrofits to existing power generators as well as novel systems with carbon-containing fuel input and electricity output.
The program will have two phases. Phase 1 will focus on designing and optimizing CCS processes that enable flexibility on a high-VRE grid. Phase 2 will focus on building components, unit operations, and small prototype systems to reduce the technical risks and costs associated with CCS systems. Projects will be selected to move from Phase 1 to Phase 2 at the conclusion of the initial funding period, based on the output and capacity expansion analysis of the projects.
A portion of the funding will be made specifically available for qualifying small business applicants under ARPA-E’s Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) program.
To learn more about ARPA-E’s FLECCS program, click HERE and to apply for funding, visit ARPA-E eXCHANGE.
HT/Willie Soon
###
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Farming = carbon capture technology.
Reforestation = Natural CCS
Here in the UK, it’s night time so no solar and wind is providing less than 3% of the demand, and could drop to zero!
Nuclear is only providing 16%. Gas, coal, biomass and connectors providing the rest.
Sid’s going be upset about this.
CO2 content does not control atmospheric temperature. See http://www.oprj.net for analyses of 20 million radiosondes that indicate the hypothesis is false. Human emissions do not control atmospheric content( Harde 2017, 2019, Berry 2019). Carbon capture is a waste of time , money and energy. How can this simple truth be given wider exposure?
A fool’s errand – a costly one. It would change nothing.
https://edberry.com/blog/climate-physics/agw-hypothesis/human-co2-emissions-have-little-effect-on-atmospheric-co2-discussion/
https://edberry.com/blog/climate-physics/agw-hypothesis/what-is-really-behind-the-increase-in-atmospheric-co2/
What in our names is the purpose of carbon capture? Stop global warming?
It is complete emptiness in the interests of us all.
For a start we have global cooling, a natural cycle.
This is a scam of the highest order to procure money for useless research.
Can our genuine scientists stamp on this wasrelful direction of resources, recognising the we have ,probably the most ignorant people posing as politicians around the world , who represent anyone but the us and facts.
I know this wonderful site publishes conentious statements, but reality must allow for “exaggeration and deliberate misinformation” to follow by anyone, but corroborated by WUWT
Sorry if this without your remit Mr Watts.
It could help drive more fuel like to understand the truth.
Why does the Department of Energy,a federal agency, even exist?
Now I expect some ambitious businessman will sell the concept of massive domes,full of greenhouses to “capture” that naughty CO2.
Why we could make the desert bloom.
Whatever happened to oversight of government spending?
Senator William Proxmire died in 2005.
Golden Fleece Awards (1975 -1988)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Proxmire#Golden_Fleece_Award
“Why does the Department of Energy,a federal agency, even exist?”
For the same reason we have an EPA and an “endangerment finding,” because Congress fails to exercise it’s Constitutional authority, happy to cede it’s responsibilities to the Executive Branch and the Courts, and to accept the increasingly partisan, activist regulators that work in the Federal Bureaucracy . Republicans need to speak out against the drift towards anti-freedom, anti-liberty, un-American values contrary to the values of our founding.
The “Capture” part gets all the money and attention because it is technology driven and is happening at the power generation plant. where the emissions occur. But the Sequester part is too often ignored. Sequester though is more difficult problem than capture. To have an impact on emissions, many gigatons of liquid or high pressure CO2 would need to be placed deep underground every year, year after year so that it securely remains there for many millennia with essentially zero probability of release.
Maybe they can save money on the storage part and burn it to generate electricity instead!
Another $43 million wasted in obeisance to the climate change religion. We are supposed to have separation of church and state.
SaskPower (electrical utility in Saskatchewan, Canada) spent 1.4 Billion upgrading one coal generation plant with Carbon Capture. the end result is that the plant now only delivers 75% of the power for “consumption outside the power plant” than it did before (any increase in the power output from the plant upgrade went to perform the carbon capture but it still was not enough so we lost out on usable power) The CC does work, it just does not have the efficiency or payback that they had initially expected. It also resulted in a 5% increase in customer charges (the amount needed to pay off the costs for debt servicing)
There is an outfit that is developing a fuel cell that burns CO2 for fuel. Haven’t heard much on them lately. But that’s the sort of teck that should be being developed.
You can’t burn CO2, it is already burned, and contains no more recoverable chemical energy. Luckily, plants convert it through the miracle of photosynthesis into two of the essential ingredients for life: oxygen and food.
Yes, the primary reason why we need so much energy to move around is the gravitational constant. It’s much too high. We should develop a device to lower it.
{/s just in case}
CO2 is good for the planet. If it warms us (very doubtful), then hooray! because Warmer Is Better. Please return our money and sequester the government in deep mine shafts.
For 43 million dollars we will acquire a plot of land, figure out the best tree species to plant based on carbon capture, longevity, and upkeep requirements. Within a year we will have our pilot carbon capture plant up and running. Without any further development the pilot plant should be capturing and storing carbon for at least 100 years. For the longest time storage we will have to turn the carbon in wood to diamonds. We will include a task to figure out how to do that. Another task will be to investigate natural ways of turning CO2 into carbonate rock as has been taking place for eons. I already have many years of experience on my own property of turning CO2 into wood by the growing of trees. I have a large wood pile to show the results.
$43E6 is peanuts compared with the trillions the DOE has wasted since Carter started the mess.
Carter, as you might recall, graduated from the US Naval Academy with a specialty in Nuclear Energy.
The LENR nuts are finally making energy from transmutations in small, self-organizing plasmas, and hope to have proof by the end of January, 2020. If true, how long to practical devices? I’d say 3 *small” to 5 “worthwhile.’
How long to take a nibble at petroleum usage? I’d say 7 “small,” and in 10-12 years it could start exploding. If the deep state doesn’t step in and ban or secretize if for war purposes.
Is this real? I think so say a B.S ChE
The most important thing is to take the first step, then surely there will be a second step and so on. In today’s situation, only technology can provide the solution, as the other methods do not work.
Just another boondoggle a waste of money, make those who are causing the problem the unreliables pay for this not the taxpayers.
The eternal quest for the fountain of youth, the search for unicorns and the sales of perpetual motion machines are as eternal as the universe itself.
Personally I’d get rid of the pesky oxygen first to minimise storage costs.
The impossible dream . . .
Well it’s just jobs for the boys (scientists).
The FY2020 budget request for the US Department of Energy (DOE) is $31.7 billion.
Let’s see: $43 million/$31.7 billion = .0014 = 0.14%. That sounds about right for the amount of funding this technology deserves right now.
We can up it a whole order of magnitude when there is a preponderance of scientific evidence that atmospheric CO2 concentration significantly affects Earth’s climate.