U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

30–880PDF WASHINGTON : 2018

THE FUTURE OF FOSSIL: 

ENERGY TECHNOLOGIES 

LEADING THE WAY 

JOINT HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY & 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT 

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND 

TECHNOLOGY 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

JULY 17, 2018 

Serial No. 115–70 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://science.house.gov 
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY 

HON. LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas, Chair 

FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma 

DANA ROHRABACHER, California 

MO BROOKS, Alabama 

RANDY HULTGREN, Illinois 

BILL POSEY, Florida 

THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky 

RANDY K. WEBER, Texas 

STEPHEN KNIGHT, California 

BRIAN BABIN, Texas 

BARBARA COMSTOCK, Virginia 

BARRY LOUDERMILK, Georgia 

RALPH LEE ABRAHAM, Louisiana 

GARY PALMER, Alabama 

DANIEL WEBSTER, Florida 

ANDY BIGGS, Arizona 

ROGER W. MARSHALL, Kansas 

NEAL P. DUNN, Florida 

CLAY HIGGINS, Louisiana 

RALPH NORMAN, South Carolina 

DEBBIE LESKO, Arizona 

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas 

ZOE LOFGREN, California 

DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois 

SUZANNE BONAMICI, Oregon 

AMI BERA, California 

ELIZABETH H. ESTY, Connecticut 

MARC A. VEASEY, Texas 

DONALD S. BEYER, JR., Virginia 

JACKY ROSEN, Nevada 

CONOR LAMB, Pennsylvania 

JERRY MCNERNEY, California 

ED PERLMUTTER, Colorado 

PAUL TONKO, New York 

BILL FOSTER, Illinois 

MARK TAKANO, California 

COLLEEN HANABUSA, Hawaii 

CHARLIE CRIST, Florida 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY

HON. RANDY K. WEBER, Texas, Chair 

DANA ROHRABACHER, California 

FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma 

MO BROOKS, Alabama 

RANDY HULTGREN, Illinois 

THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky 

STEPHEN KNIGHT, California 

GARY PALMER, Alabama 

DANIEL WEBSTER, Florida 

NEAL P. DUNN, Florida 

RALPH NORMAN, South Carolina 

LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas 

MARC A. VEASEY, Texas, Ranking Member 

ZOE LOFGREN, California 

DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois 

JACKY ROSEN, Nevada 

JERRY MCNERNEY, California 

PAUL TONKO, New York 

BILL FOSTER, Illinois 

MARK TAKANO, California 

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT

ANDY BIGGS, Arizona, Chair 

DANA ROHRABACHER, California 

BILL POSEY, Florida 

MO BROOKS, Alabama 

RANDY K. WEBER, Texas 

BRIAN BABIN, Texas 

GARY PALMER, Alabama 

CLAY HIGGINS, Louisiana 

RALPH NORMAN, South Carolina, Vice 

Chair 

DEBBIE LESKO, Arizona 

LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas 

SUZANNE BONAMICI, Oregon, Ranking 

Member 

COLLEEN HANABUSA, Hawaii 

CHARLIE CRIST, Florida 

CONOR LAMB, Pennsylvania 

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

July 17, 2018 

Page 

Witness List ............................................................................................................. 2 

Hearing Charter ...................................................................................................... 3 

Opening Statements 

Statement by Representative Randy K. Weber, Chairman, Subcommittee on 

Energy, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives ........................................................................................................... 4 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 6 

Statement by Representative Marc A. Veasey, Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Energy, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. 

House of Representatives .................................................................................... 8 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 10 

Statement by Representative Andy Biggs, Chairman, Subcommittee on Environment, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of 

Representatives .................................................................................................... 12 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 14 

Statement by Representative Suzanne Bonamici, Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Environment, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, 

U.S. House of Representatives ............................................................................ 16 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 18 

Statement by Representative Lamar Smith, Chairman, Committee on Science, 

Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives .................................... 20 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 21 

Statement by Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson, Ranking Member, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives .... 23 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 25 

Witnesses: 

Dr. Roger Aines, Senior Scientist, Atmospheric, Earth and Energy Division, 

Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 28 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 30 

Dr. Klaus Brun, Program Director, Machinery Program, Fluids & Machinery 

Engineering Department, Southwest Research Institute 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 42 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 44 

Ms. Shannon Angielski, Executive Director, Carbon Utilization Research 

Council 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 66 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 69 

Mr. Jason Begger, Executive Director, Wyoming Infrastructure Authority 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 84 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 93 

Discussion ................................................................................................................. 110

Appendix I: Answers to Post-Hearing Questions 

Mr. Jason Begger, Executive Director, Wyoming Infrastructure Authority ....... 110 
Page

IV 

Appendix II: Additional Material for the Record 

Document submitted by Representative Neal P. Dunn, Committee on Science, 

Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives .................................... 114 
(1) 

THE FUTURE OF FOSSIL: 

AENERGY TECHNOLOGIES LEADING THE WAY 

TUESDAY, JULY 17, 2018 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT, 

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY, 

Washington, D.C. 

The Subcommittees met, pursuant to call, at 10:10 a.m., in Room 

2318 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Randy Weber 

[Chairman of the Subcommittee on Energy] presiding. 
2 

[ongress of the United States 

!1ousr of Rcprcsrntatiocs COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY 

1202) 225~6371 

The Future of Fossil: Energy Technologies Leading the Way 

Tuesday, July 17,2018 

10:00 a,m, 

2318 Rayburn House OtTicc Building 

Witnesses 

Dr. Roger Aines, Senior Scientist, Atmospheric, Earth and Energy Division, 

Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory 

Dr. Klaus Brun, Program Director, Machinery Program, Fluids & Machinery 

Engineering Department, Southwest Research Institute 

Ms. Shannon Angielski, Executive Director, Carbon Utilization Research Council 

Mr. Jason Begger, Executive Director, Wyoming Infrastructure Authority 
3 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY 

HEARING CHARTER 

July 10,2018 

TO: Members, Subcommittee on Energy, Subcommittee on Environment 

FROM: Majority Stall Committee on Science, Space, and Technology 

SUBJECT: Joint Subcommittee Hearing: "The Future of Fossil: Energy Technologies 

Leading the Way'' 

The Subcommittee on Energy and the Subcommittee on Environment of the Committee 

on Science, Space, and Technology will hold a joint hearing titled The Future of Fossil: Eno:r;y 

Technologies Leading the Way on Tuesday, July 17, 2018 at I 0:00a.m. in Room 2318 of the 

Rayburn House Office Building. 

Hearing Purpose: 

The purpose of this hearing is to explore next generation fossil power technologies and 

discuss technology solutions that improve etiiciency and reduce emissions for fossil fuel power 

plants. The hearing will also explore innovation and potential application of carbon utilization 

technologies. 

Witness List 

• Dr. Roger Aines, Senior Scientist, Atmospheric, Earth and Energy Division, Lawrence 

Livermore National Laboratory 

• Dr. Klaus Brun, Program Director, Machinery Program, Fluids & Machinery 

Engineering Department, Southwest Research Institute 

• Ms. Shannon Angielski, Executive Director, Carbon Utilization Research Council 

• Mr. Jason Begger, Executive Director, Wyoming Infrastmcture Authority 

Staff Contact 

For questions related to the hearing, please contact Jimmy Ward or Ben Traynham of the 

Majority Staff at 202-225-0222. 
4 

Chairman WEBER. The Committee on Science, Space, and Technology will come to order. 

Without objection, the Chair is authorized to declare recess of the 

Subcommittees at any time. 

Good morning, and welcome to today’s hearing titled, ‘‘The Future of Fossil: Energy Technologies Leading the Way.’’ I now recognize myself for five minutes for an opening statement. 

This morning, we will examine the status of the early-stage research performed by industry, nonprofit institutes, and the Department of Energy national laboratories to enable advancements in 

fossil energy technologies. Global demand for fossil fuels will hold 

steady in the near term and is projected to increase far into the 

future. Our abundant natural resources, including coal, oil, and 

natural gas, can and should be produced to meet this demand. 

However, these fuels should be utilized with efficient technologies 

that minimize the environmental impact. 

Early-stage research funded by the Federal Government, coupled 

with efforts to develop new technologies by the energy industry, are 

critical to ensuring we can use our resources long into the future. 

Over the years, this partnership between the labs and industry has 

led to the development of advanced scrubber technologies to significantly reduce the release of NOx, SOx, and other unwanted byproducts from fossil-based power plants. 

Because of this technology-led success, today, we can often focus 

on another byproduct of fossil power production, that being carbon 

dioxide. But unlike other emissions, carbon dioxide can potentially 

have a number of key uses in industrial applications. As our knowledge in chemistry advances, so does our ability to capture and repurpose carbon waste as an industrial product. These utilization 

technologies have the potential to convert carbon dioxide into building materials or even reuse CO2 as part of the power generation 

cycle instead of steam. 

Because of the potential benefits to this technology, industry is 

investing in research to advance carbon utilization. This industry 

engagement has advanced independently of any federal regulation 

and combines private-sector investment and the tools and technical 

assistance provided by national labs, state research facilities, as 

well as universities. 

Early-stage research in the national laboratory system also supports the development of new energy production technologies. An 

example, at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, researchers 

have developed a 3–D printed polymer that uses bacteria to convert 

methane, the primary component of natural gas, into methanol at 

room temperature and pressure. This technology has the potential 

to reduce any methane leaked from natural gas production by costeffectively capturing and converting it to liquid methanol at small 

scales. This research led by the national labs can now be taken up 

by industry to improve the extraction and efficient use of natural 

gas products. This partnership is a win-win for science, for energy, 

and for the environment. 

However, in recent years, the use of our limited taxpayer research and development dollars has kind of shifted away from fundamental research like this to the support of large-scale technology 

demonstration projects, one that industry has the ability to fund on 
5 

its own. The research community and the private industry would 

be better served if we focused federal investment on the early-stage 

research that has a proven track record of producing transformative energy technologies. 

I want to thank our panel of witnesses for their testimony today, 

and I look forward to hearing what role Congress should play in 

advancing fossil energy research. 

[The prepared statement of Chairman Weber follows:] 
6 

COMMITTEE ON 

SCIENCE, 

Lamar Smith, Chairman 

For Immediate Release 

July 17,2018 

& NO lOGY 

Media Contacts: Heather Vaughan, Bridget Dunn 

(202) 225-6371 

Statement by Chairman Randy Weber (R-Texas) 

The Future of Fossil: Energy Technologies Leading the Way 

Chairman Weber: Today, we will examine the status of the early-stage research performed 

by industry, non-profit institutes and the Department of Energy national laboratories to 

enable advancements in fossil energy technologies. 

Global demand for fossil fuels will hold steady in the near-term and is projected to increase 

far into the future. Our abundant natural resources-including coal, oil and natural gas-can 

and should be produced to meet this demand. 

However. these fuels should be utilized with efficient technologies that minimize the 

environmental impact. Early-stage research funded by the federal government coupled 

with efforts to develop new technologies by the energy industry are critical to ensuring we 

can use our resources long into the future. 

Over the years, this partnership between the labs and industry has led to the development of 

advanced scrubber technologies to significantly reduce the release of NOx, SOx, and other 

unwanted byproducts from fossil-based power plants. 

Because of this technology-led success. today we often focus on another byproduct of fossil 

power production-carbon dioxide (C02). 

But unlike other emissions, carbon dioxide can potentially have a number of key uses in 

industrial applications. As our knowledge in chemistry advances, so does our ability to 

capture and repurpose carbon waste as an industrial product. 

These utilization technologies have the potential to convert carbon dioxide into building 

materials or even reuse C02 as part of the power generation cycle instead of steam. 

Because of the potential benefits to this technology, industry is investing in research to 

advance carbon utilization. This industry engagement has advanced independently of any 

federal regulation, and combines private sector investment and the tools and technical 

assistance provided by national labs, state research facilities and universities. 

Early-stage research in the national laboratory system also supports the development of new 

energy production technologies. 

For example, at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. researchers have developed a 3-

D printed polymer that uses bacteria to convert methane, the primary component of natural 
7 

gas, into methanol at room temperature and pressure. This technology has the potential to 

reduce any methane leaked from natural gas production by cost effectively capturing and 

converting it to liquid methanol at small scales. 

This research led by the national labs can now be taken up by industry to improve the 

extraction and efficient use of natural gas products. This partnership is a win-win for science, 

energy and the environment. 

However, in recent years, the use of our limited taxpayer research and development dollars 

has shifted away from fundamental research like this to the support of large-scale 

technology demonstration projects-ones that industry has the ability to fund on its own. 

The research community and the private industry would be better served if we focused 

federal investment on the early-stage research that has a proven track record of producing 

transformative energy technologies. 

I want to thank our panel of witnesses for their testimony today and I look forward to hearing 

what role Congress should play in advancing fossil energy research. 

### 
8 

Chairman WEBER. I now yield to the Ranking Member, Mr. 

Veasey. 

Mr. VEASEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this hearing, 

and thank you to the witnesses for being here today. 

Fossil fuels currently account for about 60 percent of our electricity generation in the United States, and they will likely continue to command a large market share of this for decades to come. 

Power plants are now the second-largest source of greenhouse gas 

emissions, just a bit behind the transportation sector. 

Reducing these emissions and finding technology solutions to 

these realities is a very pressing challenge. It’s going to require stable public investment in our academic institutions and national 

labs, alongside significant partnerships with the private industry. 

That is why in May I introduced H.R. 5745, the bipartisan Fossil 

Energy Research and Development Act of 2018. I was joined by my 

colleagues Mr. McKinley from West Virginia and our committee’s 

Ranking Member Ms. Johnson. 

This bill would authorize critical activities within DOE’s Office 

of Fossil Energy. This office is responsible for stewarding research 

to reduce emissions, improve efficiency, and mitigate the environmental impacts of energy generation from fossil fuels. A large portion of this research focuses on developing carbon-capture technologies and demonstrating the use and storage methods for the 

captured CO2. H.R. 5745 would authorize and expand research, development, 

and demonstration of these technologies for power plants, including 

large-scale pilot projects that would fill a vital gap in DOE’s current portfolio of projects in this area. 

The bill also authorizes R&D activities in carbon storage, rare 

earth elements, and carbon utilization, which I understand we will 

hear more about from Dr. Aines shortly. It also supports significant 

improvements in efficiency, including the development of supercritical CO2 technologies, which I know we’ll hear more about from Dr. 

Brun this morning. 

In addition, the bill would launch important new initiatives in 

carbon dioxide removal, methane leak detection, mitigation, and 

carbon dioxide pipelines. 

And finally, it would put in place key reforms to DOE’s fossil energy lab, the National Energy Technology Laboratory, located in 

West Virginia and Oregon. Authorizing these technologies would 

also benefit the environment, our economy, and potentially provide 

technology solutions to global partners aiming to cut emissions. 

The critical work authorized in this bill is supported by a diverse 

array of stakeholders, including representatives from industry, academia, labor, and environmental organizations. Two major U.S. coalition groups representing a large interested—representing a large 

group of interested stakeholders on these issues, the Carbon Utilization Research Council, represented by its Director Ms. Angielski 

is here today; and the Carbon Capture Coalition have endorsed this 

bill. 

And without objection, Mr. Chairman, I would like to submit this 

letter of support for the bill from the American federal government 

Employees Union for the record. 

Chairman WEBER. Without objection. 
9 

[The information appears in Appendix II] 

Mr. VEASEY. In closing, I would like to strongly encourage all of 

my colleagues on the committee to consider cosponsoring H.R. 

5745, and I look forward to discussing the best ways we can move 

these technologies with this excellent panel of witnesses that we 

have today. 

And, Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Veasey follows:] 
10 

OPENING STATEMENT 

Ranking Member Marc V casey (D-TX) 

of the Subcommittee on Energy 

House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology 

Subcommittee on Energy 

Subcommittee on Environment 

"The Future of Fossil: Energy Technologies Leading the Way" 

July 17,2018 

Thank you Mr. Chairman for holding this hearing and thank you to the witnesses for being here 

today. 

Fossil fuels currently account for about 60% of electricity generation in the U.S., and they will 

likely continue to command a large share of this market for decades to come. Power plants arc 

now our second largest source of greenhouse gas emissions, just a bit behind the transportation 

sector. Reducing these emissions and finding technology solutions to these realities is a pressing 

challenge. It requires stable public investment in our academic institutions and national 

laboratories alongside significant partnerships with private industry. This is why in May, I 

introduced H.R. 5745, the bipartisan Fossil Energy Research and Development Act of2018. 

was joined by my colleagues Mr. McKinley from West Virginia and our Committee ·s Ranking 

Member, Ms. Johnson, yet another very smart and distinguished Texan. 

This bill would authorize ctitical activities within DOE's Office of Fossil Energy. This office is 

responsible for stewarding research to reduce emissions, improve efficiency, and mitigate the 

environmental impacts of energy generation trom fossil fuels. A large portion of this research 

focuses on developing carbon capture technologies and demonstrating the uses and storage 

methods for the captured C02. H.R. 5745 would reauthorize and expand research, development, 

and demonstration of these technologies for power plants, including large-scale pilot projects 

that would fill a vital gap in DOE's current portfolio of projects in this area. The bill also 

authorizes R&D activities in carbon storage, rare cat1h elements. and carbon utilization- which I 

understand we'll hear more about from Dr. Aines shortly. It also supports significant 

improvements in efficiency including the development of supercritical COz technologies which 

I know we'll hear more about from Dr. Brun this morning. In addition, the bill would launch 

important new initiatives in carbon dioxide removal, methane leak detection and mitigation, and 

carbon dioxide pipelines. Finally, it would put in place key reforms to DOE's Fossil Energy 

laboratory, the National Energy Technology Laboratory, located in West Virginia. Pennsylvania, 

and Oregon. 

Authorizing these technologies would benefit the environment, the U.S. economy, and 

potentially provide technology solutions to global partners aiming to cut emissions. The critical 

work authorized in this bill is supported by a diverse array of stakeholders including 

representatives from industry. academia, labor, and environmental organizations. Two major 

U.S. coalition groups representing a large group of interested stakeholders on these issues the 

Carbon Utilization Research Council, represented by its Director, Ms. Angielski, here today, and 

the Carbon Capture Coalition-- have endorsed this bill. And without objection, I'd like to submit 
11 

this letter of support for the bill from the American Federal Government Employees union for 

the record. 

In closing, I'd like to strongly encourage all of my colleagues on the Committee to consider 

cosponsoring H.R. 5745. I look forward to further discussing the best ways we can move these 

technologies with this excellent panel of witnesses. 

Thank you and I yield back. 
12 

Chairman WEBER. Thank you, sir. 

I now recognize Mr. Biggs, Arizona. Chairman? 

Chairman SMITH. Thank you—go on. I forgot. You go on. 

Mr. BIGGS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Mr. Chairman. 

Good morning, and welcome to today’s joint Environment Subcommittee and Energy Subcommittee hearing on fossil energy technologies. I thank our witnesses for being here. I look forward to 

hearing their interesting testimony today after reading their submissions. 

Today, we will discuss cutting-edge fossil energy technologies 

that will both advance our Nation’s environmental interests, as 

well as maintain American energy dominance. Like it or not, power 

generated by fossil fuels is and will continue to be America’s core 

source of base load electricity. Unfortunately, due to regulations 

and a media-garnered negative public perception, the fossil fuel industry is under constant attack. Moreover, these regulations result 

in more economic harm than environmental gain in the way of job 

loss and higher utility bills for hardworking Americans. 

Today’s hearing will focus on technologies that, when commercialized, can both boost the economy and clean our air for generations to come. The reality is that there is no reliable and affordable 

alternative to fossil-fuel-generated power at this time. As a result, 

fossil fuels will continue to support economic and infrastructure development both here in the United States and abroad. 

As we learned from our recent hearing on climate adaptation, a 

strong economy and reliable infrastructure is necessary to protect 

against potential environmental harm. Shuttering a coal power 

plant in Arizona will not mitigate the effects of sea level rise in 

California. That effort requires advanced building materials and a 

reliable grid, all things made possible by fossil fuels. 

The question remains: How do we balance the apparent need for 

fossil fuels with a call for lowering the amount of carbon dioxide 

in our atmosphere? We do that by incentivizing the creation of 

technologies that capture the carbon before it leaves the power station and developing innovative ways to use that captured carbon 

for commercial purposes. 

Those technologies, known as carbon capture, utilization, and sequestration—or CCUS—present a win-win for America. Rather 

than be emitted into the atmosphere, CCUS gives us the opportunity to convert carbon dioxide into a useful commodity. Not only 

do these technologies allow for the continued viability of the existing fleet of fossil fuel plants, but they create the prospect for new 

industry sectors altogether. 

While the Federal Government certainly plays a role in 

foundational research in this area, the private sector is best situated to innovate and scale up these technologies. One example we 

will hear more about today is the Wyoming Integrated Test Center, 

or ITC. The ITC is a public-private partnership that has received 

no federal funds. Located at the coal-powered Basin Electric Power 

Plant outside Gillette, Wyoming, the facility is set up as a testing 

site for researchers to scale up technologies designed to convert 

carbon dioxide into commercially viable products like building materials and plastics. 
13 

Facilities like the ITC are why America is the leader in CCUS 

technology. As the production and demand for fossil fuels continue 

to grow worldwide, it is essential for Congress to continue to encourage innovation in this area. 

Again, I thank the witnesses for being here today. I look forward 

to learning more about their interesting work in government and 

the private sector. 

With that, I yield back. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Biggs follows:] 
14 

For Immediate Release 

July 17,2018 

TECHNOLOGY 

Media Contacts: Heather Vaughan, Bridget Dunn 

(202) 225-6371 

Statement by Rep. Andy Biggs (R-Ariz.) 

The Future of Fossil: Energy Technologies Leading the Way 

Chairman Biggs: Good morning and welcome to today's joint Environment 

Subcommittee and Energy Subcommittee hearing on fossil energy technologies. I'd like 

to thank our witnesses for being here. 

Today we will discuss cutting-edge fossil energy technologies that will both advance our 

nation's environmental interests as well as maintain American energy dominance. 

Like it or not, power generated by fossil fuels is and will continue to be America's core 

source of base load electricity. Unfortunately, due to regulations and a mediagenerated negative public perception, the fossil fuel industry is under attack. 

Moreover, these regulations result in more economic harm than environmental gain in 

the way of job loss and higher utility bills for hardworking Americans. Today's hearing will 

focus on technologies that, when commercialized, can both boost the economy and 

clean our air for generations to come. 

The reality is that there is no reliable and affordable alternative to fossil fuel generated 

power. As a result. fossil fuels will continue to support economic and infrastructure 

development both here in the U.S. and abroad. 

As we learned from our recent hearing on climate adaptation, a strong economy and 

reliable infrastructure is necessary to protect against potential environmental harm. 

Shuttering a coal power plant in Arizona will not mitigate the effects of sea level rise in 

California, That effort requires advanced building materials and a reliable grid-all 

things made possible by fossil fuels. 

The question remains: how do we balance the apparent need for fossil fuels with the 

call for lowering the amount of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere? We do that by 

incentivizing the creation of technologies that capture the carbon before it leaves the 

power station and developing innovative ways to use that captured carbon for 

commercial purposes. 

Those technologies, known as carbon capture, utilization and sequestration, or CCUS, 

present a win-win for America. Rather than be emitted into the atmosphere, CCUS 

gives us the opportunity to convert carbon dioxide into a useful commodity. Not only 
15 

do these technologies allow for the continued viability of the existing fleet of fossil fuel 

plants. but they create the prospect for new industry sectors altogether. 

While the federal government certainly plays a role in foundational research in this 

area, the private sector is best situated to innovate and scale-up these technologies. 

One example we will hear more about today is the Wyoming Integrated Test Center. or 

lTC. 

The lTC is a public-private partnership that has received no federal funds. Located at 

the coal-powered Basin Electric Power Plant outside Gillette, Wyoming, the facility is set 

up as a testing site for researchers to scale up technologies designed to convert carbon 

dioxide into commercially viable products like building materials and plastics. 

Facilities like the lTC are why America is the leader in CCUS technology. As the 

production and demand for fossil fuels continue to grow worldwide. it is essential for 

Congress to continue to encourage innovation in this area. 

Again. I want to thank the witnesses for being here today, and I look forward to learning 

more about the interesting work being done by the government as well as the private 

sector. 

### 
16 

Chairman WEBER. Thank you, sir. The Chair now recognizes the 

gentlelady from Oregon, Ms. Bonamici. 

Ms. BONAMICI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Our Nation is facing a serious confluence of factors affecting our 

energy policy: a growing global demand for energy, a heavy reliance on fossil fuels, high energy prices, and climate change resulting from harmful emissions. 

In 2015, the Energy Information Administration found that fossil 

fuel usage accounted for nearly 82 percent of all energy consumption in the United States. This was the lowest share in the previous 100 years but still demonstrates our dependence on fossil 

fuels. 

The dangers to our climate and environment from the carbon 

emissions generated from fossil fuel production and use have been 

studied and confirmed. It is more important than ever that we develop a comprehensive national energy policy that includes a greater emphasis on investing more, not less, in research and development programs to improve efficiency and reduce emissions to keep 

our air and water clean. 

In Oregon, we are leading the nation to decrease our reliance on 

fossil fuels with our robust renewable energy portfolio of solar and 

wind resources. By focusing our investments on renewable resources, we not only protect our environment, but we also have the 

opportunity to support new industries, new jobs, and innovative 

small businesses that are developing clean-energy technologies. 

During the transition, and for States not making similar commitments yet, fossil fuels must be used in a responsible way that mitigates environmental harm. 

The Department of Energy’s Office of Fossil Energy supports research on ways to reduce the negative environmental effects of 

using and developing fossil energy resources. This includes improvements to the efficiencies of a wide range of fossil and non-fossil-fueled power plants through the advancements of technologies 

such as supercritical carbon dioxide power cycles. Much of this cutting-edge research is conducted at DOE laboratories, including the 

National Energy Technology Laboratory, NETL, in Albany, Oregon. 

The lab is also advancing affordable carbon-capture technologies 

that reduce emissions and use captured carbon dioxide to increase 

domestic oil production from depleted oil fields. 

Despite these innovative efforts at the Department of Energy, 

this Administration has sent inconsistent messages about fossil energy technologies. President Trump has highlighted the need for 

clean coal and has worked to bolster fossil industries but has simultaneously attempted to slash funding for the critical federal research supported by the Office of Fossil Energy in his fiscal year 

2019 budget request. 

As a result of strong collaborative efforts between federal and 

nonfederal partners, the United States is considered a leader in the 

development of various innovative fossil energy technologies such 

as carbon capture and storage. Underfunding these activities could 

ultimately cede American leadership in the rapidly developing lowcarbon economy. 

As members of the Science Committee, we should be encouraging 

the Department of Energy to continue supporting unparalleled re-
17 

search into environmental mitigation strategies for fossil fuels that 

would otherwise not be pursued by the private sector. Until we regulate carbon emissions in the United States to drive innovation in 

the private sector, government-sponsored research is critical to fill 

the gaps in the market. Through these investments, there is tremendous opportunity for the United States to promote a healthier 

environment and become a leading exporter rather than importer 

of the next generation of fossil energy technologies. 

I am pleased to see a well-rounded witness panel today to discuss 

the successful partnership between federal, state, and private-sector researchers in this field. I look forward to learning more about 

current technologies used to mitigate the environmental effects associated with the production and use of fossil fuels and the innovations that can support a new national energy policy. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back the balance of my time. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Bonamici follows:] 
18 

OPENING STATEMENT 

Ranking Member Suzanne Bonamici (D-OR) 

of the Subcommittee on Environment 

House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology 

Subcommittee on Energy 

Subcommittee on Environment 

"The Future ofF ossil: Energy Technologies Leading the Way" 

July 17,2018 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Our nation is facing a serious confluence of factors affecting our 

energy policy: a growing global demand for energy, a heavy reliance on fossil fuels, high energy 

prices, and climate change resulting from hannful emissions. In 2015, the Energy Information 

Administration found that fossil fuel usage accounted tor nearly 82 percent of all energy 

consumption in the U.S. This was the lowest share in the previous I 00 years, but still 

demonstrates our dependence on fossil fuels. 

The dangers to our climate and environment from the carbon emissions generated from fossil 

fuel production and use have been studied and confirmed. It is more important than ever that we 

develop a comprehensive national energy policy that includes a greater emphasis on investing 

more, not less, in research and development programs to improve efficiency and reduce 

emissions to keep our air and water clean. 

In Oregon, we are leading the nation to decrease our reliance on fossil fuels with our robust 

renewable energy portfolio of solar and wind resources. By focusing our investments on 

renewable resources, we not only protect our environment, but we also have the opportunity to 

support new industries, new jobs, and innovative small businesses that are developing clean 

energy technologies. During the transition, and for states not making similar commitments yet, 

fossil fuels must be used in a responsible way that mitigates environmental harm. 

The Department of Energy's Office of Fossil Energy supports research on ways to reduce the 

negative environmental effects of using and developing fossil energy resources. This includes 

improvements to the efficiencies of a wide range of fossil and non-fossil fueled power plants 

through the advancements of technologies such as super critical carbon dioxide power cycles. 

Much of this cutting-edge research is conducted at DOE laboratories, including the National 

Energy Technology Laboratory or NETL ("nettle") located in Albany, Oregon. The lab is also 

advancing affordable carbon capture technologies that reduce emissions and use captured carbon 

dioxide to increase domestic oil production from depleted oil fields. 

Despite these innovative efforts at the Department of Energy, this Administration has sent 

inconsistent messages about fossil energy technologies. President Trump has highlighted the 

need tor "clean coal," and has worked to bolster fossil industries, but has simultaneously 

attempted to slash funding for the critical federal research supported by the Of!ice of Fossil 

Energy in his Fiscal Y car 2019 budget request. 
19 

As a result of strong collaborative efforts between federal and non-federal partners, the U.S. is 

considered a leader in the development of various innovative fossil energy technologies, such as 

carbon capture and storage. Underfunding these activities could ultimately cede American 

leadership in the rapidly developing low carbon economy. 

As members of the Science Committee, we should be encouraging the Department of Energy to 

continue supporting unparalleled research into environmental mitigation strategies for fossil fuels 

that would otherwise not be pursued by the private sector. 

Until we regulate carbon emissions in the U.S. to drive innovation in the private sector, 

government -sponsored research is critical to till the gaps in the market. Through these 

investments, there is tremendous opportunity for the U.S. to promote a heathier environment and 

become a leading exporter, rather than an importer, of the next generation of fossil energy 

technologies. 

I am pleased to see a well-rounded witness panel today to discuss the successful pminerships 

between federal, slate, and private sector researchers in this field. I look forward to learning more 

about cun·ent technologies used to mitigate the environmental effects associated with the 

production and use of fossil fuels, and the innovations that can support a new national energy 

policy. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 
20 

Chairman WEBER. Thank you, ma’am. The Chair now recognizes 

the Chairman of the full committee, Mr. Lamar Smith of Texas. 

Chairman SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Energy produced from fossil fuel is abundant, affordable and 

vital to America’s security and competitiveness. As global demand 

for fossil fuel energy increases, America is on tap to become a net 

energy exporter. 

The research done at Department of Energy national laboratories 

is vital to increasing the fossil fuels’ efficiency and reducing environmental impacts of this vital power source. Basic science discoveries at DOE national labs have led to a range of technological innovations used by private industry in fossil energy production and 

fossil power systems. 

From horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing, to improved 

sensors and geologic mapping, we’ve seen dramatic improvements 

in fossil fuel production technology that was developed from research conducted in the DOE lab system. For example, field engineers today are using augmented reality and virtual reality technologies in maintenance, operations, and exploration of reservoirs. 

Using this technology in the field can reduce the environmental 

footprint of energy production and increase oil and gas production 

as well. 

And in fossil power production, new approaches like the use of 

supercritical carbon dioxide power systems can replace the use of 

steam power, improving efficiency and potentially producing virtually carbon-free energy. The Southwest Research Institute, located near my district in San Antonio, is partnering with DOE to 

lead early-stage research efforts in developing these supercritical 

CO2 systems. 

In the past, the DOE’s Office of Fossil Energy Research and Development programs focused primarily on reducing emissions from 

fossil power. While research on carbon capture, storage, and sequestration technologies remains a priority, there is also potential 

to research ways to use carbon as an energy resource, rather than 

only considering it as a waste product. 

At the National Energy Technology Laboratory, DOE is funding 

basic research to create usable substances from carbon waste, such 

as concrete or plastics. If these techniques are commercialized by 

industry, they could provide added revenue for fossil power plants, 

making carbon capture a cost-effective method to reduce emissions. 

DOE’s early-stage research should focus on developing a broad 

range of innovative technologies to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of fossil fuels, allowing us to use all our natural resources 

long into the future. 

I look forward to hearing about the promise of fossil energy technologies from our witnesses today and how DOE-funded research 

supports technological innovations that improve the efficiency, environmental impact, and safety of fossil fuels. 

And I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Chairman Smith follows:] 
21 

For Immediate Release 

July 17,2018 

& TECHNOLOGY 

Media Contacts: Heather Vaughan, Bridget Dunn 

1202) 225-6371 

Statement by Chairman Lamar Smith (R-Texas) 

The Future of Fossil: Energy Technologies Leading the Way 

Chairman Smith: Energy produced from fossil fuel is abundant, affordable and vital to 

America's security and competitiveness. As global demand for fossil fuel energy increases, 

America is on tap to become a net energy exporter. 

The research done at Department of Energy (DOE) national laboratories is vital to increasing 

the fossil fuels' efficiency and reducing environmental impacts of this vital power source. 

Basic science discoveries at DOE national labs have led to a range of technological 

innovations used by private industry in fossil energy production and fossil power systems. 

From horizontal drill and hydraulic fracturing. to improved sensors and geologic mapping, 

we've seen dramatic improvements in fossil fuel production technology that was developed 

from research conducted in the DOE lab system. 

For example. field engineers today are using augmented reality and virtual reality 

technologies in maintenance. operations and exploration of reservoirs. Using this technology 

in the field can reduce the environmental footprint of energy production and increase oil 

and gas production. 

And in fossil power production. new approaches like the use of supercritical carbon dioxide 

power systems can replace the use of steam power. improving efficiency and potentially 

producing virtually carbon-free energy. The Southwest Research Institute, located in my 

district. is partnering with DOE to lead early stage research efforts in developing these 

supercritical C02 systems. 

In the past. the DOE's Office of Fossil Energy Research and Development programs focused 

primarily on reducing emissions from fossil power. While research in carbon capture, storage 

and sequestration technologies remains a priority, there is also potential to research ways to 

use carbon as an energy resource, rather than only considering it as a waste product. 

At the National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL), DOE is funding basic research to 

create usable substances from carbon waste, such as concrete or plastics. If these 

techniques are commercialized by industry, they could provide added revenue for fossil 

power plants, making carbon capture a cost-effective method to reduce emissions. 
22 

DOE's early-stage research should focus on developing a broad range of innovative 

technologies to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of fossil fuels, allowing us to use all 

our natural resources long into the future. 

I look forward to hearing about the promise of fossil energy technologies from our witnesses 

today and how DOE-funded research supports technological innovations that improve the 

efficiency, environmental impact and safety of fossil fuels. 

### 
23 

Chairman WEBER. Thank you, sir. And the Chair now recognizes 

the gentlelady from Texas, the Ranking Member of the full Committee, Ms. Johnson. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and let me 

welcome our witnesses. I want to express my appreciation to both 

Chairman Weber and Chairman Biggs and our distinguished Ranking Members for holding this hearing to discuss the future of fossil 

energy. 

Certainly, we have seen how advances in science and engineering 

can produce large-scale economic value in this sector, and historically, our federal R&D agencies have played a major historic role 

in this process. 

Just over a decade ago, we had a little—little idea of the fossil 

resources that would be available to us today. However, due to 

some critical research investments made by the Department of Energy over 40 years ago, coupled with rising oil prices in recent decades, the United States underwent the shale gas revolution that 

brought major natural gas resources online, and with it, a sharp 

increase in domestic oil production. 

That DOE program wrapped up in the early ’90s when a private 

company took that federally supported research and used it to trigger the oil and gas boom we see today. I think my colleagues would 

agree that that is the model for DOE’s energy technology programs 

we all hope to see, federal investments shepherding transformational technologies to the marketplace, even when the endpoint is not clear at the beginning of the process. 

That brings us to what should be the fundamental question we 

consider today: Where should the Department of Energy be investing its limited dollars in this area? If the standard of identifying 

a federal role rests on whether the private industry has the capacity to invest in R&D, then I think the answer to the question is 

that DOE should focus its investments on reducing and wherever 

possible eliminating the environmental impacts of the production 

and use of these resources. At present, there is unfortunately little 

incentive for industry to spend major R&D dollars to protect the 

environment and even less incentive in the private sector to prevent the most devastating potential impacts of climate change. 

This is why I am so pleased to cosponsor H.R. 5745, the bipartisan Fossil Fuel Research and Development Act of 2018, which 

Ranking Member Veasey and Mr. McKinley and I introduced in 

May. This bill would reauthorize and expand important activities 

to develop and scale up innovative carbon capture, utilization, and 

storage technologies. It would also launch vital new initiatives on 

carbon dioxide removal and methane leak detection and mitigation, 

among other areas. 

In all likelihood, our society will continue to use and develop our 

fossil energy resources for at least several more decades, so these 

technologies will be absolutely critical to minimizing the harm they 

would otherwise cause to our public health and to the environment. 

Before I close, I would note that I am surprised that we are holding a hearing on DOE’s fossil energy technology development activities without inviting DOE’s Assistant Secretary for Fossil Energy to testify. It seems to me that it would be important for us 

to ask him to provide a better explanation for why the Administra-
24 

tion is proposing a 31 percent cut to DOE’s fossil energy research 

and development activities. This is in stark contrast to the stated 

positions of the President, who has been praising clean coal and 

vowing to end a supposed war on clean coal throughout his time 

in office so far. The rhetoric is not matched by the necessary resources, and this committee needs to know why not. 

So I hope that we will have Assistant Secretary Winberg before 

our committee to discuss these issues further in the near future. 

And I look forward to working with the Administration and my colleagues on both sides of the aisle in the months ahead to steer a 

better course as we aim to accelerate the development and deployment of these next-generation technologies that could significantly 

improve our environment, our health, and our Nation’s economy. 

Thank you and I yield back. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Johnson follows:] 
25 

OPENING STATEMENT 

Ranking Member Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-TX) 

House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology 

Subcommittee on Energy 

Subcommittee on Environment 

"The Fnwre of Fossil: Energy Technologies Leading the Way" 

July 17, 2018 

Good morning and welcome to our witnesses. Thank you, Chairman W cbcr and Chairman Biggs, 

for holding this hearing to discuss the future of fossil energy. 

Certainly, we have seen how advances in science and engineering can produce large-scale 

economic value in this sector, and historically our federal R&D agencies have played a major 

historic role in this process. 

Just over a decade ago, we had little idea of the fossil resources that would be available to us 

today. However, due to some critical research investments made by the Department of Energy 

over 40 years ago, coupled with rising oil prices in recent decades, the U.S. underwent the shale 

gas revolution that brought major natural gas resources online, and with it, a sharp increase in 

domestic oil production. 

That DOE program wrapped up in the early 1990s when a private company took that federally 

supported research and used it to trigger the oil and gas boom we see today. 

I think my colleagues would agree that that is the model for DOE's energy technology programs 

we all hope to see- federal investments shepherding transformational technologies to the 

marketplace, even when the endpoint is not clear at the beginning of the process. 

That brings us to what should be the fundamental question we consider today: where should the 

Department of Energy be investing its limited dollars in this area? If the standard of identifying a 

federal role rests on whether the private industry has the capacity to invest in R&D, then I think 

the answer to this question is that DOE should focus its investments on reducing and wherever 

possible eliminating the environmental impacts of the production and use of these resources. At 

present, there is unfortunately little incentive for industry to spend major R&D dollars to protect 

the environment, and even less incentive in the private sector to prevent the most devastating 

potential impacts of climate change. 

This is why I am so pleased to cosponsor H.R. 5745, the bipartisan Fossil Energy Research and 

Development Act of2018, which Ranking Member Veasey, Mr. McKinley, and I introduced in 

May. 

This bill would reauthorize and expand important activities to develop and scale up innovative 

carbon capture, utilization, and storage technologies. It would also launch vital new initiatives on 

carbon dioxide removal and methane leak detection and mitigation, among other areas. In all 
26 

likelihood, our society will continue to use and develop our fossil energy resources for at least 

several more decades, so these technologies will be absolutely critical to minimizing the harm 

they would otherwise cause to our public health and the environment. 

Before I close, I would note that I am surprised we are holding a hearing on DOE's fossil energy 

technology development activities without inviting DOE's Assistant Secretary for Fossil Energy 

to testify. It seems to me that it would be important ior us to ask him to provide a better 

explanation for why the Administration is proposing a 31% cut to DOE's fossil energy research 

and development activities. This is in stark contrast to the stated positions of the President, who 

has been praising "clean coal" and vowing to end a supposed war on "clean coal" throughout his 

time in office so far. 

The rhetoric is not matched by the necessary resources, and this Committee needs to know why 

not. 

So, I hope that we will have Assistant Secretary Winberg before our Committee to discuss these 

issues further in the near future. And I look forward to working with the Administration and my 

colleagues on both sides of the aisle in the months ahead to steer a better course as we aim to 

accelerate the development and deployment of these next generation technologies that could 

significantly improve our environment, our health. and our nation's economy. 

Thank you and I yield back. 
27 

Chairman WEBER. I thank the gentlelady. 

I will now introduce our witnesses. Our first witness today is Dr. 

Roger Aines, Chief Scientist at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, LLNL’s Energy Program and Senior Scientist in the Chemistry, Materials, Earth, and Life Science Directorate. Dr. Aines has 

been at LLNL for over 30 years working on nuclear waste disposal, 

environmental remediation, and management of carbon emissions. 

He previously led LLNL’s carbon management program, which 

takes an integrated view of the energy climate and environmental 

aspects of carbon-based fuel production and use. 

Dr. Aines holds a bachelor of arts in chemistry from Carleton 

College and a Ph.D. in geochemistry from the California Institute 

of Technology. Welcome, Dr. Aines. 

I now recognize Chairman Smith to introduce our second witness. 

Chairman SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

It’s a privilege to introduce Dr. Klaus Brun, the Machinery Program Director at Southwest Research Institute located in San Antonio. 

Southwest Research Institute specializes in advancing science 

and applying technology to benefit government, industry, and individual American lives. 

Dr. Brun leads an organization of more than 60 scientists who 

focus on research and development for the energy industry. He is 

internationally recognized for his expertise in energy systems, 

power generation, and turbomachinery. 

Dr. Brun holds a bachelor of science from the University of Florida and a master of science and Ph.D. both in mechanical engineering from the University of Virginia. He is a Fellow of the American 

Society of Mechanical Engineers and the current Associate Editor 

of their Journal of Engineering for Gas Turbines and Power. 

Dr. Brun, we welcome you and look forward to your testimony. 

Chairman WEBER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Our next witness is Ms. Shannon Angielski, the Executive Director of the Carbon Utilization Research Council, CERC. Prior to her 

current employment, Ms. Angielski served as the Associate Director—do we pronounce that CERC, C–E–R–C? Okay. She is a member of the National Coal Council the American League of Lobbyists, 

and the Environmental Law Institute and serves on the board of 

the Washington Coal Club. 

She earned a bachelor of art in political science and international 

affairs from the University of New Hampshire and a master of 

science in environmental and public policy from Johns Hopkins 

University. Welcome. 

Our final witness today is Mr. Jason Begger, the Executive Director of the Wyoming Infrastructure Authority. Mr. Begger, I understand your wife is very pregnant and due just almost any time. 

We appreciate you choosing to be here. I guess you prove that beggars can be choosers, so we’ll see if she still lets you back in in case 

that baby starts early, so we appreciate—prayers and blessings for 

that young one’s arrival. 

Prior to this, Mr. Begger worked for two members of Montana’s 

congressional delegation focusing on Bureau of Reclamation water 

projects and Department of Energy Office of Fossil Energy funding. 
28 

He went on to serve as the Vice President of the Petroleum Association of Wyoming and then Manager of Government Affairs for 

Cloud Peak Energy. 

Mr. Begger holds a bachelor of art in history from Montana State 

University Billings and a master of business administration from 

the University of Denver. 

Again, welcome this morning. We hope you the best, you and 

your wife the best so—I now recognize Dr. Aines for five minutes 

to present his testimony. 

TESTIMONY OF ROGER DR. ROGER AINES, 

SENIOR SCIENTIST, 

ATMOSPHERIC, EARTH AND ENERGY DIVISION, 

LAWRENCE LIVERMORE NATIONAL LABORATORY 

Dr. AINES. I’ve submitted my full statement to the Committee, 

which I ask to be made part of the hearing record. If I may, I’ll 

now summarize a brief opening statement. 

Thank you, Chairman Smith, Ranking Member Johnson, Chairman Weber, Ranking Member Veasey, and Chairman Biggs and 

Ranking Member Bonamici, for this opportunity to share our insights into the current status and future of fossil energy and carbon capture, utilization, and storage. 

My name is Roger Aines. I’m the Chief Scientist of the Energy 

Program at Lawrence Livermore National Lab. I’ve worked on fossil fuel technology and carbon management for 20 years. 

At Lawrence Livermore Lab we’re focused on tomorrow’s clean 

energy system. This testimony provides an update on emerging fossil energy technologies, including carbon capture, carbon storage, 

carbon utilization, and advanced energy systems, finally removing 

carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. It includes an assessment of 

the current state of CO2 utilization in American industry. This current state foreshadows a future in which natural gas and CO2 become feedstocks for valuable products, just as we’ve noted many 

times in the opening statements, creating an economic opportunity 

for all regions of the United States using our abundant resources 

and new technology. 

The mission of the Department of Energy’s national laboratories 

is to advance science and technology that addresses issues of today 

to anticipate pending national and global challenges and help provide solutions to them in close partnership with companies that can 

bring those solutions to the market. The need for efficient fossil 

fuel technologies that can provide an engine for enhanced U.S. 

competitiveness has led to DOE research and analysis conducted at 

Lawrence Livermore Lab, as well as other national labs. 

Today, technology is rapidly transforming fossil energy, but despite enormous progress in carbon capture, carbon dioxide is still 

not being managed in the power and industrial sectors because 

that is still too expensive. However, many businesses are eager to 

turn carbon dioxide into products. Turning a waste into a feedstock 

will help solve the cost problem. This is called carbon utilization or 

I like to call it carbon recycling, and it’s poised to become a major 

industry. 

Last month in Livermore, we held a roundtable discussion with 

20 corporations ranging from Exxon to 3M to Nike, all who were 
29 

interested in how they could improve their products with materials 

made from carbon dioxide. This is a ripe area for research with 

much work going on today at university labs such as Stanford and 

Rice Universities. This is an opportunity for new technology to aid 

multiple industrial and power generation actors who want to manage their carbon dioxide. New technology like 3–D printing, as Mr. 

Weber mentioned, will be important to that transition. 

Natural gas will also be an important part of the transition to 

what we call the new carbon economy where carbon-based products 

that we use every day are increasingly made from simple feedstocks like carbon dioxide, natural gas, and electricity. The chemical industry will be the first to be impacted by the ease of using 

them to make the fibers and plastics that are part of our lives. New 

industrial centers will spring up in places where carbon dioxide, 

electricity, and natural gas are abundant and cheap such as the 

center of the country. 

An important innovation is combining biology with 3–D printing. 

My laboratory works with the National Renewable Energy Laboratory to use engineered bacteria that they create, and we then 3– 

D print, along with a binder, to actually make the reactor out of 

the bacteria. Natural gas flows in and in our most advanced case 

lactic acid, a valuable precursor for synthetics, flows out. The bugs 

do all the work. 

These kinds of new technology options will also allow us to address the challenge of removing the excess carbon dioxide from the 

atmosphere. A new carbon economy that values carbon dioxide as 

a feedstock and not a waste will help with this task. Much new 

science and technology development will be required and is just beginning today. 

The United States is poised to be the leader in the use of CO2

and natural gas for new carbon products, a new carbon economy. 

This will create new economic opportunity and improve national security as it makes us more energy self-sufficient. Development and 

demonstration of innovative fossil technologies will be the key to 

that process. Because energy and the necessary feedstocks—carbon 

dioxide and natural gas—are abundant in the central United 

States, we anticipate that new industries will thrive there. 

Both basic research and development and transfer of that research to corporate users will be important accelerators for the new 

carbon economy. That research and development done by national 

laboratories strives to bring that vision to fruition. 

Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Aines follows:] 
30 

House Science and Technology Committee 

The Future of Fossil: Energy Technologies Leading the Way 

July 17, 2018 

Dr. Roger D. Aines, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory 

Written Testimony 

Thank you for giving me this opportunity to share our insights into the current status and 

future of fossil energy and carbon capture, utilization, and storage. My name is Roger Aines 

and I am the Chief Scientist of the energy program at Lawrence Livermore National 

Laboratory (LLNL). 

This testimony provides an update on emerging fossil energy technologies, including the 

status of carbon capture, carbon storage, carbon utilization, advanced energy systems, and 

removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, with emphasis and focus on COz utilization and 

carbon removal. It includes an assessment of current technologies and their readiness, 

activities in technology development at my laboratory (LLNL), and the current state of C02 

utilization in American industry. This current state foreshadows a future in which natural gas 

and COz become feedstocks for valuable products, creating an economic opportunity for all 

regions of the United States by using abundant resources and new technology. 

The technology to manage COz is already deployed and operating, and functions as designed. 

New technologies for converting COz into materials we use every day are developing rapidly. 

These developments provide new possibilities for commercial enterprise in the US and 

opportunities for commercial and technical leadership by our country. Innovation lies at the 

heart of this new carbon economy, and both basic and applied R&D are needed to take best 

advantage of the opportunities in this competitive and dynamic environment. An exciting 

example of the science and technology that is sure to drive new economic growth in C02 

utilization is additive manufacturing, or 3-D printing, which is already beginning to 

revolutionize U.S. manufacturing. It will be a major technology component of this new 

landscape. 

Demand for low-carbon energy continues to grow worldwide, with investment of nearly 

$4008 in 2015 and 2016. Carbon capture, use, and storage (CCUS) remains a growing, but 

underutilized element in the low-carbon economy. CCUS is a technology category that 

includes carbon capture and storage, COz enhanced oil recovery (EOR), C02 conversion and 

utilization, and even carbon removal technology (so called "negative emissions" approaches 

that pull COz from the air and oceans). CCUS technologies provide commercial and 

environmental opportunities for companies, communities, and governments, particularly in 

parts of the country where C02 and natural gas are readily available, and electricity is 

inexpensive. This is particularly applicable to the center of the country. 

1 
31 

Technical progress in CCUS is significant, but there is unrealized potential to manage carbon 

emissions. Today, 16 commercial CCUS plants operate worldwide, and with six more planned, 

22 will be operating by 2020. These include power and industrial projects, new build and 

retrofits, and both COz-EOR and saline storage. More than a third of them are located in North 

America. Costs have come down, substantially through R&D by DOE Fossil Energy. In some 

sectors, like heavy industry (e.g., refining, cement manufacture), CCUS is the only option 

available at scale today for carbon management. 

The mission of the Department of Energy's national laboratories is to advance science and 

technology that addresses issues of today, anticipate important pending national and global 

challenges, and help provide solutions to them. Much effort is focused on developing new 

technologies in close partnership with companies that can bring these technologies to 

market. The need for more efficient fossil fuel technologies that can provide an engine for 

enhanced US competitiveness have led to DOE research and analysis conducted at LLNL and 

other national labs. 

Grounded in our experience in novel materials and modeling and simulation, LLNL has been 

funded to work for nearly two decades on CCUS. LLNL has been a partner in many of the 

carbon capture and sequestration projects nationally and globally and has developed analysis 

tools and early-stage technologies for COzremoval from flue gas, air, and oceans. Recently, 

this effort has expanded to include conversion of COz to useful products such as methanol and 

ethylene. 

At LLNL we are focused on tomorrow's clean fossil energy system. I would like to comment 

on five areas of our work that are critical for a strong energy future: carbon capture, carbon 

storage, carbon utilization, advanced energy systems, and removing carbon dioxide 

from the atmosphere. 

Carbon Capture affects our ability to use and manage carbon dioxide. We need to be able to 

capture COz from flue gas in power plants and heavy industry. LLNL has worked in this area 

for ten years. We are focused on reducing the cost of carbon capture by reducing the capital 

expense of capture systems. LLNL is funded by the Fossil Energy Program to develop new 

carbon capture approaches that use additive manufacturing to make systems that are more 

efficient. Additive manufacturing can make capture equipment smaller, which can reduce the 

capital investment. Because capital costs can be half of the lifetime cost of a COz management 

system, we believe that capital cost reductions are the best target for reducing the cost of 

carbon management. 

Natural gas will grow in importance as our nation moves to use its extraordinary resources of 

this fossil fuel to create efficient industry and power. The technology that DOE has developed 

for coal-fired systems can also be applied to natural gas systems but has not been tested at 

large scale. There is a need to transfer that DOE knowledge to industrial natural gas users. 

In Carbon Storage LLNL provides the most advanced 3-D fracture mechanics modeling for 

industrial partners to help them manage the risk of induced seismicity for underground 

carbon sequestration projects, hydraulic fracturing operations, and enhanced oil recovery. 

We are particularly interested in engaging the US oil industry, including independent 

producers, by taking advantage of their skills, workforce, and economic desire to make C02 

2 
32 

storage a reality. For example, the Mt. Paso Cogeneration Company LLC is the largest biomass 

fueled power plant in California. It is located on an oil field with a depleted portion 

potentially suited for COz storage. The geology there seems to be good and the Mt. Poso 

power plant may be one of several good sources of COz for storage. The economic benefits 

from the 45Q storage tax credit and the California low-carbon fuel standard make this an 

attractive option that the site partners are considering. This is an excellent example of 

industry willing to step up, but in the design phase they will need help absorbing the 

knowledge developed in DOE programs to date. LLNL is working with them to do that and to 

help determine if C02 storage is a safe and economical option for them. 

Carbon Utilization (or as some call it, carbon recycling) is poised to become a major new 

industry in the United States. Last month twenty companies from Exxon to 3M to Nike 

attended our workshop in Livermore for corporations interested in this new way to use COz. 

All of them are interested in how their products can be improved with materials fabricated 

from C02• We will be releasing a report on the conclusions from this workshop in the next 

few weeks. This is an area ripe for basic research, and not ready to jump to major production 

yet. Most of the work in this area is going on in university labs (like Pulickel Ajayan's at Rice 

University and Tom Jaramillo's at Stanford University), where the basic science of the 

reactions is being worked out. 

In the Texas to Iowa corridor, C02 is an abundant feedstock, and the new wind turbines in that 

region routinely sell their power on the wholesale market for less than 2 cents a kilowatt 

hour. New industries can use that electricity and COz to make exactly the desired chemical 

product in high yield, and they will not need much of the expensive separations equipment 

currently required for production of chemicals. When you look at a refinery or chemical plant 

today, most of that complex maze of equipment is for purifying the final product. By using 

simple feedstocks like carbon dioxide and natural gas, new factories can make our carbon 

products like textiles, plastics, and even fuels. 

Wyoming has led the way in COz utilization efforts with development of a COz test center 

where entrepreneurs can demonstrate their new technologies. This kind of support for 

technology innovation will speed implementation of these new technologies. 

The concrete and carbon fiber industries are also on the forefront of finding new economical 

uses of CO,. Concrete can be made stronger by adding COz to it, and a number of companies 

are pursuing this goal including New Jersey's Solidia, which makes stronger precast concrete 

items with COz.lnterestingly, one of Solidia's major business challenges is having an assured 

supply of COz so that they can take on major contracts. Carbon fiber is just starting to be 

made from COz in the laboratory, as are carbon nanotubes and other exotic materials for the 

light-weighting and electronics industries. C4 Composites in Santa Monica, CA, is working to 

make carbon fiber directly from natural gas, while simultaneously making hydrogen gas for 

use in chemicals or as fuel. 

3 
33 

Additive manufacturing, or 3-D printing, is a game-changing innovation that allows 

complicated products to be built in ways that can't be done by conventional manufacturing. 

Additive manufacturing is very important for using C02 in new industrial processes. At LLNL 

we use 3-D printing to create chemical reactors that combine the natural gas, CO,, and water 

in the exact proportions and perfect conditions to make a desired product. We can even use 

bacteria that have been modified to make the product we want and build the reactor out of 

those bacteria (along with a binder to hold them in place). Working with the National 

Renewable Energy Lab (NREL), which designs and supplies the bacteria, we have made 

reactors that produce valuable organic acids (like lactic acid) and methanol from natural gas. 

Live yeast cells have been combined with a binder, then put in a 3-D printer to make the fabric at left. The 

green color shows the location of the cells in the fabric. This material converts sugar to ethanol. The cells 

are alive and reproduce in the printed material: the reactor is a living thing. This technology could 

dramatically change the way chemicals and bioproducts are made. 

These reactors will be the heart of new chemical plants building products from C02 and 

natural gas. The early products that companies are interested in are high-value organic 

chemicals that are best made by living organisms. This new reactor technology will create 

new businesses and jobs in the United States. They could also be used to convert small 

sources of natural gas into methanol, a liquid, that can be collected and transported in trucks, 

turning waste into a valuable resource. 

These technologies are part of an LLNL program to use abundant energy resources to make 

new products. We are investigating the use of electricity to convert carbon dioxide and water 

to ethylene, the most abundant chemical feedstock. This could enable distributed generation 

of ethylene in parts of the United States where CO, is abundant and electricity is inexpensive 

today (much of the central part of the country]. 

4 
34 

Additive manufacturing is an important part of 

utilizing C02 to make products. It allows us to 

balance many factors to get pure products. In this 

chemical reactor the cell wall of bacteria called 

methanotrophs are printed into the polymer walls 

of the device. The enzymes in those cell wells 

convert natural gas to methanol, a valuable 

industrial chemicaL No added electricity or heat is 

needed. Natural gas flows in, methanol j)ows out 

5 

Recently, Arizona State, Iowa State, and 

Purdue University launched a new 

consortiuml with LLNL and the Center for 

Carbon Removal focused on creating the 

knowledge and practice needed to draw 

economic value from carbon removal and 

C02 conversion and use. 

Looking to the future, LLNL sees great 

promise in revolutionary new technologies 

that are economically viable and convert 

C02 into useful products- fuels (methane 

and biofuels) and chemical feedstocks 

(methanol, ethanol, and ethylene). Indeed, 

we see a society that is poised at the edge 

of a new carbon economy- one that 

harnesses innovation and 

entrepreneurship to create new products, 

companies, and wealth through capturing 

and converting C02 into valuable products. 

We see this industry as potentially 

enormous, possibly of a size and scale 

comparable to today's agriculture, oil and 

gas, or power sectors. 
35 

Advanced Energy Systems operate at high temperatures and pressures to achieve their high 

efficiency. Supercritical C02 systems that use highly pressurized C02 instead of water to drive 

turbines are a huge step change that can make America's power more efficient using our 

abundant natural gas. One of the most remarkable examples of this is NetPower/ a North 

Carolina-based company that uses "Allam cycle" combustion- oxygen-fired natural gas 

turbines that use supercritical C02. The NetPower system costs the same as a natural gas 

power block but produces more power and captures 100% of the C02. A pilot demonstration3 

near Houston has finished construction and begun testing-it should be fully operational in 

fall 2018, with Exelon, Chicago Bridge and !ron, and Toshiba as commercial partners. 

This is the first lnconel3-D printed heat exchanger, made at LLNL for the DOE's advanced 

energy systems program. Devices like this will allow higher-temperature and more efficient 

energy systems, while making economical use of valuable materials like nickel stainless 

steels, reducing the capital cost of new energy systems. 

The very high efficiency with which the NetPower plant turns natural gas into electricity 

relies on high temperature components made of nickel steel. This metal is hard to machine 

and weld but at LLNL we are printing these components using laser 3-D printing. This allows 

us to work with the difficult nickel alloys and create unique shapes that can only be done by 

building the part up from powder instead of machining a metal block. 

Carbon Removal from the atmosphere is the long-term challenge. The climate models tell us 

that in order to achieve a future with no more than two degrees of warming, we will need to 

remove billions of tons ofCOz from the atmosphere. The United States is already testing 

carbon removal at the Archer Daniels Midland ethanol plant in Decatur, Illinois where the C02 

from fermenting corn is captured and injected deep underground- the first large-scale 

carbon removal plant in the world. 

The farming industry can also contribute to carbon removal by encouraging practices that 

replace carbon in soil that has been lost over the years. This has the added benefit of creating 

better soil. Imagine if everyone had the same soil quality as Iowa. Those soils are so good 

principally because they contain a lot of carbon that the plants and microbes recycle 

constantly, creating a rich environment for plant growth. LLNL has a large program looking at 

the science of soil improvement, focusing particularly on how deeply rooted plants can both 

6 
36 

improve yields and soil quality at the same time. We believe that deep soil carbon will be an 

important tool for carbon dioxide removal because: (1) soils have a huge capacity to hold 

carbon, (2) adding carbon improves crop production, (3) it engages farmers (who understand 

how to improve soil quality), and ( 4) it is a long-term way to keep carbon out of the 

atmosphere. 

Another carbon removal approach leverages the mechanism that the Earth already uses to 

remove C02 from the air: reacting it with rocks. This natural process creates limestone, a 

permanent storage form for COz. Peter Kelemen at Columbia University has pioneered work 

using rocks called ultramafics, which come from deep in the earth. They react with COz in the 

air, removing it permanently. He is examining whether these rocks, commonly found in the 

United States, can be forced to react more quickly by circulating water through them, forming 

a limestone-like rock at the surface. 

Seveo firms are exploring another carbon removal approach through the use of chemical 

processes known as direct air capture. Although this technology is in its infancy and 

additional research and development is needed to discover how expensive it will be, it is 

already of great interest to the corporations that want to use COz in their chemical processes. 

If COz can be captured from the air, it means these corporations would have access to an 

unlimited supply of feedstock. For large-scale efforts, after extraction, the C02 will probably 

need to be stored underground. Although we expect that this is fairly easy to do based on 

DOE's existing storage program, this is an area where demonstration and validation are 

important to develop confidence that this combination of new technologies (air capture and 

carbon storage) is a robust approach. 

A small Swiss company, Climeworks,4 has created the first commercial, for-profit project that 

captures COz directly from the air. Climeworks captures and sells 900 tons per year of C02 to 

an organic greenhouse. This technology is mass-producible, scalable, and robust. A US 

corporation, Global Thermostat, is completing a demonstration capture plant in Alabama that 

will be much larger than the Climeworks project when it begins operation this falL 

Summary 

The United States is poised to be the leader in the use of CO, and natural gas for new carbon 

products- a new carbon economy. This will improve national security as it makes us more 

energy self-sufficient and will create new economic opportunity. Development and 

demonstration of innovative technologies in which the U.S. already leads will be key to that 

process. Because energy and the necessary feedstocks-CO, and natural gas-are abundant 

in the central United States, we anticipate that new industries will thrive there. Both basic 

R&D and transfer of that research to corporate users will be important accelerators for the 

new carbon economy. The research and development done by the national laboratories 

strives to bring that vision to fruition. 

This work was performed under the auspices of the U.S. Department of Energy by Lawrence Livermore National 

Laboratory under Contract DE-AC52-07NA27344. 

1 http: //www.climeworks.com/ 

7 
37 

Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory 

ROGER D. AINES 

Energy Program Chief Scientist 

Global Security Principal Directorate 

Ph.D. Geochemistry, California Institute of Technology 

B.A. Chemistry, Carleton College 

Roger Aines is the Energy Program Chief Scientist in E Program, which conducts 

government and private sector research in clean energy technology. He is a Senior 

Scientist in the Chemistry, Materials, Earth and Life Sciences Directorate at LLNL. He 

holds a Bachelor of Arts degree in Chemistry from Carleton College, and Doctor of 

Philosophy in geochemistry from the California [nstitute of Technology. He has been at 

LLNL since 1984 working on nuclear waste disposal, environmental remediation, 

application of stochastic methods to inversion and data fusion, management of carbon 

emissions including separation technology, and monitoring and verification methods tbr 

sequestration. 

Roger's career has involved a close coupling of scientific research, engineering, field 

demonstration, and assessment of future development needs for teclmology. His research 

interests include the chemistry of natural and engint'Cred processes, including carbon dioxide 

separation and water treatment. Roger's current research includes application of3-D printing 

to chemical reactors and gas separations, development of catalysts tbr carbon dioxide 

capture, management of pressure in geologic sequestration through brine withdrawal and 

treatment, and encapsulation of carbon dioxide capture solvents. He previously led LLNL's 

Carbon Management Program, which takes an integrated view of the energy, climate, and 

envirorunental aspects of carbon-based fuel production and use. It supports DOE projects in 

sequestration technology development for capture, and carbon recycling. Roger directs the 

LLNL program in developing better understanding of hydraulic fracturing and tools and 

methods around shale gas development. He holds twenty-two patents in the areas of carbon 

capture, shale gas production, in situ degradation of organic chemicals through heating, 

and the mechanisms of thennally assisted remediation, and has eighty publications. 

LLNL-MI-642887 

8 
38 

Roger D. Aines Recent Publications and Patents 

Nlethane and Natural Gas Technology 

Kim,)., A. Maiti, L.-C. Lin, j. K. Stolaroff, B. Smit, and RD Aines, (2013) "New Materials 

For Methane Capture From Dilute And Medium-Concentration Sources" Nature 

Communications 10.1038/ncomms2697. 

Stolaroff, joshuah K., Subarna Bhattacharyya, Clara A. Smith, William L. Bourcier, 

Philip j. Cameron-Smith, and Roger D. Aines (2012) "Review of Methane Mitigation 

Technologies with Application to Rapid Release of Methane from the Arctic" 

Environmental Science and Technology. 46 (12). pp 6455-6469. 

Carbon Capture and Sequestration 

Sandal ow, David, Roger Aines, julio Friedmann, Colin McCormick, and Sean McCoy 

(2017) Carbon Dioxide Utilization (C02U) ICEF Roadmap 2.0. Prepared to facilitate 

dialogue at the Fourth Innova on for Cool Emih Forum (Tokyo October 2017). Lawrence 

Livermore National Laboratory Report, TR739322. 

Stoloaroff, joshuah K, Congwang Ye, james S. Oakdale, Sarah E. Baker, William L. 

Smith, Du T. Nguyen, Christopher M. Spadaccini, and Roger D. Aines (2016) 

"Microencapsulation of advanced solvents for carbon capture." Faraday Discussions 

192, 217-281. DOl: 10.1039 jc6fd00049e 

Buscheck, TA; Bielicki, JM; White, JA; Sun, Y; Hao, Y; Bourcier, WL; Carroll, SA; Aines, 

RD (2016) Pre-injection brine production in C02 storage reservoirs: An approach to 

augment the development, operation, and performance of CCS while generating 

water. International!ournal Of Greenhouse Gas Control Volume: 54 Pages: 499-512 

Part: 2 DOl: 10.1016/j.ijggc.2016.04.018 

Bus check, Thomas A., joshua A. White, Susan A. Carroll, Jeffrey M. Bielicki, and Roger 

D. Aines (2016) Managing Geologic C02 Storage with Pre-Injection Brine Production: 

A Strategy Evaluated with a Model of C02 Injection at Sn0hvit. Energy Environ. Sci .. 

2016, DOI:l0.1039/C5EE03648H. 

Veri cella, john j. Sarah E. Baker, )oshuah K. Stolaroff, Eric B. Duoss, james 0. Hardin 

IV, james Lewicki, Elizabeth Glogowski, William C. Floyd, Carlos A. Valdez, William L. 

Smith, joe H. Satcher Jr., William L. Bourcier, Christopher M. Spadaccini, jennifer A. 

Lewis, and Roger D. Aines (2015) "Encapsulated Solvents for Carbon Dioxide 

Capture" Nature Communications 6, Article number: 6124 doi:10.1 038jncomms7124 

Published 05 February 2015 

Buscheck, Thomas A.; White, Joshua A.; Chen, Mingjie; Aines, Roger D. (2014) "PreInjection Brine Production for Managing Pressure in Compartmentalized C02 Storage 

Reservoirs" Energy Procedia Volume: 63 Pages: 5333-5340 

9 
39 

Kulik, Heather j., Wong, Sergio E., Baker, Sarah E., Valdez, Carlos A., Satcher, joe H. Jr., 

Aines, Roger D., Lightstone, Felice C. (2014) "Developing an approach for firstprinciples catalyst design: application to carbon-capture catalysis" Acta 

Floyd, William Clary, Sarah E Baker, Carlos A. Valdez, joshuah K. Stolaroff, joe H. 

Satcher, Jane P Bearinger, and Roger DAines (2013) "Evaluation of a Carbonic 

Anhydrase Mimic for Industrial Carbon Capture" Environmental Science and 

Date (Web): 

24 jul2013. 

Koziol, Lucas, Essiz, SG, Wong, SE, Lau, EY, Satcher, JH, Aines, RD Lightstone, FC 

(2013) "Computational Analysis of a Zn-Bound Tris(imidazolyl) Calix[ 6]arene Aqua 

Complex: Toward Incorporating Second-Coordination Sphere Effects into Carbonic 

Anhydrase B i om i m etics" J..!L!d..L!Jlf!L!L.!..C><.ill'-L!.l!.h!:!.L..!J~L!.J.-'llll.!,LSo!2.!.!.4LJ>lll:l.hlll.u.....l'..ll.ll1..!.!=...2. 

Lau, Edmond Y., Sergio E. Wong, Sarah E. Baker, jane P. Bearinger, Lucas Koziol, 

Carlos A. Valdez, joseph H. Satcher, Jr., Roger D. Aines, Felice C. Lightstone (2013) 

"Comparison and Analysis of Zinc and Cobalt-Based Systems as Catalytic Entities for 

the Hydration of Carbon Dioxide" l...!;.\L;.L..;LJ.;U<..:"-\.-'~~LUu.· 

Rau, Greg H., Susan A. Carroll, William L. Bourcier, Michael). Singleton, Megan M. 

Smith, Roger D. Aines (2013) "Direct Electrolytic Dissolution of Silicate Minerals for 

Air COz Mitigation and Carbon-Negative Hz Production" "'-'-'"""""'-"""""""--'""-'""-"'-'-""-"""""u.>.ll 

Koziol, Lucas, Carlos A. Valdez, Sarah E. Baker, Edmond Y. Lau, William C. Floyd, III, 

Sergio E. Wong, joe H. Satcher, Jr., Felice C. Lightstone, and Roger D. Aines (2012) 

"Toward a Small Molecule, Biomimetic Carbonic Anhydrase Model: Theoretical and 

Experimental Investigations of a Panel of Zinc(Il) Aza-Macrocyclic Catalyst" ,!..!.!.;'-'-l>.ill.!.'-" 

Buscheck, Thomas A. Yunwei Sun, Mingjie Chen, Yuc Hao, Thomas J Wolery, William L 

Bourcier, Benjamin Court, Michael A Celia, S. Julio Friedmann, and Roger D Aines, 

(20 12) "Active C02 Reservoir Management For Carbon Storage: Analysis Of Operational 

Strategies To Relieve Pressure Buildup And Improve Injectivity" international Joumal of 

Socolow, R., M. Desmond, R. Aines, j. Blackstock, 0. Bolland, T. Kaarsberg, N. Lewis, M. 

Mazzotti, A. Pfeffer, K. Sawyer,). Siirola, B. Smit, j. Wilcox, "Direct Air Capture of C02 

with Chemicals," A Technology Assessment by the APS Panel on Public Affairs, 2011. 

Bomcier, W.L., T.J. Wolery, T. Wolfe, C. Haussmann, T.A. Buscheck, R.D. Aincs (2011) 

A Preliminary Cost And Engineering Estimate For Desalinating Produced Formation 

Water Associated With Carbon Dioxide Capture And Storage . .!l!.\SJJ!!!l!'"-ill!.L:!:~l.ill.~ 

10 
40 

Maiti, A., W.L. Bourcier, R.D. Aines (2011) Atomistic Modeling Of C02 Capture In 

Primary And Tertiary Amines- Heat Of Absorption And Density Changes. Chemical 

Physics Letters 509 (2011) 25-28 

Carroll, Susan, Yue Hao and Roger Aines (2009) Geochemical Detection Of Carbon 

Dioxide In Dilute Aquifers. Geochemical Transactions 2009. 10:4. 

Aines, Roger D., Martin J. Leach, Todd H. Weisgraber, Matthew D. Simpson, S. Julio 

Friedmann, Carol J. Bruton, (2009) "Quantifying The Potential Exposure Hazard Due To 

Energetic Releases Of C02 From A Failed Sequestration Well" Energy Procedia. l ( l) 

2421-2429. 

Simon, A.J. Naluahi B. Kaahaaina, S. Julio Friedmann, Roger D. Aincs (2009) "Systems 

Analysis And Cost Estimates For Large Scale Capture Of Carbon Dioxide From Air" 

Energv Procedia, 4. 2893-2900. 

Stochastic Analysis 

Ramirez, A.L., J. J. Nitao, W. G. Hanley, R.D. Aines, R. E. Glaser, S. K. Sengupta, K. M. 

Dyer, T. L. Hickling, W. D. Daily (2005) "Stochastic Inversion Of Electrical Resistivity 

Changes Using A Markov Chain Monte Carlo Approach" Journal ofGeophvsical 

Research: Solid Earth ( 1978-2017) Volume 110. Issue B2. February 2005. 

Delle Monache, Luca, Julie K. Lundquist, Branko Kosovic' , Gardar Johanncsson, 

Kathleen M. Dyer, Roger D. Aines, Fotini K. Chow. Rich D. Belles, William G. Hanley, 

Shawn C. Larsen. Gwen A. Loosmore, John J. Nitao, Gayle A. Sugiyama, Philip J. Vogt. 

"Bayesian Inference And Markov Chain Monte Carlo Sampling To Reconstruct A 

Contaminant Source On A Continental Scale." Journal of Applied Meteorologv and 

Climatology, Volume 47, 2600. 

Recent US Patents 

Aines, Roger D., William L. Bourcier, Eric B. Duoss, Jeffery james Roberts, 

Christopher M. Spadaccini, and joshuah K. Stolaroff. 9,862,880 Encapsulated 

Prop pants. Issued january 9, 2018. 

Roberts, jeffery )ames, Aines Roger D,. Duoss, Eric B., Spadaccini, Christopher M., 

Vandersall, Kevin S. 9,562.426 Encapsulated Microenergetic Material. Issued 

February 17, 2017. 

Aincs; Roger D., Bourcier; William L., Duoss; Eric B., Floyd, III; William C., 

Spadaccini; Christopher M., Vericella; John J., Cowan; Kenneth MichaeL 9.416.619 

Cementing a well bore using cementing material encapsulated in a shelL Issued 

August 16, 2016. 

Eddie Scott Roger Aines Chris Spadaccini Encapsulated Microsensors for Reservoir 

Interrogation US Patent 9.416.619 issued March 8, 2016. 

11 
41 

Roberts; Jeffery, Aines; Roger D., Duoss; Eric B., Spadaccini; Christopher M. 8 877.506 

Methods and systems using encapsulated tracers and chemicals for reservoir 

inteiTogation and manipulation. Issued November 4, 2014. 

Carbon Capture and Water Desalination 

Floyd, William C. III, Carlos A. Valdez, Roger D. Aines, Sarah Baker and Joe H. Satcher. 

9,259.725 Acyclic Aza-Containing Ligands For Use As Catalytic Carbon Capture 

Systems. Issued Feb 16,2016 

Lightstone, Felice C., Sergio E. Wong; Edmond Y. Lau; Joe H. Satcher Jr., and Roger D. 

Aines. Synthetic catalysts that separate C02 from the atmosphere and gas mixtures. 

Issued February 24, 2015 US 8.967.511 

Aines; Roger D. ,Bourcier; William L. ,Spadaccini; Christopher M., Stolaroff; Joshuah K. 

8.945.279 Polymer-encapsulated carbon capture liquids that tolerate precipitation 

of solids for increased capacity. Issued February 3, 2015. 

Valdez, Carlos A., Joe H. Satcher Jr., Roger D. Aines, Sergio E. Wong, Sarah E. Baker, 

Felice C. Lightstone, and Joshuah K. Stolaroff. Tethered Catalysts for the 

Hydration of Carbon Dioxide 8.877.069 Issued Nov 4, 2014 

Aines, Roger D., Christopher M. Spadaccini Joshuah K. StolaroffWilliam L. Bourcier 

Jennifer A. Lewis E1ic B. Duoss John J. Ve1icella Separation of a target 

substance from a fluid or mixture using encapsulated sorbents. Issued 9/16/2014 

us ):\,l\34.605 

Aines, Roger D. and William L. Bourcier. 8.808.433 Carbon Ion Pump For Removal Of 

Carbon Dioxide From Combustion Gas And Other Gas Mixtures. Issued August 

19,2014. 

Bourcier, William L., Roger D. Aines, Jeffrey Haslam, Charlene Schaldach, Kevin C. 

Obrien, and Edward Cussler. 8.460.532 Deionization And Desalination Using 

Electrostatic Ion Pumping. 

Valdez, Carlos A., Joe H. Satcher, Roger DAines, Sarah E. Baker. 8.394.35! Synthesis 

ofTriazole-Based and Imidazole-Based Zinc Catalysts. 

Aines, Roger D. 8.997.845 Catalyst Functionalized Buffer Sorbent Pebbbles for Rapid 

Separation of Carbon Dioxide from Gas Mixtures. 

Aines, Roger D, William L. Bourcier, and Brian Viani. 8.361.195 SluiTied Solid Media for 

Simultaneous Water Purification and Carbon Dioxide Removal from Gas 

Mixtures. 

12 
42 

Chairman WEBER. Thank you, Dr. Aines. 

Dr. Brun, you’re recognized for five minutes. 

TESTIMONY OF KLAUS BRUN DR. KLAUS BRUN, 

PROGRAM DIRECTOR, MACHINERY PROGRAM, 

FLUIDS & MACHINERY ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT, 

SOUTHWEST RESEARCH INSTITUTE 

Dr. BRUN. Thank you. Good morning, Chairman Smith, Ranking 

Member Johnson—— 

Chairman WEBER. You want to turn on your mic there please, 

sir. 

Dr. BRUN. Sorry. Good morning, Chairman Smith, Ranking 

Member Johnson, Chairman Weber, Ranking Member Veasey, 

Chairman Biggs, and Ranking Member Bonamici. My name is 

Klaus Brun, and I’m the Machinery Program Director at Southwest 

Research Institute in San Antonio, Texas. I’m honored to address 

you today on behalf of Southwest Research Institute. 

Southwest Research Institute, headquartered in San Antonio, 

Texas, is one of the oldest and largest independent not-for-profit 

applied research and development organizations in the United 

States. For the last 70 years, our mission has been to work in the 

public’s best interest and toward betterment of mankind. Southwest Research Institute currently executes approximately $550 million in contract R&D per year and employs about 2,600 staff members in Texas and throughout the United States. 

Cheap and reliable electricity is the cornerstone of our economy. 

The supercritical carbon dioxide or SCO2 power cycle has been a 

major collaborative development effort between industry, government, and research institutes to make electricity cheaper, more reliable, and also cleaner. For the last 250 years, a majority of fossil 

fuel power plants have been using steam and air, but technology 

development never stands still and we must pursue the next improvement in power plants. 

The SCO2 power cycle is not a new energy source. It is a technology that incrementally but significantly allows us to make better use of energy from conventional fossil fuels and some non-fossil 

energy sources. SCO2 power cycles replace steam or air of a conventional power plant with carbon dioxide at very high pressures and 

high temperatures. Carbon dioxide is a common gas that is abundantly available, nontoxic, and easily handled. 

Due to the high density and high heat capacity and low viscosity 

of SCO2, plant efficiency gains of three to five percent are easily 

realized versus conventional steam plants. In industrial waste recovery, nuclear, and concentrating solar power, plant efficiency improvements of 10 to 15 percent over steam are possible. Waste heat 

recovery from thousands of currently underutilized energy streams 

in industry and oil and gas becomes technically feasible and commercially viable. 

SCO2 plants are about five to ten times smaller than conventional plants and do not require water. That drastically reduces 

plant capital costs, reduces footprint requirements, improves plant 

grid response, and allows for sitings throughout the United States. 

Finally, SCO2 technology provides a clear development path toward oxy-combustion, which is a less-expensive, higher-efficiency, 
43 

and completely carbon-free emission fossil fuel power plant technology. 

So why now? The thermodynamic advantages of SCO2 power cycles have been known since the early 1950s, but at the time, the 

manufacturing technology, the materials, and the design tools did 

not exist to produce SCO2 power cycles. Using advanced additive 

manufacturing, high-temperature and high-strength superalloys, 

and state-of-the-art computational engineering tools, all technologies have only recently become available. We can now build the 

complex microchannel heat exchangers and ultra-high-density energy compressors and expanders that are needed for SCO2 power 

cycles. These technologies are advancing at a very rapid pace, and 

we expect significant further benefits and efficiency improvements 

to power plants in the near future. 

SCO2 power cycles are on the verge of commercialization, and the 

United States is clearly the leader in this technology. A mix of 

nearly 120 government and industry projects with approximately 

equal R&D funding of about $500 million from government and 

$500 million from industry has allowed moving technology from 

concept stage to functioning plants over a short period of less than 

eight years. Several U.S. Department of Energy offices and labs, including NETL NREL, EERE, ARPA–E, Sandia, Oak Ridge, have all 

constructively collaborated in this major crosscutting effort. 

We are now working on an SCO2 pilot research facility called the 

Supercritical Transformational Electric Power or STEP program 

that is designed to help industry address precompetitive development problems and demonstrate key cycle components. STEP is a 

$150 million DOE project led by Gas Technology Institute, Southwest Research Institute, and General Electric that aims to demonstrate 10 megawatt supercritical CO2 power plants. The STEP 

facility will be located at Southwest Research Institute in Texas 

and is scheduled to be operational by 2020. 

The STEP program and the many other industry- and government-funded SCO2 R&D projects benefit the United States economy through the development of better power plants for cheaper, 

more reliable, and cleaner electricity for U.S. consumers. In my 

opinion, the SCO2 power cycle collaboration and crosscutting initiatives between government, industry,, institute national labs, and 

academia is currently one of the most successful cooperative R&D 

programs in the world. Continued participation by DOE and other 

government agencies in these efforts will result in major benefits 

to the U.S. power industry, as well as U.S. energy technology leadership. 

I sincerely want to thank the U.S. Government, its agencies, and 

its employees who continue to passionately contribute to this very 

important work. I’m honored to have been invited to talk about this 

exciting technology to the Congressional Subcommittees on Energy 

and the Environment. Rarely does a new technology emerge that 

is capable of offering so many solutions. Thank you very much, and 

I look forward to your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Brun follows:] 
44 

Summary of Prepared Statement by Dr. Klaus Brun 

Machinery Program Director. Southwest Research Institute 

For the House Science, Space & Technology Committee 

Subcommittee on Energy and Environment 

August 17, 2018 

Cheap and reliable energy is one of the critical drivers of our economy. The sCO, power cycle development 

has been a major collaborative effort between industry, government, and research institutes to make electricity 

cheaper. more reliable. and also cleaner. For the last 250 years the majority of fossil-fueled power plants have 

been using steam and air. But technology development never stands still and we must pursue the next 

generation of better power plants. The sC02 power cycle is not a new energy source. It is a technology that 

incrementally, but significantly, allows us to make better usc of the energy from conventional fossil and nonfossil energy sources. sC02 power cycles replace the steam or air of a conventional plant with carbon dioxide 

(C02) at very high pressures and temperatures. C02 is a common gas that is abundantly available, non-toxic, 

and easily handled. Due to the high density. high heat capacity and low viscosity of sC02• power plant 

efficiency gains of 3-5% are easily realized versus conventional steam plants. In industrial waste heat recovery, 

nuclear. and concentrating solar power. plant efficiency improvements of l 0-15~·. over steam are possible. 

Waste heat recovery from thousands of currently underutilized energy streams in industry becomes technically 

feasible and commercially viable. sC02 power plants are about 5-10 times smaller than current plants which 

drastically reduces plant capital costs, reduces footprint requirements, and improves plant grid response. 

Finally, sC02 technology provides a line of sight development plan toward oxy-combustion: A less expensive, 

higher efficiency, and completely carbon-Ji-ce emission fossil fuel power plant. 

sCO, power cycles are on the verge of commercialization and the US is clearly the leader in sC02 power cycle 

technology. A mix of nearly 120 government and industry projects with approximately equal R&D funding of 

$500M from government and $500M from industry. has allowed moving the technology from the concept 

stage to functioning plants over a short period of less than 8 years. Several US Department of Energy (DOE) 

offices. including NETL, NREL, EERE. Nuclear, and ARPA-e. constructively collaborated in this effort. We 

are now working on a sCO, pilot research facility plant called the Supercritical Transf01mational Electric 

Power (STEP) program that is designed to help industry address pre-competitive development problems and 

demonstrate key cycle components. STEP is a $115:\-1 program led by the Gas Technology Institute, SwRl, and 

GE. and co-funded by the DOE with $80M that aims to demonstrate a 10 MW utility scale sC02 power plant. 

The STEP facility will be located at SwRI and is scheduled to be operational by 2020. 

The STEP program. as well as. many industry and government funded sC02 power cycle technology R&D 

projects. benefit the US economy not simply through the development of better power plants for domestic and 

industrial electricity consumers, it also re-enforces the US leadership position in energy systems, power plant 

technology. and clean electricity. Crosscutting sC02 power cycle R&D will result in cheap, reliable. and clean 

electricity which are major drivers of the US economy. 
45 

Prepared Statement by Dr. Klaus Brun 

Machinery Program Director 

Southwest Research Institute 

For the House Science, Space & Technology Committee 

Subcommittee on Energy and Environment 

August 17,2018 

Good morning Chairman Smith. Ranking Member Johnson. Chairman Weber. Ranking Member Veasey. 

Chairman Biggs and Ranking Member Bonamici. My name is Klaus Brun and I am the Machinery 

Program Director at Southwest Research Institute in San Antonio, Texas. I am honored and pleased to 

address you today on behalf of Southwest Research Institute. 

Southwest Research Institute Background 

Southwest Research Institute (SwRl). headquartered in San Antonio. Texas. is one of the oldest and 

largest independent, nonprofit. applied research and development (R&D) organizations in the United 

States. Founded in 1947 by businessman Tom Slick. Jr.. SwRl provides contract research and 

development. We are multi-disciplinary problem solvers providing independent, premier services to 

government and industry clients. Since our inception more than 70 years ago our mission has been to 

work in the public's best interest and toward the betterment of mankind. 

The institute consists of nine technical divisions that offer multidisciplinary. problem-solving services in 

a variety of areas in engineering and the physical sciences. More than 4,000 projects are active at the 

institute at any given time. These projects are funded almost equally between the government and 

commercial sectors. At the close of 2017, the SwRl staff numbered 2.574 employees and total revenue 

was more than $528 million for the fiscal year. The institute also provided more than $7 million to fund 

innovative research through its internally sponsored R&D program. SwRI's headquarters- with over 210 

buildings - provide more than two million square feet of office and laboratory space on more than 1.250 

acres in the heart of San Antonio. SwRl also has technical offices and laboratories in Boulder. Colorado: 

Ann Arbor. Michigan; Warner-Robins. Georgia; Ogden. Utah: Oklahoma City, Oklahoma; Rockville. 

Maryland; Minneapolis, Minnesota: Beijing. China: and other locations. 

SwR!'s research and development is very diverse and ranges from deep sea to deep space, and everything 

in between. We are currently active participants in several deep space missions including being the 

principal investigator on the Juno Jupiter mission and the New Horizons Pluto fly-by and Kuiper belt 

exploration missions. On the other end of the spectrum. S" Rl has been involved in the design and testing 

of the Alvin deep sea submersibles. as well as, the Navy rescue submarine system. We are engaged in a 
46 

wide range of exciting state-of-the-art research and development programs for the benefit of the US 

industry and government. 

Supercritical Carbon Dioxide Power Cycles 

Electricity consumers. both industrial and domestic. always want cheap and reliable energy. Cheap and 

reliable energy is one of the critical drivers of our economy. The American public cannot afford blackouts 

and does not want to pay high electricity bills. Over the last 40 to 50 years consumers have also started to 

demand that our energy is clean to produce and docs not pollute our environment. 

Today I would like to report on some of the exciting research and development achievements in the area 

of advanced electricity generation plant technology. specitlcally the supercritical carbon dioxide (sC02) 

power cycle. The sC02 power cycle development has been a major collahorative effort between industry. 

government. and research institutes to support the US fossil fuel power industry with advanced novel 

power cycle technology to make electricity cheaper, more reliable. and cleaner. 

But first allow me to talk a little about the history of power plants and the importance of sC02 power 

cycles for today·s power generation industry. For the last 250 years the majority of fossil-fueled power 

plants have been using steam and air as the working fluids in their cycle. The venerable steam engine, at 

least in its basic modern form. was invented by James Watt in 1781 and it. and its successor-derived 

products. have served us well in producing electricity for industry and consumers. We have come a long 

way in designing power plants and have driven efficiency up and emissions down. Even 50 years ago the 

average power plant efficiency was well below 25%. Today's advanced combined-cycle power plants 

operate near 65% efficiency with ultralow emissions of all criteria pollutants. But technology 

development never stands still and so now we must pursue the next generation of power plants and power 

storage to further improve et11ciencies and reduce emissions while maintaining reliability for US 

electricity consumers. The sC02 power cycle is not a new energy source. It is a technology that 

incrementally, but significantly, allows us to make better use of the energy from conventional fossil and 

non-fossil energy sources. 

Nearly 90% of all energy produced in the US comes from thermal power plants. In a thermal power plant 

energy is converted to electricity by heating steam or air and expanding it across a power turbine. 

Examples of thermal power plants include all types of coal and natural gas power plants, nuclear power 

plants, and even concentrating solar power plants. The sC02 power cycle replaces the steam or air of a 

conventional heat engine with carbon dioxide (CO,) at very high pressures and temperatures. C02 is a 

common gas that is abundantly available. non-toxic. and easily handled. We consume it daily in 

carbonated soft drinks (and beer) and it is widely used in many industrial processes and consumer 

products. But CO, has thermodynamic properties that. when it is in a supercritical or dense phase state, 
47 

make it as advantageous as a process fluid for power cycles. Several closed cycle heat engines. including 

the Cascade. the Allam. the Re-Compression. and the Brun thermodynamic cycles, target these physical 

properties ofsC02 to make a more efficient thermal power plant. 

There are significant incentives driving the development of this technology for commercial use. Due to 

the high density. high heat capacity and low viscosity of sCO,. power plant efficiency gains of 3-5% are 

easily realized versus conventional steam plants. !n some applications. such as industrial waste heat 

recovery, nuclear. and concentrating solar power. plant efficiency improvements of 10-15% over steam 

are possible. Waste heat recovery from thousands of currently underutilized energy streams in the 

manufacturing industry and oil & gas production and transportation becomes technically feasible and 

commercially viable with sC02 technology. Additionally, this results in the footprint of a sC02 power 

cycle being only a fraction of that of conventional plants. We expect sCO, power plants to be about 5-l 0 

times smaller than current plants. This drastically reduces plant capital costs. allows for modularity of 

construction. and even provides the potential for mobile power plants. Also, because of its small size and 

low thermal mass, a sC02 plant can be operated dynamically and provide a fast response to electricity 

demand and supply changes on a grid with varying alternative - wind and solar - energy inputs. This 

eliminates one of the m'\jor disadvantages of many fossil power plants that can only operate in steady 

base load. sC02 plants require no water and can easily be sited in arid regions of the US. Finally, sCO, 

technology provides a line of sight development plan toward a less expensive. higher efficiency, and 

completely carbon emission fossil fuel power plant. For example. using direct-tired pressurized oxycombustion sC02 cycles that are currently being developed. natural gas plants with nearly complete 

carbon capture and efficiencies equivalent to combined-cycle plants can be achieved. 

So why now? The thermodynamic advantages of sCO, power cycles have been known since the early 

nineteen-fifties. But at the time the manufacturing technology, the materials. and the design tools did not 

exist to produce a sC02 power cycle. Using advanced additive manufacturing. high-temperature and highstrength super-alloys, and advanced computational engineering design tools- technologies that have only 

recently become available - we can now build the complex micro-channel heat exchangers and ultra-high 

energy density compressors and expanders that are needed for sC02 power cycles. These technologies are 

advancing at a very rapid pace and with the US being the clear technology leader, we can expect 

significant further benefits and efficiency improvements to power plants in the near future. 

In summary. the sCO, power cycle does not replace current fossil and non-fossil power plants. it just 

makes them more etlicient and cleaner. Although steam and air cycles will continue to dominate the 

power generation industry in the foreseeable future. recent developments in materials, manufacturing, and 

design have led to the development of sCO, cycles as an alternative. sC02 plants arc significantly simpler 
48 

than typical steam or combined cycle plants. offer a greater power density, a higher efficiency, lower 

emissions, and most importantly a lower cost of electricity. 

Crosscutting R&D and STEP 

sC02 power cycles are on the verge of commercialization and the US is clearly the leader in sC02 power 

cycle technology. But other countries are trying to catch up and we need to continue to advance this 

technology to stay ahead. The rapid advancement of technology for the sCO, power cycle in the US is the 

result of a highly successful collaboration between industry, government, national labs, independent labs, 

and academia. This has been accomplished through industry and government coordinated efforts on 

focused R&D, cross-cutting initiatives, targeted project funding, and a tight integration of activities of 

national and private research laboratories, academia, and industry. A mix of nearly 120 government and 

industry projects with approximately equal R&D funding of $500M ti·om government and $500M from 

industry, has allowed moving the technology from the concept stage to functioning machinery, 

subsystems, and plants over a short period of less than 8 years. In a technology area were major advances 

are usually measured in decades rather than years that is an incredible pace for power plant development. 

Clearly. this aggressive collaborative R&D approach to rapidly mature an emerging energy technology 

could serve as a model to advance other highly relevant energy technologies, such as energy storage or 

oxy-combustion, in the near future. 

Several sC02 pilot power plants are now being built using both commercial and government funding 

sources for each application area including fossil fueL concentrated solar power, and industrial waste heat 

recovery. Major US manufacturers, equipment suppliers and vendors, and many small startups have been 

able to develop their own sC02 products and systems, greatly benefiting directly and indirectly from 

government funded efforts. Government funding not only aided in risk reduction during the early concept 

development stages but also resulted in speeding up the product development cycle and time to market 

Clearly this benetits the US public by making higher eftlciency and cleaner power generation plants 

available to the consumer more quickly and at a lower cost. 

Several US Department of Energy (DOE) oftices constructively collaborated to move sC02 power cycle 

technology torward through a mix of small individual focused and large broad multi-division projects and 

programs. These oftices included DOE NETL NREL. EERE. Nuclear, and ARPA-e, each funding 

projects in their spccitic application area, but all coordinated to provide broad program benefits. One of 

the benetlts is that we are now working on a sCO, pilot research facility plant that is designed to help 

industry address pre-competitive development problems jointly to continue to rapidly advance the 

technology and to demonstrate key advanced cycle components. This, the largest of the DOE sCO, power 

cycle crosscutting initiatives. is the Supercritical Transf(lfmational Electric Power (STEP) program. STEP 
49 

is a $115M program led by the Gas Technology Institute, SwRl, and GE, and co-funded by the DOE with 

$80M that aims to demonstrate various configurations of a commercially relevant scale sC02 power plant 

operating up to 715 degrees Celsius firing temperature and 10 MW output power. The STEP facility will 

be located at SwRl and is scheduled to be operational by 2020. Beyond the primary operational and R&D 

program targets, STEP will serve as an open-access joint industry R&D facilities for technology 

developers to test and improve their sC02 power plant products. Basically, STEP will first validate the 

performance improvement predictions of the utility scale sC02 cycle technology and then be available to 

industry, government, and academia as an open recontigurable R&D facility. 

The STEP program, as well as. many industry and government funded sC02 power cycle technology 

R&D projects, benefit the US economy not simply through the development of better power plants for 

domestic and industrial electricity consumers, it also re-enforces the US leadership position in energy 

systems, power plant technology, and clean electricity. Ongoing sCO, activities drive cutting edge R&D 

projects with significant global visibility, provide hundreds of high-skills/high-wage jobs, and lead to a 

continuous education of world-class engineers. scientists, and researchers. Finally, crosscutting sC02 

power cycle R&D will result in cheap, reliable, and clean electricity which are major drivers of the US 

economy. 

Closing 

SwRI is a major US not-for-profit independent R&D institute engaged in the development of advanced 

po;;er generation and energy storage technologies. We have been an active leader in sCO, power cycle 

technology for the last ten years. During this time we have worked with the DOE, several national labs, 

universities and many industrial partners including GE, Gas Technology Institute, Aerojet Rocketdyne, 

Solar Turbines, and a host of others on over 30 sC02 related projects. In my opinion, the sC02 power 

cycle collaboration and crosscutting initiative between government. industry, institutes, national labs, and 

academia is currently one of the most successful coopera1ive R&D programs in the energy industry. 

Continued participation by DOE and other government agencies in the STEP program and other sCO, 

power projects will result in major benefits to the US power industry, as well as. US energy technology 

leadership. Rarely does a ne" technology emerge that is capable of offering so many solutions. The 

market potential for sCO, plants explains the rapid progress and interest in sC02 power. 

I sincerely want to thank the US government, its various agencies, and its employees who have and 

continue to be actively and passionately involved in this very important work. Thank you very much! 1 

am honored to have been invited to talk about this exciting technology to the congressional Subcommittee 

on Energy and Environment and !look forward to your questions. 
50 
51 
52 

Supercritical 

• Approximately 90% of<:!flelectric generation nb,nt<:'ln.fh: ... IIJ:i 

thermal power plants. 

• The Supercritical Carbon Dioxide(sC02) power cycle is l:!'f\OVef 

energy.conversion technology.t~a~tan significantly improve the 

efficiency and reduce air emissions of most thermal power platMlS; 

• Because of past US'8overnment and Industry funding, the US i$ · 

the clear technology leader in sC02 power cycles. 

• SwRI has led sC02 power cycle R&D for over 10 years and is 

currently constructing a DOE co-funded 10 MW R&D pilot and 

demonstration plant (Supercritical Transformational Electric 

Power- STEP). 

• Continued DOE funding of the STEP plant and other sC02 power 

cycle projects will result in major benefits to the US power 

industry as well as US energy technology leadership. 
53 

US Electric Power Generation 

CheapJ Reliable and Clean Electricity 

• U.S. uses diverse mix of energy 

- Fossil (coal, natural gas, oil) 

- Nuclear 

- Renewable (hydro, wind, solar, geo) 

• About 90% of US generation plants are thermal power plants 

• Thermal power plants convert heat to electricity 

• Most are based on air or steam as the process fluid 

• Efficiencies vary from 20-65% 
54 
55 

Supercritical Carbon Dioxide (sC02) Cycles 

Closed Power Plant Cycle using high 

pressure C02 as the working fluid 

Supercritical C02 is non-toxic, 

abundantly available, and is 

commonly used as an industrial fluid 

Supercritical fluids exhibit 

characteristics of both Liquids and 

Vapors 

- High Density ,_ 

- low Viscosity 

- High heat capacity 

Cycle Configurations 

- Vapor Phase 

- Transcritical 

- Supercritical 

3-5% efficiency gain over 

conventional steam cycles 

(depending on cycle and application) 

5-10 times smaller and more 

compact power plants 

liquid +vapor 

region 

Entropy, 5 

Recuperated 

Closed Brayton 

Power Cycle 

Gas 

region 
56 

sC02 Plant Size 

Source: Wright (2011), Adapted from Dostal {2004) 

Predicted sC02 plant size 5-10 times 

smaller than equivalent steam cycle. 

- lower capital costs 

Ease of modularity and transport 

- Faster dynamic heat source and 

load response 

20 MW steam turbine 

14 MW sC02 turbine 
57 

li 

Increased 
58 

Benefit Across Applications 

Near Term Applications Zero Emission Technology 

Waste Heat Indirect Fossil Concentrating Solar Oxy-combustion 

25% Reduction 7% Reduction Zero emissions 

in Emissions in Emissions technology 

12% Better 4% Better 16% Reduction 

Thermal Thermal in LCOE 

Efficiency Efficiency Zero cooling 

water use 
59 

10 MW DOE STEP Pilot Plant Project 

Demonstrate Utility-Scale sC02 Plant Function 

• Pilot and demonstration plant 

located at SwRI 

• Partnering with GE and GTI 

• Six year project valued 

$115 million ($80M DOE, 

$35M Industry) 

• Scheduled to be operational 

2020 

• Testing both SSOC and >700C ~~~~ temperature operation 
60 
61 

DOE STEP Project Objectives 

• Demonstrate sC02 system 

operability 

• Verify component 

performance 

• Validate and Measure 

- Efficiency I emission benefits L-.~~~~·'""' 

- Lower cost of electricity 

- sC02 RCBC thermodynamic 

cycle efficiency > 50% 

• Demonstrate sC02 RCBC at 

700°C Turbine inlet and 10 

MWe net power minimum 

• Reconfigurable facility to 

accommodate future testing 

Project Site: SwRI in San Antonio, TX 
62 

sC02 Power Cycle R&D History 

Start of Substantial 1-,,~TSJ~'!10""'':L\'"~"<"''<""'" 

DOE Participation 

I The US is World leader in sC02 Power Cycle Technology j 
63 

sC02 Power Cycle R&D Benefit to US 

Economy and Technology Leadership 

• Re-enforces US leadership position in power plant technology, 

advanced energy systems, and clean power plants 

• Supports ongoing commercial and government funded technology 

projects valued at $300M+ and boosts R&D opportunities 

• Provides for cutting edge R&D projects with significant global 

visibility 

• Provides hundreds of high skilled, high wage jobs 

• Leads to continuous flow of world-class engineers, scientists, and 

researchers to the US 

• Cooperative programs will enhance teaching and basic research at 

US Universities 
64 
65 

Klaus Brun - Short Bio 

Dr. Brun is currently the Machinery Program Director at Southwest Research 

Institute where he leads an organization of more than 60 that focuses on R&D 

for the energy industry. He is internationally recognized for his expertise in 

energy systems, power generation, and turbo-machinery. He holds a B.Sc. 

from the University of Florida and M.Sc. and Ph.D. from the University of 

Virginia in Mechanical Engineering. His past experience includes positions in 

engineering, project management, and management at Solar Turbines, 

General Electric, and Alstom. He holds eight patents, authored over 350 

papers, and published three textbooks on energy systems and 

turbomachinery. Dr. Brun is a Fellow of the ASME and won an R&D 100 

award in 2007 for his Semi-Active Valve invention. He also won the ASME 

Industrial Gas Turbine Award in 2016 and ASME Oil & Gas Committee Best 

Paper/Tutorial awards in 1998, 2000, 2005, 2009, 2010, 2012, 2014, 2016, 

and 2017. Dr. Brun organized and chaired numerous international 

conferences including the International sC02 Symposium 2016, Turbo Expo 

2012, and the Oil & Gas Lecture Series 2016-2018. Dr. Brun is the past chair 

of the ASME-IGTI Board of Directors, the ASME Oil & Gas Applications 

Committee, and ASME sC02 Power Cycle Committee. He is also a member 

of the API 616 Task Force, the ASME PTC-1 0 task force, the Asia 

Turbomachinery Symposiums Committee, the Fan Conference Advisory 

Committee, and Supercritical C02 Symposium Advisory Committee. Dr. Brun 

is the past Editor of Gas Turbine News and currently the Executive 

Correspondent of Turbomachinery International Magazine and Associate 

Editor of the ASME Journal of Gas Turbines for Power. 
66 

Chairman WEBER. Thank you, Dr. Brun. 

Ms. Angielski, you’re now recognized for five minutes. 

TESTIMONY OF MS. SHANNON ANGIELSKI, 

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, 

CARBON UTILIZATION RESEARCH COUNCIL 

Ms. ANGIELSKI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and to the Members 

of both the Energy and Environment Subcommittees and to those 

Committee Members that are here today for the invitation to testify and discuss this topic with you. 

CERC is an industry coalition that is focused on technology solutions for the responsible use of our U.S. fossil energy resources to 

support our Nation’s need for secure, reliable, and affordable electricity through a balanced portfolio. 

CERC serves as an industry voice to identify technology pathways that will enable our Nation to continue to enjoy the benefits 

of our abundant and low-cost fossil fuels in a manner that is both 

compatible with societal energy needs and environmental goals and 

objectives. Members of CERC work together to advance a common 

set of technology objectives that can be met through public and private-sector collaboration designed to expand technology choices for 

private-sector commercialization. 

I want to recognize that the United States has already made significant strides in the development of advanced fossil energy resource technologies to improve the utilization of these resources. 

Similar to how a car, a new car today, can travel further on a single gallon of gasoline than one that was built back in the 1980s, 

the most advanced coal units operating today are 25 percent more 

efficient than the previous generation of coal units, and this is a 

direct result of the public-private-sector collaboration, which many 

of my members were involved with. 

As already recognized in many of the opening statements, consumption of fossil fuels is on the rise both domestically and internationally, and this trend is projected to continue well into the future. There’s growing international consensus that technologies are 

needed to further reduce the carbon footprint from the use of fossil 

fuels. As a result, more recent efforts have focused on technologies 

to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. 

There is a first-of-a-kind carbon-capture project successfully operating on a coal-fired power plant in the United States today that 

is selling its carbon dioxide in a nearby oil field. Many of you from 

Texas may know this project, the Petra Nova project. This innovative project relied on federal financial support to launch. 

And while research is advancing that will result in improved 

technologies, carbon capture is not yet economic for widespread application in the power sector, and further technology innovation is 

needed. 

Later this month, CERC and the Electric Power Research Institute will release the 2018 Advanced Fossil Energy Technology 

Roadmap that, if implemented, projects new technologies can be 

available in the next decade, by 2035 time frame, that generate 

electricity from fossil fuels with significantly reduced carbon dioxide emissions and importantly can be cost-competitive with other 

sources of electricity generation. 
67 

By way of background, EPRI conducts research development and 

demonstration projects for the benefit of the public in the United 

States and internationally. As an independent, nonprofit organization for public interest energy and environmental research, they 

focus on electricity generation, delivery, and use in collaboration 

with the electricity sector, its stakeholders, and others to enhance 

the quality of life by making electric power safe, reliable, affordable, and environmentally responsible. 

EPRI does not advocate or aim to influence policy or regulation. 

This will be the fifth roadmap that CERC and EPRI have published together since 2003 and reflects the technology development 

needs that can support an evolving U.S. power sector that’s impacted by several emerging trends driving innovation and investment decisions for new generation. Some of these trends include increased and low cost domestic supplies of natural gas, slow and in 

some cases declining low growth in electricity demand, as well as 

the need for generation to rapidly adjust to cycling load demands 

with increased intermittent renewables on the grid. 

There are several technologies identified in the roadmap that address these trends yet enable a transformation in the way we use 

our fossil fuel resources. These include novel power cycles like 

those already discussed, the supercritical CO2 cycles or key processes in those cycles that are designed to facilitate the capture of 

carbon dioxide at a lower energy penalty and cost than conventional methods. These processes are inherently more efficient, resulting in fewer emissions of both carbon dioxide and criteria emissions, less water use, and require less—fewer fossil fuels to produce 

electricity. 

The roadmap also outlines advances in carbon-capture technologies designed to lower costs and the development and testing 

of these technologies at test center such as the Wyoming Integrated 

Test Center and the National Carbon Capture Center in Alabama. 

The roadmap also identifies research on breakthrough technologies to ensure out-of-the-box thinking where fundamentally 

new approaches for using fossil fuels are developed and includes 

typical programs like those discussed by Dr. Aines. Many of the 

technologies identified in the roadmap are ready for pilot testing 

today and a few are preparing for commercial-scale demonstration. 

I also want to discuss a companion analysis conducted by CERC 

and ClearPath Foundation with modeling provided by NERA Economic Consulting and Advanced Resources International that 

shows that there are significant economic benefits to the United 

States of the technology development outlined in the roadmap is 

undertaken under a wide range of scenarios. 

Our analysis projects up to 87 gigawatts of market-driven carbon-capture deployment paired with enhanced oil recovery by 2040, 

resulting in significant increase in domestic oil production and 

lower cost retail electricity rates, all of which contain—contribute 

to substantial increases in annual GDP and are projected to result 

in over 800,000 new jobs through 2040. These macroeconomic benefits are described in more detail in my written testimony in a report summarizing the study that will also be released next week. 

While both CERC and EPRI developed the roadmap, I just want 

to make sure it’s understood I’m speaking only on behalf of CERC 
68 

today, and we’re very pleased to support the House Science, Space, 

and Technology Committee efforts to explore next-generation fossil 

power technologies and to discuss solutions that will enable our 

Nation to continue to responsibly benefit from the utilization of our 

fossil energy resources. 

Thank you for the opportunity to provide you this testimony. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Angielski follows:] 
69 

Testimony of Shannon Angielski 

Executive Director 

Carbon Utilization Research Council (CURC) 

Before the 

Committee on Science, Space, and Technology 

Subcommittees' on Energy and Environment 

Hearing on the Future of Fossil: Energy Technologies Leading the Way 

CURC Testimony: 

"Advancing Fossil Energy Technology Innovation in the U.S." 

Washington, D.C. 

July 17, 2018 

ll 
70 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF CURC TESTIMONY: KEY POINTS 

CURC is an industry coalition focused on technology solutions for the responsible use of our U.S. fossil energy 

resources in a balanced portfolio to support our nation's need for secure, reliable and affordable electricity. CURC 

serves as an industry voice and advocate by identifying technology pathways that enable the nation to enjoy the 

benefits of abundant and low-cost fossil fuels in a manner compatible with societal energy needs and goals. CURC 

believes that future energy needs can be effectively met through collaborative public and private sector research 

to expand technology choices for private sector commercialization. Members of CURC work together to evaluate 

technology development needs, design appropriate research and development programs to enable those 

technology choices, and identify federal programs and policies needed to support this activity. 

The U.S. has made significant strides in the development of advanced coal and natural gas technologies to improve 

the utilization of these resources. Similar to how a new car today can travel further on a single gallon of gasoline 

than one built in the 1980s, the most advanced coal units operating in the U.S. today are 25% more efficient than 

the previous generation of coal units. With further technology improvements, additional efficiency gains of similar 

magnitudes can be achieved for both coal and natural gas combined cycle systems. 

New technologies have also resulted in significant emissions reductions since the early 1970s, even while fossil fuel 

use substantially increased. Additionally, technology has substantially reduced the use and discharge of water from 

fossil fueled power plants. 

Consumption of fossil fuels is on the rise both domestically and internationally, and this trend is projected to 

continue well into the future due to the role fossil fuels play in providing easily accessible, reliable and low-cost 

energy. There is growing international consensus that technologies are needed to reduce the carbon footprint 

from the use of fossil fuels. As a result, more recent efforts have focused on technologies to reduce carbon dioxide 

emissions. There is a first-of-a-kind carbon capture project successfully operating on a coal-fired power plant in the 

U.S. today that is selling its carbon dioxide to enhance recovery of oil in a nearby oil field- the Petra Nova project 

in Texas. This innovative project relied on federal financial support to launch. While research is advancing that will 

result in improved technologies, carbon capture is not yet economic for widespread application in the power 

sector. 

Later this month, CURC and the Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. (EPRI) will release the 2018 Advanced Fossil 

Energy Technology Roadmap that identifies the research, development and demonstration for a suite of 

technologies that will transform the way fossil fuels are converted to electricity. EPRI conducts research, 

development, and demonstration projects for the benefit of the public in the United States and internationally. As 

an independent, nonprofit organization for public interest energy and environmental research, they focus on 

electricity generation, delivery, and use in collaboration with the electricity sector, its stakeholders and others to 

enhance the quality of life by making electric power safe, reliable, affordable, and environmentally responsible. 

EPRI does not advocate or aim to influence policy or regulation. If implemented, the Roadmap identifies 

technologies that can be available by the 2025-2035 timeframe that generate electricity from fossil fuels with 

significantly reduced carbon dioxide emissions that could be cost competitive with other sources of electricity 

generation. 

This will be the fifth Roadmap that CURC and EPRI have published since 2003. The 2018 Road map includes new 

data on recent advances in fossil fuel technologies. It also reflects the technology development needs that can 

support an evolving U.S. power sector impacted by several emerging trends driving innovation and investment 

decisions lor new generation. Some of these trends include increased and low- cost domestic supplies of natural 

2(PJ 
71 

gas, slow, and in some areas of the country, declining, load growth and electricity demand, and the need for 

generation to rapidly adjust to cycling load demands with increased intermittent renewables on the grid. 

There are several technologies identified in the Road map that address these issues to transform the way we use 

our coal and natural gas resources. These include novel fossil power cycles or key processes in such cycles that are 

designed to facilitate the capture of C02 at a lower energy penalty and cost than conventional methods. These 

processes are inherently more efficient, resulting in fewer emissions of both C02 and criteria pollutants, and 

require fewer fossil fuels to be used to produce electricity. There is specific research identified in the Road map 

that is also necessary to support these new cycles, including advancements in turbine technologies, and hightemperature materials necessary to achieve higher efficiencies. In addition, the Road map outlines advances in 

carbon capture technologies designed to lower costs, and the development and testing of these technologies at 

test centers such as the Wyoming Integrated Test Center and the National Carbon Capture Center in Alabama. 

Research on breakthrough technologies is also needed to ensure "out-of-the-box" thinking or fundamentally new 

approaches to solving fossil fuel's challenges are developed. 

Many of the technologies identified in the Road map are readying for pilot testing now and a few are preparing for 

commercial-scale demonstration. It is critical that federal policies support not only the R&D outlined in the 

Road map, but also the piloting and demonstrating of these innovative, first of a kind technologies. 

Companion analysis conducted by CURC and ClearPath, with modeling provided by NERA Economic Consulting and 

Advanced Resources International, shows that there are significant economic benefits to the U.S. if the technology 

development outlined in the Roadmap is undertaken under a wide range of scenarios. Our analysis projects up to 

87 GW of market-driven carbon capture deployment paired with enhanced oil recovery by 2040, resulting in a 

significant increase in domestic oil production and lower cost retail electricity rates, all of which contribute to 

substantial increases in annual GDP as well as over 800,000 new jobs through 2040. These macroeconomic 

benefits are described in more detail in my written testimony. 

While both CURC and EPRI developed the Road map, I am speaking only on behalf of CURC, and CURC is pleased to 

support the House Science, Space and Technology Committee efforts to explore next generation fossil power 

technologies and discuss technology solutions that will enable our nation to continue to responsibly benefit from 

the utilization of our fossil energy resources. 

Thank you for the opportunity to provide this testimony. 

31 
72 

INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND 

CURC is an industry coalition focused on technology solutions for the responsible use of our fossil energy resources 

in a balanced portfolio to support our nation's need for secure, reliable and affordable energy.' CURC serves as an 

industry voice and advocate by identifying technology pathways that enable the nation to enjoy the benefits of 

abundant and low-cost fossil fuels in a manner compatible with societal energy needs and goals. CURC believes 

that future energy needs can be effectively met through collaborative public and private sector research to expand 

technology choices for private sector commercialization. Members of CURC work together to evaluate technology 

development needs, design appropriate research, development and demonstration (RD&D) programs to enable 

those technology choices, and identify federal programs and policies needed to support this activity. 

The U.S. has made significant strides in the development of advanced coal and natural gas technologies to improve 

the utilization of these resources. Similar to how a new car today can travel further on a single gallon of gasoline 

than one built in the 1980s, the most advanced coal units operating in the U.S. today can produce 20% more 

electricity than the previous generation of coal units with the same amount of fuel. With further technology 

improvements, additional efficiency gains of similar magnitudes can be achieved for both coal and natural gas 

combined cycle systems. 

New technologies have also resulted in significant emissions reductions since the early 1970s, even while coal use 

substantially increased. Additionally, technology has substantially reduced the use and discharge of water from 

fossil fueled power plants. 

Our nation's coal and fossil fuels play a significant role in the global and domestic energy economy. Domestically, 

coal and natural gas comprised 43% of total U.S. energy consumption and 47% of net electricity generation in 

2017. The U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) estimates that coal and natural gas will provide 56% of 

total U.S. net electricity generation in 2040 (see Figures 1 and 2). Globally, consumption of coal and natural gas are 

projected to provide 45% of our energy consumption in 2030 and will grow to nearly 50% of global consumption by 

2040 (see Figure 1). 

1 CURe's members include coal producers, electric utilities that rely upon coal and natural gas for electricity 

production, equipment manufacturers and technology innovators, national associations that represent the power 

generating industry, and state, university and technology research organizations. See Appendix for a list of CURC 

members, as well as our website: http:l/curc.net/curc-members 

41 P a 
73 

Figure 1 -U.S. Energy Co11sumntio,n· 

45 

40 

35 

15 

10 

US Energy Consumption 

2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 

EIA Annual Energy Outlook 2017 

250 

200 

al1so 

c 

51 

~ 

6100 "' 

50 

Q 

1990 

World Energy Consumption 

2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 

EIA International Energy Outlook 2017 

Technologies to address the growing use of fossil fuels in the power sector must be developed and deployed to 

reduce the carbon footprint from the use of fossil fuels. Models show the need for technologies that significantly 

reduce carbon dioxide (C02) emissions profiles to meet global climate targets (see Figure 3). Yet cost-effective, 

commercially-tested technologies to enable a transformational change in the conversion of fossil fuels to 

electricity with carbon capture, utilization and storage (CCUS) are not available today. 

2 EIA Annual Energy Outlook 2017, EIA International Energy Outlook 2017. 

s I € 
74 

Figure U.S. Electricity Generation Projections~ 

Net electricity generation from select fuels (Source EIA AEO 2018) 

billion kilowatthours 

2017 

2500 history, projection 

2000 

1500 

1000 

500 

0 

1900 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 

CURC, in collaboration with the Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. (EPRI), will next week release an Advanced 

Fossil Energy Technology Roadmap ("Roadmap"), EPRI conducts RD&D projects for the benefit of the public in the 

United States and internationally, As an independent, nonprofit organization for public interest energy and 

environmental research, they focus on electricity generation, delivery and use in collaboration with the electricity 

sector, its stakeholders and others to enhance the quality of life by making electric power safe, reliable, affordable 

and environmentally responsible. EPRI does not advocate or aim to influence policy or regulation .. 

The Road map outlines several RD&D pathways for both new and existing coal and natural gas technologies that 

will result in a suite of low-carbon, fossil-fuel platforms capable of being cost competitive with other forms of 

electricity generation in future electricity markets. The Roadmap reflects the technology development needs that 

can support an evolving U.S. power sector impacted by multiple trends driving innovation and investment 

decisions for new generation. The Road map also takes into consideration that technology development must 

ensure a minimal environmental footprint from the use of fossil fuels, including reduced water consumption and 

utilization or conversion of byproducts including C02 . The comments provided in my testimony today are based on 

the findings of the 2018 CURC-EPRI Advanced Fossil Energy Technology Roodmop and reflect only CURe's 

comments regarding the Roadmap. 4 

SUMMARY OF CURC-EPRI ROADMAP FINDINGS 

The Road map emphasizes development of technologies that can result in cost-competitive and low or near-zero 

C02 emissions generation technologies, in addition to other technology areas that mitigate the environmental 

footprint of using fossil fuels. The 2018 Road map includes new data on recent advances in fossil fuel technologies 

and identifies the research, development and demonstration (RD&D) for a suite of technologies that will transform 

the way fossil fuels are converted to electricity. Our analysis determined that many technologies are applicable to 

3 U.S. EIA Annual Energy Outlook 2018. 4 CURC-EPRI Advanced Fossil Energy Technology Roadmap, 2018. 

6 I P 
75 

both coal- and natural gas-fired power generation, through which public-private sector funding and support can be 

leveraged to develop technologies for applications using both resources. 

The Roadmap identifies a suite of transformational technologies to generate a new learning curve or use new 

approaches for power generation and/or carbon capture that enable substantial breakthrough performance 

improvements and cost reductions, These encompass a broad range of technology improvements, including 

thermodynamic improvements in energy conversion and heat transfer, turbines and C02 capture systems that all 

drive cost reductions as well as reduce the consumption of energy needed to operate the C02 capture system. 

These technologies will result in a step change improvement in performance, efficiency, flexibility, environmental 

performance and cost from the use of fossil fuels (see Table 1 in Appendix), For each of these technologies, the 

Roadmap identifies the cost and performance targets and the technology development necessary to bring each 

technology to commercialization to achieve those targets. The development needs and funding requirements for 

each technology are rolled up into an overall technology development timeline and funding schedule. The 

Road map identifies a level of RD&D to ensure timely solutions are developed and pursued through aggressive 

public-private partnerships. 

The transformational technologies examined in the Roadmap include pressurized oxy-combustion (P-Oxy), 

chemical looping combustion (CLC) and supercritical carbon dioxide (sC02) cycles, which would replace steam with 

sC02 as the working fluid- including both the direct- and indirect-fired sC02 cycles. New turbines and other 

components to support the higher temperatures and pressures of these systems, particularly the sC02 cycles, were 

also considered. Each of these new technologies is projected to be extremely efficient, be more compact and lower 

cost, and are designed to yield lower costs and energy penalties associated with the capture of C02• 

The Road map also evaluates the cross-cutting RD&D needed for a range of technologies applicable to both coaland natural gas-firing units. Cross-cutting technologies include high-efficiency materials development, carbon 

capture, carbon utilization and storage, turbines, and a program that evaluates other cross~cuttlng research such 

as water management, sensors and controls. 

Advanced Ultra-supercritical (A-USC) materials enable Rankine cycles with steam temperatures of 700°C or higher 

and are also needed for the transformational high-temperature and pressure power cycles. The Road map 

identifies the RD&D needs for A-USC materials development, the testing of A-USC materials and components 

under real operating conditions and demonstrating supply-chain fabrication capability for key full-scale A-USC 

components. 

The Roadmap also considers carbon capture development paths for solvents, sorbents and membranes for postcombustion capture and chemical and physical absorbents and membranes for pre-combustion capture systems, 

which are projected to have much lower energy penalties, yielding higher efficiencies and lower costs. Carbon 

capture technologies in the Road map address pathways for both coal-fired power plants and NGCC plants. CURC 

recommends that any federal program for carbon capture supports both coal and natural gas technology 

pathways. 

C02 utilization and storage is an important effort to evaluate geologic C02 storage reservoirs, necessary to ensure 

there will be readily accessible storage facilities for C02 produced from the advanced power systems under 

development The Road map includes a program to advance technologies in this area that will help grow our 

economy and increase our energy independence through the utilization of C02, and for which low-cost, industrial 

sources of C02 will be sought for enhanced oil and gas recovery. There are also niche opportunities to convert C02 

into other products, including chemicals, fuels and cement that should be pursued with federal RD&D support. 

71 
76 

Lastly, the Road map identifies a program for "breakthrough" technology advances that reflect "out-of-the-box" 

thinking for fundamentally new approaches to solving fossil fuel's challenges. Examples of breakthrough 

technologies include the substitution of bio-systems for current chemical processes and CO, sorbents based on 

new human-made compounds. Support for these kinds of activities is consistent with RD&D supported through the 

DOE's Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy program or the fundamental research conducted in the applied 

energy programs at DOE. 

DEVELOPMENT EFFORTS IDENTIFIED IN THE ROADMAP 

Early in the technology-development cycle, the technical risks for new energy technologies are incredibly high, 

particularly when moving an idea from concept designed on paper and turning that concept into an actual working 

technology. Not only are technologies at this stage a long way from commercialization, each phase of development 

carries significant technical risk. Since energy technologies are capital intensive, costs increase with each scale-up 

in development. Each of these factors makes it difficult to attract the private sector investment required to finance 

technologies at an earlier stage and even mid-stages of development, making federal support for scale-up stages 

of technology critical to attracting the necessary private sector cost-share. Given the timing of commercialization 

to achieve a return on investment for energy sector technologies, federal support at all of these stages is critical to 

successfully commercialize such technologies. 

The ultimate value of a new energy technology is generally not realized until several commercial-scale replications 

have occurred, which can take 20 years from concept to commercialization for large, capital-intensive energy 

systems. The good news is that the higher costs associated with new energy technologies can be reduced through 

learning by doing, which means the second-of-a-kind replication will cost less than the first 

New commercial-scale technologies cannot leap from a conceptual stage to commercial deployment in a single 

step. The Road map includes support of large-scale pilots for testing new technologies under real operating 

conditions at a scale beyond laboratory- and bench-scale, and before testing technologies in a commercial-scale 

demonstration. Large-scale pilot projects are mostly still early in the technology development timeline; the 

remaining time to commercialization and the risk that the process might not work at scale makes both commercial 

and internal financing often more challenging than either basic research or full-scale commercial-scale 

demonstrations. The success of technologies at the pilot scale can help to understand and overcome the risks 

inherent in early phase technology development and, if successful, encourage industry to make investments to 

advance the technologies to commercial implementation. 

PROJECTED BENEFITS OF ROADMAP 

Successful implementation of the Roadmap can result in significant environmental, economic and energy security 

benefits for the U.S., including: 

L Further reduction of water use and air pollutants, including nitrogen oxides (NOx), sulfur dioxide (S021 , 

mercury (Hg) and particulate matter (PM) (see Figures 3 and 4 below); 

2. Reduction of C02 emissions; 

3. Production and preservation of affordable electricity essential for U.S. competitiveness through a diverse 

generation technology portfolio; 

4. Enabling U.S. engineering and manufacturing expertise to grow, resulting in a robust U.S. supply chain and 

positioning the U.S. to be even more of a global leader in innovative fossil-fuel technologies; 
77 

5. Significant growth in gross domestic product (GOP) and jobs due to the macroeconomic impacts of 

increased domestic oil production and reductions in the cost of electricity (COE); 

6. Improved energy security by: 

a. Generating affordable power for electricity consumers including increased industrial and 

advanced manufacturing customers; 

b. Improving the operational flexibility of existing and future generating plants to ensure continued 

electricity grid reliability and stability; and 

c. Using captured C02 as a commodity to recover crude oil, thereby increasing domestic oil 

production. 

3 ·Emissions Reductions New Coal Plants Projected in CURC·EPRI Roadmap 

Environmental Emissions Relative to a New Coal Unit in 2015 

2015 w/o CCS 1112015 w ccs 2025 w ccs 1112035w 

120% 

100% 

0% 
78 

Figure 4. Emissions Reductions from a new Gas Unit Projected in the CURC·EPRI Roadmap 

Environmental Emissions Relative to a New Gas Unit in 2015 

1112015 w ccs 2025 w ccs 1112035w 

100% 

If the RD&D outlined in the Roadmap is undertaken, the following COE projections are estimated with improved 

technology: 

New Coal Unit with 90% Carbon Capture: 

2030- 20% reduction in COE compared to a new unit built with CCS in 2015 

2040-40% reduction in COE compared to a new unit built with CCS in 2015 

These projected cost improvements meet the cost reduction goals set by DOE in its 2013 Carbon Capture 

Technology Program plan for coal-based CCS systems. 

New Natural Gas Unit with 90% Carbon Capture: 

2030- 15% reduction in COE compared to a new unit built with CCS in 2015 

2040- 30% reduction in COE compared to a new unit built with CCS in 2015 

CURC and ClearPath Foundation will publish next week the results of a study that projects the macroeconomic 

benefits to the U.S. of new, lower-cost fossil energy technologies with CCUS as projected by the Road map. 5 The 

study estimates that if an aggressive RD&D program is implemented that achieves the above cost targets, marketdriven deployment of 62 to 87 GW of power-sector projects with installed carbon capture technologies for 

enhanced oil recovery can be enabled by 2040. 

Under an aggressive RD&D scenario that achieves the CURC·EPRI cost targets, the macroeconomic impacts of C02 

captured from the power sector for use in enhanced oil recovery (EOR) can: 

5 CURC and ClearPath Foundation, "Making Carbon a Commodity: the Potential of Carbon Capture RD&D," July 

2018. 

10 I 
79 

Contribute up to 925 million barrels of annual domestic oil production 

Increase coal production for power by as much as 40% between 2020 and 2040 

Add 270,000 to 780,000 new jobs relating to increased oil production 

Result in a $70 to $190 billion increase in annual GDP by 2040. 

The study also estimates that lower-cost electricity generated from low-cost carbon capture-enabled systems also 

yield significant macroeconomic benefits. Aggressive RD&D is estimated to reduce the retail COE up to 2.0% by 

2040, which would increase annual GDP by $30 to $55 billion and create an additional 210,000 to 380,000 jobs. 

CONGRESSIONAL EFFORTS IN SUPPORT OF FOSSIL ENERGY RO&D 

Since the 2015 Roadmap, there has been growing support for policies that favor CCUS and the technology 

recommendations that achieve the Road map objectives, including a program for large-scale pilots. In FY 2017, 

Congress appropriated $50 million for the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) to undertake a new, transformational 

coal pilot program. The DOE program has solicited projects for both processes and components, along with postcombustion carbon capture, aimed at enabling step-change improvements in coal-powered system efficiency, COE 

and carbon capture performance. 6 The program will be carried out in three phases, with the first phase nearing 

completion with nine projects having been selected to develop initial design concepts. 7 The intent of the program 

solicitation is to ultimately design, construct and operate two large-scale pilots with these transformational 

attributes. Congress appropriated an additional $35 million in FY 2018 to support the total $100 million program. 

In the last Congress, legislation that originated in this Committee through the America COMPETES Act (H.R. 1806) 

and in the Senate the Energy Policy Modernization Act (S. 2012), included provisions reflecting the 2015 Coal 

Technology Road map programs. While the House and Senate each passed their version of comprehensive energy 

bills, the Conference Committee could not agree on a final package. Despite this, the Fossil Energy RD&D 

provisions of both bills focused on programs aimed at improving the efficiency, effectiveness and environmental 

performance of fossil energy use consistent with CURe's priorities and the Roadmap programs. 

The Senate reintroduced their comprehensive bill in this Congress, S. 1460, which includes the Fossil Energy RD&D 

provisions from the earlier bill, S. 2012. The "FUEL Act" (S. 2803) was also introduced in May 2018, which amends 

the S. 2012 RD&D provisions to reflect the new CURC-EPRI Roadmap programs that will be published in our 2018 

report. In the House, H.R. 5745 has been introduced, which would likewise authorize several programs that align 

with the direction of the 2018 CURC-EPRI Roadmap technology programs. 

While both CURC and EPRI developed the Road map, I am speaking only on behalf of CURC, and CURC is pleased to 

support legislation that will advance the Road map technology objectives. CURC looks forward to working with the 

House Science, Space and Technology Committee Members as you continue to explore next generation fossil 

power technologies and discuss technology solutions that will enable our nation to continue to responsibly benefit 

from the utilization of our fossil energy resources. 

Thank you for the opportunity to provide this testimony. 

11 I P " 
80 

APPENDIX 

Pressurized Oxy¥ Coal and 

Combustion (P-Oxy) Natura! Gas 

Direct-Fired Coal and 

Supercrftica! C02 Natural Gas 

(sC01) Cycles 

Indirect-Fired sC02 Coal and 

Cycles Natural Gas 

Compact Hydrogen Natural Gas 

Generator 

A-USC Materials Coal and 

Natural Gas 

Oxy-combustlon power plants remove nitrogen from air cryogenlcally and perform 

the combustion of fossll fuels wlth oxygen and recycled flue gas to produce a 

stream largely comprised of C02 and water, greatly simplifying carbon capture. POxy operates at elevated pressure, Improving efficiency and allowing smaller 

components that combine to potentially reduce costs. 

A form of oxy-combustlon1 direct-fired sC02 cycles burn natural gas or syngas 

{provJded by coal gasification) in a high-pressure oxy-combustor, producing very 

high-temperature C02 and water that drive a sC02 turbine to make power. Water 

and C02 (at pipeline pressure} are then removed downstream to conserve mass, 

producing a very~high-efficlency, potentially low-cost carbon capture system. 

Replace steam-Rankine cycles with sC02 cycles which, due to the superior 

thermodynamic qualities of C021 have higher efficiency and utilize more compact 

turbomachinery. Can be used on any cycle that currently uses a steam-Rankine 

cycle, including solar thermal, geothermat nuclear, biomass and any type of fossll 

fuel. The process results in higher efficiency and can be coupled with a low-cost 

carbon capture system. 

New, highly efficient method for producing hydrogen (alternative to steammethane reforming). 

A-USC materials are needed to allow working fluid temperatures up to 760°C to 

support highly efficient combustion and heat exchange systems for both steamRankine and sC01 power systems and other high-temperature technologies. Can 

be applicable to both new and existing plants. 

12 I f' f 
81 

CO, Capture 

Existing Plants 

Coal and 

Natural Gas 

Coal and 

Natural Gas 

Ad,vances in ~olvents, sorbents and'inembranes for both pre- and post-~m~u~tton 

cafbOn captu(e focu'sed on lowering energy requirements and overall' cost of 

capture .. Technologies will need to be adjusted to handle the differences between 

coiil and natural gas flue gas, which include different C02 concentrations and trace 

species. 

RD&D to support flexibility and reliability of operations of existing plants 

131 
82 

BIOGRAPHY 

Shannon Angielski 

Principal, Governmental Affairs, Van Ness Feldman 

Carbon Utilization Research Council 

Shannon Angielski is a principal at Van Ness Feldman LLP, a 

Washington D.C. based law firm that specializes in energy, 

environment and natural resource policy and law, and serves as 

the Executive Director of the Carbon Utilization Research Council 

(CURC), an organization of utilities, producers, equipment suppliers, universities and institutions of higher learning, 

and state based entities interested and involved in the use of fossil fuel resources and the development of fossil 

fuel-based technologies. CURC is a leading advocate for advancing public-private partnerships designed to support 

advanced coal and natural gas technology research, development and deployment programs, and is responsible 

for the design and implementation of several federal policies necessary to ensure the availability of cost-effective 

technology solutions for fossil fuel based generation. 

Shannon earned her M.S. in Environmental Science and Public Policy from Johns Hopkins University in 2000 and 

her B.A. in Political Science and International Affairs from the University of New Hampshire in 1994. She is a 

member of the National Coal Council, the American League of Lobbyists and the Environmental Law Institute, and 

serves on the board of the Washington Coal Club. 

141 
83 

MEMBERSHIP 

!ntemal!ona! Brotherhood of Electrical 

EnergyBtue Project 

1s I 
84 

Chairman WEBER. Thank you, ma’am. 

Mr. Begger, you’re recognized for five minutes. 

TESTIMONY OF MR. JASON BEGGER, 

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, 

WYOMING INFRASTRUCTURE AUTHORITY 

Mr. BEGGER. All right. Mr. Chairman, Members of the Subcommittee, I appreciate the opportunity to speak to you today 

about our carbon technology efforts in Wyoming. My name’s Jason 

Begger, and I’m the Executive Director of the Wyoming Infrastructure Authority. The WIA is a state instrumentality tasked with 

promoting and assisting the development of energy infrastructure. 

Currently, our largest project is the Wyoming Integrated Test 

Center, the ITC, which is a private-public partnership between the 

State of Wyoming, Basin Electric Power Cooperative, Tri-State 

Generation and Transmission Association, and the National Rural 

Electric Cooperatives Association. We have also received various inkind contributions from Black Hills Energy and Rocky Mountain 

Power. I cannot stress enough the importance of this private-sector 

partnership because we shouldn’t be focusing on projects and technologies that industry won’t adopt and commercialize. 

While we believe there’s an important role for the federal government to play in advancing technology and we would welcome a 

partnership, not one cent of federal dollars has been utilized at this 

facility. 

The ITC is a post-combustion flue-gas research facility located at 

Basin Electric’s Dry Fork power station near Gillette, Wyoming. It 

is the largest facility of its kind in the United States, delivering up 

to 18-megawatt-equivalent worth of scrubbed flue gas to researchers testing CCUS technologies. The power plant will provide flue 

gas to five small research bays, each capable of hosting tests up to 

about .4 megawatt equivalent and a large test bay that can host 

two demonstration projects with a cumulative total of 18 

megawatts. 

Last month, we formalized a two-year partnership agreement 

with the National Carbon Capture Center in Alabama, which manages much of the Department of Energy’s carbon-capture efforts. In 

Wyoming, we don’t want to duplicate the work already being done; 

we want to complement the other test centers by providing a place 

to scale up current research. Our goal is to test technologies to both 

capture and manage the carbon. 

One of the most exciting partnerships we’ve developed is with 

the XPRIZE Foundation. One of the best-known XPRIZE competitions was the Ansari XPRIZE, which awarded the first team to fly 

three people to space and back twice within 14 days. One $10 million prize spurred 27 teams to invest over $100 million in technology development. 

Eventually, Richard Branson licensed the technology to create 

Virgin Galactic, and today, the private space travel industry is 

worth $2 billion only 22 years after the idea was created in the 

mid-’90s. The NRG COSIA Carbon XPRIZE will award $20 million 

in prizes to teams that are best able to convert CO2 into other valuable products. 
85 

Currently, there are ten teams from six countries working in the 

final round to create things such as carbon nanotubes, methanol, 

building materials, fish food, and plastics. The five finalists testing 

at the ITC are working to Converse CO2 from a coal-fired power 

plant, and there are five teams testing their technologies at a natural gas facility in Alberta, Canada. In April, Wyoming and the 

Japan Coal Energy Center announced a multiyear project, which 

will test Kawasaki Heavy Industries’ solid sorbent carbon-capture 

technology. 

Stable, predictable, and adequate funding is necessary to commercialize these technologies. H.R. 5745 is a great start, but Congress may need to look at establishing other programs to scale up 

the most promising technologies. Finding funding to support a new 

program is always a challenge. However, the coal mined in the 

United States provides an opportunity. The majority of the coal 

mined in the United States is owned by the Federal Government 

and leased to companies. These companies pay a variety of taxes, 

including federal mineral royalties, bonus bids, abandoned mine 

lands fees, and gross proceeds taxes. Every year, the mineral royalties and bonus bids bring in about $500 million. With a ten-year 

authorization, half of that funding could provide about $2.5 billion 

to fund carbon management research. 

Technology is apolitical, and the United States can make its best 

and greatest impact by investing in technology development that 

could be utilized around the world. There is considerable debate 

over the future of coal within the United States. However, every 

credible energy analysis from the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on 

Climate Change to DOE acknowledges that large amounts of coal 

will be used globally for the foreseeable future. Technology is the 

best way to ensure these countries have access to power, yet can 

meet environmental goals. 

I appreciate the opportunity to speak with you today and will 

gladly answer any questions. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Begger follows:] 
86 

Written Testimony Submitted to the United States House of Representatives Committee on Science 

Subcommittee on Energy 

Developing and Deploying Advanced Clean Energy Technologies 

Submitted by Jason Begger, Executive Director, Wyoming Infrastructure Authority, July 17, 2018 

The Wyoming Infrastructure Authority is a state instrumentality created by the Wyoming Legislature in 

2004 to promote and assist in the development of energy infrastructure. Under our legislative 

authority, we work to construct electrical transmission lines, advanced generation facilities and coal 

export terminals. We also have the ability to issue up to $1 billion in industrial revenue bonds to assist 

with project financing. 

Currently, our largest project is the Wyoming Integrated Test Center (lTC), which was officially dedicated 

in May 2018. The lTC is a private/public partnership between the State of Wyoming, Basin Electric 

Power Cooperative, Tri-State Transmission and Generation Association and the National Rural Electric 

Cooperatives Association (NRECA). We have also received various in-kind contributions from Black Hills 

Energy and Rocky Mountain Power. 

The lTC is a post-combustion, flue gas research facility located at Basin Electric's Dry Fork Power Station 

near Gillette, Wyoming. It will be the largest facility of its kind in the United States, delivering up to 20 

MWe worth of scrubbed flue gas to researchers testing Carbon Capture, Utilization, and Storage (CCUS) 

technologies. The power plant will provide flue gas to six small research bays, each capable of hosting 

tests up to 0.4 MWe and a large test bay that can host two demonstration projects with a cumulative 

total of 18 MWe. 
87 

We have raised $21 million in funding, $15 million from the State of Wyoming, $5 million from Tri-State 

G&T, and $1 million from NRECA. $14.9 million has been budgeted for capital construction and 

approximately $900,000 for annual operating costs, providing us with the resources to construct and 

operate the lTC for 7 years. While we believe there is an important role for the Federal Government to 

play in advancing technology and we would welcome such a partnership, not one cent of federal funding 

has been utilized at the lTC 

The State of Wyoming is the nation's largest coal producer, producing approximately 300 million tons in 

2016. While this is still a significant amount of production, it is down from the peak in 2008 of 480 

million tons, a drop of 37.5%. Coupled with similar drops in crude oil and natural gas prices and 

production, Wyoming has experienced significant reductions in tax revenues. 

Given fossil energy's prominent role in the state, investment in carbon control technologies by Wyoming 

may seem unusual, but it all stems from Governor Matt Mead's directive to move beyond the political 

rhetoric surrounding climate change science and focus on discovering technological solutions to ensure 

the long-term economic viability of Wyoming's fossil energy resources. Reviewing where Wyoming 

could make the most impact in carbon management technology development, it was discovered that 

there are no testing facilities in the United States that could host pilot scale project greater than a few 

megawatts. In fact, the Department of Energy (DOE) has funded testing projects at Technology Centre 

Mongstad (TCM) in Norway due to the lack of a suitable site in the U.So 
88 

National Carbon Capture Center (NCCC) is a DOE funded facility that is operated by Southern Company 

at one of their coal-fueled power plants near Wilsonville, AL They are the preeminent facility in the 

United States on carbon management, but the largest test they can host is about 1.5 MWe. Most 

utilities say they need to see a successful test at greater than 10 MWe before having the comfort to 

construct a commercial facility. 

Large pilot testing does occur in the United States, but it is very difficult for researchers to obtain 

permission to test at an operating power plant. The lTC aims to eliminate this hurdle by having the 

offtake equipment and relationship with the utility in place to become a "plug and play" facility for CCU5 

technologies. The lTC formalized a two-year cooperative agreement with NCCC to tap into their 

expertise and gain access to the researchers who have been successful at smaller scales and are ready to 

scale up their projects. 

The lTC is just one of a number of Wyoming programs aimed at commercializing next generation coal 

technologies. Wyoming has invested millions over the past 15 years to conduct the basic and applied 

research necessary to understand all of the various components of a large-scale CCUS project. 

The University of Wyoming School of Energy Resources works on small scale, academic research; the 

Wyoming Pipeline Initiative is working to pre-permit corridors for C02 pipelines; the Wyoming Enhanced 

Oil Recovery Institute researches the reservoir geology and is identifying carbon sinks for EOR 

opportunities and the Center for Economic Geology Research has active grants with the Department of 

Energy to study permanent geologic sequestration. 

The one constant variable for all of these state entities is a push to commercialization. Every project 

needs to continuously track costs and economics, because without a demonstrable path to 

commercialization, all you have is an interesting idea. Strong partnerships with the private sector, 

especially those industries that would ultimately be a customer of the technology, helps ensure our 

research objectives are aligned with their economic needs. A great example of how this has been 

successful for Wyoming is the ITC's Technical Advisory Committee. This committee is comprised of 

representatives from major utilities who are involved in the technology evaluation processes for their 

various companies and they provide this expertise to reviewing applications for technologies wishing to 

test at the lTC. If a utility does not see a particular technology as something they would employ, it is not 

given priority. 

Carbon management is a two-phase process. First, the C02 must be economically and efficiently 

captured from the source. In the case of a coal-fueled power plant, about 12% of the exhaust gas is 

C02. In a plant such as Dry Fork Station, which utilizes state of the art scrubbers, low NOX burners, bag 

houses and activated carbon to remove the sulfur dioxide, nitrous oxides, particulates and mercury, the 

remainder of the flue gas is largely water vapor. 

The second phase is utilizing the C02 in some capacity. Generally, the C02 is compressed into a 

supercriticalliquid that can be more easily transported by pipeline or truck. The largest consumer of 

C02 is currently EOR. It can also be injected into suitable geologic formations for permanent disposal or 

converted into some other product. 

There are a number of different capture technologies, although the most commercial post-combustion 

C02 capture technologies are liquid amine systems. The Boundary Dam and Petra Nova CCUS projects 
89 

utilize a mines to capture C02 for use in EOR. TCM in Norway and NCCC are leading research on 

solution-based C02 capture. In Wyoming, we didn't want to duplicate work already being done; we 

wanted to compliment other test centers by providing a place to scale up current laboratory research or 

look at other novel technologies. 

In April 2018, Wyoming, the Japanese Ministry of Environment, the Japan Coal Research Center (JCOAL) 

and Kawasaki Heavy Industries (KHI) announced an agreement to test KHI's solid sorbent technology at 

the Wyoming lTC. This multi-year project will first test the chemical properties such as absorption and 

degradation rates of the sorbent. If successful, this could lead to additional systems testing, such as 

utilizing the sorbent in a fluidized bed system. 

The Wyoming lTC also has a relationship with Membrane Technology & Research, Inc. (MTR). MRT is 

one of ten teams selected for a Department of Energy large pilot demonstration program, which will 

award up to $40 million to two promising technologies. MTR's technology utilizes selectively permeable 

membranes to separate the C02 from the flue gas. It looks more like a reverse osmosis water treatment 

facility than an industrial plant. 

One technology that has received support from Wyoming is cryogenic carbon capture. The various 

components in flue gas freeze and vaporize at different temperatures. This technology involves freezing 

the flue gas and capturing C02 as a frozen solid. Early tests have shown a 99% C02 capture rate, costing 

less than $30/ton and less than a 15% parasitic load. This method has also proven to be very successful 

at removing sulfur dioxide, nitrous oxide and mercury. While we've seen promising results on a small 

scale, further funding is necessary to test this as a larger pilot project. 

One of the most exciting partnerships we've developed is with the XPRIZE Foundation. XPRIZE organizes 

and administers competitions looking to solve complex engineering challenges. One of the best-known 

XPRIZE competitions was the Ansari XPRIZE, which awarded $10 million to the first team to fly three 

people to space and back twice within 14 days. 

The NRG COSIA Carbon XRPRIZE will award $20 million in prizes to the teams that are best able to 

convert C02 into other valuable products. Originally, 47 teams from seven countries submitted their 

concepts to convert C02 into things like carbon nanotubes, methanol, building materials, fish food and 

plastics. The goal is to turn C02 into an asset valuable enough to create an economic incentive to 

capture C02. 

Earlier this year, ten teams advanced to the final round of the competition based upon their technical 

and economic merit. Five will test at the lTC on coal derived flue gas and five will test in Canada at a 

natural gas facility. In 2020, the grand prize winners will be announced. When you add together all the 

funds the teams have already raised, the prize money and the costs of the facilities, the total Carbon 

XPRIZE investment is about $70 million dollars. 

The five teams coming to Wyoming are from five different countries: The United States, Canada, India, 

China and the United Kingdom. 

Based in India, Breathe is producing methanol, a common fuel and petrochemical feedstock, using a 

novel catalyst. Carbon Capture Machine, based in Aberdeen, Scotland, is the team is producing solid 

carbonates with applications to concrete and building materials. C4X is a Chinese team producing 

chemicals and bio-composite foamed plastics. The American team comes from the University of 
90 

California los Angeles (UCLA) and they will produce building materials that absorb C02 during the 

production process to replace concrete. Lastly, Carbon Cure, based in Canada, is producing stronger 

concrete. 

One common theme among all of the finalists is that they are producing products with large markets. 

With the large amount of C02 that needs to be managed, the success of conversion technology hinges 

upon having a large market. While ultimately, we hope there will be a suite of conversion technologies, 

if everyone made a single product with a limited customer base, the market would be flooded and the 

economic model would collapse. 

While on the surface, the prize money itself is not a significant amount in the overall energy R&D space, 

the competition model provides a few advantages. First, it provides a mechanism to vet technologies. 

Only the projects that work advance. Secondly, it sets an aggressive timeline. If they don't meet certain 

benchmarks, they don't advance. Thirdly, it opens the door to entrepreneurs and small inventors. 

Access to capital isn't an immediate barrier to entry. Lastly, the notoriety and public recognition for 

winning the competition will attract investors. 

The model of providing a cash prize, following the testing, is a 180 degree turn from the current grant 

based model of funding R&D. However, it is hard to argue with the XPRIZE's success with the Ansari 

XPRIZE competition. One $10 million prize spurred 27 teams to invest over $100 million in technology 

development. Eventually, Richard Branson licensed the technology to create Virgin Galactic and today, 

the private space travel industry is worth $2 billion, only 22 years after the idea for a competition was 

created in 1995. 

Stable, predictable and adequate funding is necessary to commercialize these technologies. On average, 

it costs about $2-3 million per MW to scale up, meaning that a large pilot could easily cost over $50 

million. In the U.S., most researchers rely of cost-shares with DOE. However, the amount of funding 

available and timing varies and can swing widely depending upon the priorities of the President in office. 

Congress may need to look at establishing a program to scale-up the most promising technologies. 

Finding funding to support a new program is always a challenge, however, the coal mined in the U.S. 

provides an opportunity. The majority of coal mined in the United States is owned by the federal 

government and leased to companies. These companies pay a variety of taxes, including federal mineral 

royalties, bonus bids, Abandoned Mine Land Fees and Black Lung Taxes. Every year, the mineral 

royalties and bonus bids bring in about $500 million. Over a ten-year authorization, half of that could 

provide about $2.5 billion to fund carbon management research. 

Last year, Apple celebrated the ten-year anniversary of the first iPhone modeL This first version came 

with 4GB of memory, a 2-megapixel camera, no flash, no zoom and no video camera. Today's iPhone X 

Plus has up to 256GB of storage, facial recognition, multiple cameras and HD video recording 

capabilities. Yes, today's CCUS technology is expensive and still evolving, but as we know, technology 

gets better and less expensive over time. 

We need to begin to think about energy technology the same way we think about the technologies we 

utilize and take for granted every day and recognize the important contributions early government 

support provided to make them reality. Touch screen glass, which is a staple of today's smart phones, 

was developed in the United Kingdom funded Royal Radar Establishment in the 1960's for air traffic 
91 

control use. GPS, canned food, microwave ovens, the internet, microchips, vaccines and nylon are items 

all developed by federal research. 

Technology is apolitical and the U.S. can make its greatest impact by investing in technology 

development that can be utilized around the world. There is considerable debate over the future of coal 

within the United States. However, every credible energy analysis from the UN Intergovernmental Panel 

on Climate Change to DOE acknowledges large amounts of coal will be used globally for the foreseeable 

future. Technology is the best way to ensure these countries have access to power, yet can meet 

environmental goals. 

I appreciate the opportunity to provide written comments. 
92 

Jason Begger 

Executive Director 

Wyoming Infrastructure Authority 

Jason Begger is the current Executive Director of the Wyoming Infrastructure Authority 

(WIA). He was raised on a family ranch in eastern Montana and after graduating from 

college, he moved to Washington, DC, working for two members of Montana's 

congressional delegation. In Washington, he staffed the 2002 Farm Bill debate and later 

the Energy and Water Appropriations Subcommittee, focusing on Bureau of Reclamation 

water projects and Department of Energy Office of Fossil Energy funding. In 2006, 

Jason accepted a position with the Petroleum Association of Wyoming, before becoming 

the Manager of Government affairs for Rio Tinto Energy America, which became Cloud 

Peak Energy. He started with the WIA in July 2015. Jason has a BA in History from 

Montana State University~ Billings and a Master of Business Administration from the 

University of Denver. Jason and his wife, Kristin, reside outside of Cheyenne, WY. 

The WIA is a state instrumentality created by the Wyoming Legislature in 2004 with the 

mission of facilitate and support the development of energy infrastructure. In August 

20 15, Governor Matt Mead designated the W lA to lead the construction and development 

of the Integrated Test Center, which will host CCUS testing. 
93 

Chairman WEBER. Thank you, sir. I now recognize myself for five 

minutes. 

Dr. Aines, in your prepared testimony, you highlight the need for 

national labs and the private sector to work closely together to develop carbon capture, use, and storage technology. And just as an 

aside, in Port Arthur, Texas, in my district we have probably the 

largest carbon-capture sequestration unit in the country that I believe was funded by the EERE open—went to the groundbreaking 

or the ribbon-cutting probably three or four years ago I guess it 

was. 

However, I want to point out it’s the ultimate responsibility of industry to commercially deploy these technologies. So, in your opinion, when is the appropriate time for the fossil energy industry to 

take innovations from the lab to commercialization? And before you 

answer, do you have like a pipeline of information and research? 

You’re talking with industry consistently so that you’re able to 

keep them up-to-date and then sufficiently or successfully hand 

that off to them? How do you do that? 

Dr. AINES. We do it best when we work in partnership early on, 

which is why I mentioned this roundtable that we had where we 

brought industry in to ask them what they wanted to do, and we 

will be partnering with several of those companies to develop technologies. 

The concept of developing and throwing it over the fence, as we 

call it, does not work well. We need to understand exactly what industry needs and pass it off at the time that they’re ready to take 

it. 

Chairman WEBER. Right, and that’s why I say not—you know, 

that’s why I say a pipeline of information. You want to keep them 

involved and keep them working. And I guess you work with some 

of the associations around that also are very attentive to this process, and they would be able to keep, you know, their members involved so that when we do get to that where it’s economically feasible, viable, then you can hand that off. Do you have those relationships established? 

Dr. AINES. Yes, sir. We try to develop those, but I have to say 

that is a major challenge to maintain those relationships because 

we need things to work on together to actually have a relationship. 

Chairman WEBER. No, I got you. What tools do the national labs 

and the nonprofit research institutions have in your toolkit that 

make you all better-suited to conduct that early-stage research in 

support of the innovative technology? How would you describe that 

toolbox? 

Dr. AINES. We have a broad base of science and technology that 

we can use to look at the whole system. Rather than being an advocate for one particular technology, we like to say what’s the problem that needs to be solved and then, you know, somebody of the 

7,000 scientists that work at my laboratory is likely to have a solution, and if not, then one of the 17 other national laboratories. So 

it’s important not to be just out there pushing a solution because 

we have one but to work on the solutions that are required. 

Chairman WEBER. Right. And one of those tools we would hope— 

going back to my previous question—would be that you have robust 
94 

relationships with industry, maintain those relationships, and keep 

them interested, so that’s a good thing. 

Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, LLNL, what do you all 

call it? 

Dr. AINES. We call it Lawrence Livermore. 

Chairman WEBER. Maybe we should call it L’s NL, get you a new 

mantra. All’s well and L’s NL and so a shorter name would be 

good. 

But you all have supercomputers and tools like carbon-capture 

simulation, innovative toolset, which provides end-users in the energy industry with computational modeling tools for the development of carbon-capture technologies. So how does L’s NL as I call 

it make sure that academic or energy sector partners can access 

this research infrastructure and the technical systems the lab can 

provide? How do you do that, and how often do they access it? 

Dr. AINES. We have a mechanism called the CRADA, Cooperative 

Research and Development Agreement, which we use when working with industry, and we do those commonly. They are a little 

complicated to put together sometimes. 

The second thing that we do that is a new program that has been 

very effective is called HPC4 Energy. That stands for High-Performance Computing for Energy, and that’s a program where the 

Department of Energy pays the staff at one of the national labs 

that has expertise to work with an industry problem. The industry 

competes to get their problems worked on, and then we partner to 

bring the correct expertise to that industry. And that’s been an extremely effective way to bring our high-performance computing expertise to the use of industry. 

Chairman WEBER. Do you find industry from all across the country or is it more sectionalized if you will? 

Dr. AINES. Oh, all across the country. It’s a very competitive program. 

Chairman WEBER. Does the fact that you’re a nuclear weapons 

lab. Does that hamper or help in that program? 

Dr. AINES. I would say it’s not a factor. 

Chairman WEBER. Not a factor? Okay. Well, I appreciate that. 

I’m going to yield back, and the Chairman recognizes Mr. Mark 

Veasey. 

Mr. VEASEY. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. 

I wanted to ask Ms. Angielski a couple questions. In your testimony, you describe the challenges of attracting private-sector investment, not only for so-called early-stage technology development 

activities but for each stage of the path toward commercialization. 

I was wondering if you could discuss that in a little bit more detail, 

and also if you could just kind of provide a typical time frame from 

concept to commercialization and what levels of investment and 

risk are private companies willing to take so they can deploy these 

sort of first-of-their-kind technologies without any kind of federal 

support? 

Ms. ANGIELSKI. Certainly. The early-stage research is at a point 

in time where technical risk is low, as well as cost risk. And so 

basic research can typically attract both public-sector and privatesector financing, despite what might be long lead times, as you just 

outlined, for return on that investment. Typically what we see for 
95 

generation technology, which are very large capital-intensive baseload generation technologies, from concept to commercialization it’s 

typically taken anywhere from 15 to 20 years to actually get a commercialized technology from concept to commercialization, so it’s a 

very long lead time to actually look at what all the scales of development are needed to actually have that technology be able to be 

operational in commercial practice and then adopted in commercial 

practice. 

So when we look at going from that fundamental basic research, 

the next step is to scale up to testing those technologies under 

what we call real operating conditions, and so that requires more 

investment, you’re building equipment and you need to actually 

spend time operating that facility under those conditions that you 

can get the operational test data needed to actually scale up and 

design for a commercial project. 

And so as we move through those stages of development and you 

scale up, it’s going to be significantly larger investment in cost, but 

yet again, your timeline to that return on investment is long 

enough that attracting both internal financing from companies, as 

well as private-sector financing can be somewhat difficult to justify, 

particularly if there isn’t a market pool for the technology at that 

time. 

So that’s essentially, you know, from just a timeline perspective 

but also part of the challenge in attracting that private or internal 

financing. It can be difficult to achieve, which is essential for the 

federal support to get those technologies actually tested and demonstrated and across the finish line. 

Mr. VEASEY. Well, thank you very much. 

I also wanted to ask you about the legislation that I’m working 

on that I mentioned in my opening remarks, H.R. 5745, a bipartisan Fossil Energy Research and Development Act of 2018. You 

know, it helps bridge the gaps between what the private sector is 

willing and able to do on its own and what we really need to do 

to commercialize these technologies at a sufficient pace to meet our 

national and economic goals. Could you talk a little bit about that? 

Ms. ANGIELSKI. So I will say that H.R. 5475—or 5745, I’m sorry, 

is very consistent with the technology development programs that 

we have identified in the CERC–EPRI roadmap, which is why we 

were very pleased to support the legislation. We—the legislation 

would authorize both basic research, as well as pilot-scale development testing and commercial-scale demonstrations, which we see 

as critical and necessary for advancing these technologies up to 

commercialization. 

It would authorize carbon-capture projects and accelerate those 

projects with the funding that’s provided through the development 

or authorization of test centers like those described by Jason both 

at a small pilot, as well as Jason identified in his testimony, at a 

pilot scale, which is necessary before jumping to commercial-scale 

operation. 

The legislation also authorizes all of the technology development 

pathways that we have identified in the roadmap for new power 

systems, both transformational, as well as other technology-development efforts like high-efficiency materials, for example, that will 

be needed in order to support those new processes in the future. 
96 

And then in order to fully address the reduction of carbon emissions, the legislation also authorizes carbon storage outside of utilizing CO2 and enhanced oil recovery or converting CO2 for carbon 

dioxide, that that will be really important in the future under any 

scenario in which we find ourselves in a carbon-constrained future, 

and so that’s something we’ve outlined in our roadmap as well. 

Mr. VEASEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I’m out of time. I yield 

back. 

Chairman WEBER. I thank the gentleman. Chairman Biggs, 

you’re recognized for five minutes. 

Mr. BIGGS. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. 

Again, thanks to all of you for being here today. And Dr. Brun, 

can you please explain some of the environmental benefits of superclean CO2 power cycles? 

Dr. BRUN. Basically, what you’re doing here is you’re providing 

a power cycle that’s more efficient, and that’s the first generation 

of supercritical CO2 plants. So just by a three to five sometimes 

seven percent efficiency of a power plant, you’re really reducing all 

criteria emissions by that percentage. 

The next generation of supercritical CO2 plants, which is really 

what we’re looking for as the Holy Grail of supercritical CO2 is oxyfuel combustion, and that leads to a potential for a completely carbon-emissions-free powerplant because what you end up doing is 

you are getting 100 percent concentrated stream of CO2 at the end 

that’s already pressurized, and so it’s ready for sequestration. 

So the short-term goal is really an incremental improvement of 

efficiency, and obviously reduced power cost and cleaner power. 

The long-term goal is completely carbon-free power plants. 

Mr. BIGGS. This leads me to wonder: You must see a path to 

that. I mean, obviously, you don’t know all the technologies and answers, but you do see a path to the Holy Grail I guess? 

Dr. BRUN. Yes, we have a development roadmap, and that’s Correlated between the different industries. And it’s really been a 

very, very positive collaborative industry, academia and government process, over the last eight years. We really moved the technology forward over the last ten years. Not only on the power-generation side, it takes decades to move any technology forward, and 

we’ve really moved supercritical CO2 in the last eight years from 

concept to power plant technologies. 

So we similarly have a roadmap to get ourselves to oxy-fuel combustion, which is that next level of supercritical CO2 plant. I would 

say we’re about five to ten years away from that, and there needs 

to be continued aggressive funding both from industry and from 

government to achieve that. But right now, I think there’s a clear 

path towards that. 

Mr. BIGGS. Okay. So—and when you talked about—in your testimony today, you said we’re on the verge of commercial viability. 

Where in that path do you see commercial viability coming in if 

we’re, what, five to ten years away from oxy-fuel combustion? 

Dr. BRUN. Right. It depends on what type of oxy fuel supercritical CO2 plant you’re looking at. So supercritical CO2 plants at the 

lower temperatures, for example, for waste heat recovery, those are 

now commercially available. They have been. You can now go to 

General Electric or you can go to other companies and say sell me 
97 

one, and they will sell you one. That was not the case three years 

ago. That was certainly not the case eight years ago. 

We’re trying to get to that same level on other technologies like, 

for example, concentrating solar power, higher temperature supercritical CO2, so more for fossil-type applications may be in the next 

three years. Oxy-fuel combustion is probably going to take five 

years. So some is already commercially available and some is not, 

and so there is a development path that we need to follow really 

toward higher temperatures. 

Mr. BIGGS. And so what regions of the country or what areas do 

you see benefiting the most from this technology? 

Dr. BRUN. There’s really no limits there. This is widely applicable. The nice thing about supercritical CO2 is that it’s site-able anywhere, and it doesn’t have any water requirements, and that 

makes it really site-able in places where you have to have access 

to water. 

Mr. BIGGS. Like Arizona I’m thinking. 

Dr. BRUN. Arizona is fine. 

Mr. BIGGS. Very good. Thank you. With that, I yield back, Mr. 

Chairman. 

Dr. BRUN. Thank you. 

Chairman WEBER. Thank you, sir. The gentleman from California is recognized for five minutes. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Well, I thank the Chairman. 

Say, I thank the witnesses. I enjoyed your testimony. I especially 

thank Mr. Aines and Christie Schomer from Livermore Labs. I’ve 

been there many times. It’s right inside of my district. I appreciate 

the work that you’re doing over there. 

I’ve often implored my Republican colleagues to embrace carbon 

sequestration, especially if their districts mine carbon or burn coal 

or burn coal. That might help them in the long run. Is there anyone on the panel that disagrees with that sentiment? 

I see headshaking that they agree with my sentiment. Thank 

you. 

Mr. Aines, you spoke about the need to transfer within the DOD 

about carbon capture from coal-fired to gas-fired systems, so how 

do you suggest that we accomplish that? 

Dr. AINES. From the DOE. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. What did I say, DOD? 

Dr. AINES. Yes. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Thank you for the correction. 

Dr. AINES. The most important thing is to engage partnerships 

like what’s going on in Wyoming so that the researchers get to 

work together with industry. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Well, that was simple. So I also appreciate what 

you said in your written testimony about Mt. Poso Generating Facility in Bakersfield. It’s near an oilfield that’s well-suited to CO2

storage. Can you talk more about the policy considerations such as 

the 45Q credit and California’s low carbon fuel standard for 

incentivizing that development? 

Dr. AINES. The issue with carbon capture today is that no one 

can afford to do it, and so we need incentives to help these first 

movers get the ability to have a business that’s going to make 

money doing it, just as we did with wind and solar when we first 
98 

started. Mt. Poso is going to take advantage of two of those, the 

45Q tax credit, and within California if you’re making a transportation fuel, the low carbon fuel standard as of just last week was 

trading at $185 a ton of CO2. So when you combine those two 

things together, $220, $230 a ton is something that people are absolutely looking at to make real money. And we expect that places 

like Mt. Poso and places like the ethanol refineries within the central part of the country are going to jump on these opportunities 

to make money while controlling carbon dioxide. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. So do you think that carbon capture and sequestration can be viable without a price on carbon in the long run in 

the Nation? And also, Ms. Angielski, could answer that question as 

well. 

Dr. AINES. I think that it’s a difficult task that is going to require 

prices like those mechanisms that I just discussed. I don’t think 

we’re ever going to make enough money just from selling the CO2

to do all the carbon management that we need to do. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Thank you. 

Ms. ANGIELSKI. I am not sure to—that from CERC’s perspective 

commenting on whether regulation is necessary or not is not a position that we take. I think what we take is the position that Dr. 

Aines just described, which is improved technology will be needed, 

particularly for deployment of carbon capture in the power sector. 

It, right now, is the differential between the cost of capturing the 

CO2, which is where the 45Q credit comes into place to help reduce 

those costs and actually incentivize the deployment of these technologies in the power sector, as well as in other industrial applications like the ethanol industry, as you just described. However, 

right now, those credits are not enough to offset the production of 

CO2 in the power sector, so that’s where we believe that improved 

technologies through the public-private partnerships with the Department of Energy will help to reduce the cost of applying those 

technologies in the future. And that will be needed in addition to 

some of these incentives like 45Q to overall deploy the technologies 

in the market. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Well, thank you. I’m really interested in the 

technology, this high-pressure carbon technology, super pressure. 

Can you describe a little bit, Dr. Brun, the—where that fits in with 

the Carnot cycle? Where does the Allam cycle fit in with the Carnot 

cycle? 

Dr. BRUN. If you’re talking the Allam cycle, I mean— 

Mr. MCNERNEY. We’re talking about the Allam cycle with—— 

Dr. BRUN. Yes, that’s one of the—there’s a host of supercritical 

CO2 cycles—supercritical CO2 really just replaces either steam or 

water in the cycle, so there is a host of cycle—they’re all called 

Brayton cycle. The Carnot cycle is kind of like the idealized cycle. 

Fundamentally, the supercritical CO2 cycles, the host of cycles, 

one of them being the Allam cycle—and that’s a very promising 

cycle, by the way—they all end up benefiting the efficiency of the 

cycle and the power output of the cycle because supercritical CO2

is really carbon dioxide at high pressure and high temperature— 

is a much better thermodynamic fluid than steam or air. There’s 

nothing wrong with steam or air. We’ve been using it for 250 years; 
99 

it’s good. It’s abundantly available obviously, but carbon dioxide is 

just, from a thermodynamic perspective, a better fuel. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. With the Chairman’s indulgence, I mean, you’re 

going to have carbon dioxide left over eventually. I mean, you’re 

going to have to do something with it. 

Dr. BRUN. Right. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. And as it remain pressured after the cycle, you 

can still—— 

Dr. BRUN. You can utilize it. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. You can use it somehow? 

Dr. BRUN. Yes, the beauty of it is that you don’t have to do any 

flue gas or pre-combustion cleanup, right? All this where you need 

to do something to get the carbon dioxide out of the flue gas, out 

of your exhaust, you don’t have to do that because what you’re getting out is 100 percent CO2 at pressure already, so you don’t have 

to compress it either so you don’t have that compression penalties. 

So you’re ready to take that CO2 and do whatever you want to do 

with it, sequester it or use it for advanced other products. 

That’s the nice thing about that cycle whereas in other air cycles 

you have to take the CO2 and the stack emissions out of the air 

at a low percentage, which is expensive. In the CO2 cycle and the 

oxy-fuel cycles, you don’t have to worry about that. You get pure 

CO2 already ready for sequestration. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. With the Chairman’s gratitude, I yield back. 

Chairman WEBER. Absolutely. I think in that instance, Dr. 

Brun—I don’t want to continue this because Mr. Rohrabacher is 

straining at the halter over there—it’s the infrastructure to get 

that pure CO2 to work to where it’s needed. Is that—isn’t that the 

challenge? 

Dr. BRUN. Yes, that’s an additional challenge. Obviously, you 

have to do something with the CO2 once you have it, right? 

Chairman WEBER. Yes. 

Dr. BRUN. And so you’re still going to need some pipelines. 

You’re going to have to inject it somewhere, into salt domes. All 

that is additional cost. There’s obviously been quite a bit of work 

in those areas, but, yes, there is—— 

Chairman WEBER. Thank you. And I thank the gentleman from 

California. That was a great exchange. 

The other gentleman from California, Mr. Rohrabacher, is recognized. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And 

it’s been a very interesting discussion. And, I mean, no, I’m not an 

engineer, so some of the things I’m still trying to come to grips 

with of how we are accomplishing the various output based on the 

input and what’s in between there. I’m not really sure about some 

of the engineering. 

But the basic motive that we have supposedly or the basic motive 

behind much of what’s going on about CO2 is based on the theory 

that CO2 is a major factor in causing our planet to get hotter and 

hotter. I don’t happen to agree with that. I’ve talked to a lot of scientists who believe that premise is not correct, that looking back 

at the ice cores from ancient times to now actually has the planet 

getting hotter, and then there’s more CO2 being created. 
100 

I’m not going to ask you what your beliefs are on CO2 making 

the planet hotter. Let’s just accept that today there—also, the discussion today is based on there’s CO2 that’s being produced. Can 

we do something that is beneficial to mankind even if you do not 

believe that CO2 is causing the planet to get hotter? And that discussion I think is very important for all of us to make, and we’re 

very happy to have you here to help direct that discussion. 

In my own area in Orange County we have a company called 

Newlight Technologies. Are you aware of this company? I’m very 

proud of these young men, who are surfers and went off to Princeton and got educated and realized that there was a potential for 

getting something out of the air, straight out of the air that would 

be of value. And they have just opened up their first $50 million 

production site after spending years perfecting it. 

And let me just note for the record here its Newlight Technologies, and they are taking carbon dioxide and methane emissions right out of the air and producing high-quality plastic that is 

actually at a lower cost than the current method of producing plastic. And the plastic that they are producing has biodegradable 

properties that make it even more important because whales that 

are eating plastic bags, we know that’s bad and we don’t want fish 

and other ingestion of plastic is actually harmful for the environment. 

These kids are taking that CO2 out of the air and the methane 

out of the air and producing things that are cheaper and better. 

And so I think that’s a formula for progress. And so whatever we 

do, we need to make sure that actually there is not just the benefit 

of keeping the planet from warming but instead other benefits that 

go with that. 

Now, I’d like to talk about that. I’d like to ask about whether or 

not—when we’re talking about the Colorado—or the Wyoming 

projects and—that are going on or—we have—well, let me talk 

about the scrubbers first and all the—what you presented for us, 

Dr. Brun, was very complicated. And again, I was trying to get a 

non-engineer to understand this. In the end, are you coming up 

with a product that actually is going to be cost-effective, or is this 

going to be at an enormous cost? 

Dr. BRUN. No, all the models are predicting that it’s cost-effective. And what’s important here is that this is not done in a vacuum. We are working with industry. We’re working with all the 

major power players in the United States and companies like General Electric and others that are investing significantly of their own 

money, so they’re not just taking DOE money to develop this technology; they’re investing their own money. And so they’re clearly 

seeing commercial viability in that technology; otherwise, they 

wouldn’t be pursuing it. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. So this would be economically viable in and 

of itself? 

Dr. BRUN. That is the aim. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Okay. 

Dr. BRUN. Yes. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. And, Dr. Aines, in your prepared statement, 

you mentioned the potential growth for using carbon for manufacturing in industry and both carbon dioxide and natural gas will be 
101 

the main inputs for industry. And when you think about natural 

gas and both carbon dioxide and natural gas being used as inputs 

for this or for a—so why do we need to then have tax benefits and 

R&D funding for all fossil fuels if indeed we’re just talking about 

the natural gas and carbon dioxide? 

Dr. AINES. I can’t answer that question in detail. I look to the 

future, and I see that industry is very interested in using natural 

gas because of the simplicity and the cleanliness but mostly the 

simplicity and its lower cost for them, and so that is where the direction that a lot of industrial movers are going. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Well, when it comes to CO2 and—you know, 

I drove across the country with my family a year ago, and one 

thing that was interesting for my kids was to see all of these fields 

that were covered with plastic and machines pumping something 

into that plastic with the different plants like tomatoes, et cetera, 

and they were—my kids were very surprised to find out that they 

were pumping CO2 into these big coverings of agricultural products. Is—the end-situation there we’re utilizing CO2 for something 

that’s positive. You get more food out of it. Is that—so is this not 

an example—is there more examples like this that we could have 

that would actually—where we’re using CO2 that will in a way benefit—like our friends are making plastic out of it. Are we going to 

see more of this? And maybe you have some examples specifically 

of how CO2 will be used to have other uses that are beneficial. 

Dr. AINES. That’s a great example, and another example that I 

would point to is the addition of carbon dioxide to cement and concrete, which I know of about 20 companies that are pursuing this. 

And the major advantage there is it makes the concrete stronger, 

and so you can use less of it, you can have a more efficient structure, and it’s a terrific combination of having a better product and 

using the CO2 that we want to keep out of the air. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. So we don’t have to really agree on whether 

or not global warming is caused by CO2 to be very interested in 

this whole concept of science research and expanding the use of 

CO2 in a positive way. 

Chairman WEBER. You don’t. You just have to agree and yield 

back. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Thank you. 

Chairman WEBER. Okay. All right. The Chair now recognizes the 

gentleman, Mr. Tonko, for five minutes. 

Mr. TONKO. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you to all of our 

witnesses for being here today. 

This is a critical topic because a modern society needs energy, 

and the only way we are going to meet our energy challenges are 

through investments in research and development. We often hear 

about the need to reduce government spending, and while that is 

certainly important, we cannot lose sight of the vital role the government plays in investing in innovation. 

The Federal Government must be an active partner with universities, with independent laboratories, and certainly the private sector. The only way we are going to meet our energy challenges are 

through investments in research and development. Having an R&D 

portfolio that covers the spectrum from basic sciences to technology 
102 

development, testing and deployment greatly augments the work 

being done by the private sector and in our university communities. 

Sustained support of these efforts is essential to lowering costs 

and improving performance of energy technologies. And when it 

comes to a national energy policy, there are so many areas that we 

should be further discussing, including battery development, storage, alternative energy, grid investments, energy efficiency and innovation, and how we generate and transmit and conserve power. 

This committee should be looking at how we can invest so that 

our Nation can have the best options to choose from to ensure that 

we protect our Nation by addressing our national security and our 

public health and our Nation’s economy. I fully believe that across 

the field we need to develop technologies to reduce our carbon footprint and to increase efficiency in all areas, which is why I’m so 

proud of being a supporter of a bill to make gas turbines more efficient. 

Efficiency must be our fuel of choice, especially for fossil fuels. 

The gas turbine R&D bill, which I have worked on with Representative David McKinley, would authorize DOE’s Office of Fossil Energy to carry out a multiyear, multiphase R&D program to improve 

the efficiency of gas turbines used in power generation systems and 

to identify the technologies that ultimately will lead to gas turbine 

combined-cycle efficiency of some 67 percent. This includes hightemp materials, improved heat transfer capability, manufacturing 

technology required to construct complex parts, advance controls 

and systems integration, among other topics. And expanded government investment and research of gas turbine technology will 

lead to more American jobs, increased American global competitiveness, and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. 

So for all of our witnesses, how important do you think it is that 

we use our fossil fuels more efficiently if we continue to rely in part 

on them? Anyone? 

Ms. ANGIELSKI. I’m happy to answer. I think historically, we’ve 

seen the benefits from improved efficiency in both gas turbines 

through natural gas combined-cycle systems, as well as coal-fired 

generation. And with every percentage point in improvement, we 

see a significant reduction overall in emissions, as well as fewer 

fossil fuels being needed for that same amount of energy output. 

So it’s very, very important. 

Mr. TONKO. Anyone else? Thank you. 

Mr. BEGGER. Yes. Mr. Chairman, Congressman, I completely 

agree. You know, if you look back at the power plants, you know, 

this generation of power plants have been retiring in the last few 

years that were constructed in the ’60s and ’70s, you had maybe 

a 30 percent efficiency factor. Today’s power plants, you look at the 

Turk facility in Arkansas, which is supercritical, it’s up over 40 

percent. So one thing that if the United States wanted to improve 

efficiencies and emissions today is you would find a way to build 

more of those supercritical Turk plants and close down the older 

plants because efficiencies do matter and they do get us there. 

Mr. TONKO. Oh, yes. They address the amount of electrons we 

can save and the dollars we can save, so yes, sir. Dr. Brun? 

Dr. BRUN. Yes. I think gas turbine development is a really wonderful example of how you have a collaboration between academia, 
103 

government funding, and industry, specifically GE in the United 

States and Westinghouse before, where you’ve taken a technology 

from after World War II maybe in the 30 percent efficiency to now 

we’re talking 67 percent efficiency, which is by far the highest efficiency power plant technology that’s out there. That’s higher than 

anything else, and that’s—I mean, that’s been dramatically—even 

over the last 20 years we’ve gone from about 55 to about—right 

now, we’re probably at 63, 64, but we’re aiming for that 67 percent. 

So that research has been fantastic, and every percent that you 

save is one percent less CO2—— 

Mr. TONKO. Right. 

Dr. BRUN. —and is one percent less fuel burned, and so that’s 

been very effective research, and that’s been a great collaboration 

between industry and government and academia. 

Mr. TONKO. Right. It’s hard to believe that there are think tanks 

out there that fight this effort to offer these challenges, develop 

these goals, and reduce the pollution, the carbon pollution, but 

they’re there and it’s a force we have to work against. 

So with that, I thank you all for your input and I yield back, Mr. 

Chair. 

Chairman WEBER. Thank you, Mr. Tonko. 

And the gentleman from Texas, Dr. Babin, is recognized for five 

minutes. 

Mr. BABIN. Yes, sir. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I appreciate 

all of you being here today, very, very interesting. 

Mr. Begger, can you please describe the misconceptions that 

many people have of coal and why technological innovation can 

help clear up some of these misconceptions? If you would elaborate, 

please. 

Mr. BEGGER. Mr. Chairman, Congressman, one of our biggest 

goals—I mean, the reason why Wyoming is involved in this is to 

figure out how can we ensure the long-term viability of a natural 

resource the State has. You know, 1/3 of Wyoming’s tax revenue is 

directly dependent upon the coal industry. The benefits of coal are 

pretty evident. It’s the reason why the country has been using it 

for years. It’s why China is using it. Why we see these industrialized nations using more and more of coal is it’s reliable, it’s stable, you can put it on a pile somewhere, you don’t need a pipeline. 

It is a very great fuel for beginning an energy industry. 

And so I think our challenge now is how can we use that, understanding society’s drive and demand towards lower carbon standards? You know, in the past, you know, nobody talks about acid 

rain anymore. It’s because we’ve developed scrubbers. The smog, 

you know, you’d see those old pictures from Pittsburgh and, you 

know, Detroit 50 years ago. We don’t have those sort of things anymore because we’ve developed, you know, baghouses and electrostatic precipitators. 

And so Wyoming’s approach is let’s look at climate change as a 

political—or, excuse me, as an engineering challenge and not a political football because industry time and time again has shown 

that, given enough time and enough resources, we can engineer a 

solution—— 

Mr. BABIN. Absolutely. 
104 

Mr. BEGGER. —and find that win-win. You know, let’s remove 

CO2 and we can find an economic incentive to do so, that’s great. 

Mr. BABIN. I appreciate that. It’s very fascinating. And being 

from Texas, my district is over on the east side where we produce 

a lot of natural gas, and yet 60 percent of our electricity in my district comes from coal, coal-fired plants. Thank you very much. 

Dr. Aines, your research—excuse me. In your prepared testimony, you mentioned the carbon economy and the future potential 

for growth and utilizing carbon as an input for manufacturing or 

industry. Both carbon dioxide and natural gas will be the main inputs to produce products from a carbon economy. Why is it important to have fossil energy research and development funding focused on all fossil fuels? 

Dr. AINES. There are many options needed in an economy as 

large and diverse as ours, and we simply can’t afford to pick winners. It’s certainly not my job to pick winners. It’s my job to deliver 

solutions, and that’s why we need research across the entire 

gamut. 

Mr. BABIN. Thank you very much. 

And, Dr. Brun, in your opinion, if you’ve already spoken about 

this, stop me, but I didn’t—I don’t think you have. Will supercritical carbon dioxide power cycles begin to replace traditional steam 

and air cycles? And could investments by the energy sector in 

supercritical carbon technology help us to continue to take advantage of our abundant and affordable fossil energy? 

Dr. BRUN. Yes, I think we can see on the low temperature wasted recovery side we can probably see something in the next three 

to five years. Obviously, there is hundreds and hundreds of powerplant, so it’s not just an easy replacement. But I can foresee in the 

next 10, 15 years quite an impact from supercritical CO2 and replacement of it, especially of steam cycles. On the air cycles, that’s 

gonna take a little longer, but probably 10 to 15 years. 

Mr. BABIN. Okay. 

Dr. BRUN. The technology is moving fairly fast there. 

Mr. BABIN. Glad to hear. 

And, Ms. Angielski, can you give an example of carbon capture, 

utilization, or storage research through investments by fossil energy industry that could lead to an advanced carbon-based technology? 

Ms. ANGIELSKI. There are several that were discussed here 

today, so certainly the supercritical CO2 cycles. We identify several 

technologies in our roadmap, including pressurized oxygen combustion, which was described here today. We have some carbon-capture technologies that are looking for testing right now that, once 

tested, could actually begin to have commercial offerings available. 

So there are a suite of technologies, which, from our perspective, 

is very important to make sure that we have a diverse portfolio of 

technologies and that we’re not just picking winners, as already 

discussed. 

Mr. BABIN. Right. 

Ms. ANGIELSKI. And so—but there are several technologies identified in the roadmap that are readying for that testing to be able 

to then take that piece of paper to a financer and say we can offer 

commercial guarantees. So—— 
105 

Mr. BABIN. Thank you. And I yield back, Mr. Chairman. Thank 

you. 

Chairman WEBER. Thank you, Doctor. 

The gentleman from Alabama, Mo Brooks, is recognized for five 

minutes. 

Mr. BROOKS. Mr. Chairman, I’ll defer. 

Chairman WEBER. Then the other gentleman from Alabama— 

we’ve got both of them here today—is recognized for five minutes, 

Mr. Palmer. 

Mr. PALMER. The one who will not defer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

This is very interesting to me. I’ve worked for two engineering 

companies prior to running a think tank for 24, 25 years. I worked 

for Combustion Engineering and Environmental Systems Division. 

I see Dr. Brun nodding his head. We built scrubbers, precipitators, 

baghouses. 

And I just was wondering on the latest technology how effective 

are we at capturing CO2 right now, Dr. Brun? 

Dr. BRUN. It depends on how concentrated your stream of it is. 

If you’re doing flue gas—I mean, you can capture 100 percent of it, 

right? I mean, it’s technically viable. It becomes a cost issue. So it’s 

easier to—the more concentrated your stream and your flue gas is, 

the easier it is to capture it. And that’s why we’re pushing for the 

oxy-fuel and supercritical CO2-type cycles, but you can certainly remove CO2 from the flue gas of a combined cycle plant. 

The only problem is that it is a low percentage, and so you have 

to scrub a lot more gas to get the CO2 out. But even there you can 

remove 100 percent of the CO2. It just becomes a cost-of-electricity 

issue and how much cost you want to add to your cost of electricity. 

There’s a technology there in that sense exists, and it’s just a question of cost. 

Mr. PALMER. Well, one of the reasons I’m asking this is that 

when it comes to fossil energy, most of the time we’re talking 

about—when we’re talking about capturing carbon, we’re talking 

about coal, but there are uses or potential uses for capturing CO2

for unlocking oil resources from shale. And we’ve got the Green 

River Formation. Are you familiar with that? 

Dr. BRUN. No, I’m not. 

Mr. PALMER. The Green River Formation—and I have a GAO report, which was part of a committee hearing I think in 2012 that 

got very little attention in the media. ABC News reported on it. 

But the Green River Formation holds three trillion barrels of recoverable oil. That’s three times what the entire world has used in the 

last 100 years and five or six times the known reserves of the 

Saudis. Just half of it would be more than the known—all of OPEC 

combined. About half of it, 1.4 trillion, is the more recoverable, the 

richer deposits. But in your research do you see the potential for 

using captured carbon for releasing or having access to such oil deposits? 

Dr. BRUN. Yes, I think using CO2 for enhanced oil recovery is 

certainly a recognized usage of carbon dioxide, and the combination 

of oxy-fuel combustion plants where you get CO2 out and then you 

inject that at high pressures into the formation to get enhanced oil 

recovery is something that has been discussed by many oil compa-
106 

nies. I’ve given presentations on the topic actually. It’s certainly a 

viable technology for—— 

Mr. PALMER. But is it economically viable? 

Dr. BRUN. Yes, it is. It is economically viable. It depends on your 

formation. It depends on your application, but there are certainly 

applications right now where it is economically viable, yes. 

Mr. PALMER. Do the Chinese or the Indian Government do anything in regard to carbon capture? 

Dr. BRUN. The Chinese are doing quite a bit in that area. Maybe 

you can answer that, too, but—— 

Mr. PALMER. Yes, anyone of the panel if you know the answer 

to that. 

Dr. BRUN. Yes, the Chinese are very active, but you may have 

more information. 

Dr. AINES. Yes, the Chinese are in fact the most active nation in 

the world in this area doing large demonstrations and developing 

their own technology. The Indian Government has done very little 

to this day. 

Mr. PALMER. And the Indian economy is the fastest growing 

economy in the world, and they’re building quite a—done quite a 

bit of building in regard to coal-fired power-generating facilities. Is 

that accurate? 

Dr. AINES. They are still building coal plants. It is decreasing 

there. They are building more renewables now than coal. 

Mr. PALMER. Good. Mr. Begger, in your testimony you mentioned 

the partnership between the Wyoming Integrated Test Center and 

the National Carbon Capture Center near Wilsonville, Alabama. 

That, by the way, is in my district. Can you give us a little more 

detail about the work that ITC intends to do through this partnership? 

Mr. BEGGER. Sure. Mr. Chairman, Congressman, the way that 

we see our role is complementing the work that National Carbon 

Capture Center, NETL, and the other labs have done. And a few 

years ago the state was looking about how to best get involved. 

And through the course of about a year and a half of reviewing critical gaps in testing infrastructure, what we recognized is that there 

are a lot of places to do small testing like the National Carbon Capture Center, on the backside of that coal-fired power plant, they 

could test up to about 1–1/2-megawatt-size projects. But utilities 

needed to see something larger before making that leap. 

And up until now really the only way to do that was a one-onone relationship between the technology developer going to a utility 

and asking to basically cut a hole in the side of their power plant 

and access some of their flue gas. And, as you can imagine, they 

were pretty reluctant to do that unless there was a long-standing 

relationship. So what we’ve done with that facility is sort of create 

the infrastructure there, a plug-and-play system. 

And so what we would like to see, the most promising technologies that make it through there be that sort of graduate school 

for them to come and test. And another area is access to all of the 

incredible resources. You know, over years at Wilsonville, they’ve 

developed incredible institutional knowledge, engineering skills, 

and so having the ability to basically access their lessons learned 
107 

and their best practices can hopefully help us prevent making 

those sort of same mistakes. 

Mr. PALMER. Well, this is all fascinating to me, Mr. Chairman. 

I, as I said, worked in engineering and environmental systems, and 

my brother-in-law worked for Southern Research and was an expert in scrubbers and baghouses, traveled all over the world. I 

would love for him to have been here. He probably would have had 

some better questions than me. 

With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

Chairman WEBER. I thank the gentleman. 

The Ranking Member from Texas is recognized for another question. 

Mr. VEASEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Ms. Angielski, you know, as you know—and you’ve seen it on the 

news—the current Administration has strongly opposed practically 

any regulating of greenhouse gases. And many including the President and our former EPA Administrator have publicly questioned 

the validity of the broad scientific consensus on the current and 

growing threat of climate change. 

So in this context, please help us to a better understand why are 

there Carbon Utilization Research Council industry members like 

Peabody, Arch Coal, and the American Coal Council so supportive 

of developing carbon capture, utilization, and storage technologies 

that may ultimately impact their profits if they’re ever required to 

deploy them? If you could kind of help us understand that, I think 

it would really go a long way. 

Ms. ANGIELSKI. Sure. Well, as indicated in my testimony, there’s 

growing international use of all of our fossil fuel resources, and as 

a result of that, there’s growing international consensus that we 

will need to do something to reduce the carbon footprint from the 

utilization of the fossil fuels. That’s the position that we take when 

we look at evaluating technology development needs both for today, 

as well as what we’re going to need in the future. 

As a result, and as I mentioned earlier, a lot of that focuses on 

the ability to reduce emissions of CO2 and carbon dioxide. I think 

what’s equally important about that is that many stakeholders, not 

just industry stakeholders but also those in the environmental community, also share in that consensus, which is we recognize the 

growth in these fuels and we will need to invest in these technologies in order to achieve any global climate objectives. 

At the same time, we’ve also heard that there’s both environmental benefits from investing in these technologies, as well as economic benefits, and that’s also another perspective that we take. 

When you look at these environmental benefits, for example, lowercost CO2 will be needed for enhanced oil recovery in the future. We 

have less and less CO2 coming from natural sources that are currently mined and used for producing more oil from our depleting 

oilfields in this country. So a lot of the oil companies in this country are looking to power generators for those large volumes of CO2

coming off of fossil fuels to be able to use that in enhanced oil recovery. So we’re looking at that as a market opportunity as well. 

If we have, as was described earlier, maybe a waste product and 

CO2 being vented in a flue gas stream, why not put that to good 

use and get some economic value out of it while also producing 
108 

more domestic oil and ultimately producing a low-carbon barrel of 

oil as well, which is important to recognize? 

So there’s both tracks that can be pursued. I think over the long 

term if—under any future scenario, I think we share a view that 

we may be living in a carbon-constrained world, and we want to 

make sure that we have those technologies available to enable us 

to continue to utilize our fossil fuel resources and to have them 

being competitive with all of the other low-carbon generation 

sources that are available to us today as well. 

Mr. VEASEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield back. Thank you. 

Chairman WEBER. I thank the witnesses for their testimony and 

the Members for their questions. The record will remain open for 

two weeks for additional written comments and written questions 

from members. 

The hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:50 a.m., the Subcommittees were adjourned.] 
(109) 

Appendix I 

ANSWERS TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS
110 

ANSWERS TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS

Responses by Mr. Jason Begger 
111 

1. A guaranteed prize amount, large enough to justify the investment risk for participants. 

Carbon capture is very expensive to construct and operate, so a prize would need to be attractive 

enough to spend millions to design, construct and operate the project. 

2. An organization with the resources and funding to administer the competition, which includes 

writing the rules, ensuring all participants adhere to the rules, provide technical support and 

maintaining the integrity of the competition. 

3. A suitable, neutral location to conduct the competition. The Ansari XPRIZE utilized the 

Mohave Spaceport, which was a repurposed, fom1er military site. The NRG COSIA Carbon 

XPRIZE will test, in-part, at the Wyoming Integrated Test Center (ITC). 

The XPRIZE Foundation, has established a successful JPC model which utilizes sponsors to fund 

the prize amount, internal stalT to administer the competition, and contracts with outside facilities 

for the competition locations. Above and beyond great competency in running JPC' s, XPRIZE 

also looks beyond the competition and marketing the !PC to bolster commercialization of 

technologies. By partnering with potential investors, technology licensers, and product 

customers; they assist the competitors by creating an environment where the best ideas can be 

quickly adopted by the private sector whether or not a particular project wins the final 

competition. The best-case scenario is when an !PC leads to more than one technology 

advancing to commercialization, not just one winner. 

Wyoming's experience with the NRG COSIA Carbon XPRIZE competition has been very 

positive. The ITC is also actively pursuing projects that have advanced through traditional 

means, such as Department of Energy grants. However, many of the teams that are participating 

in the XPRIZE competition come from small labs or universities that are new players in the 

carbon technology space. This does create new challenges and we are finding that many of them 

do not have the same experience with regards to project implementation, but these are technical 

obstacles that can be overcome. If the goal is to test and advance many different carbon 

management technologies, XPRIZE has successfully found and appealed to a new pool of 

researchers. 

Private companies are not likely to play leading roles in IPC's. They required to act in the best 

interests of their shareholders and in some cases with publicly traded companies, Securities and 

Exchange Commission (SEC) rules emphasize fiduciary responsibility and limit the types of 

risks can be taken with shareholder funds. There are examples of private companies offering 

IPC's, but most are small and very narrowly tailored to the best interests of the company, such as 

providing a public relations value. One example of a company playing a major role is NRG 

Energy, which is a title sponsor of the NRG COS IA Carbon XPRJZE. Being privately held, 

NRG has more latitude than a publicly traded company. 

An important consideration when establishing an IPC and determining the best structure for 

managing the competition is risk tolerance. Typically, in government programs, the fear of 

jeopardizing taxpayer dollars and any associated negative publicity with failure leads to a very 

low tolerance for risk. Oftentimes government decision making prioritizes analysis over action., 

Page 2 of3 

(113) 

Appendix II 

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL FOR THE RECORD
114 

DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED BY SUBCOMMITTEE

RANKING MEMBER VEASEY

Æ