Remarks by
Robert S. Kripowicz
Acting Assistant Secretary for Fossil Energy
U.S. Department of Energy
to the
1st National Conference on Carbon Sequestration
in Washington DC
on
May 15, 2001

Let me express my welcome on behalf of Secretary Abraham, the Department of Energy, and the Office of Fossil Energy to each of you. We are extremely pleased that you have come to Washington to be part of this inaugural event.

I will admit right from the start that putting these remarks together has been a challenge. Conferences like this are planned well in advance. Who would have thought several months ago that this event would be scheduled right on the eve of the much anticipated release of the Vice President's energy task force report?

It doesn't pay in this town to upstage your boss - and in my remarks today, I do not plan to add to the steady crescendo of views and opinions about the Vice President's report...certainly not before it is released..

Nonetheless it goes without saying that strategic decisions on future energy policy cannot be made in isolation from environmental policy. One shapes the other.

The energy strategy that emerges from the White House this week will not foreclose options dealing with the issue of climate change. To the contrary, it is likely to provide several key elements of the foundation on which a sound, economically rational carbon management policy can be built.

The President has promised a definitive policy on global climate change. But like his energy strategy, it will NOT be crafted hastily. It will emerge only after reasoned thought and careful analysis.

The President has said unequivocally that he takes the issue of climate change very seriously. But he has also said that it is an issue that must be addressed within an international context. I think it is important to recognize that of the 54 nations that signed the Kyoto protocol, only one industrialized country - Romania - has ratified it. It wasn't just the United States that was concerned.

I suspect that there are many who would agree that trying to turn climate change solutions into a sprint - when the real challenge is a marathon - is neither prudent economically nor, for that matter, environmentally.

The long-range challenge is to stabilize atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases - and to do so in ways and timeframes that do not impede economic development.

That is what the United States and 160 other countries agreed to in Rio. It is around this goal that the global community of nations can begin to coalesce. But it is a goal NOT achieved within the span of a few brief years. It will take the efforts of both the developed and developing world, extending well into this century.

The President wants to fashion a climate change policy that builds on market-based solutions - one that rejects the false choice of global protection that can be achieved only by sacrificing global economic progress.

The President wants to see technology as a fundamental component of a global strategy - technology that expands the menu of mitigation options rather than restricts it - technology that can applied not only within our borders but within the borders of both developed and developing countries. And finally, technology that is both affordable and effective over the long term - that addresses the real problem of atmospheric carbon buildup.

I am an advocate of carbon sequestration. I have been from Day One. I would make the point without hesitation that carbon sequestration - IF it truly lives up to its potential - can meet all of the criteria for being a core element of a global carbon management strategy.

But the difficulty in giving this speech today is that I cannot get out in front of the President and say exactly where carbon sequestration will fit within the Administration's forthcoming climate change strategy.

I can tell you this, however - many at the highest levels of this government are talking positively about carbon sequestration. They see it in the same light as low- or no-carbon fuels and enhanced energy efficiency. It is not only at the table, it occupies a prominent seat.

And so my theme for today's remarks would be one of congratulations...one of commendation. Just look how far those of you who share my optimism about sequestration have come.

Five years ago, sequestration didn't appear in the lexicon of either energy or environmental strategy. For the most part, it was a laboratory curiosity - something that resided in the realm of the theoretical - something that was 5 percent expectation and 95 percent speculation.

Four years ago, the Department of Energy sent out feelers on sequestration. The energy scenario was ominous - global demand for energy escalating at a rapid pace - electricity the fastest growing segment of the global energy market - some forecasters predicting that by 2050, the forces of population growth, urbanization, expanding world commerce, and simple human aspiration combining to push global electricity demand to levels 4 times greater than today.

That demand would be met largely by fossil fuels - in this country as well as globally. It was becoming all too apparent that even aggressive growth in zero-carbon fuels, coupled with a global commitment to energy efficiency, would likely not be sufficient to curb sharp, perhaps dangerous, rises in greenhouse gas concentrations.

Carbon sequestration offered a third option - the ONLY option that did not require a massive overhaul of the world's energy infrastructure. But four years ago, the question most of us asked was "Are there enough good ideas for carbon sequestration?" Can the creative minds of industry and academia conceive of enough possible approaches for capturing and storing carbon so that the odds of ultimate success were acceptable? We asked "Is it real?"

I've been involved in federal and private research and development programs for nearly 30 years, and I don't believe in all that time have I seen a question answered so definitively as that one.

The research community - many of you in this audience - responded. From both academic and industrial circles came an overwhelming response. Not only in terms of ideas but in terms of partnerships and in terms of resources.

Today, we have 58 discrete carbon sequestration projects underway in the Fossil Energy program. The number is even greater when you add the more fundamental work in carbon management underway in the department's Office of Science.

All of the 58 projects we have in the Fossil Energy program involve some type of multi-organization partnerships. Many involve a combination of talents from both universities and private industry. Nearly a dozen involve companies who would be ultimate users of the technology, those who would put it into practice. Most impressively, across the board in our most recent project selections, private sector cost sharing has amounted to more than 40 percent.

Some will say that ONLY government mandates can be effective in achieving environmental progress. They will claim that voluntary participation doesn't work. I would say to them, look at our carbon sequestration research program.

No one forced industry to bring their dollars to the table. In fact, the only rule we had was if you came to the table voluntarily, you had to bring 20 percent cost-sharing. That's required by statute. But industry has doubled that.

I would make this point to those who say that American industry has lost its environmental ethic -- that left only to market forces, we would become a nation of industrial polluters. I don't agree with that at all. I believe the true environmentalists are those who back up their environmental commitment with resources - who put their money where their mouth is.

And I believe there is no better example of American industry's commitment to a cleaner, safer environmental future than the private sector response we have seen come about in the last four years in our carbon sequestration program.

That makes an impression on people who believe in market solutions. Something else that makes an impression is progress...actual results.

Four years ago, carbon sequestration existed largely on paper. The skeptics said that concepts would never get off the drawing board because costs would be prohibitive. Carbon capture would be a major obstacle - costing anywhere from $100 to $300 per ton of carbon removed.

But the research community knew that those figures were based on technology that hadn't really progressed very far since World War II. Apply the skills of today's research laboratories and costs could be cut dramatically.

Today that is exactly what is happening. We now have empirical evidence that advances in sodium carbonate technology, for example, can capture 50 percent of the CO2 emitted from a power plant at costs of $15 per ton of carbon - a 10-fold reduction.

Four years ago, some said that chemical processes for converting CO2 into a geologically stable mineral would never be commercially attractive. It took nature thousands of years to perform the chemical transformation, and the best that humans could do would be to get the reaction time under a week.

Today, in our Albany Research Center, scientists can complete over 80 percent of the reaction in times approaching 30 minutes. And although there are other technical hurdles to overcome, all of a sudden the process begins to look very interesting.

Four years ago, you would have heard about coal companies reclaiming land that had been surface mined. But you probably wouldn't have heard very much about a utility using fly ash from one of its power plants to recondition the soil, then planting 7,000 red and white pine seedlings as a carbon sequestration measure. Yet, last week that is exactly what Allegheny Energy did on the 20-acre site of a former strip mine about a hour's drive northeast of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania (near my home).

And we are just starting.

Partnerships in research, partnerships in applications, partnerships in progress - these are factors that are bringing carbon sequestration to the attention of policy makers in this Administration.

So I can't tell you what the Administration's ultimate posture will be on how carbon sequestration fits into climate or energy policy.

But I CAN tell you that in a very tight budget for the coming fiscal year, the Administration approved an increase in carbon sequestration research funding. That takes on added significance when you realize that funding for many other energy research programs was reduced.

And I can also tell you this - IF carbon sequestration is a key part of the Administration's climate change strategy this summer, it will mean NOT ONLY an endorsement of your achievements to date but also a clear expectation of your continuing progress into the future. The spotlight will be turned on you.

Some would say research is done best outside the public glare. I would generally agree. But in terms of energy, the environment, and especially global climate change, we won't have that luxury.

That means our research must be sound. It must be well-thought-out and carried out cost-effectively. We must resist the temptation to oversell the technology - yet continue to call attention to its potential. We cannot cut corners.

We must be willing to bear public scrutiny.

One day, we may know with scientific certainty that carbon gases will remain trapped in underground formations for geologic time, but we must convince the public that such techniques are safe.

One day we may be able to plot with absolute precision the migration - or lack of migration - of CO2 injected deep into the ocean, but we must be able to explain to the public why this is an acceptable approach.

Yes, congratulations are in order. The science and technology of carbon sequestration have come far in the last few years. Your efforts have been noticed. And it may well be that public expectations will be heightened in the coming months. But we must keep in mind - as I said earlier - we are in a marathon, not a sprint.

This is an area of research that is so fundamental to our future well-being that we must do it right. There is no magic overnight solution, no silver bullet. It is a matter of building a solid technical foundation, one brick at a time.

And the mortar that will hold that foundation together will be the willingness of the technical community to share ideas - to discuss and debate where we have been and where we need to go.

Four years ago, we asked ourselves - would the best and brightest of our research community devote their energies to a task many would have scoffed at only a short time before? That question has now been answered. YOU have answered it.

Now we ask ourselves - Can we deliver on what we have claimed to be possible? That is why we are holding this conference - to begin on a national level the continuing process of gauging our progress, measuring our results, determining where along the path we are.

Our first strides have been longer than many - perhaps most - would have expected. We are headed in the right direction. And I can tell you this - a lot of people are watching, and increasingly more and more are cheering each step we take. I know I am.

Thank you.