GHGs

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is preparing to oversee a restart of a shuttered nuclear power plant for the first time — the Palisades Nuclear Plant in Michigan. Other reactors have successfully restarted after stretches of inactivity but Palisades was in the process of being decommissioned and no longer has its operating license, so it faces a complicated — and unprecedented — path forward, helped in large part by a $1.52 billion conditional loan guarantee from the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). In today’s RBN blog, we’ll discuss what it will take to restart the Palisades plant, which could provide carbon-free electricity for 800,000 homes. 

As the push for decarbonization in the transportation sector gathers momentum, electrofuels — also known as eFuels, which are produced by using electricity to combine the hydrogen molecules from water with the carbon from carbon dioxide (CO2) — are beginning to attract attention as an alternative fuel with three important selling points in today’s environment. First, eFuels are available now and can be made with current technology, although there is a lot of room for future improvements and growth. Second, because they are considered drop-in replacements, they are essentially indistinguishable from the fossil-based conventional fuels in use today, which means they can be used without any changes to the existing energy infrastructure. Third, they can capitalize on a rapidly growing set of hydrogen and CO2 suppliers eager to secure a diversified set of offtakers. In today’s RBN blog, we look at HIF Global’s approach to eFuels production, its demonstration plant in Chile and its big plans for Texas and beyond.

Over the past few years, the simultaneous drives for action on climate change, diversity in the workplace, and corporate accountability have coalesced into the environmental, social, and governance (ESG) movement. The energy industry has been at the center of all this, of course, because significant volumes of greenhouse gases (GHGs) are generated with the production, processing, transportation and –– especially –– consumption of hydrocarbons. But while many energy companies have developed ESG strategies and goals, the ESG movement has also come under increasing scrutiny and criticism –– and from all sides, it seems. So where does the movement stand today, and what are its prospects in a world that is now as focused on energy security and affordability as it is on quickly reining in GHG emissions? In today’s RBN blog, we discuss highlights from our new Drill Down Report on the issues surrounding ESG.

It’s well understood that methane is a significant greenhouse gas and that reducing methane emissions from oil and gas production is critical to hitting long-term emissions targets, but that’s about where most of the common ground ends. There are serious disagreements about the actual magnitude of methane emissions, the proper role of government regulation, and whether requirements to control those emissions would place an undue burden on the energy industry and lead to decreased supply. In today’s RBN blog, we look at how emissions estimates are made, why they can vary significantly, and how the disagreements about how to curb those emissions might be resolved.

There’s been a slew of high-profile shipments of “carbon-neutral LNG” the past few months, typically involving the use of carbon credits to offset, ton-for-ton, the carbon dioxide equivalent of greenhouse gases released during the production, piping, and liquefaction of natural gas, the shipping of LNG, and often the regasification and ultimate consumption of the gas too. The problem is, there is no widely agreed-to definition for carbon neutral, nor is there a consensus on how to quantify and validate the GHG “footprint” of a specific LNG cargo. Now, an international group representing the world’s LNG importers has established a framework for “GHG-neutral LNG” that it hopes will gain widespread acceptance. Elements of the proposal are sure to be controversial, however, as we discuss in today’s RBN blog.

In the recently fervent efforts of oil and gas companies to mitigate their environmental impact and improve their standing with investors and lenders, they are progressively striving to cut their own emissions of greenhouse gases and to offset the GHG emissions that are unavoidable through the use of carbon credits. Cutting emissions from well sites, pipeline operations, refineries, and the like won’t be easy or cheap, but at the least the results are measurable and provable — before, we emitted X, and now we emit X minus Y. The true value of voluntary carbon credits is more difficult to calculate. Sure, each credit is said to equal one metric ton of carbon dioxide or its equivalent, but how do you really measure with any certainty how many metric tons of CO2 will be absorbed by 1,000 acres of preserved forest in Oregon, or how much methane won’t be produced by changing the diet of 1,000 cows in Wisconsin? And how can you be sure that slice of Oregon wouldn’t have been left in place anyway, or that the dairy farmer has actually changed what he’s feeding his herd? In today’s RBN blog, we look at voluntary carbon credits, concerns about their validity, and ongoing efforts to ensure that they actually accomplish the goal of GHG reductions.