CREW: Council On Environmental Quality: Climate Change: 9/7/2011 - Combined WIFs From DOE Consult Redacted 08-31-11 (PART 2)

U.S.
Climate Change Technology Program Draft Strategic Plan
May28,2004
Box2-4
CCTP Portfolio Planning and Investment Criteria

1. Maximizing Potential Return on Investment. R&D investments that provide the prospects of maximum
climate change related benefits per dollar of Federal investment receive priority in investment planning. Benefits
are defined with respect to expected contributions to the attainment of CCTP goals and may include other
considerations, such as improved productivity and cost savings. Climate change benefits are long-term public
goods. Discount rates must be weighed appropriately and varied under different planning conditions in order to
ensure robust technology strategies for achieving both near-term and long-term goals. This criterion includes
considerations of development and deployment risks. High risk, low potential projects should be removed from
the R&D portfolio.
2. Acknowledging the Proper and Distinct Roles for the Public and Private Sectors. The CCTP portfolio
recognizes that some R&D is the proper purview of the private sector; other R&D may be best performed jointly
through public-private partnerships; and still other R&D may be best performed by the Federal sector alone. In
cases where public support of R&D is warranted, technology development and adoption require cooperation and
engagement with the private sector. History demonstrates that early involvement in technology R&D by the
business community increases the probability of commercialization. A key consideration in the investment
process is the means for engaging the talents of the private sector using innovative and effective approaches.
3. Focusing on Technology with Large-Scale Potential. The scope, scale and magnitude of the climate
change challenge suggests that relatively small, incremental improvements in existing technologies will not
enable full achievement of CCTP goals. Every technology option has limits. Such limits need to be identified,
explored and understood early in the planning process. Technology options should be adaptable on a global
scale and have a clear path to commercialization. High priority investments will focus on technology options that
could, if sucoessful, result in contributions on th!it order of 10 to 100+ gigatons of mitigation, aocumulatad over the
span of the 21st century. For technologies on the lower-end of this criterion, benefits shoul4 be deliverable
earlier In the century and/or be particularly compelling from a marginal benefit/cost perspective. CCTP portfolio
planning resists the urge to pursue niche applications.
4. Sequencing R&D Investments In a Logical, Developmental Order. Investments must be logically

sequenced over time. Supporting a robust and diversified portfolio does not mean that all technology options
must be supported simultaneously, or that all must proceed at an accelerated pace. Logical sequencing of R&D
investments consider: (i) the expected times when different technologies may need to be made avaOable and
cost-effective; (ii) the need for early resOlution of critical uncertainties; and (iii) the need to demonstrate early
success or feasibility of technologies upon which others may be based.
5. Supporting a Diversified Portfolio. Given many uncertainties, the collection of individual R&D investments
should constitute a diversified portfolio. Considerations include: (I) no single technology will likely meet the
challenge alone; (ii) Investing In R&D in advanced technologies Involves risk, outcomes are not knowable in
advance, and among successful outcomes some are not likely to be as successful as hoped; and (Iii) a diverse
array of technology options can provide important flexibility in the future, which may be needed to resP'!nd to new
and potentially strategy-changing information. The CCTP portfolio also strives to balance short and long-term
technology objectives.
6. Ensuring Attention to System-Wide and Other Factors. In order to enable widespread deployment of
advanced t8chnologie.s, R&D portfolio planning must be attentive to a number of other considerations. Each
technology must be integrated within a larger technical system and infrastructure, not just as a component. Nontechnical factors can profoundly influence market acceptance of technology. CCTP portfolio planning must
examin~ the lessons of historical analogues for technology acceptance in this regard and apply them as a means
to anticipate issues and inform its R&D planning.
2-13
CEQ 015163
CEQ 015164
U.S. Climate Change Technology Program Draft Strategic Plan
May28,2004
3 Exploring Alternative Futures:

Energy, Emissions and Advanced Technology
The long-term nature of the greenhouse gas (GHG) management challenge requires a century-long, global
perspective. Any attempt to foresee trends or gauge the impacts of actions that far in the future inevitably
must factor in a high degree of uncertainty. For example, as discussed in Chapter 2, the future path of
GHG emissions
depend on future population growth, regional economic development, energy
1
intensity, future technology and costs, resource availability and constraints, and many other factors that
cannot be predicted with certainty. Further, the uncertainties inherent in climate science itself make it
difficul~ at this time, to definitively determine the level at which atmospheric greenhouse gas
concentrations would be considered harmful. And the costs of emission reductions will depend on future
technological innovation and on various factors that could either promote or constrain the use of certain
technologies in the future.
will
Many of these uncertainties can be examined using scenario analysis, aided by models that account, in a
methodical and consistent way, for the complex relationships among economic and demographic factors,
energy supply and demand, technology change, and emissions growth. Scenario analysis can help
estimate the cost of emission reductions under various future conditions, as well as help illuminate the
complex interactions among the factors that underlie them, based on the assumptions incorporated into
the analysis. It can help characterize the elements of proposed strategies as either robust across many
alternative futures or highly sensitive to future circumstances.
Much work has been published in the field of GHG emissions, their projections, and alternative scenarios
for their mitigation. The CCfP reviewed the published literature on scenario analyses related to future
energy patterns and GHG emissions, held workshops, and consulted a wide range of experts. The CCTP
built on this work and conducted its own scenario analysis to explore the potential roles of particular
technology pathways of interest.
The goal of the scenario analysis presented in this chapter is not to predict future emissions or the optimal
pathway for climate change technology development, but to inform climate change R&D planning decisions under conditions of uncertainty. This chapter begins (Section 3.1) by identifying and characterizing
today' s sources of GHG emissions, for the world and the United States. Section 3.2 presents projections
of global energy demand and associated GHG emissions, accompanied by descriptions of their underlyjng
assumptions. Section 3.3 discusses several GHG-emissions pathways that constrain emissions to various
levels that could potentially lead to meeting the UNFCCC goal discussed in the previous two chapters.
Section 3.4 explores a number of advanced technology scenarios that meet these emissions constraints.
The chapter concludes (Section 3.5) with a discussion of the implications of the scenario analysis for
R&D portfoUo planning.
Amount of energy consumed per unit of economic activity (measured in either physical units or economic units
such as dollars).
3-1
CEQ 015165
May28,2004
U.S. Climate Change Technology Program Draft Strategic Plo.n
3.1
Sources of GHG Emissions Today
In 2000, worldwide anthropogenic sources of GHGs contributed 12.0 Gigatonnes of carbon equivalent
emissions (Gt~). Of these, C02 emissions from fossil fuel combustion accounted for 6.23 GtC (52% of
the total); COz emissions from industrial activities accounted for 0.67 GtC (6% of the total), deforestation
accounted for 1.08 GtC of C02 (9% of the to,tal), and other (non-C02) gases accounted for 4.04 Gt of
carbon equivalent (C-eq.) emissions (33% of the total).
Based on the most up-to-date, comprehensive emissions inventory available from the U.S. Environmental .
Protection Agency (EPA), activities in the_ United States in 2002 led to total GHG emissions of approximately 1.9 GtC. 3 Eighty-five percent of these emissions were a product of energy use, primarily the
combustion of fossil fuels (see Table 3-1).4 Both world and U.S. emissions ofGHGs have been
Table 3-1. U.S. GHG Emissions by Source, 2002
Source Category<al
2002 Emissions (GtC-Equivalent)
'
COz
Clls
NzO
Total
Other
Energy Use
Stationary Combustion - Coal
0.54
0.54
Stationary Combustion -Natural Gas
0.31
0.31
Stationary Combustion - Petroleum Products
0.18
0.18
Mobile Combustion- Petroleum Products
0.48
Other Energy Use
0.49
0.01
0.05
0.05
Sub-Total Energy Use
1.51
Industrial Processes
0.03
Agriculture
o.os
0.08
0.01
0.02
1.58
0.04
0.06
0.16
0.08
Waste
0.01
0.06
Total Emissions
1.55
0.19
0.09
0.06
Percent of Total
82.8%
10.2%
4.8%
3.2%
C02 Sequestration from Land Use and Forests

Net Emissions ("Total Emissions'' minus "C02
Sequestration from Land Use and Forests';~
0.06
0.19\
1.87
...
1.36
0.19
1.68
Source: U.S. EPA, Inventory of U.S. Green/louse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990-2002, April2004.
ht:p:llyoscmite.cpa.gov/oar/globalwarming.nsf/content/ResourccCentcrPublicationsGHGEmissionsUSEmissionslnventorv20M.html
For the most part, values presented in this section are expressed in terms of carbon or carbon equivalents.
U.S. EPA, Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990-2002, April 2004.
http://yosemite.epa.gov/oar/globalwarming.rlsf/content/ResourceCenterPublicationsGHGEmissionsUSEmissionsi
nventory2004.html
,
.
A small amount of energy use-related GHCUs also emitted from geothermal energy operations.
3-2
CEQ 015166
May 28, 2004 .
increasing over time. For instance, between 1990 and 2002, the EPA inventory calculates that U.S.
emissions of C02 increased by 15 percent, primarily as a result of increased energy use, and total GHG
emissions increased by 12 percent.
Combining emissions from petroleum products used in transportation with those from oil combustion in
stationary sources, petroleum use is the largest U.S. source of C02in the United States, contributing
0.66 GtC (43 percent of the total C02emissions). Coal used in stationary sources accounts for over onethird of total C02 emissions from fossil fuel combustion in the United States. Natural gas combustion
contributes about 20 percent of total U.S. C02 emissions.
Fossil-fueled power plants that generate electricity (shown as "Electric Utilities" in Figure 3-1) are the
largest individual source category for C02emissions in the United States, followed by transportation
(mostly motor vehicles) and industrial fuel combustion in boilers and process heaters. Together these
three major source categories contribute 75 percent of total emissions. Of the remaining quarter,
residential and commercial fuel use (combined) and agriculture each account for 9 percent. Three percent
comes from waste disposal activities (incineration), and another 3 percent is emitted from industrial
processes, including manufacture of cement and iron and steel.
When C02 emissions from electricity generation are allocated to end-use sectors, the residential and
commercial sectors combined account for 32 percent of total U.S. C02emissions (Figure 3-2); the
industrial sector (including non-energy industrial process emissions, as well as industrial fuel and
electricity con~umption) accounts for 28 percent; and transportation accounts for 27 percent. Waste
disposal, agricultural activities and minor other sources account for the remainder. The e~ssions of C02
from various end-use activities are discussed in more detail in Chapter 4.
WasiD Disposal
lndusbial
0.01 GtC
1%
Olher
0.01 GtC
1%
Residential Fuel
0.10GtC
6%
waste Disposal
0.01 GtC
(2%)
0.03GtC
2%
--
Commercial Fuel
0.06GtC
4%
Figure 3-1. U.S. C02 Emissions, by

Figure 32. U.S. C02 Emissions, by End-Use
Source, 2002
Sector, 2002
Source for Figures 3-1 and 3-2: U.S. EPA, inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks:
1990-2002, April 2004.
http://yosemit'.epa.govloar/olobnlwarming.nsflcontent/ResourceCenterPublicationsGHGEmissionsUSEmissionslnventorv2004.html
3-3
CEQ 015167
May28;2004
As shown in Table 3-1, land use and forestry activities in 2002 resulted in a net sequestration of
0.19 GtC,5 representing an offset of approximately 12 percent of total U.S. C02 emissions. Net .
sequestration from land use and forestry activities in the United States declined by approximately
28 percent between 1990 and 2002, primarily as a result of a decrease in the rate of carbon accumulation
in forests.
As discussed in Chapter 1 (Figure 1-1), the Third Assessment Report by the Intergov~rnmental Panel on
Climate Change (IPCC) states that "well-mixed" non-C02 gases, incl:uding methane, nitrous oxide,
chlorofluorocarbons, and other gases with high-global warming potential (GWP) account for as much as
40 percent of the estimated increase in climate forcing between the years 1750 and 2000." The most
important of these non-C02 gases is methane (Cl:4), the principal component of natural gas (see
Table 3-1). Methane is emitted from various energy-related activities (natural gas, oil and coal
exploration and operations), as well from agricultural sources (e.g., emissions from cattle feedlots) and
waste disposal facilities (landfills and wastewater treatment plants). Methane emissions have declined in
the United States since the 1990s, due to voluntary programs to reduce emissions and a regulation
requiring the largest landfills to collect and combust their landfill gas. Another important gas is nitrous
oxide (N20), which is emitted primarily by the agricultural sector through direct emissions from
agricultural soils and indirect emissions from nitrogen fertilizers used in agriculture. Methane and N20
account for 10 percent and 5 percent of total United States GHGs, respectively, in tenns of carbon
equivalence. Other gases, including certain fluorine-containing halogenated substances (e.g., HFCs,
PFCs and sulfur hexafluoride or SF6,) accounted for about 3 percent of total U.S. GHG emissions in
2002. These gases are used or produced by a variety of industrial processes, and in most cases emissions
were very low in 1990 and have grown rapidly since then. Total emissions of the other greenhouse gases,
by source, are shown in Figure 3-3. The sources of these non-C02 GHG emissions are discussed in more
detail in Chapter 7.
~Waste
Agriculture
'E 0.18
-m
iw
..8
~1\
0.16
~Energy
0.14
Use
0.12
CH4
N20
OUter
Figure 3-3. U.S. Emissions of Other Greenhouse Gases, by Source, 2002

Source: U.S. EPA, Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990-2002, April 2004.
hnp://vosemite epa.gov/oar/globalwarming.nsf/content/ResourccCcntcrPublicalionsGHGEmissionsUSEmissionslnventory2004.html
s In addition to forests, the values presented for net sequestration of carbon in the United States include the wood
products indu$try, agricultural soils, land filled yard trimmings, and urban trees.
3-4
CEQ 015168
U.S~
Climate Change Technology Program Draft Strategic Plan
3.2
May28,2004
Projected Growth in GHG. Emissions
Fossil fuels are expected to provide a large percentage of the world's energy throughout the 21 51 Century.
If unconstrained, increases in energy use would lead to significant growth in C02emissions. Section
3.2.1 discusses energy projections from several sources; and Sections 3.2.2 and 3.2.3 discuss emission
projections for C02 and other greenhouse gases, respectively.
3.2.1 Projected Growth in Energy Demand

Energy production and consumption activities currently account for over 80 percent of anthropogenic.
emissions of GHGs in the United States (see Table 3-1). Analysis of future of GHG emissions cannot be
done without analyzing future energy demand and patterns of supply.
The Energy Information Administration projects total world energy demand in 2025 to be 625 Ellyear
(Table 3-2). While energy use in the developed world is expected to increase 36 percent between 2001
and 2025, energy use in Asia and CentraVSouth America is expected to approximately double. At the
present time, 1.7 billion people in the world have no access to electricity, and 2 billion people are without
clean and safe cooking fuels, relying instead on traditional biomass.6 Over the course of the 21st Century,
Table 3-2. World Energy Demand and C02 Projections, 199Q-2025
Energy Demand (E.J)
Carbon Dioxide Emissions (GtC)

Percent
Increase,
2001-2025
Year
Region
36
2001
3.2
2010
3.6
2025
4.3
34
87
55
1.3
0.86
1.0
1.3
51
184
284
93
1.7
2.5
3.1
4.7
88
116
26
15
27
184
. 38
21
41
104
73
62
86
l.l
1.6
0.23
0.18
0.36
0.23
2.1
0.42
0.26
3.3
0.60 0.36
0.19
675
58
0.26
6.5
0.32
7.7
0.52
10.3
2001
223
2010
253
2025
304
Eastern
Europe and
the Former
Soviet Union
80
56
70
Developing
Countries
94
147
55
14
10
90
22
13
22
Asia
Middle East
Africa
Central and
South America
Total World
15
368
426
2001-2025
Year
1990
2.8
1990
193
Industrialized
Countries
Percent
Increase,
507
5.9
106
67
57
100
58
Sources: 1990 and 2001: Energy Information Administration (EIA), International Energy Annual2001,
DOE/EIA-0219 (2001) (Washington, DC, February 2003), web site www.eia.doe.gov/lea/. 2010 and 2025: Eli\,
System for the Analysis of Global Energy Markets (2003).
U.N. Development Program, World Energy Assessment, 2000.
3-5
CEQ 015169
May28;2004
a greater percentage of the world's population is expected to gain access to commercial energy, as well as
experience improvements to their quality of life, resulting in increased per capita energy use. In addition,
world population is expected to grow significantly, which could further increase overall demand for
energy.
Several long-term modeling efforts have made energy demand projections to 2100. For example, the
Special Report on Emissions Scenarios (SRES) by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
(IPCC) includes projections produced by six of the world's leading energy-economic models that were
used to explore a suite of scenarios that projected growth in global energy. Of all the scenarios included
in SRES, 90% projected world primary energy use in 2100 to be between 600 and 2800 exajoules (BJ).'
(In 2000, world energy use was -400 EJ.)
Based a review of these scenarios, the CCI'P developed a Reference Case, which falls within the middle
of the range of scenarios explored in the IPCC study. As the name implies, the Reference Case is a "point.
of reference" from which alternative energy futures can be assessed. The CCI'P Reference Case assumes
a moderate growth rate of 2 percent for economic development and a population growth rate that reaches
9 billion by 2100. This case also incorporates rates of technological improvement over the 2P1 century
that are consistent with historical rates of improvement.7 In addition, costs of energy technologies, such
as solar, wind, biomass, and nuclear, are assumed to decline over time as the technologies improve and
mature. However, fossil fuels are assumed to continue to be a cost-competitive, abundant source of
energy in this case. Because the Reference Case includes no specific actions to reduce greenhouse gas
emissions, carbon capture and sequestration technology is not included in this case. 8 (See Appendix B for
a more detailed explanation of the assumptions in the Reference Case.)
In the CCI'P Reference Case, by 2100 total energy demand is projected to increase more than three-fold,
from about 400 EJ today to 1200 EJ by the end of the century (Figure 3-4). Fossil fuels are projected to
provide most of the primary energy supply within the global energy system. However, as a result of
technology improvement and growth in demand for energy, the Reference Case also shows significant
global expansion in the use of renewable energy (solar, wind, geothermal, and hydroelectric energy),
nuclear energy, and energy derived from biomass (biomass used for production of eiect;ricity, gaseous,
and liquid fuels).
7
8
For example, the average improvement in end-use energy intensity is -1 percent/year compounded Thus, by 2050, the enduse energy intensity of the economy is assumed to be 37 percent lower than in 2004.
The CCfP scenarios were modeled using the Mini-CAM model, which was developed by Pacific Northwest National
Laboratory under sponsorship of DOE and other organizations. This model was one of the six models used in the IPCC
exercise, and it has been peer reviewed. The Mini-cAM results for the CCfP Reference Case fall mid-range amongst results
from other available models (see Appendix 8). This particular model and the particular reference scenario should be viewed
as tools for exploring potential ways various technology futures might evolve and the implications the evolution would have
for climate change technology R&D. The results from this model, or any other, should be interpreted as illustrative of
alternative futures, not a definitive representation of an expected future.
3-6
CEQ 015170
May28,2004
World Primary Energy Demand, 199Q-2100

1,400
1,200
1,000
~
w
BOO
600
400
200
'20
'90
'50
'35
'00
Year
111 Coal
IJJ Oil
IJl
Gas
1'111
Exotics
Biomass
Nuclear
Renewables
Figure 3-4. World Primary Energy Demand, 1990-2100: CCTP Reference Case
3.2.2 Projected Growth in C02 Emissions

Accordipg to EIA, by 2025 annual global C02 emissions may be about 60 percent higher than in 2001,
with growth higher in the developing regions of the world, where C02 emissions may increase by a factor . .
of two or more by 2025 (Table 3-2). In 2025, global use of petroleum products (see "Oil" in Figure 3-5),
primarily in the transportation sector, is expected to continue to account for the largest share of global
emissions of C02 This is followed in importance by the use of coal, primarily used for electricity
generation, and natural gas, which is used for power generation, residential/commercial fuel, and many
other uses. For the United States (Figure 3-6), EIA projects that by 2025, total COz emissions will
increase by 30 percent above the level in 2002.
Longer-term projections of C02 emissions were compiled during the analysis conducted by IPCC (SRES)
of multiple reference scenarios from six long-term modeling efforts (discussed in Section 3.2.1). Ninety
percent of the C02 projections fall within the boundS shown in Figure 3-7. The upper bound is formed by
scenario results that assume very high world economic growth, high per-capita energy use, and continued
use of fossil fuels. At this upper bound, C02 emissions from energy use were projected to grow from
6.23 GtC'year in 2000 to more than 30 GtC/year in 2100- a five-fold increase. The lower bound is
formed by scenarios that assume lower population growth, lower per capita energy use, more energy efficiency, anc;l considerably more use of carbon-neutral fuels, compared to the upper bound. At this
lower bound, C02 emissions are projected to grow for the first half the century, but then to d~line to
levels about equal to those in 2000- representing no net growth by 2100.
3-7
CEQ 015171
May28;2004
The projection of C02 emissions in the CCfP Reference Case falls in the middle of the range of the
projections for reference scenarios reviewed in the IPCC' s SRES report. Because energy demand is
projected to increase more than three-fold by the end of the century, C02 emissions also are projected to
rise three-fold- from about 6 GtC/yr in 2000 to slightly over 19 GtC/yr in 2100 (see Figure 3-8).
Appendix B provides more details on the assumptions underlying the Reference Case.
t ,.,
World Carbon Dioxide Emissions bu Fossil Fuel

1990-2025
12
10
'
C)
en
c:
0
"iii
.!!!
E
....
u
2
0
Sources: History: Energy Information Administration (EIA). International Energy Annual 2001.
DOEIEIA-0219 (2001) (Washington. DC, February 2003), web site www.ela.doe.gov/iea/.
Projections: EIA. System for the Analysis of Global Energy Markets (2003).
Figure 3-5. Projections of World C02 Emissions, 1990-2025 (EIA International

Energy Outlook 2003)
)_. :-:.
.
~.
.'
3-8
CEQ 015172
May28, 2004
u.s. Carbon Dioxide Emissions bY sector and fuel

1990a2025
2.50
2.00
"
!:!.
..
Transportation
c:
0
u;
..
1.50
Industrial
l1ll Commercial
...
0
li!l Residential
1.00
t.)
!it\1 Coal
l".l Gas
0.50
r1 Oil
0.00
Figure 3-6.
Projections of U.S. C02 Emissions, 1990e2025

(EIA Annual Energy Outlook 2004)
World C02 Emissions,1990-2100
Reference Emissions us. 90% Interval

35
30
25
~
C!l
20
15
10
5
0
1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070 2080 2090 2100
Figure 37. The Range of Reference Cases in the IPCC Analysis

Note: Of all cases presented in the IPCC analysis, 90% of the scenarios had projected emission levels
that fall above the blue "5%" line and below the green "95%" line.
3-9
CEQ 015173
May28,2004
World Carbon Emissions from Fossil Fuels,

199(1..2100
'90
'20
'00
'50
'35
Year
mcoal
!10il
mGas
Figure 3-8. World C02 Emissions from Fossil Fuels, 199D-2100: CCTP Reference Case
As discussed in Section 3.1, net carbon emissions are influenced by land use. Carbon emissions and
sequestration from various land uses will be driven by increasing demands for food from a growing
population and changing diets. In addition, other factors such as demand for wood products, land
management intensity, demand for biomass energy and bio-based products, and technological change will
influence carbon emissions and sequestration on lands. Projections of changes in emissions from land use
were not conducted specifically for this plan. Recent studies performed for the Intergovernmental Panel
on Climate Change illustra~ a range of potential future conditions - from continued emissions from land
uses throughout the next century (primarily as a result of deforestation), to net sequestration from land use
globally toward the end of the century. Most IPCC scenarios show that C02 emissions from deforestation
are likely to peak after several decades and then subsequently decline. This pattern is tied to declines in
population growth toward the latter half of the century and increases in agricultural productivity.
3.2.3 Projected Growth in Emissions of Other Greenhouse Gases

Future growth in emissions of non-C02 greenhouse gases will depend on the future level of the activities
that emit these gases, as well as the amount of capture or control that occurs. In the CCfP Reference
Case, global emissions of other GHGs were projected to grow from about 2.5 Gt carbon-equivalent (GtCeq.) emissions in 2000 to about 3.6 GtC-eq. emissions in 2100 (Figure 3-9). Methane emissions are
projected to grow between 2000 and 2050 and then to stabilize. This trend results from countervailing
forces among the various emission sources. Some, like landfills and livestock manure management,
increase throughout the period, while others (especially coal mining and natural gas systems) decline,
especially in later years. Emissions of N20 follow an even more pronounced pattern, peaking in 2050
and then declining. This occurs despite continued growth in emissions of N20 from agricultural soils,
3-10
CEQ 015174
May28,2004
because of greater declines in emissions resulting from projected changes in land use. Emissions of high
GWP gases are much lower than CR. and N20 emissions, and they are projected to increase steadily
throughout the period in the Reference Case (these are also shown in Figure 3-9).
The emissions projections in Figure 3-9 are shown in units of "GtC-equivalents", which is a common way
of comparing emissions of different greenhouse gases. This conversion is performed based on physical
emissions, weighted by each gas' global warming potential (GWP). The GWP is the relative ability of a
gas to trap heat in the atmosphere over a given time frame, compared to the C02 reference gas (per unit
weight). The choice of time frame is significant, and can change relative GWPs by orders of magnitude.
All non-C02 gases are compared to C02, w.hich has a GWP of 1 (see Chapter 7 for more detail}. The
global wanning potentials of other GHGs, using a 100-year time horizon, range from 23 for methane to
22,200 for SF6, as shown in Box 7-2 of Chapter 7.
Carbon Equivalent Emissions, 1990-2100
CCTP Reference Case
-"
~
3.5
-1------'--------;.;""---'-"i-
II CF4
oC2F6
11SF6
1!!!1 HFC-143a
HFC125
o HFC-134a
D HFC-245fa
IIN20
sCH4
0.0
go
20
so
35
oo
Year
Figure 3-9. Other Greenhouse Gases in the CCTP Reference Case (GtC-equivalent)9
Due to the large number of halocarbon gases and source categories, some of the >emissions shown combine similarly behaved
gases into the same category. The complete inventory on which these calculations are based includes >the following gases:
C2F6, C2F6, CF4, CF4, HFC-l34a, HFC-152a, HFC-227ea, HFC-32, HFC-4310mee, HFC125, HFC134a, HFCI34a, HFC23,
HFC236fa, HFC245fa, and SF6.
3-11.
CEQ 015175
May28,2004
Another common metric for evaluating the contribution of various greenhouse gases to global warming is
to assess their "radiative forcing" 10 (see Figure 1-1 in Chapter 1). Most of the gases sh~wn have a
positive radiative forcing effect (i.e., a warming effect). However, sulfur oxide compounds (SOJ have a
negative radiative forcing (i.e., a cooling) effect, indicated by the negative values in the figure. 11 For the
Reference Case, the net global radiative forcing (the sum of the positive radiative forcing associated with
the GHGs minus the negative radiative forcing associated with SOJ, measured in watts per square meter
(W/m2), is projected to increase from0.5 W/m2 to about 6.5 W/m2 over the course of the century-an
increase of more than an order of magnitude (Figure 3-10). (The green dashed line in Figure 3-10 is the
sum of all positive radiative forcing and the blue dashed line is the net radiative forcing. Each solid line
represents the radiative forcing associated with an individual gas or particle.)
Radiative Forcing of Greenhouse Gases .

7
6
j
E.
I
rf
~
5
4
.. ...
--C02
--CH4
N20
--Halogens
--Tropospheric Ozone
-sox
2
1
0
-1
-2
1900
1950
2000
2050
2100
Year
Figure 3-10. Radiative Forcing of Greenhouse Gases in the Reference Case
3.3
Stabilizing Concentrations - Implications for Emissions
As discussed in Section 3.2, most long-term modeling projections indicate that global emissions of
GHGs will increase significantly over the course of the 21st Century, even as technology improves.
10
11
Radiative forcing is a measure of the overall energy balance in the Earth's atmosphere. It is zero when all energy flows in-!Uld
out of the atmosphere are in balance. If there is a difference, it is usually expressed in terms of watts per square meter (W/ul2),
averaged over the surface of the Earth. When it is positive, there is a net "force" toward warming, even if the warming
itself may be slowed or delayed by other factors, such as the heat-absorbing capacity of the oceans or the melting oflarge
natural k sheets.
Note that black carbon was not considered in the analysis presented here, but as more is learned about its effects,
it may be considered in future ccrp scenarios analyses.
3-12
CEQ 015176
. U.S. Climate Change Technology Program Draft Strategic Plan
May28,2004
Consequently, in order to make progress toward and eventually meet the UNFCCC goal of stabilizing
atmospheric GHG concentrations at any given concentration level, GHG emissions would need to slow in
growth, eventually level off, and begin a gradual decline, ultimately approaching low or near net-zero
levels.
Stabilizing greenhouse gas concentrations in the Earth's atmosphere is not the same as stabilizing
greenhouse gas emissions. Annual emissions represent the amount of greenhouse gases added to the
atmosphere in a given year. The concentration of greenhouse gases, measured at any point in time, is the
amount of atmospheric greenhouse gas emissions present in a unit volume of air (measured in parts per
million, ppm}. The concentration results from the accumulation of all past emissions from all sources,
minus the amount of greenhouse gases that have been withdrawn through natural processes or removed
into carbon "sinks" over time. Even if annual additions of GHG emissions were to stabilize (i.e., remain
ar a steady level year after year), GHG concentrations would continue to increase. The level at which
atmospheric GHG concentrations are harmful is not yet known. CCfP has investigated a range of
alternative emissions pathways that potentially could lead to stabilization of atmospheric greenhouse gas
concentrations at various levels.
In its study of these alternative pathways, CCTP explored four different hypothetical C02 emissions
constramts, shown along with the Reference Case in Figure 3-11. For the 100-year timeframe, from 2000
to 2100, cumulative C02 emissions in the Reference Case amounted to 1350 GtC. The hypothesized
emissions constraints correspond to cumulative C02 emissions of 550, 850, 1050 and 1150 GtC (see
Table 3-3, which also shows the cumulative reductions compared to the Reference Case) Assuming the
level of global economic activity remains about the same in all four trajectories, the C02 emissions
intensity (C02 emissions per unit of gross domestic product - GDP- summed over the world) would vary
under the four alternative emission trajectories as shown in Figure 3-12. By 2100, the C02 intensity
declines by 83, 66, 50 and 37, respectively, compared to the Reference Case.
World Carbon Emissions 11190-2100
World Carbon lntenslty19!J0.2100
25
350
-Low Constraint
300
Medium Constraint
-;:;- 20
sl
-High Constraint
~
..
15
c
:!!o
sc
co
-;;
200
-=
g=e 1so
1H3
u e. 100
.!!
-Very High Conslralnt
!:::3:
-Rata ranee Cas a
w
c
0
.a
Medium Conslralnt
-High Constraint
-250
>oD.
10
iii 5
u
50
0
'90
'20
'35
'50
'00
'90
Figure 3-11. World C02 Emissions for the

Reference Case and Four Alternative
Emissions Constraints
'20
'50
'35
'00
Year
Year
Figure 3-12. World C02 Intensity for the,_

Reference Case and Four Alternative
Emissions Constraints
3-13
CEQ 015177
May28,2004
Table 3-3. Emission Constraint Trajectories Examined in the CCTP Analysis

Emissions Constraint Trajectories
High
Low
Very High
Constraint
Constraint
Medium
Constraint
Constraint
Cumulative C01 Emissions, 2000-2100 (GtC)
550
850
1050
1150
Cumulative C01 Emissions Reduced front

Reference Case (GtC)
800
500
300
200
Percentage Reduction in C01 Intensity

(GtC/GDP) from the Reference Case in 2100
83
66
50
37
The ccrP scenarios also estimated the level of cost-effective and technology-driven reductions in other
GHG emissions that could be achieved (~hown in Figure 3-13)}2 As with the constrained trajectories for
C02 emissions, the trajectories for other GHGs emissions are projected to grow, peak and decline over the
course of 2151 century. Figure 3-14 presents these same trajectories expressed in terms of GHG emissions
intensity. Compared to the Reference Case, non-C02 GHG intensities declined by 42, 37,32 and
24 percent by 2100 for the Very High, High, Medium and Low Constraint cases, respectively.
world Other GHG Intensity 1990-2100
In Carbon Equivalents
World Other GHG Emleslons 1990-2100

140
~-----::3~~--
:~,
..:..,',;i
120
-LowConsllalnt
Medium Consllalnt
'i!'< -HighConsllaint
.... :;. -VeryHighConsllalnl
;,',:.. Ralenmce Case
0.0
+--..-----,,.----'-..=""'
'90
'20
'50
'35
'90
'00
Figure 3-13. World Non-COa GHG

Emissions for the Reference Case and
Four Alternative Emissions Con~traints
,.
12
'20
'35
'50
'00
Year
Year
Figure 3-14. World Non-COa GHG Emissions

Intensity for the Reference Case and Four
Alternative Emissions Constraints
The trajectories shown in Figure 3-13 are a combination of (1) reductions projected by the model to be the~ost
effective reductions of other GHGs, when compared to the cost-effectiveness of reducing COz emissions, and
(2) reductions resulting from deploypJ.ent of advanced technologies for sources of non-C02 emissions, such as
landfills, natural gas production and transport, and rice production. In every advanced technology scenario, nonCOz emissions are projected to decline even without development of additional technology, but the assumed use
of advanced technology increases the reduction. The trajectories shown in Figures 3-13 and 3-14 are only one
illustration of a feasible reduction of oth~r GHG emission reduction.
'
.r.,
3-14
CEQ 015178
3.4
May28,2004
Alternative Advanced Technology Futures
For the purpose of developing a robust set of well~grounded advanced technology scenarios, CCfP
reviewed about 50 scenarios developed by other organizations, including Shell Intemational,Il the
National Academy of Sciences,l 4 the United Kingdom,l 516 Canada's Energy Technology Futures, 17 the
World Business Council for Sustainable Development,18 and the International Energy Agency (1EA). 19 In
addition; and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) developed long~term greenhouse
gas emission scenarios in mid-1990s and updated them in 2000 (SRES 2000).20 More recently, the
IPCC' s Working Group Report on Mitigation21 incorporated a set of "Post-SRES" mitigation scenarios,'
many using the same underlying models that were used for the SRES scenarios.
In carrying out these scenario analyses, a number of assumptions were made regarding the roles and
attributes of various types of technology. The CCTP review revealed that, for the most part, scenarios
that achieved significant reductions in future C02 emissions had underlying technology assumptions that
could be characterized as falling into one of three broad categories, although there were many variations
within each category. The categories are:
1. Advanced fossil energy technologies ~at include carbon capture and storage, the introduction of
hydrogen as an energy carrier, and high efficiency energy conversion. This category was called
Closing the Loop on Carbon.
2. Carbon-free energy sources (e.g., renewables and nuclear) that gradually displace the current fossilbased energy system, which is based on traditional fossil energy sources. This category was called
New Energy 'Backbone.
3. Advanced technologies that significantly change the energy paradigm of the future, including the
introduction of novel approaches. This category was called Beyond the Stando.rd Suite.
For the purposes of illuminating the potential role for technology R&D, the CCTP developed an
"advanced technology scenario" within each of the three categories. These alternative advanced
13 Shell, 2001. Energy Needs, Choices and Possibilities- Scenarios to 2050. Shell International Ltd-Global
Business Environment Uni~.
14 NAS. 1999. Our Common Journey: A Transition toward Sustainability. U.S. National Academy of
Sciences/National Research Council, Washington: National Academy Press. 1999.
15 Fuelling the Future- a report by the Energy Futures Task Force. Foresight Programme- Office of Science and
Technology. United Kingdom Department of Trade and Industry, 2000,
.
16 Energy for Tomorrow: Powering the 21" Century. Foresight Programme. Office of Science and Technology.
United Kingdom Department of Trade and Industry, 2001.
17 Canada 2050, Four Long Term Scenarios for Canada's Energy Future. Energy Technology Futures. Natural
Resources Canada. 2000.
18 Energy 2050- Risky Business. World Business Council for Sustainable Development. Scenario Unit. Conches
-Switzerland, 1999.
19 Longer Tenn Energy and Environment Scenarios. International Energy Agency Standing Group On Long-Tenn
Co-Operation (IENSLT), Paris, France, 2002.
20 SRES (Special Report on Emission Scenarios), 2000: A Special Report on Emissions Scenarios for Working.
Group mof the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge, United Kingdom.
21 Climate Change 2001: Mitigation: A Report of Working Group ill of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change (IPCC), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom.
3-15
CEQ 015179
May28,2004
technology scenarios thus add to the body of previous scenario work reviewed by the CCfP and illustrate
particular technology combinations of interest, as described in the next section. These scenarios are not
intended to be predictions of the future or optimal pathways for climate change technology development,
but instead, are meant to inform decision makers about a range of possible pathways, as they consider
R&D investments; programs and policies related to technology development.
3.4.1 CCTP Advanced Technology Scenarios

A number of promising technologies could play a major role in helping to attain the dual goals of
sustaining global economic growth and making significant progress toward reduced GHG emissions and
stabilized GHG concentrations. These include, among others, expanded use of highly energy-efficient
energy supply and end-use technologies; renewable energy; nuclear en~rgy; carbon capture and storage;
alternative energy carriers, such as hydrogen and bio-fuels; fusion energy and other advanced concepts;
and technologies aimed at reducing emissions of other greenhouse gases.

The three CCfP advanced technology scenarios represent hypothetical groupings of these advanced
technologies. Each scenario includes a broad and diverse combination of technologies that leads to
significant GHG emissions reductions. Each places different degrees of emphasis, however, on different
sets of technologies. In this way, each scenario explores a unique response to the imposed constraints.
Several core technology advancements are common to all three of the CCfP advanced technology
scenarios. All three of the advanced technology scenarios include significant gains in end-use energyefficiency, beyond the gains assumed in the Reference Case. The cost of implementing efficiency
measures is assumed to fall as a result of technological advance (see Appendix B for more detail on the
assumptions in the Reference Case and the advanced technology scenarios). In addition, all three scenarios include aggressive deployment of low-cost terrestrial sequestration. (A total reduction of 60 GtC
from terrestrial sequestration is projected to occur over the next century iti all of the advanced technology
scenarios.) All three scenarios allow the full realization of the resource potential of conventional oil and
gas. 22 Further, all three scenarios incorporate advanced technologies to reduce emissions ofnon-C02
GHGs from many emission sources across all sectors (energy, industry, agriculture and waste). As discussed further in Section 3.4~5. advanced technologies for these other GHGs have the potential to deliver
substantial emission reductions, beginning early in the 21 51 century. For the most part. these core technologies are well established or in advanced stages of development and can have benefits in the near- to
mid-term.
Aside from these common assumptions, the advanced technology scenarios diverge. Each assumes a
unique set of highly-advanced, cost-effective technologies become available in the future, in addition to
this core set of technological advancements. The "story lines,. behind the three CCfP advanced
technology scenarios are as follows (see Appendix B for more detail):
1. Closin;: the Loop on Carbon (CLC) is an advanced technology future in which the viability of
engineered C01 capture and storage enables the continued use of fossil fuels, which in turn is
substantially complemented by other energy sources and. derivative energy carriers, including
22
Except under cases with very high emission reduction requirements.
3-16
CEQ 015180
May28,2004
hydrogen. In this scenario, carbon capture and engineered storage meet aggressive technical,
economic, and enviro~ntal goals. Coal-based energy-plexes produce electricity, hydrogen, fuels
and chemicals, with near-zero emissions. Reasonably-priced carbon capture and storage is also
available for application on natural gas, oil combustion and biomass-based energy systems. As a
result, a large part of the existing fossil-based systems have the ability to become carbon-neutral and
remain the core of the energy system through the century. In addition, this scenario assumes there are
high efficiency gains in coal combustion. Nuclear, biomass, and other forms of renewable energy are
able to compete for market share in this scenario, but because of the cost differences, these forms of
energy do not penetrate the market as much as fossil energy systems do.
2. A New Energy Backbone (NEB) is an advanced technology future in which nuclear and renewable
energy sources advance considerably and become less costly, reducing the role offossil fuels and
replacing them as the backbone of the energy system. This scenario assumes renewable and nucleai
energy technology performance improves substantially, beyond the improvements embedded in the
Reference Case. Alternative fuels (e.g., hydrogen and bio-fuels) are important in this scenario to
bring renewable and nuclear energy to the transportation sector, in which fossil fuels currently
dominate. While the higher"cost of carbon capture and storage (compared to the CLC scenario)
makes use of coal less attractive in this scenario compared to CLC, it does not prevent the use of
fossil fuels. For instance, natural gas remains an important contributor to the energy mix in the NEB
scenario, although the development of unconventional oil and gas resources is not as extensive as it
would be with substantial contributions from carbon capture and storage.
3. Beyond the Standard Suite (BSS) is an advanced technology future in which novel or so-called
"exotic'' technologies become major players in the energy system, complementing the standard suite
of energy technologies. This future explores the possibilities of new breakthrough technologies, such
as: fusion energy; combinatorial applications of genetic engineering, nano-technology, and biotechnology - as new ways to produce fuels or hydrogen and sequester C02, and technologies for power
transmission or beaming that might enable unprecedented expansion of large-scale solar applications.
Given the size of the global energy system, it is likely that the standard suite of technologies, including energy efficiency, renewable and nuclear energy, biomass technologies, and fossil fuels would
continue to play an important role in this future, as the novel or "exotic" technologies would take .
decades to mature and penetrate the global energy system to a large extent. However, particularly in
the latter half of the 21st century, such technologies could potentially play a major role in the energy
system, especially if, as this scenario assumes, research is effective and costs of these new
technologies become competitive.
3.4.2 The CCTP Scenario Analysis Approach

Each CCI'P advanced technology scenario starts with the same set of assumptions about population
growth and economic growth (built on the same assumptions used in the CCI'P Reference Case), and then
makes a projection of the mix of energy technologies that will evolve over time to support that economic
and population growth, while at the same time meeting (or in some cases exceeding) the imposed emission constraints goals discussed in Section 3.3. But each advanced technology scenario is based on -different assumptions about the relative costs of the various energy technologies. As discussed in Section 3.4.1, each of the three advanced technology scenarios assumes accelerated technology performance
(e.g., improved efficiency) and reduced technology costs for a specific selected technology or set of
3-17
CEQ 015181
May28,2004
technologies, as compared to the performance of these same technologies in the Reference Case.23 The
model iterates among the various technology options available in the particular scenario and chooses a
mix of technologies based on their relative costs.
The scenarios assume success in the development and commercial deployment of the advanced technologies. They also assume that there is global participation in the effort to stabilize greenhouse gas emissions over the long-term. In the short-term. they assume that the United States achieves its planned 18%
reduction in GHG intensity by 2012 and that countries participating in the alternative Kyoto approach
achieve their reduction goals. However, they do not defme specific policies or measures that may be
necessary to achieve the emission constraints, nor do they assume a specific pathway of R&D leads to the
improved technology performance. Instead, they were developed to illustrate the kinds of technology
combinations that could feasibly meet various levels of emissions constraint and the potential economic
benefits that might result from accelerating technology development.
Each of the three advanced technology scenarios was modeled for all four C02 emissions constraints
discussed in Section 3.3 (low, medium, high, and very high) for a total of twelve advanced technology
cases. In addition, four "baseline" scenarios were modeled to simulate achieving the four levels of C02
emissions constraints based on the Reference Case assumptions about technology (i.e., with less
aggressive advancement in technology performance compared to the advanced technology scenarios).
These basic steps in the CCTP scenario analysis exercise are summarized in Box 3-1.
The non-C02 gases were treated somewhat differently in the analysis~ because advanced technologies for
reducing these gases were not fully integrated into the modeling framework. As with C02, a Reference
Case was developed for other gases, as described in Section 3.2.1. This Reference Case incorporates
fairly aggressive deployment of current technology for some methane sources, particularly coal mines,
and more limited emission improvements for most other sources. For the advanced technology cases,
cost-effective increases in the non-C0 2 emission reductions for the CLC, NEB, and BSS cases24 were
projected using th~ same model that was used for the C02 analysis, based on the current technologies
included in the model. An advanced technology case for the other gases was then developed, based on.
the technologies described in Chapter 7, and estimates were made outside the modeling framework for the
level of emission reduction that could reasonably be assumed to result from the application of advanced
technology. The analysis of these additional reductions did not extend to estimating costs or cost
reductions.
23
24
The presumption is that this technological advance occurs through R&D, but there is no explicit pathway in the
model linking R&D to technology performance. The performance improvements explored in this exercise were
meant to be illustrative of future possibilities, not predictive.
Cost-effectiveness, in this context, means reductions in other gases that were less costly than the price of carbon
reductions projected by the model in any given scenario.
3-18
CEQ 015182
May28, 2004
Box3-1
Summary of Scenario Analysis Steps

Step 1: As described in Sections 3.2, a Reference Case was established for the purposes of making comparisons.
The chosen CCTP Reference Case is a mid-range case (compared to the range of reference case scenarios
available) that assumes the world experiences moderate level of economic growth and energy technologies gradually
become more efficient over time at improvement rates typically experienced in the past. No special considerations
were given to climate change concerns in this case, and no initiatives were included aimed at meeting the UNFCCC
goal.
Step 2: The model was constrained to reduce emissions along various trajectories that would eventually achieve a
range of alternative GHG stabilization levels, as described in Section 3.3. Using the basic Reference Case economic
growth and technology.lmprovement assumptions, the model projected feasible mixes of technologies that minimized
overall costs along the emissions constraint pathways. These emission-constrained scenarios serve as baselines for
cost comparisons.
Step 3: Three illustrative advanced technology scenarios were constructed and modeled for each of the four
emission constraint levels. The illustrative advanced technology scenarios assumed that selected energy supply and
demand technologies benefit, in the Mure, from advances in technology performance and cost, above and beyond
those assumed in the Reference Case. (Each advanced technology scenario assumes a different set of technologies
improves.) All of these advanced technology scenarios also assumed that both terrestrial sequestration and
engineered carbon capture and storage are available, although the cost of engineered carbon capture and
sequestration was assumed to be considerably lower in the CLC scenario, compared to the NEB and BSS scenarios.
All of the advanced technology scenarios also assumed significant improvements In energy efficiency in the end use
sectors, beyond the improvements assumed in the Reference Case. They also assume advanced technology is
developed to reduce emissions of non-GOz gases. These scenarios serve as illustrative examples of the kinds of
technological advancement pathways that could result in emissions reductions. Many other scenarios are possible.
Step 4: The results of the Reference Case and advanced technology scenarios were compared over the period from
2000 to 2100. The results include 1QO-year projections of energy and technology use, GHG emissions, and costs of
achieving the given emission trajectories. Comparative results and relative differences ove~ the range of assumptions
ware studied, providing insights useful for planning purposes.
,.
...,,
~:
3.4.3 Scenarios Results -:- Energy Supply and End-Use

Under the varying levels of the imposed GHG emissions constraints, all three CCfP advanced teclmology
scenarios meet the energy demand requirements necessary to maintain world economic growth, and
significantly reduce GHG emissions along a variety of smooth pathways. However, each s~nario meets
the constraints using its unique mix of technologies, as portrayed in one selected set of examples
presented in Figure 3-15. This particular set of examples is for the high emissions constraint, resulting in
an overall cumulative reduction of about 500 GtC over the span of the 21 51 century (compared to the
unconstrained levels of the Reference Case). Similar figures for the other three emissions constraints are
shown in Appendix B. The tenns used in the figures are explained in Box 3-2.
As Figure 3-15 shows, in the Closing the Loop on Carbon (CLC) scenario, engineered capture and
storage and other advanced fossil-based energy conversion teclmologies play large roles, primarily
because this scenario assumes that sequestration is successful, has been technically proven, is available
for widespread application, and is relatively cost-effective compared to other options. In CLC, the noqfossil technologies are projected to continue to compete in the energy market and, in fact, exhibit strong
and continued growth, but in this case the technical advances in the fossil-based systems are assumed to
be particularly successful, resulting in their extra market share. (See Appendix B for more discussion of
assumptiot!s):
3-19
CEQ 015183
May28,2004
World PrlrraryEnergyDermnd, 199G-2100
1.
1,400
"Closing
the Loop
on Carbon"
1,200
800
a.
ii
:.
....
~-;)/:/
~.
200
'90
'20
,..
'
aSequesiBfad FossU
l!l Unsoqveslefed FossH
400
Ill
.:!.'\ . .
CNuclear
600
. ,
0 En8f11YUSB Reduction
gl:lollcs
a Biomass
g Renewable a
1,000
'50
'35
'00
v....
: ..
,.
.;~
:;
.. '
.. :
World PrlrraryEnergyOemand, 1990-2100
.. :_: . '. . <:::. .~

' ...,
. ..
~-
~-.'.
.. .
.
1,400
2.
"New
Energy
Backbone"
. -~-
.
,
-:.,- :_~ : , -~
;
>
1,000
......
..
.
800
600
iIll
200
I!
~
:. :.._:.: :::.. ~. -:.

\''
. ~ ~-
1,200
400
..
'90
~ . '-~~~~~-:; ~~-: ~\~ ....
'20
.....
'00
'50
'35
Year
r.
.....
. :.
Ill
:~: .......:
1,400
_....
3.
1,200
"Beyond
the
Standard
Suite"
'.
!;:.
::, 1,000
a Energy Use Reduction

Bl:lollcs
a Biomass
a Ranewablos
Ill
.:
800
..
600
CNudear
400
a Sequesfllred Fossn
IJUnsaquaslefedfossll
..i
'S
0
iIll
200
'90
'20
'35
'00
'50
Year
L--~------------------:-----~-~---:.-:-"
..,., .:::.'.
Figure 3,;15. World Primary Energy bem~ndUnder CCTFiAd'vanced.:(~chn~ldgY,
.., , , scenarios (thgh emission Red~ction Trajijc~~..Y)'

..
;,.
3-20
_..
..,
. ' . : . ::::
CEQ 015184
May28,2004
In the New Energy Backbone scenarios, nuclear

and renewable energy play large roles, because
this set of scenarios assume nuclear and
renewables show a high level of technical
progress and become relatively cost-effective
compared to other technologies. In this case,
sequestration is projected to continue playing a
role, but not as large as that projected in
In Beyond the Standard Suite, more of the very
advanced forms of energy supply and
distribution become important, because it is
assumed that they make technological progress
to the point that they can compete for market
share, particularly in the latter part of the 21 51
century.
Total energy demand is lower in all three of the
advanced technology scenarios than in the
Reference Case (which was shown in Figure 37). This results primarily from the accelerated
adoption of high efficiency end-use technologies, as well as price-induced energy efficiency.
Instead of increasing over the entire century as
it does in the Reference Case (see Figure 3-4),
in the advanced technology cases, fossil fuel
combustion without sequestration (at the bottom
of the charts in Figure 3-15) peaks toward the
middle of the century and then declines, as
markets move toward more carbon-neutral
technologies (i.e., sequestered fossil
technologies) and carbon-free technologies (i.e.,
nuclear, biomass, and renewable energy).
Total cumulative energy consumption for each
energy source in the three alternative
technology scenarios is shown in Figure 3-16.
In this chart, the solid-filled bars indicate the
amount of energy supplied under the high
emission reduction trajectory. 25 The "whisker"
marks indicate variation in energy
25
Box3-2
Explanation of Energy Terms In the

Tables and Charts
Biomass is non-fossil material of biological origin
constituting a renewable energy source. It is used to
produce electricity and liquid fuels.
Carbon-Free Energy is energy from solar, wind, biomass,

nuclear, and advanced technologies. {Note: it is important
to realize that solar. wind, and nuclear technologies are not
actually carbon-free. Csrbon Is expended In production,
transport, installation and maintenance of these sources.
Biomass is closest to catbon-free given that what is released
Is taken up in the growing, and with improved productivity
substantially more can be taken up than is released.}
Carbon-Neutral Energy is energy from sequestered fossil

fuel combustion.
Energy-use Reduction includes improvements in energy
efficiency in end use applications and energy production and
transformation. It also includes reduction in energy Intensity
related to energy conservation, usually due to price effects.
Exotics Include fusion, Bio-X,* space-solar satellites and
other novel concepts not yet discovered.
Fuel SWitching means the substitution in the economy of a
lower carbon fuel such as natural gas for a higher carbon
fuel such as coal. It does not necessarily mean existing
plants switch from one fuel to another; rather It means there
is a general shift in the economy toward a different fuel.
Nuclear refers to nuclear fission technology used to produce
electricity.
...
-!'~
't.
;~
:,_.
Renawables includes solar energy, wind, biomass,

hydroelectric and geothermal energy. Note that In the
advanced technology scenarios, most of the incremental
renewable energy is from solar and wind technologies.
{Note: BiomBSS is a renewable energy source. It must be
listed as such.)
...
Sequestered Fossil is coal, oil or natural gas combustion
.:.
combined with carbon capture and storage. {Are there any

capacity reductions associated?}
Unsaquastered Fossil is coal, oil or natural gas combustion
without capture and storage of carbon.
* Blo-X employs combinations of biotechnology, genetic

engineering, and nanoscience. It includes novel approaches
to the production of hydrogen and other clean fuels, anergy
carriers and storage media; the production of electricity from
bio-sources, the production of bio-based alternatives to
industrial processes and feedstocks, and bio-processa.s for
carbon-dioxide capture and permanent sequestration.
'
f.
~:.
;~;
.....
In the case of energy end use reduction, the quantity shown is for energy saved, not energy supplied.
3-21
CEQ 015185
May28.2004
World Primary Energy, Cumulative 2D00-2100

70
tJ Closing the Loop on Carbon
XI
60
11 New Energy
,,
Backbone
tJ Beyond the Standard Suite
'5
0
50
~:I
40
a
0
,cen
30
20
Ill:I
0
(:.
10
0
'*-
-*=lll
.i&
11>-m
:.If
i
Cl)
Ill
c:
::1
...as
lll
~
0
2!
Ill
iii
Figure 3-16. World Primary Energy Demand Under CCTP Advanced Technology
Scenarios (High Emission Reduction Trajectory)
World Primary Energy Consumption In 2100 .
1,600
Very High
High
Medium
Low
Emission _ _ Emission _ _ Emission _ _ Emission
Constraint
Constraint
Constraint
Constraint
Exotics
11.100 + - - - - - - - - -
c Energy Use Reduction"
~
k
cNuclear
Renewable&
600
Biomass
1111 Sequestered Fossil
Unsequestered Fossil
100
-400
CLC
NEB
BSS
CLC
NEB
BSS
CLC
NEB
BSS
CLC
NEB
BSS
Figure 3-17. Varying Patterns of Energy Supply and Use in 2100 under Three CCTP
Advanced Technology Scenarios and Four Alternative Emissions
Constraints
Note: CLC = Closing the Loop on Carbon; NEB = New Energy Backbone; BSS= Beyond the Standard Suite
3-22
CEQ 015186
May28,2004
supplied across the full range of other emission reduction trajectories (i.e., Very High to Low). As
Figure 3-16 indicates, energy use reduction plays an important role in all scenarios. This is also shown in
Figure 3-17, which presents energy patterns in the year 2100 (not cumulative energy supply) in all of the
emission reduction scenarios. Energy use reduction is represented by the purple sections of the bars
below the horizontal axis. The results suggest that highly efficient energy end-use technologies,
combined with increased efficiency in energy production and distribution, could play an important role in
a low-carbon future. (Note that energy use reduction tends to be somewhat higher in the CLC scenarios
because they assume considerable efficiency increases in fossil-based energy supply technologies, as well
as the energy end-use efficiency improvements included in the other scenarios.)
Despite the significant contributions projected for energy efficiency in the scenarios, large contributions
from energy supplies with low or near-net-zero GHG emissions are also projected to occur. These
include wind and solar (renewable energy), nuclear energy, biomass and others, especially in the case of
the New Energy Backbone scenario, in which renewable and nuclear technologies are assumed to achieve
significant technical and cost advances. Fossil fuels with sequestration supply some energy in all
scenarios, but have a much larger role in Closing the wop on Carbon.
Additionally, technical breakthroughs could bring forth a series of non-traditional andmore futuristic
technologies. Fusion energy, for example, affords the promise of clean, safe, and virtually inexhaustible
energy, should it overcome its formidable technical challenges. Additionally, advanced biotechnology
may enable highly efficient molecular processes to convert sunlight into fuel, split water into hydrogen
and oxygen, or capture and store C02 Large solar energy applications may be possible, provided
advances occur in enabling technologies. Such technologies, which are assumed to advance significantly
in Beyond the Standard Suite, could make important contributions to the energy mix and complementing
other more traditional technologies.
Based on these particular scenarios examined by CCI'P, for all but the very high emission reduction
trajectory, unsequestered use of fossil fuels remains the primary form of energy supply during the course
of the 21st century, despite considerable substitution in all cases of near net-zero carbon and carbonneutral energy technologies.
The differences in assumptions about technology supply, cost and performance in the three advanced
technology scenarios strongly influence the level of penetration of the various technologies that displace
unsequestered fossil fuel combustion, across the varying assumptions about carbon constraints.
3.4.4 Scenario Results - Emissions Reductions

Figure 3-18 depicts the sources of cumulative GHG emissions reduction (compared to the Reference
Case) under the various scenarios and emission constraints. (Figure 3-lSA shows reductions for the
period between 2000 and 2050, and Figure 3-18B shows the 2000-2100 period.)~ discussed above in
Section 3.4.2 and shown in Figure 3-18, end-use energy reduction is projected to play a major role in all
of the CCfP scenarios in both the fll'St and second halves of the 21 51 Century. Under the assumptions
used in this analysis, energy efficiency is one of the most robust contributors to GHG emission
reductions. Other important contributors to C02 emission reduction across all scenarios, especially in the
first half of the century, include fuel switching (which is defmed as shifts from higher carbon fuels, such
3-23
CEQ 015187
May28,2004
A. 200Q-2050
Carbon Mitigation Beyond the Reference Scenario
Cumulative Emissions Reductions 2000-2050
~c
0
-e
l!
0
90
60
50
.eca
40
-CJ
Ol
~
'5
E
:s
Closing the Loop on Carbon

1!1 New Energy Backbone
D Beyond the Standard Suite
70
Cl)
r:
r:
80
30
20
10
0
3l 5
::>tJ
>.:I
2'-c
Q) Q)
Ca:
w
i
cQ)
....cv
Q)
(j
:I
~
:E
g
ffi
en
Oi
a:
:I
u..
i~
.g,cm~c:rg)
w~
5
"iii:=
II
f!!.c-
fj
UJ
t?C!J
c:I:
oC!J
:I
B. 200021 00
-0
!:!.
Carbon Mitigation Beyond the Reference Scenario

Cumulative Emissions Reductions 2000-2100
400
350
-eca
300

1!1 New Energy Backbone
.o Beyond the Standard Suite
I}]
~r-r-------------~~,
250
Cl)
c
c
-a
200
ca
150
50
.!!
OJ
:;:;
::s
E
:s
Figure 3-18
100
Q)
UJ
EJ-6
Q) Q)
::cttl
:::
Q)
sa:
a:
::>,..
:>,(.)
cQ)
....
ttl
Q)
(j
:I
E
0
ffi
ttl
C)
:c
g
~
en
Oi
::J
u..
-g~
-ttlo;::t
0
m~ i~
@ Q)
.5
Q)
5f
C)::J
WCJ)
... :I
-.p
8()(!}
UJ
'J:
SG
{E. :if
en
Cumulative GHG Emission Reductions, Beyond the Reference Case,

Under CCTP Advanced Technology Scenarios (Note: Vertical scales are
different in A and B. The colored bar graphs represent the level of co, mitigation In the
high concentration case, and the "whisker" marks In the figure show variations of
mitigation across the range of low to very high emission reduction traJectories.)
3-24
CEQ 015188
May28, 2004
as coal, to lower-carbon fuels, such as natural gas) and terrestrial sequestration. Over the longer term, a
variety of energy forms and carriers derived from biomass play a role in all three of the advanced
technology future scenarios.
Furthermore, the reduction of non-C02 gases could play an important role in reducing overall OHG
emissions. The projections show a decrease between 2000 and 2100 in methane emissions of 10 to
50 percent, depending on the scenario (this is in addition to significant reductions in methane emissions
intensity represented in the Reference Case). Similarly. emissions ofN20 emissions are projected to
decline as much as 35 percent between 2000 and 2100 in the very high emissions constraint case (see
Figure 3-19). Successful R&D efforts may also essentially eliminate the use of high GWP chemicals
from a number of industrial applications.
As an advanced technology, engineered C02 capture and storage (shown as "engineered sequestration" in
the figures) appears to offer the prospect of large C02 reductions. Should it prove to be successful and
acceptable, its cumulative contributions to emission reductions could be very significant (see the Closing
the lbop on Carbon scenario results presented in Figures 3-17 and 3-18B). Similarly, if the performance
of renewable energy and nuclear power improve over time, a future similar to New Energy Backbone
could emerge. Non-traditional and more futuristic technologies could also become significant
contributors to reduced emissions, especially in the longer-term (such as in Beyond the Standard Suite).
Carbon Eq. Emissions (Gtc-eq.) 2005-2095:
Very High Emissions Constraint
HFC245fa
OHFG-134a
1!1 HFC125(227ea)
I'JHFc-143a
sFa
OC2F6
OCF4
IIN20
EJCH4
2005
2020
2035
2065
2050
2080
2095
Year
Figure 3-19. Non-C02 GHG Emissions in the Very High Emissions Constraint Case
3.4.5 Scenario Results - Economic Benefits and Reduced Costs

The modeling tool used by CCTP for this analysis estimated costs for meeting the hypothetically-imposed
emissions constraints over the course of the 21st Century. The estimated costs can be compared for cases
3-25
CEQ 015189
May28,2004
with and without the use of advanced technology to suggest the extent to which advanced technology.
might reduce the costs, should the technologies advance through R&D and successful deployment.
Conversely, scenario analysis can suggest the extent to which a particular technology R&D program
would need to successfully reduce costs, compared to other technology programs, to realize the
envisioned benefits.
To explore these opportunities and provide a common basis for comparative analysis, costs were estimated for a series of baseline scenarios, using the Reference Case technology assumptions (see Section
3.2 and Appendix B for more detail). In these baselines, the total global cost in the year 2095 of meeting
the imposed emissions reduction constraints ranged from $0.5 trillion to $5.8 trillion per year (in constant
2004 $),which would be equal to 0.2 to 2.0 percent, respectively, of the projected world economic output
in that year. The cost estimates show that, as expected, higher emission constraints correspond to higher
costs. Using a 2 percent discount mte, the present value (PV) of the annual costs over the 100-year period
ranged from $1.7 trillion to $52 trillion. Using a 5 percent discount rate, the PV range was $0.15 trillion
to $8.3 trillion.
The costs for meeting the hypothetical emissions constraints in the CCfP advanced technology scenarios
were significantly lower. The present values were projected to be 60 to 99 percent lower in the advanced
technology scenarios than the Reference Case baselines (see Figure 3-20 A through C), under the same
range of hypothetically-imposed emissions constmints, across all the advanced technology scenarios.
Should the assumed level of technical progress be realized, the suite of advanced technologies represented
in Closing the Loop on Carbon appeared to present opportunities for some of the largest potential cost
reductions, with present values ranging from 83 to 99 percent below the Reference Case technology
baselines. An important cost-saving element of this scenario is its capacity to build on today's existing
and soon-to-be-built coal-based energy infrastructure of the next 20 to 30 years. However, because
engineered sequestration has not been adequately proven, the prospects for this scenario becoming
realized are uncertain.
Should the assumed technical progress be made, the suite of advanced technologies represented in the
New Energy Backbone also appears to present significant opportunities to reduce costs. The present value
of the costs of achieving the emission reductions in this scenario were 64 to 92 percent below the
Reference Case technology baselines.
Finally, due in part to the more futuristic nature of its suite of technologies and, in part, to the IJI.Ore
moderate contributions to energy supply assumed from its highly advanced technologies, Beyond the
Standard Suite.shows somewhat lower cqst reductions than the other two advanced technology scenarios..
The PV for the cost of Beyond the Standt:ird Suite is 60 to 89 percent lower than the Reference Case
baselines.
It is possible that none of the envisioned advanced technologies would ever achieve the degree of
technical success that is embodied in the three scenarios, in which case, the costs savings indicated in the
analysis would not materialize and costs of meeting various carbon constmints would be higher. It is also
possible, however, that to some degree, all of the advanced technologies could achieve the technical
success envisioned. In this case, more aggressive competition among the technologies and their
- '
3-26
CEQ 015190
May28,2004
A. Very High Emissions Constraint

$7,000
$6,000
'C
~
$5,000
$4,000
$3,000
$2,000
$1,000
$0
'05
'20
'35
'50
'00
Year
B. High Emissions Constraint
$3,000
-Basellne
$2,500
II
$2,000
$1,500
.. .,,,:
1$1,000
$500
$0
'05
'20
'35
'50
Year
'00
C. Medium Emissions Constraint

$1,2.00
$1,000
-Baseline
-Closing the Loop on
$800
.-:
::.:
$600
$400
$200
$0
'05
'20
'35
'00
--.
Figure 3-20. Annual Costs of Meeting Emissions Constraints (Real 2002$)

.:
3-27
CEQ 015191
U.S. Climate Change Technology ~ogram Draft Strategic Plan
May28,2004
combinations would likely occur, potentially leading to greater cost savings. The potential economic
benefits afforded by accelerating the advancement of these technologies appear large.
3.5
Insights for Strategic Planning
The three CCfP advanced technology scenarios were developed and assessed with regard to their
potential contributions to reduced GHG emissions and related the costs. The purpose of this work was to
gain insights for R&D planning through comparative analysis of various results under different planning
assumptions. The CCfP scenarios were built on a foundation of common assumptions, advised by expert
opinion, and shaped around three distinctly different, alternative views of possible advanced technology
futures.
The insights gained from the analysis are necessarily limited in their ability to influence portfolio
planning, because they are fundamentally an outcome of their collective assumptions. However, the
scenarios illuminate a range of alternative futures that lead to lower GHG emission levels and help
identify the conditions under which certain technologies could be successful, if their R&D goals were
met. Such insights are supplemented with expert opinion, portfolio and gap analyses, and other inputs as
part of the larger CCTP strategic planning process. Similar conclusions to those drawn from the CCTP
scenarios can be drawn from the range of previously conducted scenario analyses reviewed as part of the
CCTP effort, and many of the assumptions used in the CCfP analysis were drawn from these other
efforts.
Driven by their varied assumptions, all of the advanced emission reduction scenarios follow pathways
that gradually reduce emissions over time. As compared to the Reference Case, the cumulative reduction
of GHG emissions over the course of the 21st century ranged from about 200 to 800 GtC-eq., depending
on the level of the hypothetically-imposed emissions constraint. The respective contributions of the
various technology options, under the range of scenarios and cases, have been collected in categories, as
shown in Figure 3-21, that mirror the relevant mitigation-related CCTP strategic goals:
Goal 1:
Goal 2:
Goal 3:
Goal4:
Reduce Emissions from Energy End-Use and Infrastructure

Reduce Emissions from Energy Supply
Capture and Sequester Carbon Dioxide (C02)
Reduce Emissions of Other Greenhouse Gases
One insight apparent from Figure 3-21 is that, under a wide range of differing assumptions, alt four of the
CCTP emissions reduction-related strategic goals could potentially contribute to progress at meaningful
levels. The scenarios help visualize circumstances that would encourage the use of each of the advanced
technologies - a wide variety of advanced energy supply technologies, as well as energy efficiency
improvements; carbon capture, storage and sequestration, and reduction of non-COz GHGs.
3-28
CEQ 015192
U.S. Climate Change Teehnology Program Draft Strategic Plan
May 28, 2004.
Figure 3~21. Cumulative Contributions between 2000 and 2100 to the Reduction,
Avoidance, Capture and Sequestration of Greenhouse Gas Emissions.unc!er
the Three Advanced Technology Scenarios, Under Varying Degrees of
Emission Constraints Note: The thick bars show the contribution in the high emission
reduction case and the thinner bars show the variation in the contribution between the vety high
emission reduction case and the low emission reduction case.
With regard to the CCTP strategic goal aimed at reducing emissions from energy end-use and related
infrastructure (see Chapter 4 ), the analysis suggests that increased use of highly energy-efficient technologies and other means of reducing energy end-use could play a major role in contributing to cost-effective
emission reduction within any given energy supply strategy. In the CCfP scenarios, the successful
contribution of energy end-use reduction was based on the assumption that energy efficiency would
advance at rates that would not only need to keep pace with historical rates of improvement (about one
percent per year), as embodied in the Reference Case baselines, but achieve accelerated progress, as
represented in the CCTP advanced technology scenarios. This will likely require focused and sustained
R&D on energy efficiency in the end-use sectors, supplemented with R&D on improved efficiency in
energy supply and transformation (e.g., the efficiency of power production).
3-29
CEQ 015193
May28,2004
Regarding energy supply. (Chapter 5), despite the relatively large ~ontributions projected from energy
efficiency and other means of reduced energy use and the large and continuing role played by
unsequestered use of conventional fossil fuels, the scenarios indicate that a significant supply of energy
from sources emission zero or near-net-zero GHG emissions would likely be required under a range of
hypothesized emissions-constrained futures. These results support RD&D efforts aimed at improving and
deploying nuclear energy technologies, a wide range of renewable and biomass-energy technologies that
are zero-carbon or carbon neutral, and the use of nuclear energy _and renewables to produce hydrogen.
The CCTP analysis suggests that C02 capture and sequestration technologies (Chapter 6) could play a
potentially transfonning role under at least one set of future conditions (represented by the Closing the
Loop on Carbon scenario), and lesser, but still significant, roles under other circumstances (such as those
represented in A New Energy Backbone and Beyond the Standard Suite). Terrestrial sequestration could
play a role in all future technology scenarios. AS the sequestration element of the CcrP strategy is
relatively new and the prospects of success are unprov.en......_the development of data on technical performance, economics, and environmental acceptability and sustainability of sequestration, in its many and
varied forms (geologic, terrestrial, and ocean) appears to be a critical-path planning need. Early technical
resolution of the viability of various sequestration options could have significant implications for
subsequent R&D investment strategies.
For non-C02 greenhouse gases (Chapter 7), the CCTP analysis suggests that reductions in emissions of
the other greenhouse gases could potentially contribute over 100 Gt of carbon-equivalent emission
reduction, cumulated over the century. The CcrP scenarios assume progress in reducing such emissions,
based on a record of current achievement in reducing emissions, as well as detailed analyses of the
technical and economic potential to reduce non-C02 GHG emissions further. These reductions are
particularly important because it is possible that a significant level of reduction could be achieved early in
the 21st Century.
Another insight, discussed in Section 3.4.2, is that under the advanced technology scenarios, significant
progress toward lower emissions can be made, while also allowing for the full economic potential of
conventional oil and gas reserves to be realized. The scenario analysis shows that in most of the
emissions constraint cases, tinsequestered combustion of coal and other fossil fuels can continue until
more advanced technologies become commercially available, perhaps by mid-century. In the CCTP
scenarios examined in this analysis, at the end of the 21st century, unsequestered use of fossil fuels was
projected to continue at levels ranging from roughly two-thirds to twice those of today.
The CCTP analysis further suggests that successful development of advanced technologies may result in
potentially large economic benefits. Independent of the particular combination of technologies examined,
all the CCTP advanced technology scenarios resulted in significantly lower overall costs in meeting the
various hypothetically-imposed emissions constraints. Compared to the Reference Case baselines, the
costs appeared to be ati order of magnitude or more lower. The assumptions that led to these cost
reduction estimates include very dramatic technology improvement (see Appendix B), but CCTP believes
these assumptions fall within plausible ranges, given sustained research efforts. The assumptions used in
the analysis are generally consistent with published analysis (such as those by the IPCC) and with longterm R&D program goals.
3-30
CEQ 015194
May28,2004
As a final insight for R&D portfolio planning, the scenario analysis suggests that the timing of the
commercial readiness of advanced technology options is an important planning consideration. Allowing
for capital stock turnover and other inertia inherent in the energy system, technologies with zero or nearnet-zero GHG emissions would need to be available and moving rapidly into the marketplace well before
the "peaks" occur in the hypothesized emissions constraint pathways. Allowing for appropriate lead-in
periods, some technologies would need to be commercially ready for widespread implementation, should
the need arise, as early as 2020, and likely no later than 2040. Given the expected path for R&D, such
considerations suggest that the technologies would need to be proven technically viable before this time,
and that initial demonstrations would be needed between 2010 and 2030.
The following four chapters focus in-depth on various technological means for making progress toward,
and eventually achieving, each of the CCfP strategic goals. Guided, in part, by the insights discussed in
the scenario analysis, each chapter's discussion addresses the rationale and technology strategy' that is
helping to configure technology development investments, as reflected in the current portfolio, and
identifies candidate areas for future research directions that could accelerate technology development and
its respective contributions to CCfP goal attainment.
3-31
CEQ 015195
.,
CEQ 015196
May 28, 2004
Reducing Emissions from Energy End-Use

and Infrastructure
Emissions from use of energy in the end-use sectors (industry,residential and commercial buildings, and
transportation) can be lowered through technological improvement that leads to increased energy
efficiency and enhanced energy productivity (real economic output per unit of energy input), as well as
through energy conservation and other measures. Historically, global energy productivity has shown a
steady increase, averaging gains of about one percent per year. Use of more energy-efficient processes
and replacement of older, less-efficient capital stock are important contributors to these gains. Another
key factor in reducing energy intensity,
Energy End-Use
especially in industrialized countries, has
Potential
Contributions
to Emissions Reduction
been a shift in the composition of
economic output toward less energyintensive goods and services.
As discussed in Chapter 3, the U.S. Energy
Information Administration (EIA) projects
that energy use in the developed world will
increase by 36 percent between 2001 and
2025 and that increases in developing
regions, such as Asia and CentraVSouth
America, will be even greater, perhaps
increasing by a factor of two by 2025.
In all three of the Advanced Technology Scenarios. under a range of
Longer-term Reference Case projections
hypothesized constraints, Energy End-Use technology options contributed
significontly to meeting the global dimate change challenge,
show that global energy demand over the

throughout the 21st centuty. See Chapter 3 for details.
course of the 21 51 century could experience
a three-fold rise (increasing from 400 EJ today to 1200 EJ by 2100), resulting in an increase in global C02
emissions from about 6GtC/yr in 2000 to over 19 GtC/yr in 2100. This Reference Case assumes that a
considerable increase in energy efficiency occurs over the course of the 21st Century (see Chapter 3). .
In all of the CCTP alternative technology scenarios, energy use reduction1 plays a key role in meeting the
emission constraints. Over the course of the 1 00-year time frame, energy use reduction in the twelve
scenarios examined led to cumulative reduction of between 3 and 18 thousand EJ of global energy, and
between about 100 and 370 GtC of global carbon emissions. (See Chapter 3.)
In the United States, the largest end-use sources of C02emissions (see Table 4-1) are:
electricity use in buildings and industry;
o
transportation fuels;
o fuels used for heat and power in industry; and
o
a few industrial processes not related to combustion.
In the context of the CCTP scenarios, end use reduction includes improvements in energy efficiency in the end use
sectors, as well as improvements in efficiency of energy conversion, e.g., increased efficiency in electricity
generation.
4-l
CEQ 015197
May28,2004
Table 4-1. C02 Emissions in the United States by End-Use Sector, 2002 (GtC)
Emissions from
Electricity
Emissions from
Combustion
of FuelS
Transportation
0.001
0.476
0.477.
Residential and Commercial

Buildings
0.409
0.163
0.572
Industrial Energy Use
0.195
0.258
0.453
29.2
0.026
2.6
Waste Disposal Activities
0.010
0.6
End-Use Sector
% ofTotal
30.7
36.9
0.605
Total
Emissions, Total
0.897
1.55
Source: U.S. EPA 2004. U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks 1990-2002.
Note: Values may not sum to total due to independent rounding of values.
This chapter explores energy end-use and carbon emission reduction strategies and opportunities within
each of these end-use categories. Sections 4.1 through 4.3 address transportation, buildings, and industry,
respectively, and Section 4.4 deals with technology strategies for the electric grid and infrastructure that
can facilitate C(h emissions reductions. The sections provide background information on each of these
sectors and explain the current. and evolving strategy for reducing their C02 emissions. Note that this
chapter focuses on reducing and avoiding C02 emissions. Many industrial processe~ and energy end uses
produce significant quantities of non-C02 greenhouse gases, which are addressed in Chapter 7, ''Reducing
Emissions of Other Greenhouse Gases."
4.1
Transportation
The transportation of people, goods, and services accounts for a significant share of global energy
demand, mostly' in the fonn of petroleum, and is among the fastest growing sources worldwide of
emissions of greenhouse gases, mainly C02 In the developing parts of Asia and the Americas, emissions
from transportation-related use of energy are expected to increase between 3 and 4 percent per year over
the next 25 years. In the United States, from 1991 to 2000, vehicle miles traveled, a measure of highway
transportation demand, increased at an average rate of2.5 percent per year, outpacing population growth.
In 2002, the U.S. transportation sector accounted for 32 percent of total C02 emissions, with the highway
modes accounting for more than 85 percent of these (Table 3-2). Future growth in U.S. transpOrtation
energy use and emissions is projected to be strongly influenced by the growth in light-duty trucks, which
include sport utility vehicles (Figure 4-1). In addition, energy use in freight transportation is projected to
grow by over 60% in the United States between 200 and 2025.
4.1 ~ 1 Potential Role of Technology
Advanced technologies can make significant contributions to reducing C02 emissions from transportation
activity, particularly from highway vehicles. In the near-tenn, advanced vehicle technologies, such as
electric-fuel-engine hybrids ("hybrid-electric.. vehicles) and clean diesel engines, can improve vehicle
efficiency and hence lower C02 emissions. Other reductions might result from modal shifts (e.g., from
4-2
CEQ 015198
May28,2004
Transportation sector Energv use bv Mode and Type

35000
30000
25000
:s
co
20000
c:
~
15000
1-
10000
:c
5000
0
2025
!Q Automobiles (including motorcycles)
Buses
111 Light Trucks (Passenger and Commercial)

m Freight Trucks
Figure 4-1. Projected Energy Consumption in U.S. Highway Vehicles

(EIA Annual Energy Outlook 2003)
Table 4-2. C02 Emissions in the United States from

Transportation, by Mode, in 2002 (GtC)
%of
Emissions
0.172
0.126
0.079
0.048
0.027
0.014
0.009
0.002
Less than 0.001
0.477
Passenger Cars
Light~Duty Trucks
Other Trucks
Aircraft
OtherlaJ
Total
36.1%
26.3%
16.5%
10.0%
5.6%
0.0%
3.0%
1.9%
0.4%
100.0
Boats and Vessels

Locomotives
Buses
Alternative Fuel Vehicles
Totall01
(a) Emissions from agricultural and construction equipment,
pipelines and lubricants.

(b) Note: Percentages may not sum to 100 percent due to
independent rounding of values.

Source: U.S. EPA 2004. U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and
Sinks 1990-2002
4-3
CEQ 015199
May28;2004
cars to light rail) or higher load factors, improved overall system-level efficiency, or reduced
transportation demand. Improved inter-modal connections can allow for better mode-shifting and
improved efficiency in freight transportation. Application of developing technology will reduce idling
and the concomitant emissions from heavy-duty vehicles, including vessels, trains, and long haul trucks.
Intelligent transportation systems can reduce congestion, resulting in decreases in fuel use. In the longterm, technologies such as cars and trucks powered by hydrogen, bio-based fuels, and electricity show
promise for transportation with either no highway C02 emissions or no net-C02 emissions.
In addition, new communications technologies may alter our concepts about individual mobility. Work
locations may be centered near or in residential locations, and work processes and products may be more
commonly communicated or delivered via digital media. With global trends toward increasing
urbanization in both population concentrations and opportunities for employment, there may be more
reliance in the future on improved modes of local, light rail or intra-city passenger transport, coupled with
other advances in electrified inter-city transport that would curb the growth of fuel use and emissions
from transportation.
4.1.2 Technology Strategy
Realizing these opportunities requires research portfolio that embraces a combination of advanced
vehicle, fuel, and transportation system technologies. Within constraints of available resources, a
balanced portfolio needs to address: major sources of C02 emissions in this sector, including passenger
cars, light trucks, and other trucks; key modes of transport, including highway, aviation, and urban transit; _
system-wide enhancements; and both near- and long-term opportunities. In the long-term, hydrogen may
prove to be a low- or no-net-carbon energy carrier, if it can be cost-effectively produced with renewable
or nuclear fuels or with fossil fuels in conjunction with carbon capture and sequestration. Hydrogen and
biofuels as substitutes for petroleum-based fuels also offer significant national security benefits.
In the near-term, or during a period of transition to hydrogen, improved vehicle efficiency, clean diesel
engines, hybrid electric propulsion, and the use of hydrogenated low-sulfur gasoline offer a useful
transition strategy. Other fuels, such as ethanol, natural gas, electricity with storage, and bio-diesel, can
also provide attractive means for reducing emissions of C02 These efficiency gains and fuel alternatives
also provide other benefits, such as improving urban and regional air quality and enhancing energy
security.
4.1.3 Current Portfolio

Across the current Federal portfolio of transportation-related RD&D, Federal activities are focused on a
number of major thrusts. These include:
Research on light vehicles, organized primarily under the FreedomCAR Partnership program,
including hydrogen fuel cells (materials, power electronics); hybrid electric vehicles operating Qn
gasoline, diesel, or alternative fuels; high efficiency, low emission advanced combustion engines,
enabled by improved fuels; and high-volume, cost effective production of light-weight materials.
See: http://www ,climatetechnology.gov/library/2003/tech-options/tech-options-l-l-l.pdf
44
CEQ 015200
May28,2004
Research on heavy vehicles, organized primarily under the 21st Century Truck Partnership program,
including advanced combustion propulsion systems; reducing losses from aerodynamic drag, tire
rolling resistance, and electrification of on-board ancillary loads; light-weight materials; hybrid
propulsion systems for heavy trucks; and reducing energy consumption and tailpipe emissions
during truck idling.
See: http://www .cl imatetechnology.govllibrary/2003/tech-optionsltech-options-l-l-2.pdf
Research on alternative fueled vehicles, including activities aimed at helping cities explore and
deploy alternative fuel vehicles and associated refueling infrastructure.
See: http://www .eli matetechnology.gov/1 ibrary/2003/tech-options/tech-options-l-l-3.pdf
Research on intelligent transportation systems infrastructure, including sensors, information

technology, and communications to improve efficiency and ease congestion.
See: http://www .cl i matetechnology.gov/library/2003/tech-optionsltech-options-l-l-4.pdf
Research on aviation fuel efficiency, including engine and airframe design improvements.
See: http://www .c Iimatetechnology.gov/library/2003/tech-options/tech-options-l-l-5.pdf
Research on transit buses, focusing on hybrid and fuel cell concepts to improve efficiency and
reduce emissions.
See: http://www .cl imatetechnology.gov/1 ibrary/2003/tech-options/tech-options-l-l-6. pdf
4.1.4 Possible Research Directions

Areas identified for consideration in future portfolio planning for new or increased emphasis may include:
Focus on strategies and technologies to increase freight efficiency in anticipation of large growth in
freight volumes.
Studies of advanced urban-engineering concepts for cities to reduce vehicle miles traveled.
Concept and engineering studies for large-scale institutional and infrastructure changes required to
manage C02, electricity, and hydrogen systems reliably and securely.
Technologies for large-scale hydrogen and electricity storage.
In addition, supporting or cross-cutting areas for future research include:
Advanced thermoelectric concepts to convert waste heat from combustion into power.
Basic electrochemistry to produce safe, reliable battery and fuel cell systems with acceptable energy
and power density, cycle life, performance under temperature extremes,
4-5
CEQ 015201
May28,2004
Advanced combustion research on new combustion regimes in conventional vehicle propulsion

technologies, other enabling technology, and enabling fuels where efficiencies close to that of fuel
cells are possible and for which near zero regulated emissions and lowered carbon emissions can be
achieved.
4.2 Buildings
The built environment, consisting of residential, commercial, and institutional buildings, accounts for
about one-third of primary global energy demand and represents a major source of energy-related
greenhouse gas emissions, mainly C02 In the United States in 2002, C02 emissions from this sector,
including those from both fuel combustion and use of electricity derived from COremitting sources,
accounted for 32 percent of total C02 emissions. These emissions have been increasing at about 2 percent
per year over the past 25 years. Table4-3 shows a breakdown of emissions from the buildings sector, by
fuel type, in the United States.
Over the long-term, the built environment is expected to continue to be a significant component of
increasing global energy demand and a large source of C02 emissions. Energy demand in this sector will
be driven by growth in population, by the economic expansion that is expected to increase the demand for
building services (especially electric appliances, electronic equipment, and the amount of conditioned
space per person), and by the continuing trends toward world urbanization. As urbanization occurs,
energy consumption increases because urban buildings usually have electricity access and, in general,
have a higher level of energy consumption per unit area than buildings in more primitive rural areas.
Table 4-3. Residential and Commercial C02 Emissions in

the United States, by Source, in 2002 {GtC)
Emissions
Electricity
0.2096
67.5
Naturalga8
0.0721
23.3
Petroleum
0.0283
9.1
Coal
0.0003
0.1
Total Residential
0.3103
100.0
0.1996
76.2
Natural gas
0.0457
175
Petroleum
0.0142
5.4
Coal
0.0025
0.9
Total Commercial
0.2621
100.0
Residential
Commercial
Electricity
Source: U.S. EPA 2004. U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and

Sinks 1990-2002
Percentages may not sum to 100 percent due to independent
rounding of values.
4-6
CEQ 015202
May28,2004
According to a recent projection by the United Nations, 84 percent of the world's population will live in
urban areas by 2030. One of the key sources of growth in energy demand, across all regions of the world,
is the commercial and institutional buildings sector,_ where growth in energy demand averaged 3.5 percent
per year since 1970. In the United States, energy consumption in buildings is increasing proportionately
with increases in population, although this trend masks significant increases in efficiency in some areas
that are being offset by new or increased energy uses in others.
4.2.1 Potential Role of Technology

Many opportunities exist for advanced technologies to make significant reductions to energy-related C02
emissions in the buildings sector. In the near-term. advanced technologies can improve efficiency of
energy-using equipment in the primary functional areas of energy use. In residential buildings, these
functional areas include space heating, appliances, lighting, water heating, and air conditioning. In
commercial buildings, they are: lighting, space heating, cooling and ventilation, water heating, office
equipment, and refrigeration. Through concerted research, major technical advances have occurred over
the last 20 years, with many application areas seeing efficiency gains of 15 to 75 percent (see Figure 4-2
for an example of technological improvements tliat have occurred in refrigerators as an illustration of the
kind of gains that have. been achieved.)
Over the longer-term, more advances can be expected in these areas, and significant opportunities also lie
ahead in the areas of new buildings design, retrofits of existing buildings, and the integration of whole
building systems and multi-building complexes through use of sensors, software, and automated
maintenance and controls.
2000
1800 A
1600
i 1400
~ 1200
: 1000
:l
~
800
600
iii 400
200
0
'1\\
~~
...
"''"
roJIC IG
~ta IAlllll gel
'
~...
,.X!
111 11 "til st'f!'~ i UJI, ~tan a irG
GoI enC rrotT rget
~ -..L.st ndarc
"F dge fthe uturt rlf
-~
1972 1976 1960 1984 1888 1892 1996 2000 2004 2008
Year
Figure 4-2. Refrigerator Energy Efficiency

Note: The curve applies to 18-20 cubic foot top-mount refrigerator/freezers which capture the largest market share
in the United States. The term, "1991 Best", stands for the 1991 top-mount model with lowest energy use. "Golden
Carrot Target" was an EPA/electric utility program in the early 1990's to develop a model that was 25% more
efficient tha.t the current technology at the time. "Fridge ofthe Future" is a refrigerator that had a target energy
use of365 kWh/y or 1 kWhld for 18-20 cu.ft. top-mount models based on an cooperative research agreement ~.
between Oak Ridge National Laboratory and the Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers; this target was
exceeded in a test unit (0.93 kWh/d) in Fiscal Year 1996.
4-7
CEQ 015203
.u.s. Climate Change Technology Program Draft Strategic Plan
May28,2004
By 2025, with advances in building envelopes, equipment, and systems integration, it may be possible to
achieve up to 70 percent reductions in a buildings' energy use. If augmented by photovoltaics or distributed sources of combined heat and power, buildings could become net-zero GHG emitters and net energy
producers by the end of the century.

While the built environment suggests a complex heterogeneity of building types (commercial, service,
detached dwelling, apartment buildings) and functional uses, all have common features, each of which
may benefit from technological research, both as individual components and as integrated systems.
Within constraints of available resources, a balanced portfolio needs to address three important aspects of
buildings that affect their C02 emissions including:
The building envelope -This includes insulation, walls, roofs, and fenestration components such
as windows, ventilation, and daylighting
Building equipment - Opportunities exist to reduce energy use in heating, cooling, ventilation,
lighting, appliances, and other functional equipment.
Integrated design and operation - In the case of new building and retrofit designs, there are
significant opportunities for reduced energy and emissions through integrated building design and
building control systems.

The current Federal portfolio focuses on four major thrusts. In combination, these activities aim to
achieve net-zero energy residential buildings by 2020 and commercial buildings by 2025.
Research on the building envelope, that is, the interface between the interior of a building and the
outdoor environment, focu~es on systems that determine or provide control over the flo~ of heat,
air, moisture, and light. in and out of a building, and on materials that can affect energy use,
including insulation, foams, vacutim panels, optical control coatings for windows and roofs,
thermal storage, and related controls, such as electrochromic glazings. A major new initiative is a
re-engineered attic/roof assembly which has an equivalent performance of R-50.
See: http://www.cl imatetechnology .gov/library/2003/tech-options/tech-options-1-2-2.pd[
Research on building equipment focuses on means to significantly improve efficiency of heating,

cooling, ventilating, thermal distribution, lighting, home appliances, on-site energy and power
devic. .. _,.nd a variety of miscellaneous consumer products. This area also includes a number of
cross-cutting elements, including geothermal heat pumps with enhanced earth heat exchangers,
advanced refrigerants and cycles, solid state lighting, smart sensors and controls, small power ~
supplies, microturbines, heat recovery, and other areas.
See: http://www .cl imatetechnology.govllibrary/2003/tech-options/tech-options-l-2-l.pdf
Research on whole building integration with load balancing and automated sensors and controls,
sometimes referred to as intelligent building systems. Such systems continuously monitor building
4-8
CEQ 015204
May28, 2004
perfonnance, detect anomalies or degradations, optimize operations across all building systems,
guide maintenance, and document and report results. They can also be extended to coordinate
onsite energy generation and internal loads, with external power (grid) demands and circumstances,
allowing responsiveness to time-variant cost savings, system efficiencies, and grid contingencies.
They also ensure occupant comfort, health, and safety, met at lowest possible cost.
See: http://www .cl imatetechnology.gov/library/2003/tech-options/tech-options-l-2-3.pdf
Research on the causes of and mitigation strategies for the heating and energy loading effects of the
built environment in the paved and often treeless environment of the urban ''heat island."
See: http://www.climatetechnology.gov/library/2003/tech-options/tech-options-l-2-4.pdfl

Promising areas identified for consideration for new or increased emphasis in future CCTP portfolio
planning, include:
Building Envelope. Improved panelized housing construction; methods for integrating

photovoltaic systems in building components such as roofs, walls, skylights, and windows, and with
building loads and utilities; and exploration of fundamental properties and behaviors of novel
materials for the storage and release of energy.
Building Equipment. Fuel cells, microturbines, and reciprocating engines; advanced commercial
refrigeration display cases, refrigerants, and materials; advanced desiccants and commercial chiller
improvements including absorption systems; geothermal heat pumps with SEERs greater than 20,
residential heat pump water heater and hot water circulation improvements; solid state lighting
technology and improved lighting distribution systems.
Whole Building Integration. Further development and widespread implementation of building

design tools for application in new and retrofit construction; tools and technologies for systems
integration in buildings, with a particular focus on sensors and controls for supply and end-use
system integration; development of pre-engineered, optimized net-zero energy building;

community-scale design and system integration tools, and urban engineering to reduce transport
energy use and congestion.
4.3 Industry
Industrial activities are estimated to account for about 42 percent of primary global energy consumption
and a commensurate share of global C02 emissions. Certain activities are particularly energy-intensive
per unit of value-added, including metals industries, such as iron, steel and aluminum; basic chemicals
and intermediate products; fertilizers; glass; pulp, paper and other wood products; and mineral products,
including cement, lime, limestone, and soda ash. Others are less energy-intensive, per unit of valueai:ided, including the manufacture or assembly of automobiles, appliances, electronics, textiles, food and
beverages, and others. Each regional or national economy varies in the structure, composition, and "
growth rates of these industries, shaped in part by its state of current economic development, and in part
by local and regional advantages in international markets. The industrial sector worldwide is expected to
expand in the future and will likely continue to account for a substantial portion of future C02 emissions.
4-9
CEQ 015205
May28, 2004
In the United States in 2002, industry accounted for about one-third percent of total U.S. C02 emissions
(Table 4-1). These are attributed to combustion of fuels (52 percent), use of electricity derived from COr
emitting sources (40 percent), and specific industrial processes known to emit C02 (8.percent). See
Table 4-4. Note: Emissions from industry and agriculture of greenhouse gases other than C02 are
discussed in the Chapter 7: Reducing Emissions of Other Greenhouse Gases.
Table 4-4. C02 Emissions in the United States from Industrial Sources in 2002 (GtC)
Industrial Processes (excluding fuel combustion

emissions above)
0.026
8.0
4.3.1 Potential Rote of Technology

The industrial sector presents numerous opportunities for advanced techriologies to make significant
contributions to the reductions of C02 emissions to the atmosphere. In the near term, advanced
technologies can increase the efficiency with which process heat is generated, contained.; transferred, and
recovered. Process and design enhancements can improve quality, reduce waste, minimize reprocessing,
reduce the intensity of material use (with no adverse impact on product or performance), and increase inprocess material recycling. Cutting-edge technologies can significantly reduce the intensity with which .
energy and materials (containing embedded energy) are used. Industrial facilities can implement direct
manufacturing processes, which can eliminate some energy-intensive steps, thus both avoiding emissions
and enhancing productivity. On the supply side, industry can self-generate clean, high-efficiency power .
and steam, and create products and by-products that can serve as clean-burning fuels. The sector can also
make greater use of coordinated systems that more efficiently use distributed energy generation,
combined heat and power, and cascaded heat.
In the long-term, fundamental changes in energy infrastructure could affect significant C02 emissions
reductions. Revolutionary changes may include novel heat and power sources and systems, including
renewable energy resources, hydrogen, and fuel cells. Innovative concepts for new products and highefficiency processes may be introduced that can take full advantage of recent and promising development
in nanotechnology, micro-manufacturing, sustainable biomass production, bio-feedstocks, and bio-
4-10
CEQ 015206
May28,2004
processing. As industry's existing, capital-intensive equipment stock nears the end of its useful service
life, and as industry expands in rapidly emerging economies in Asia and the Americas, this sector will
have an opportunity to adopt novel technologies that could revolutionize basic manufacturing. Advanced
technologies will likely involve a mix of pathways, such as on-site energy generation, conversion, and
utilization; process efficiency improvements; innovative or enabling concepts such as advanced sensors
and controls, materials, and catalysts; and recovery and reuse of materials and by-products (See
Figure 4-3).
1
Four technology pathways to

increased industrial efficiency
Enabling
Technologies
Advanced
Materials
Measurement
and Control
I
I
Micro-manufacturing Systams
lntagratad Product Design for Environment
Products
Products for
Secondary
Manufacturing
----------
I
I
Figure 4-3. Four Possible Pathways to Increased Industrial Efficiency

Within constraints of available resources, a balanced portfolio needs to address the more important
current and anticipated sources of C02 emissions in this sector. Some of the largest sources of C02
emissions today, and expected in the future, arise from industrial use of electricity and fuels for plant
utility systems including motors and drives (which account for 25 percent of all electrical sales in the
United States), compressed air, steam, and hydraulic systeJI!S. Opportunities for reducing emissions in
these areas lie with more efficient power and steam generating systems; integrated approaches that
combine cooling, heating and power needs; substitute fuels having low- or no-net-GHG byproducts; and
capture and use of waste heat. Other areas of opportunity include: improvements in specific energyintensive industrial processes, including improving efficiency, combining or removing steps, or designing
new processes altogether while producing the same or a better product; the recovery and utilization of
waste and feedstocks, which can reduce energy and material requirements; and cross-cutting opportunities, where certain generic technologies can improve operational capabilities and performance.

The current Federal portfolio focuses on four major thrusts.
Research on energy conversion and utilization focuses on a diverse range of advanced and
integrated systems. These include advanced combustion technologies; electrolytic/reduction cells
4-11
CEQ 015207
May28,2004
for metal processing; gasification technologies; high-efficiency burners and boilers; advanced steam
cycles: oxygen-fueled combustion: co-ftriri.g with low-GHG fuels: advanced heat exchangers; and
furnace design. Integrated approaches include combined-cycle power generation and cogeneration
of power and process heat or cooling.
See: http://www .cl imatetechnology.gov/library/2003/tech-options/tech-options-1-4-l.pdf
Research on specific, energy-intensive and high C02-emitting industrial processes focuses on

identifying, compared to theoretical minimum energy requirements, and removing process
inefficiencies, lowering overall energy requirements for heat and power, and reducing C02
emissions. One example under development is a means to produce high-quality iron without the
need for metallurgical coke, which Qilder current methods of steelmaking is a significant source of
C02emissions. Other areas of research focus on processes that may also improve product yield,
including catalysts and advanced separation processes, and alternative processes that take a
completely different route to the same end product, such as use of non-carbon inert anodes in
aluminium production.
See: http://www .c Ii mate tee hnol ogy .gov/1 ibrary/2003/tech-options/tech-options-1-4-3. pdf
Research on enabling technologies includes: an array of advanced materials that resist corrosion
degradation and deformation at high-temperatures and pressures; sensors, controls and automation,
with real-time non-destructive sensing and monitoring; and new computational techniques for
modeling and simulating chemical pathways and advanced processes.
See: http://www .c I imatetechnol ogy .gov/1 ibrary/2003/tech-options/tech-options-1-4-4. pdf
Research on resource recovery and utilization focuses on separating, capturing, and reprocessing
materials for feedstocks. Recovery technologies include materials designed for recyclability,
advanced separations, new and improved process chemistries, sensors and controls. Reuse
technologies include recycling, closed-loop process and plant designs, catalysts for conversions to
suitable feedstocks, and post-consumer processing.
See: http://www .c I imatetechnology. gov/1 ibrary/2003/tech-options/tech-opti ons-1-4-2. pdf

Promising areas identified for consideration in future portfolio planning for new or increased emphasis
include:
.
.
Cement and Related Products. Research

could focus on various means to reduce or eliminate
'
C02 emissions from high-emitting industrial processes, including the cement, lime, limestone and
soda ash industries. Worldwide infrastructure building over the 21st century can be expected to
create high demands for these mineral products, the production of which releases C02 as a
consequence of the calcining process. In the United States in 2002, C02emissions from these
sources accounted for 44 percent of the non-energy related industrial emissions and about 4 percent
of total U.S. C02 emissions. Research could be focused on carbon capture and sequestration, and on
the exploration of substitutes for the end product. Carbon matrixes for construction, for example,
might be lighter and stronger than concrete, and would provide a means for carbon sequestration.
~~ . ""'
.
4-12
CEQ 015208
May28,2004
Advanced Applications of Bio-Technology. Bio-products soon could be able to replace fossil

feedstocks, such as oil, from current industrial processes for manufacturing fuels, chemicals and
materials. Recent advances in biosciences and engineering have opened a new frontier of
possibilities. These advances include a better understanding of: genomes, proteins and their
functions including carbon-dioxide capture, fixation and storage; the effects of pre-treatment on
biomass feedstock properties; enzymes for hydrolyzing pre-treated biomass into fermentable sugars;
micro-organisms used in fermentation; and new tools of discovery such as bio-informatics, highthroughput screening of biodiversity, directed enzyme development and evolution, and gene
shuffling. Biorefineries of the future could produce value-added chemicals and materials together
with fuels and/or power from non-conventional, lower cost feedstock such as agricultural and forest
residues and other biomass materials
Computational Technology. Process simulation enables more effective design and operation,
leading to increased efficiency and improved productivity and product quality. Integrated modeling
of fundamental physical and chemical properties can enhance understanding of industrial material
properties and chemical processes.
4.4 Electric Grid and Infrastructure

Large reductions in-future C02 emissions may require that a significant amount of electricity be generated
from carbon-free or carbon-neutral sources including nuclear p6wer and renewable electricity producers,
such as wind, geothermal, and solar-based power generators. Some of these renewable resources are
concentrated in regions of the country that are distant from large urban markets. To accommodate such
sources, the future electricity distribution infrastructure (the 'grid') needs to extend its capacity and must
evolve to an intelligent and flexible system that enables the use of a wide and varied set"ofbaseload,
-peaking, and intermittent generation technologies.
In recent years, the demand for electricity has increased at a rate that seriously threatens to exceed current
transmission capacity. Demand is estimated to increase by 9 percent _through 2004; however, only a
3 percent increase in transmission is planned, and there have been no major new investments in transmission during the past 15 years. The outages being experienced in parts of the country, including those most
recently experienced in the Northeast, have highlighted the need to enhance grid reliability.
Enhancements for reliability will likely go hand in hand with improved efficiency of electricity
transmission. Energy losses in the U.S. transmission and distribution system were 7.2 percent in 1995,
accounting for 2.5 quads of primary energy and 36.5 MtC. Losses are divided such that about 60% are
from lines and 40 percent are from transformers (most of which are for distribution). The T&D
technologies that can improve efficiency and reduce carbon emissions include high-voltage DC (HVDC)
transmission, high-strength composite overhead conductors, and power transformers. High-efficiency
conventional transformers also could have significant impacts on distribution system losses.
4-13
CEQ 015209
U.S. Climate Change Technology Program Draft Strategic. Plan
May28,2004

Several categories of technology could help improve reliability, flexibility/inter-connectedness, and
efficiency of the grid. These include:
Sensors and Controls. Sensors and controls will play a key role in the development of the
next-generation electric T&D system. Improved sensors and controls, as part of the next-generation
electricity transmission and distribution system. could significantly increase the efficiency of
electricity generation and delivery, ~ereby reducing the greenhouse gas emissions intensity
associated with the electric grid. In the grid of the future, distributed energy resources could be
fully integrated into grid operations, providing a robust energy infrastructure enhanced by local
protection and control measures. Both centralized and distributed energy resources could be
interconnected via the grid and/or networked to match or be responsive to loads. Outfitting the
system with digital sensors, infonnation technologies and controls could further increase system
efficiency, enable real-time responses to system loads, and allow greater use of more efficient and
low-GHG end-use and other distributed technologies. Communications and information technologies could then be extended to the distribution system. enabling data transfer and electronic
communication and interaction at all levels, including the end user.
Superconducting Wire. High temperature superconductorsmay be able to be utilized in key parts

of the transmission and distribution system to reduce or eliminate line losses and increase
efficiency. The absence of electrical resistance with high temperature superconducting HTS wire
makes possible super-efficient electrical power components that have only half the energy losses
and that are half the size of conventional technology of the same power rating. In the long term,
HTS electrical wires might be able to carry 100 times the amount of electricity compared to the
same size conventional copper wires. In the near-term, superconductive transmission cables that
carry three to five times more power than present technology will enable direct replacement of
existing underground power cables by urban utilities to meet demand growth without costly and
disruptive construction.
Energy Storage Devices. Because the storage efficiency (output compared to input energy) is less
than 100 percent, on a kilowatt-per-kilowatt basis, energy storage does not directly decrease CO:z
production. The exception to this rule is the use of advanced energy storage in conjunction with
intermittent renewable energy sources, such as photovoltaics and wind that produce no direct CO:z.
Energy storage allows these intermittent ll!SOurces to be dispatchable. Energy-storage deyices do
positively affect C02 production on an industrial output basis by providing high-quality power,
maximizing industrial productivity. New battery technologies, including sodium sulfur and flow
batteries~ significantly improve the energy and power densities for stationary battery storage as
compared to traditional flooded lead-acid batteries.
Pow ~r Electronics. As distributed power sources become increasingly prevalent in the near futw:e.
power electronics will be able to provide significant advantages in processing power from
renewable energy sources using fast response and autonomous control. Additionally, power
electronics can control real and reactive power flow from a utility-connected renewable energy
source.
4-14
CEQ 015210
May28,2004

Early research emphasis is likely to focus on ensuring reliability, e.g., establishing "self-healing" capabilities for the grid, including intelligent, autonomous device interactions, and advanced communication
capabilities. Additional technologies would be needed for wide-area sensing and control, including sensors, secure communication and data management, and for improved grid-state estimation and simulation.
Simulation linked to intelligent controllers can lead to improved protection and discrete-event control.
Digitally-enabled load management technologies; wireless communications architecture and algorithms
for system automation; and advanced power storage technologies will allow intermittent and distributed
energy resources to be efficiently integrafe!l.
Longer-term research is likely to focus on the development of fully operational, pre-commercial
prototypes of energy intensive power equipment that, by incorporating high temperature superconducting
(HTS) wires, will have greater capacity with lower energy losses and half the size of conventional units.
Over the long-term, the T &D system would also be enhanced by integrating storage and power
electronics.

Across the current Federal portfolio of electric infrastructure related RD&D, multi-agency activities are
focused on a number of major thrusts in high-temperature superconductivity, transmission and distribution technologies, distributed generation and combined heat and power, energy Storage, sensors, controls
and communications, and power electronics, e.g.:
Research on ffigh Temperature Superconductivity {HTS) is focused on i.mi>roving the reliability

and security of the Nation's electric power system. Fully operational, pre-commercial prototypes of
electric power equipment, incorporating !ITS wires, are being developed to have only half the
energy losses and to be half the size of conventional power units. More reliable and robust !ITS
distribution and transmission cables that have three to five times the capacity of conventional
copper cables and higher efficiency, which is especially useful in congested urban areas, are being
developed.
See: http://www .cl imatetechnology.gov/1 ibrary/2003/tech-options/tech-options-1-3-1
Through years of Federal research in partnership with companies throughout the nation, technology
has developed to bond these IITS materials to various metals, providing the flexibility to fashion
these ceramics into wires for use in transmission cables, bearings for flywheels, and coils for power
transformers, motors, generators, and the like.
Research on transmission.and distribution technologies is focused on real-time information and

control technologies and systems that increase transinission capability, economic and efficient
electricity markets, and grid reliability such as: high-strength composite overhead conductors,
pow~r transformers and high-efficiency conventional transformers.
See: http://www .cl i matetechnology.gov/1 ibrary/2003/tech-options/tech-options-l-3-2.pdf
Research on distributed generation {DG) includes renewable resources (e.g., photovoltaics),
natural gas engines and turbines, energy-storage devices, and price-responsive loads. These
4-15
CEQ 015211
May28,2004
technologies can meet a variety of consumer energy needs including continuous power, backup
power, r~mote power, and peak shaving. They can be installed directly on the consumer's premise
or located nearby in district energy systems, power parks, and mini-grids (see Figure 4-4).
Current research focuses on technologies that are powered by natural gas combustion and are
located near the building or facility where the electricity is being used. These systems include
microturbines, reciprocating engines and larger industrial gas turbines that generate from 25 kW to
10 MW of electricity that is appropriate for hotels, apartment buildings, schools, office buildings,
hospitals, etc. Combined cooling, heating, and power (CHP) systems recover and use "waste heat"
from distributed generators to efficiently cool, heat, or dehumidify buildings or rnaice more power.
Research is needed to increase the efficiency and reduce the emissions from microturbines,
reciprocating engines, and industrial gas turbines to allow them to be sited anywhere, even in nonattainment areas. These technologies can meet a variety of consumer energy needs including
continuous power, backup power, remote power, and peak shaving. Microturbines and reciprocating engines can also be utilized to bum opportunity fuels like landfill gases or biogases from
wastewater treatment facilities or other volatile species from industrial processes that would
otherwise be an environmental hazard.
See: http://www .cl imatetechnology. go viii brary/2003/tech-options/tech-options-1-3-3.pdf
Combined heat and power technologies have the potential to take all of the distributed generation
technologies one step further in GHG reduction by utilizing the waste heat from the generation of
electricity for the making of steam, heating of water, or for the production of cooling energy. The
average power plant in the United States converts approximately one-~ of the input energy into
CHP
Base-load, and
Industrial Cooling, Heat and Power
Figure 4-4. A Distributed Energy Future
4-16
CEQ 015212
May28.2004
output electricity and then discards the remaining two-thirds of the energy as waste heat. Integrated
DG systems with CHP similarly produce electricity at 30 to 45 percent efficiency, but then capture
much of the waste heat to make steam, heat, or cool water, or meet other thermal needs and increase
the overall efficiency of the system to greater than 70 percent. Research is needed to increase the
efficiency of waste-heat-driven absorption chillers and desiccant systems to overall efficiencies well
above 80 percent
Research on energy storage is focused in two general areas. First, research is striving to develop
storage technologies that reduce power quality disturbances and peak electricity demand, and
improve system flexibility to reduce adverse effects to users. Secondly, research is seeking to
improve electrical energy storage for stationary (utility, customer-side, and renewables) applications. This work is being done in collaboration with a number of universities and industrial
partners. Internationally, the Japanese are investing heavily in high-temperature, sodium-sulfur
batteries for utility load-leveling applications. They also are pursuing large-scale vanadium
reduction-oxidation battery chemistries.
See: http://www .cl imatetechnology. gov/1 ibrary/2003/tec h-options/tech-options-1-3-4. pdf
Research on sensors, controls, and communications is focused on developing computer

simulation models of the T&D system to assess grid conditions. To validate these models,
prototype sensors and communication systems, as well as assessment methods for the intelligent
agents, will be required.
See: http://www .cl imatetechnology .gov/1 ibrary/2003/tech-options/tec h-options-1-3-5.pdf
Additional R&D focuses on developing distributed intelligent agents to diagno~e local faults and
coordinate with power electronics and other existing, conventional protection schemes that will
provide autonomous control and protection at the local level. This hierarchy will enable isolation
and mitigation of faults before they cascade through the system. The work will also help users and
electric power system operators achieve optimized control of a large, complex network of DER
systems, and will provide remote detection, protection, control, and contingency measures for the
electric system.
.
.
Current research on power electronics is focused on megawatt-level inverters, fast semiconductor
switches, sensors, and devices for Flexible AC Transmission Systems (FACfS). The Office of .
Naval Research and DOE have a joint program to develop power electronic building blocks. The
military is developing more electricity-intensive aircraft, ships, and land vehicles, which are
providing power electronic spin-offs for infrastructure applications.
See: http://www .cl i matetechnology.gov/1 ibrary/2003/tech-options/tech-options-1-3-6.pdf
4.4.4 Future Research Directions

While many technologies are under development, there are certain areas of R&D that would benefit from
further attention, given the importance of the electricity delivery system and the enabling role that an
advanced power grid could play in bringing forth carbon-free or carbon-neutral power generation sources.
One cross-cutting area of research is new software-based means for controlling an advanced
infrastructure. Specific research needs include:
4-17
CEQ 015213
May28,2004
High Temperature SuperconductiD.g Cables and Equipment. The manufacture of promising

HTS materials in long lengths at low cost remains a key program challenge. New, continuously
scanning analytical systems are necessary to assure uniformly high superconductor characteristics
over kilometer lengths of wire. R&D is needed to develop highly reliable, high-efficiency
cryogenic systems to economically cool the superconducting components including materials for
cryogenic insulation and standardized high-efficiency refrigerators. Scale-up of national laboratory
discoveries for ..coated conductors" requires the use of film industry or semiconductor industry
processing expertise and equipment 'to make electric wires and is a key activity for the labs and their
industry partners.
Energy Storage. Energy storage that responds over time scales from milliseconds to hours and
outputs that range from watts to megawatts is a critical enabling technology for enhancing customer
reliability and power quality, more effective use of renewable resources, integration of distributed
resoUrces, and more reliable transmission system operation.
Real-time Monitoring and Control. Introduction of low-cost sensors throughout the power
system is needed for real-time monitoring of system conditions. New analytical tools and software
must be developed to enhance system observability and power flow control over wide areas.
4.5 Conclusions
The development of advanced technologies that can reduce, avoid, substitute for, or improve the
efficiency of energy use provides the foundation for most scenarios aimed at achieving significant
reductions in C02 emissions over the long-term. The relative size of the contribution toward UNFCCC
goal attainment, should it be pursued, would depend on many factors, but is generally considered large.
The scenarios suggest, however, that that there are a number of important challenges to be met. The frrst
challenge would be achieving advances in technology to sustain progress in energy productivity
improvement over the next 100 years at the historic rate of one percent or more per year. Additional
energy efficiency improvements would need to be made, above and beyond the historic rate, to make the
additional contributions built into the three CCTP scenarios. Also, world transportation energy use is
expected to grow substantially, and low-emission technology would have significant leverage in that
sector.. Another challenge is reducing emission rates from several key C02-emitting industrial processes,
including the coking, cement, lime and soda ash industries. Finally, in the long-run, new technologies
using new fuels or energy forms derived from low- or near-net-zero C02 emitting sources would need to
be introduced to achieve further reductions in C02 emissions from energy end-use and infrastn}cture.
4-18
CEQ 015214
May28,2004
Reducing Emissions from Energy Supply
As discussed in Chapters 3 and 4, by the year 2100 global energy demand is projected to grow by a factor
of three from today' s level (from about 400EJ n 2000 to 1200 EJ in 2100), even under scenarios that
assume energy efficiency improves over time. Growth in global electricity demand is projected to
increase faster than direct use of fuels in end use applications; electricity use is projected to grow by a
factor of eight- from about 50 EJ/year in 2000 to almost 400 EJ/year in 2100 in the CCTP Reference
Case. Today, a range of technologies using fossil fuels,
Energy Supply
nuclear power, hydroelectric power and a small amount of Potential Contributions to Emissions Reduction
renewable energy supplies the world's electricity demand,
and most of the global transportation demand is met with
petroleum products (see Figure 5-1 and 5-2). In the CCTP
Reference Case scenario, use of petroleum products for
transportation is projected to rise by almost a factor of four
-from about 80 Ellyear in 2000 to almost 300 EJ/year in
2100, commensurate with population growth and increased
standard of living. If the mix of energy supply options
does not change, a large portion of energy in the future will
continue to be supplied by fossil fuels, and the resulting
emissions of C02 would be expected to grow steadily over
the course of the 21st Century.
The development of advanced technologies that can significantly reduce emissions of C02 from energy
supply is a central component of the U.S. Climate Change Technology Strategy. Many technological
opportunities exist for pursuing low or near-net-zero emissions energy supplies, which a coordmated
Federal R&D investment plan can facilitate. Some build on the existing energy infrastructure, dominated
by coal and other fossil fuels. They attempt to "close the loop on carbon." In the CCTP Very High
Emissions Constraint case, fossil-based power generation with engineered storage is projected to
eliminate over 250 GtC of C02 emissions over the course of the 21 51 Century in the simulated Closing the
wop on Carbon (CLC) scenario. The central technology in this scenario is envisioned to be an advanced
coal-based production facility, starting with coal gasification and production of syngas, which can
generate electricity, hydrogen, other valued fuels and chemicals, while also capturing and storing C02 and
emitting very low levels of other pollutants. Approaches to capture C02 emissions from the combustion
of other fossil fuels may also be required for atmospheric C02 stabilization. (In the CCfP CLC
scenarios, carbon capture and sequestration was also applied to natural gas-fired electricity generation
when its use was cost-effective in meeting the emissions constraints.) Near-term opportunities exist for
lowering COz emissions from fossil fuel combustion by increasing the energy efficiency of cmbustion
technology and the use of combined heat and power.
Another scenario envisioned a "new energy backbone" based, in part, on continuing advances in coalbased and other energy technology systems, but significantly augmented by new and advanced energy
supply technologies with low or near-net-zero GHG emissions. These include advanced forms of: ~
renewable energy, such as wind, photovoltaics, solar thermal applications, and others; biologically-based
open and closed energy cycles, such as enhanced systems for biomass combustion, biomass conversion to
bio-fuels and other forms of bio-energy; refuse-derived fuels and energy; and various types of nuclear
5-1
CEQ 015215
May28, 2004
Other
Hydro
16.6%
1.8%
Coal
Nuclear
17.1%
Nat. Gas
18.3%
Oil
7.5%
Figure 5-1. World Electricity Generation

Source: lEA "Key World Energy Statistics-2003"
World Total Primary Energy Supply
Comb. Ren.
&
Wasle
10.8""
Figure 5-2. World Primary Energy Supply

Source: lEA "Key World Energy Statistics-2003"
energy, including technologies that employ spent fuel recycling. Variations of these advanced technologies can also be deployed in the production of hydrogen, which may play a big role in reducing emissions
from the transportation sector, as well as potentially being used to supply fuel cells for electricity
production. In all of the Advanced Technology Scenarios examined by CCI'P, zero-carbon energy
sources played a role in reducing emissions toward the target trajectories. The cumulative (2000-2100)
C02 reduction attributable to net carbon-free energy supply (biomass, nuclear, hydropower, geothermal,
wind and solar) ranged from 8 GtC in the Closing the Loop on Carbon case with the low emissions
constraint, to 324 GtC in the New Energy Backbone scenario with the very high emissions constraint.
(In the Very High Emissions Constraint case, nuclear, biomass and renewable energy make about eqlial
contributions to the 324 GtC reduction.)
There also may be a role for additional technologies "beyond the standard suite." These might include
breakthrough designs in fusion energy that reduce its cost and increase its rate of deployment, as well as
advanced fuel cycles based on combinations of nano-techilology and new forms of bio-assisted energy
5-2
CEQ 015216
May28,2004
production, using designed molecules for more efficient photosynthesis, and hydrogen production or
photon-water splitting. Other possibilities include advanced technologies for capturing solar energy in
Earth orbit, on the moon, or in the vast desert areas of Earth, enabled, in part, by new energy carriers
and/or low-resistance power transmission over long-distances. In the CCTP Beyond the Standard Suite
scenarios, these novel (so-called "exotic") forms of energy were projected to lower cumlative C02
emissions by over 100 GtC in the Very High Emissions Constraint case over the course of the 2000-2100
time period.
Since outcomes of various ongoing and planned technology development efforts are not known, a prudent
path for R&D planning in the face of uncertainty is to diversify. The current Federal portfolio supports
technology R&D important to all three of the general technology areas discussed above. The analysis of
the three advanced technology scearios (which simulated specific -pathways toward Closing the Loop on
Carbon, A New Energy Backbone, and Beyond the Standard Suite 1 suggests that, through successful
development and implementation of these technologies, the UNFCCC goal could be attainded across a
wide range of hypothesized concentration levels and the goal could be accomplished both sooner and at
significant cost savings, compared to the Reference Case without such dramatic technological advance.
The remainder of this chapter explores R&D related to key energy supply technologies, explaining the
current research portfolio as well as future research directions. The chapter is organized around the
following technologies:
5.1
Low-Emission, Fossil-Based Fuels and Power

Hydrogen as an Energy Carrier
Renewable Energy and Fuels
Nuclear Fission
Fusion Energy
Low-Emission, Fossil-Based Power
Today, fossil fuels are an indispensable part of the U.S. and global energy mix. Because of its abundance
and current relative low cost,. coal now accounts for more than half of the electricity generated in the
United States, and it is projected to continue to supply over one half of U.S. electricity demands through
the year 2025. Natural gas will also continue to be the ''bridge" energy resource, and offers significant
efficiency improvements (and emissions reductions) in both central and distributed electricity generation
and combined heat and power applications.

Because coal is America's most plentiful and readily available energy resource, the United States
Department of Energy (DOE) has directed a portion of its research and development (R&D) resources
toward finding ways to use coal in a more efficient, cost-effective, and environmentally benign manner,
The particular scenarios examined by CCTP were based on assumptions described in Appendix B. There are
many other scenarios based on alternative assumptions that would simulate feasible pathways for each of the three
scenario categories examined by CCTP.
5-3
CEQ 015217
May28, 2004
ultimately leading to near zero emissions. Even small improvements in efficiency of the installed base of
coal-fueled power stations result in a significant lowering of carbon emissions. For example, increasing
the efficiency of all coal-fired electric generation capacity in the United States by one percentage point
would avoid the emission of 14 million tons of carbon per year (emission avoidance will rise in future
years as capacity and efficiency are increased). That reduction is equivalent to replacing about
170 million incandescent light bulbs with florescent lights or weatherizing 140 million homes. New
U.S. government-industry collaborative efforts are expected to continue to find ways to improve our
ability to decrease emissions from coal power generation at lower costs. The goal for future power plant
designs is to both increase efficiency and reduce environmental issues by developing coal-based zero
emission power plants. Moreover, the focus is on designs that are compatible with carbon sequestration
technology.

The current U.S fossil research portfolio is a fully integrated program with mid- and long-term market
entry offerings. The principal goal is a zero emissions, 60 percent efficient, coal-based electricity generation plant that has the ability to co-produce low-cost hydrogen. The mid-term manifestation of that goal
is expected to be the FutureGen project, which will be a cost-shared $1 billion venture that. will combine
electricity and hydrogen production with the elimination of virtually all emissions of air pollutants such as
sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and mercury, as well as almost complete elimination of C02. through a
combination of efficiency improvements and sequestration (see Figure 5-3). This prototype power plant
will serve as the test bed for proving the most advanced technologies, such as hydrogen fuel cells.

The low emissions fossil-based power system portfolio has several major thrusts:
Advanced Power Systems: Advanced coal-frred power generation technologies can achieve very
significant reduction in C02 emissions while providing a reliable, efficient supply of electricity.
See: http://www .cl imatetechnol ogy .gov/1 ibrary/2003/tech-options/tech-opti ons-2-1-2.pdf
Significant reductions in C02 emissions have been demonstrated via efficiency improvements and
co-flring of coal with biomass. While current fleet average power plant efficiencies are around
33 percent, increasing efficiencies to 50 percent in the mid-term, and ultimately to 60 percent (with
the integration of fuel cell technology) will nearly halve emissions of C02 per unit of electricity.
Development/deployment of C(h sequestration technology could reduce carbon emissions to nearzero levels. Recent R&D activities have focused on integrated gasification, combined-cycle (IGCC)
plants. Two U.S. IGCC demonstration plants are in operation.
Distributed Generation/Fuel Cells: The fuel cell program is focused on reducing the cost of fuel
cell technology by an order of magnitude.
See: http :1/www .cl i matetechnology. go v/I ibrary/2003/tec h-opti ons/tech-opti ons-2-1-3. pdf
In the near and mid-term, this will enable the widespread deployment of natural gas fueled
distributed generation in gas-only, combined heat and power, and fuel cell applications. In the midto long-term, this technology, along with others being develop as part of the Distributed Generation
5-4
CEQ 015218
May28,2004
II
II
Oxygen
Membrane
Process
Heat/
Steam
Stream
Cleanup
Gasification'
C02 Sequestration
( b'6ii(if'fwt':fW~~~,}i)teftf'
Figure 5-3. Coal-Based Energy complex

(For more infonnation, see:
ltttp:l/www.fossil.energy.gov/programslpowersvstemsl(uturegenl(uturegen report march 04.pd0
effort, will support coal-based FutureGen/central station applications. The goal is to develop a
modular power system with lower cost and significantly lower carbon dioxide emissions than
current plants. Examples of current R&D projects in this area include: (1) high-temperature fuel
cell performance advancement for fuel cell turbine (FCf) hybrid application, (2) large gas turbines
for hybrid FCf application, (3) hybrid systems and component demonstration, (4) low-cost fuel ceil
systems, (5) hydrogen storage, separation, and transport, {6) high-performance materials, catalysts,
and processes for reforming methane, and {7) membranes for separation of air, hydrogen, and C02
Co-Production/Hydrogen: Co-production technology focuses on developing technology to

co-produce electricity and hydrogen from coal and perhaps coaYbiomass blends with very large
reductions in C02 emissions compared to present technologies.
See: http://www .cl imatetechnology .gov/library/2003/tech-options/tech-options-2-1-l.pdf
This technology uses synthesis gas generated from coal gasification to produce hydrogen.
Carbon emissions are expected to be reduced in the near-term principally by improving procoess efficiency
and in the longer term via more advanced system components such as high-efficiency fuel cells. In both
the near and long-term, incorporating C02 collection into the process, followed by permanent sequestration will be required to achieve zero emissions. Current R&D activities have focuses on: (1) ion
transport oxygen separation membranes, (2) hydrogen separation membranes, and (3) early-entrance
co-production plant designs.
5-5
CEQ 015219
May28,2004
The current low-emission fossil-based power portfolio supports all of the components needed to achieve
the stated objectives. However, there are areas where increased R&D could reduce risk and accelerate the
introduction of technologies. Some of ~ese include: (1) enhancing the hydrogen production technology
effort, (2) adding advanced hybrid gasification/combustion- which offers an alternate path to achieve
many of the program goals, (3) accelerating testing at FutureGen, and (4) broadening advanced research
in materials development- which offers enormous potential benefits in system efficiency, durability, and
performance.
5.2 Hydrogen
As discussed above, in a long-term future characterized by low or near net-zero emissions of greenhouse
gases, global energy primary supply could continue its reliance on fossil fuels, provided there were suitable means for capturing and sequestering the resulting emissions of carbon dioxide (C02). Alternatively,
the world could increase reliance on low carbon and non-fossil energy sources. These approaches share a
need for carbonless energy carriers, such as electricity or some alternative, to store and deliver energy on
demand to end-users. Electricity is increasingly the carbonless energy carrier of choice for stationary
energy consumers, but hydrogen could prove to be an attractive carrier for the transportatjon sector (e.g.
highway vehicles and aircraft) as well as stationary applications. If successful, hydrogen may enable
reductions in petroleum use and potentially eliminate concomitant air pollutants and C~ emissions on a
global scale.
Today hydrogen is used in various chemical processes and is made largely from natural gas, producing
C02 emissions. In theory, however, hydrogen can be produced from water or biomass using various
energy sources, several of which do not emit C02 GHG-free energy sources that can produce hydrogen
from these sources include renewable energy-based electrolysis; various bio- and chemical processes;
water shift reactions with coal and natural gas, if accompanied by C02 capture and sequestration; thennal
and electrolytic using nuclear energy; and direct photoconversion. Hydrogen can be stored as a pressurized gas, cryogenic liquid, or absorbed within metal powders or carbon-based physical absorbent materials. If progress can be made on a number of technical fronts and costs of producing hydrogen can be
reduced, hydrogen could play valuable, enabling and synergistic roles in all aspects of heat and power
generation, transport and energy end-use.
..
Hydrogen is ubiquitous as the major constituent of the world's water, biomass, and fossil hydrocarbons.
It accounts for 30 percent of the fuel-energy in petroleum, and over 50 percent of the fuel-energy in
natural gas. A fundamental distinction between hydrogen and fossil fuels, how1:\ ~':', is that the production
of hydrogen, whether from water, methane or other hydrocarbons, is a net.:.energy consumer. This makes
H2 not an energy source, per se, but a carrier of energy, similar to electricity. Like electricity, the-,
potential GHG emissions associated with hydrogen use would arise from the methods of production,
storage, and distribution. H2 can be generated at any scale, including central plants, fuel stations,
businesses, homes, and perhaps onboard vehicles. In principle, the diversity of scales, methods, and
sources of production make H2 a highly vel'Satile fuel, capable of transforming transportation and
potentially other energy services by enabling compatibility with any blend of primary energy sourees.
'
5-6
CEQ 01522(
May28,2004
This versatility opens up possibilities for long-tenn dynamic optimization of C02 emissions, technology
development lead times, economics, and other factors along many and varied trajectories toward low or
near net-zero GHG emissions. In a future "hydrogen economy," H2 may ultimately serve as a means of
linking energy sources to energy uses in ways that are more flexible, secure, reliable, and responsive to
consumer demands than today, while also integrating transportation and electricity markets.
While i~ simple molecular structure makes H2 an effiCient synthetic fuel to produce, use, and/or convert
to electricity, hydrogen's physical properties make storage and delivery more challenging than most fuels.
Consequently, mostH2 today is produced at or near its point of use, consuming other fuels (e.g. natural
gas) that are easier to handle and distribute. Large H2 demands at petroleum refineries or ammonia (NH3)
synthesis plants can justify investment in dedicated H2 pipelines, but smaller or variable demands for H2
are usually met more economically by truck transport of compressed gaseous H2 or cryogenic and
liquefied hydrogen (LH2) produced by steam methane reforming. These methods have evolved over
decades of industrial experience, with H2 as a niche chemical co~odity, produced in amounts
(8 billion kg H:z/yr) equivalent to about 1 percent (-IEJ/yr) of current primary energy use in the United
States. In order for H2 use to scale up from its current position to a global carbonless energy carrier
(alongside electricity), new energetically and economically efficient technical approaches would be
required for delivery, storage and production methods.
Hydrogen production can be a value-added complement to other advanced climate change technologies,
such as those aimed at the use of fossil fuels or biomass with C02 capture and sequestration. As such
hydrogen may be a key and enabling component for full deployment of carbonless electricity technologies
(advanced fission, fusion, -and/or intermittent renewable&). In the context of technologies that address
climate change, the overarching role for hydrogen is that of a universal, carbonless transportation fuel
with other potentially important roles in stationary energy storage and/or distributed combined heat and
power (CHP) applications.
In the near term, initial deployment of H2 fleet vehicles and uninterrupted power systems may provide
early adoption opportunities and demonstrate the capabilities of the existing H2 delivery and on-site
production infrastructure. This will also contribute in other ways; such as improving urban air quality and
strengthening electricity supply reliability. This phase of H2 use may also serve as a commercial proving
ground for advanced distributed H2 production and conversion technologies using existing storage
technology, both stationary and vehicular.
In the mid-term, light-duty vehicles likely will be the frrst large mass market (10-15 EJ/yr in the U.S.)
for hydrogen. Fuel cells may be particularly attractive in automobiles given their efficiency vs:load
characteristics and typical driving patterns. Hydrogen prciduction for this application could occur either
in large centralized plants or using distributed production technologies on a more localized level.
In the long-term, production technologies must be able to produce hydrogen at a price competitive with
gasoline for bulk commercial fuel use in automobiles, freight trucks, aircraft, rail, and ships. This would
likely require efficient production means and large quantities of reasonable-cost energy supplies, perhaps
from coal with C02 sequestration, advanced nuclear power (high-efficiency electrolysis and thermo-~
chemical decomposition of water), fusion energy, or renewables {wind-powered electrolysis, direct conversion of water via sunlight, and high-temperature conversion of water using concentrated solar power),
or a variety of methods using biomass. Other important factors in the long-tenn include the cost of
5-7
CEQ 015221
U.S. Climate Change Technology Program Draft Strategic Pltin
May28,2004
hydrogen storage and transportatio~. Fmally, advances in basic science associated with direct watersplitting and solid-state hydrogen storage could possibly permit even lower-cost H2 production, and safer
storage, delivery, and utilization in the context of low or near net~zero.emission futures for transportation
and electricity generation.

Introducing H2 into the mix of competitive fuel options and building the foundation for a global hydrogen
economy will require a balanced technical approach that not only envisions a plausible commercialization
path, but also respects a triad of long-run uncertainties on a global scale regarding: (i) the scale,
~omposition, and energy intensity of future worldwide transportation demand, and potential substitutes;
(ii) the viability and endurance of C02 sequestration; and (iii) the long-term economics of carbonless
energy sources. The influences of these factors shape the urgency, relative importance, economic status,
and ideal end-state of a future H2 infrastructure.
The Department of Energy's Hydrogen Fuel Cells and Infrastructure Technologies Program plans to
research, develop, and demonstrate the critical technologies (and implement codes and standards for safe
use) needed for H2 light-duty vehicles (see Figure 5-4). The program plans to operate in cooperation with
automakers and related parties experienced in refueling infrastructure to develop technology necessary to
enable a commercialization decision by 2015. Current goals call for validation by 2015 of technology
for:
Hydrogen storage systems enabling minimum 300-mile vehicle range while meeting identified
packaging, cost, and performance requirements.
Hydrogen production to safely and efficiently deliver hydrogen to consumers at prices competitive
with gasoline without adverse environmental impacts.
Fuel cells to enable engine costs of less than $50/kW (in high volume production) while meeting .
performance and durability requirements.2
Hydrogen Fuel Cells & Infrastructure Technologies Multi Year Research, Development and Demonstration
Plan, 2003-2010, (Draft June 3, 2003), p iii.
5-8
CEQ 015222
May28, 2004
2040
2000
Security
PubUcPollcy
Air Quality }
Framework
Climate
Oun:each and acceptance
Public confidmce in
hydrogen as an energy
carriu
H,safety
~A~~p~~;rn;~ia;------------------------;Phoc~~~n;~u~
Gasification of biomass/coal with sequesttation

Electrolysis using J:a~eW~~ble and nuclear
dialogical piOCCSSCS
Production
----------------------------~~~-~~~~~---~~~~~-~~~~~~-~~~-----
Delivery
Pipelines
Trucks, rail.
batges
Onsite "distributed" facilities
Inregrate:l
ceutral-distrlbute:l
netwotks
a------------------------------------------------------------------------------
~
>.
-B
~1:1
&
Storage
Pressurized tanks
Solid state _
(gases and liquids)
(hydrides)
Chemical storage (methanol, diesel)
Mature technologies for mass production

Solid State (ca:rbon, glass structures)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------Fuel cells
Conversion
Col)lhustion
Advan~
Mature technologies for mass production
i---------------------------~-----~~~~~--------------------------------refining
distributed Commctcial flew
Appllc:ations
Fuel
Space shuttle
Portable powu
Government
stationary and
fleet systems
Stationary
power
Distributed CHP
Bus fleus
. Vehicle fleus
Market introduction
of personal vehicles
Utility systems
Integrated
fucl/powtr
systems
Military
Figure 5-4. Tlmellne from the DOE Hydrogen Posture Plan

Within the constraints of available resources, the current Federal hydrogen technology research portfolio
balances the emphasis on near-term technologies that will enable a commercialization decision for H2
automobiles by 2015, with the longer-term ultimate development of a mature hydrogen economy founded
on advanced H2 production, storage, and delivery technologies. Elements of the portfolio include:
Hydrogen Production Using Nuclear Power. High efficiency. high-temperature fission power
plants are projected to produce H2 economically without C02 Hydrogen would be produced by
cyclic thermochemical decomposition of water or high-efficiency electrolysis of high-temperature
steam. See: http://www .climatetechnology.gov/1 ibrary/2003/tech-options/tech-options-2-2-l.pdf
Hydrogen Production Using Electricity and Fossii!Alternative Energy. Development of smallscale steam reformers, alternative reactor technologies for producing hydrogen from natural gas,
and hydrogen membrane/separation technologies for improving the economics of hydrogen
production from coal with C02 sequestration. Demonstration of on-site electrolysis integrated with
renewable electricity and laboratory-scale direct water-splitting by photoelectrochemical and
photobiological methods. See:
http://www.climatetechnology.gov/library/2003/tech-options/tech-options-2-2-3.pdf
Hydrogen Storage and Distribution. Five (5) methods of high density. energy-efficient storage of
hydrogen: 1) in composite pressure vessels as a compressed gas or cryogenic vapor, 2) liquid
5-9
CEQ 015223
May28,2004
hydrogen (LH2) tanks, 3) physical absorption on high-surface-area lightweight carbon structures,

4) reversible metal hydrides, and 5) chemical hydrides. Improvement of hydrogen compression
and/or liquefaction equipment as well as materials compatibility of existing natural gas pipeline
.
infrastructure for hydrogen distribution. See:
http://www.climatetechnology.gov/lib~ary/2003/tech-options/tech-options-2-2-4.pdfl
Hydrogen Use. Demonstrate high-efficiency solid-oxide fuel cel1/turbine hybrid-electric

generation systems operating on coal with carbon sequestration. Also develop efficient and durable
PEM fuel cells appropriate for automotive use and stationary combined heat and power (CHP).
See: http://www.c Ii matetechnol ogy. gov/1 ibrary/2003/tech-options/tech-options-2-2-5 .pdf
Integrated Hydrogen Energy Systems. Demonstrate integrated hydrogen production, delivery,

and storage, as well as refueling of hydrogen vehicles, and use in stationary fuel cells. Provide
hydrogen in gaseous and liquid form as well as blended with natural gas.
See: http://www.climatetechnology.gov/library/2003/tech-options/tech-options-2-2-2.pdf
Hydrogen Infrastructure Safety. Expand the hydrogen infrastructure, building on current delivery
approaches. Work with DOT to test and refme existing hydrogen teclmologies in compliance with
Federal Standards while developing new technologies that can improve hydrogen distribution, as
well as reduce or eliminate leaks or other risks.
See: http://www .c Iimatetechno logy. gov II ibrary/2003/tech-option s/tech-opti ons-2-2-6. pdf

Expanding beyond the current portfolio, future research directions might enable hydrogen to make its full
contribution to reducing GHG's by developing the teclmologies critical for: 1) hydrogen-fueled commercial transportation; 2) integrating future electricity and H2 transportation sectors; and 3) understanding the
physical limits to efficiency of the hydrogen economy. Some elements of future research might include:
Commercial Transportation Modes. If efficient hydrogen-fueled or hybrid-electric vehicles begin

to dominate the light duty passenger vehicle market (beyond 2025), commercial transportation
modes (freight trucks, aircraa marine, and rail) may become the dominant sources of transportation
related C02 emissions later in the 21 51 century. Therefore, the future CCfP portfolio should aim at .
reducing the cost of hydrogen production and liquefaction of H2 for these modes and explore the
infrastructure implications of H2 production and/or liquefaction on-site at airports, harbors, rail
yards, etc. In the case of hydrogen aircraft, the average length of future flights, and whether
significant demand for supersonic passenger aircraft develops over the 21st century, will be important to determining the relative fuel economy advantages of hydrogen over conventional jet fuel.
Sc.:..:&.:ios of a worldwide shift toward hydrogen aircraft, and substitutes for shorter trips (high speed
rail) could be considered.
Integration of Electricity and H2 Transportation Sectors. Eventual full deployment for optimal
use of solar, wind, biomass, and nuclear electricity may require significant storage or large flexible
electricity demand. Electrolytic co-production of H2 for transportation fuel would provide such a
demand profile. This important possibility needs to be examined to determine the economic and
5-lO
CEQ 015224
May28,2004
technical parameters for electricity demand, generation, storage and hydrogen production, storage,
and use needed to achieve a synergistic effect between H2 vehicles and carbonless electricity
generation.
Develop Fundamental Understanding of the Physical Limits to Efficiency of the Hydrogen

Economy. Finally, the fundamental electrochemistry and material science of electrolyzers, fuel
cells, and reversible devices needs to be fully explored. For example, the theoretical limits on
electrolyte conductivity bound the power density and efficiency of both fuel cells and electrolyzers.
Advancing our knowledge of these limits should allow efficiency gains in the conversion of
electricity to hydrogen (and reconversion to electricity) to approach theoretical limits before
hydrogen technology is deployed on a global scale.
5.3 Renewable Energy and Fuels

Renewable sources of energy include the heat and photonic energy of the sun, the kinetic energy of wind,
the thermal energy of the earth itself, the kinetic energy of flowing water, and the chemical energy of
biomass. These sources of energy, available in one or more fonns across the United States, are converted
and/or delivered to end users as electricity, direct heat, fuels, hydrogen, and useful chemicals and
materials. Box 5-1 lists the eleven individual
Box 5-1
renewable energy technologies discussed in
Renewable Energy and Fuels Technologies
Technology Options for the Near- and Long-Term.
Wind Energy
Of the entire 71.85 quads of energy supply and
Solar Photovoltaic Power
disposition (97.72 quads total energy consumption)
Solar Buildings
in the U.S. in 2002, renewable resources contributed
5.84 quads (8 % supply and 6% total). Of that,
Concentrating Solar Power
2.79 quads came from hydropower. 2.61 quads from
Biochemical Conversion ofBiomass
biomass (wood and waste), 0.30 quads from
Thermochemical Conversion of Biomass
geothermal and 0.13 quads from solar and wind.
Biomass Residues
(Ref: EIA. Annual Energy Outlook 2004, Tables 1
Energy Crops ,
& Al8). An additional 0.17 quads of ethanol were
Photoconversion
produced from corn for transportation.
Advanced Hydropower
Geothermal Energy
The suite of renewable energy technologies is in
various states of market readiness. For example,
hydropower is well established but improvements in
.
the technology could improve its efficiency and applicability. Geothermal technologies are established in
some areas and applications, but significant improvements are needed to tap broader resources.
Renewable energy supply technologies with the highest rates of market growth at this time include solar
photovoltaic and wind energy technologies, where global shipments have been growing at 30 to 35 percent per year over the last 4 years (see graph of wind energy capacity in Figure 5-5). However, the next
generation of solar and wind technologies-with improved performance and lower cost-are in various
stages of concept identification, laboratory research, engineering development, and process scale-up.
Also, the development of integrated and advanced systems involving solar photovoltaics, concentrating
solar power, solar buildings, and wind energy are still in quite early stages.
5-11
CEQ 015225
U.S. Climate Change Technology Program Draft Strategic Pl,an
May28,2004
Biochemical and thermo-chemical conversion technologies also range broadly in their stages of
development, from some that need only to be proved at an industrial scale, to others that need more
research, to others in early stages of scientific exploration. In the general category of photo-conversion,
most technical ideas are at the earliest stages of concept development, theoretical modeling, and
laboratory experiment.
The energy production potential and siting of the various types of renewable energy facilities is dependent
on availability of the applicable natural resources. Figures 5-6 through 5-9 show U.S. availability of key
renewable resources as estimated by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (www.nrel.gov).
Renewable energy technologies are generally modular, and can be used effectively to meet the energy
needs of a standalone application or building, an industrial plant or community, or the larger needs of a
national electrical grid or fuel network. Renewable energy technologies can also be used in various
combinations, including hybrids with fossil-fuel based energy sources and with advanced storage systems
to improve renewable resource availability. Because of this flexibility, technologies and standards to
safely and reliably interconnect individual;renewable electric technologies, individual loads or buildings,
and the electric grid are of high importance (see Section 4.4).
Growth of \J\Ii.nd Energy Capacity V\forldwide
~
AaslciWJ!d
tGil
1!1
Aasl d \MJid
N:dl.Pnata
If]
N:dl.Pnata
,.l;llmJOmJa!lyet.W
Aasl rl '1\trtd
=2,llJ2
tbtl.Pnata- 4.S!9
E'mpl
;I
Figure 5-5 . Global Wind Capacity Growth
.,
,,;,
..
5-12
CEQ 015226
May28,2004
Figure 5-6. U.S. Biomass Resources
Solar Resource
Figure 5-7. U.S. Solar Resources
5-13
CEQ 015227
May28,2004
Wind Resource
Figure 5-8. U.S. Wind Resources
Geothermal Resource
"':~:.
{;:,
Figure 5-9. U.S. Geothermal Resources
5-14
CEQ 015228
May28,2004

The diversity of renewable energy sources offers a broad array of technology choices that can reduce C02
emissions. The generation of electricity from solar, wind, geothermal, or hydropower sources contributes
no COz or other greenhouse gases directly to the atmosphere. Increasing the contribution of renewables
to the Nation's eriergy portfolio will directly lower greenhouse gas intensity (greenhouse gases emitted
per unit of economic activity) in proportion to the amount of carbon-emitting energy sources displaced.
Analogous to crude oil, biomass can be converted to heat, electrical power, fuels, hydrogen, chemicals,
and intermediates. Biomass refers to both biomass residues (agricultural wastes such as com stover and
rice hulls, forest residues, pulp and paper wastes, animal wastes, etc.) and to fast-growing "energy crops"
chosen specifically for their efficiency in being converted to electricity, fuels, etc. The C02 consumed
when the biomass is grown essentially offsets the C02 released during combustion or processing.
Biomass systems actually represent a net sink for greenhouse gas emissions when biomass residues are
used, because this avoids methane emissions that result from landfilling unused biomass (see
Figure 5-10).
. .
~--.
:-1~-~~:;:-;
~tr;..y:-;:-_-y
..., . __ ,. .~:, -~--."
'"':Bioenl!rgy.;cyc;li~,-.<:-:
--~~:.'.::~<
~-:r~ ;;.:_J-~t:t~,~r~;:~:
. : .'.':" -~ .~:
..
. ........
Figure 5--10. Bioenergy Cycle

Given the diversity of the stages of development of the technologies, impacts on different economic
sectors, and geographic dispersion of renewable energy sources, it is likely that a portfolio of renewable
energy technologies, not just one, will contribute to lowering COz emissions. The compositjon of this
portfolio will change as R&D continues and markets change. Appropriately balancing investments in
developh.g this portfolio will be important to maximizing the effect of renewable energy technologies on
greenhouse gas emissions in the future.
Transitioning from today' s reliance on fossil fuels to a national energy portfolio including significant
renewable energy sources requires continued improvements in cost and performance of renewable
5-15
CEQ 015229
May28,2004
technologies. For example, Figure 5-11 shows the improvement .goals for photovoltaics. This transition
also requires shifts in the energy infrastructure to allow a more diverse mix of technologies to be
delivered efficiently to consumers in forms they can readily use.
Solar Photovoltaics Goals

100
80
60
Solar Energy 2050 goals-2050
111) Solar Energy 2050 goals-2020
Core program 2020 goals
~ Today's technology
g
~20
'5i 16
~
-5 10
~ B-----
B!==E::::=:..--4
Range of levelized eleclriclty costs(~) from sunny to average U.S. locations
2~------------------------------------------~
20
30 40 60 80 100
10
200 300
500 800
Flat-plate module cost ($1m2)
Figure 5-11. Photovoltaic Performance Goals

In general, as performance continues to improve and costs continue to decline, improved new generations
of technologies will replace today' s renewable technologies. Combinations of renewable and conventional technologies and systems, and therefore integration and interconnection issues, will grow in
importance.
The transition from today' s energy mix to a state of greenhouse gas stabilization can be projected as an
interweaving of individual renewable energy technology with other energy technologies, and market
developments through the upcoming decades. Today, grid-connected wind energy, geothermal, and
biopower systems are well-established and in some cases growing throughout the country. Solar hotwater technologies are reasonably established, though improvements continue. Market penetration of
renewable technologies is growing rapidly for smaller, high value or remote applications of solar
photovoltaics, wind energy, biomass-based combinea heat and power, some hydropower, and integrated
systems tl.at may include natural gas or diesel generators. Other technologies and applications today are
in various stages of research, development, and demonstration.
In the near term, as system costs continue to decrease, the penetration of off-grid systems should
contihue to increase rapidly, including integration of renewable systems such as photovoltaics into
buildings. As interconnection issues are resolved, the number of grid-connected renewable systems
should increase quite rapidly, meeting local energy needs such as uninterruptible power, community
5-16
CEQ 015230
May28, 2004
power, or peak shaving. Wind energy mayexpand most rapidly among grid-connected applications,
with solar expanding as system costs are reduced and geothermal expanding as research reduces costs
and extends access to resources. Environment-friendly hydropower systems should be developed.
Demonstrations of biorefinery concepts should begin in the near term, producing one or more
products (bioethanol, bioproducts, electricity, combined heat and power, etc.) from one plant using
local waste and residues as the feedstock. Biodiesel usage will continue to grow, replacing fossil-fuel
derived diesel fuel.
hi the mid-term, low-wind and offshore wind energy should begin to expand significantly.
Reductions in cost should encourage penetration by solar technologies into more large-scale markets,
first distributed markets such as commercial buildings and communities and later utility-scale
systems. Solar cooling systems should become cost effective in new construction. The first hot dry
rock plants should come on line, greatly extending access to geothermal resources. Hydropower
should benefit from full acceptance of new turbines and operational improvements that enhance
environmental performance, lowering barriers to new development. Biorefineries should begin using
both waste products and energy crops as primary feedstocks. Bioethanol and biodiesel will make
substantial market penetration, beginning to lower the U.S. dependence on imported petroleum.
hi the long-term, hydrogen from solar, wind, and possibly geothermal energy should be the backbone
of the economy, powering vehicles and stationary fuel cells. Solar technologies should also be
providing electricity and heat for commercial buildings, industrial plants, and entire communities in
major sections of the country, and most residential and commercial buildings should generate their
own energy onsite. Wind energy should be the lowest cost option for electricity generation in
favorable wind areas for grid power, and offshore systems should be prevalent. Geothermal systems
should be a major source ofbaseload electricity for large regions. Biorefmeries should be providing a
wide range of cost-effective products as rural areas embrace the economic advantages of widespread
demand for energy crops. Vehicle fuels should be powered by a combination of hydrogen fuel cells,
with some bioethanol and biodiesel in significant markets.
5.3.3 Current Federal Portfolio

The current Federal portfolio of renewable energy supply technologies encompasses eleven areas.
Wind Energy. Generating electricity from wind energy focuses on using aerodynamically designed
blades to drive generators that produce electric power in proportion to wind speed. Utility-scale
turbines range in size up to several megawatts, and smaller turbines (under 100 kilowatts) serve a
range of distributed, remote, and standalone power applications. Research activities include wind
characteristics and forecasting; aerodynamics; structural dynamics and fatigue; control systems;
design and testing of new prototypes; component and system testing; power systems integration;
and standards development. See:
http://www .c Iimatetee hnol ogy. gov /1 ibrary/2003/tech-option s/tech -options-2-3-1. pdf
Solar Photovoltaic Power. Generating electricity from solar ene!gy focuses on using
semiconductor devices to convert sunlight directly to electricity. A variety of semiconductor
materials can be used, varying in conversion efficiency and cost. Today's commercial modules are
13 to 17 percent efficient and generate electricity for about 20-.32/k.Wh. Efficiencies of
5-17
CEQ 015231
May28, 2004
experimental cells range from 12 to 19 percent for low-cost thin-film amorphous and polycrystalline
materials, and 25 to 37 percent for higher cost multijunction cells. Research activities, conducted
with strong partnerships between the federal laboratories and the private sector, include the fundamental understanding and optimization of photovoltaic materials, process and devices; module
validation and testing; process research !O lower costs and scale up production; and technical issues
with inverters and batteries. See:
Solar Buildings. Solar buildings focus on combining very energy-efficient building designs,
energy-efficient lighting and appliances, and solar technologies to deliver heat, light and cooling
such that a building would require zero net off-site energy on an annual basis. Technologies include
solar collectors for solar hot water and space heating, solar cooling using absorption chillers or
desiccant regeneration, and solar daylighting.
See: http://www.climatetechnology;gov/library/2003/tech-options/tech-options-2-3-3.pdf
Concentrating Solar Power. Concentrating solar power technology involves concentrating solar
energy 50 to 5,000 times to produce high-temperature thermal energy, which is then used to produce
electricity. Parabolic trough systems (1- 100 MWe) generating electricity for 12c-14c/kWh have
been demonstrated commercially; power towers (30-200 MWe) have been demonstrated; and
prototype dish/Stirling engine systems (2 kWe- 10 MWe) are operating in several states.
See: .http://www .cl imatetechnology. gov/library/2003/tech-options/tech-opti ons-2-3-4. pdf
Biochemical Conversion of Biomass. Biochemical technology can be used to convert the cellulose
and hemicellulose polymers in biomass (agricultural crops an:d residues, wood residues, trees and
forest residues, grasses, and municipal waste) to their building blocks such as sugars and glycerides.
Using either acid hydrolysis (well-established) or enzymatic hydrolysis (being developed), sugars
can then be converted to liquid fueb such as ethanol, chemical intermediates and products such as
lactic acid, and hydrogen. Glycerides can be converted to a biobased alternative for diesel fuel and
other products. Producing multiple products from biomass feedstocks in a biorefmery could
ultimately resemble today's oil refinery. See:
http://www.tlimatetechnology.gov/library/2003/tech-options/tech-options-2-3-5.pdf
Thermochemical Conversion of Biomass. Thermochemical technology uses heat to convert

biomass into a very wide variety of products. Pyrolysis or gasification of biomass produces an oilrich vapor or synthesis gas, which can be used to generate heat, electricity, liquid fuels, aad
chemicals. Combustion of biomas~; (or combinations of biomass and coal). generates steam for
electricity production and/or space, Yiater, or process heat, occurring today in the wood products
industry and biomass power plants. 'Analogous to an oil refinery, a biorefinery can use one or more
of these mc:;i.lauds to convert a variety of biomass feedstocks into multiple products.
See: http://www.climatetechnolog~:gov/library/2003/tech-optionsltech-options-2-3-6.pdf
Biomass Residues. Biomass residu~s include agricultural residues, wood residues, trees and forest
residues, animal wastes, pulp, and paper waste. These must be harvested, stored, and transported on
a very large scale to be used in a biorefinery. Research activities include improving and adapting
the existing harvest collection, densffication, storage, transportation, and information technologies
;
..i'
..
'
..:,
'9~.:.1
5-18
CEQ 015232
May28,2004
to bioenergy supply systems, and developing robust machines for multiple applications.
Energy Crops. Energy crops are fast growing, often genetically improved trees and grasses grown
under sustainable conditions to provide feedstocks that can be converted to heat, electricity, fuels
such as ethanol, and chemicals and intermediates. Research activities include genetic improvement,
pest and disease management, and harvest equipment development to maximize yields and
sustainability.
Photoconversion. Photoconversion processes use solar photons to drive a variety of quantum

conversion processes other than solid-state photovoltaics. These processes can produce electrical
power or fuels, materials, and chemicals directly from simple renewable susbstrates such as water,
carbon dioxide, and nitrogen. Photoconversion processes that mimic nature (termed "bio-inspired")
can also convert C02 into liquid and gaseous fuels. Most of these technologies are at early stages of
research where technical feasibility must be demonstrated, but a few (such as dye-sensitized solar
cells) are at the developmental level.
See: http://www .c Iimatetechnol ogy .go vIIi brary/2003/tech-options/tech-options-2-3-9. pdf
Advanced Hydropower. The goal of advanced hydropower technology is to maximize the use of
water for generation of electricity, while eliminating harmful environmental side effects. Representative technologies include new turbine designs that improve survivability of fish passing through
the power plant and increase dissolved oxygen in downstream discharges, new assessment methods
to optimize operation of reservoir system. and advanced instrumentation and control systems that
modify turbine operation to maximize environmental benefits and energy production. See:
http://www.climatetechnology.gov/Jibrary/2003/tech-options/tech-options-2-3-lO.pdf
Geothermal Energy. Geothennal sources of energy include hot rock masses, highly pressured hot
fluids, and shallow warm groundwater. Exploration techniques locate resources to drill, well fields
and distribution systems allow the hot fluids to move to the point of use, and utilization systems
apply the beat directly or convert it to electricity. Geothermal heat pumps use the shallow earth a5 a
heat source and heat sink for heating and cooling applications. The U.S. installed capacity for
electrical generation is currently about 2 gigawatts, but with improved technology, the U.S. resource
base is capable of producing up to 100 gigawatts of electricity at 3-5/kWh.
See: http://www .cl imatetechnology.gov/library/2003/tech-options/tech-options-2-3-ll. pdf

Promising areas being considered for new or increased emphasis in future portfolio planning include:
Wind Energy. Research challenges include developing wind technology that will be economically
com_t:>etitive at low wind-speed sites ( 13 mph), optimizing larger turbine designs for 30-year life,
developing offshore wind technology to take advantage of the immense wind resources in U.S. ,
coastal areas and the Great Lakes, and exploring the role of wind-generated electricity to produce
hydrogen through the electrolysis of water.
5-19
CEQ 015233
May28, 2004
Solar Photovoltaic Power. Research will be. required to lower the cost of solar electricity further.
This can occur through developing "third-generation" materials such as quantum dots and
nanostructures for ultra-high efficiencies or lower-cost organic or polymer materials; solving
complex integrated processing problems to lower the cost of large-scale production of thin-film
polycrystalline devices; optimiZing cells and optic systems using concentrated sunlight; and
improving the performance and lowering the cost of inverters and batteries.
Solar Buildings. Required research includes reducing cost and improving reliability of components
and systems, optimizing energy efficiency and renewable energy combinations, integrating solar
technologies into building designs, and incorporating solar technologies into building codes and
standards.
Concentrating Solar Power. Future challenges include reducing cost and improving reliability;
demonstating Stirling engine performance in the field; developing systems to generate electricity
using photovoltaic cells designed for concentrated sunlight rather than heat engines; and technology
to produce hydrogen from concentrated sunlight and water.
Biochemical Conversion of Biomass. Research must focus on improving the cost, yield, and
equipment reliability for harvesting, collecting and transporting biomass; pretreating biomass before
conversion; lowering the cost of the genetically engineered cellulose enzymes needed to hydrolyze
biomass; developing and improving fermentation organisms; and developing integrated processing
applicable to a large, continuous-production commercial facility.
Thermochemical Conversion of Biomass. Research is needed to improve the production,

preparation and handling of biomass; improve the operational reliability of thermochemical
biorefineries; remove contaminants from synthesis gas; and study synthesis gas use in various
applications. All the processes in the entire conversion system must be integrated to maximize
efficiency and reduce costs.
Biomass Residues. Research challenges include developing sustainable agriculture and forest
management systems that provide biomass residues; developing cost-effective drying, densification,
and transportation techniques to create more standard feedstock from various residues; developing
whole-crop harvest and fractionation systems; and developing methods for pretreatment of residues
at harvest locations.
Energy Crops. Crop research needs in the future include identifying genes that control growth and
characteristics important to conversion processes, developing gene maps, understanding functional
genomics in model crops, and advanced management systems and enhanced cultural practices to
optimize sustainable energy crop production.
Photoconversion. Photoconversion research requires developing the fundamental scientific understanding of photolytic processes through multidisciplinary approaches involving theory,
mechanisms, kinetics, biological pathways and molecular genetics, natural photosynthesis, materials
scier.ce, catalysts and catalytic cycles.
5-20
CEQ 015234
U.S. Climate Change TechnolO!JY Program Draft Strategic Plan
May28, 2004
Advanced Hydropower. Research challenges include computational fluid dynamics modeling;

advanced instrumentation, sensor, and control systems; improvements to understand more fully how
fish respond to turbulent flows and other physical stresses inside turbines and downstream of dams;
and field testing of new technology to measure fish survival rates.
Geothermal Energy. Future research needs include developing improved methodologies for
predicting reservoir perfonnance and lifetime; finding and characterizing underground fracture
permeability; developing low-cost innovative drilling technologies; reducing the cost and improving
the efficiency of conversion systems; and developing technology that will allow the use of
geothennal areas that are deeper, lesspermeable, or drier than those currently considered as
reserves.
5.4 Nuclear Fission

There are over 440 nuclear power plants in 31 nations currently that generate 17 percent of the world's
electricity (see Figure 5-1 earlier in the chapter), providing 7 percent of total world energy (see
Figure 5-2). Because they emit no greenhouse gases, today's nuclear power plants avoid the COz
emissions associated with combustion of coal or other fossil fuels.
Over the past 30 years, operators of nuclear power plants have steadily improved economic performance
through reduced costs for maintenance and operations and improved power plant availability, while
operating reliably and safely. In addition, science and technology for the safe storage and ultimate
disposal of nuclear waste has been advanced. Waste from nuclear energy must be isolated from the
environment High-level nuclear wastes from fission reactors (used fuel assemblies) are stored in
contained, steel-lined pools or in robust dry casks at limited-access reactor sites, until a deep geologic
repository is ready to accept and permanently isolate them from the environment However, used nuclear
fuel contains a substantial quantity of fissionable materials that although not economically useful today,
could be valuable in the future. Advanced technologies that could recover much of the remaining energy
in spent fuel also offer the prospect of reducing required repository space and the radio-toxicity of the
dispos~d waste.
While the current application of nuclear energy is the production of electricity, other applications are
possible, such as co-generation of process heat and the generation of hydrogen from water or from
methane (with carbon capture or integration with other materials production or manufacturing).

The goal of R&D for nuclear facility optimization is to increase the efficiency, reliability, and power
generation of 104 existing nuclear power plants to the advantage of the environment. Extending the
license terms of currently-operating nuclear plants for 20 more years and optimizing their generation, as is
being done in the United States, will offer a cost-effective resource for carbon-dioxide mitigation well
into the middle part of this century. Through the early months of 2004, 26 nuclear units in the United
States have received approval to extend their operating licenses to a total of 60 years; 37 others have-filed
or announced their intent to file for license extensions; and most likely all of the remaining plants are
expected to follow suit.
5-21
CEQ 015235
May28,2004
To the extent that new nuclear power plant technologies can address prevailing concerns, the nuclear
option can continue to be an important part of a greenhouse gas emissions-free energy portfolio.
Research and development on near-term advanced reactor concepts that offer enhancements to safety and
economics should enable these new technologies to be competitive in the deregulated electricity market,
and support energy supply diversity and security.
Evolutionary light water reactors of standardized design are now available and have received
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission design certification and been constructed on schedule in Japan and
South Korea. However, even newer nuclear energy systems for the longer-term have the potential to offer
significant advances in the areas of sustainability, proliferation resistance and physical protection, safety,
and economics. These newer nuclear energy systems, described as Generation IV reactors, will be
required to replace or add to existing light water reactor capacity.

The strategy for the near-term is to: 1) increase the efficiency, reliability, and power generation of
existing nuclear power plants; 2) to help make the economic and clean air benefits of the plants available
through current and renewed license terms; and 3) to provide technology to predict and measure the
extent of materials damage from plant aging. To expand current nuclear capacity significantly in markets
other than Asia and Eastern Europe (see Figure 5-12), by deploying new, advanced nuclear power plants
in the relatively near-term, United States leadership is essential. The untested federal regulatory and
licensing processes for the siting, construction, and operation of new nuclear plants must be demonstrated. In addition, other major obstacles must be addressed including the initial high capital costs of the
first few plants and the business risks resulting from this and the regulatory uncertainty.
In the longer-term, next-generation nuclear energy systems can serve a vital role in the Nation's
diversified energy supply. By successfully addressing the fundamental research and development issues
of system concepts that excel in safety, sustainability, cost-effectiveness and proliferation resistance, the
systems are highly likely to attract future private-sector sponsorship and ultimate commercialization by
the private sector. Advanced nuclear fission reactor systems aim to extract the full enetgy potential of the
spent nuclear fuel from current fission reactors, while reducing or eliminating the potential for proliferation of nuclear materials and technologies, and reducing both the radiotoxicity and total amount of waste
produced. Additionally, these advanced technologies can include energy conversion systems that can
produce non-electricity products such as hydrogen, desalinated water, and process heat.
A key objective of nuclear energy research and development is to enhance the basic technology, and
through advanced civilian technology research, chart the way toward the next leap in technology. From
these efforts, and those of industry and our overseas partners, nuclear energy will continue to fulfill its
promise as a safe, advanced, inexpensive, and environmentally sound approach to providing reliable
energy throughout the world.
5-22
CEQ 015236
May28,2004
Reactors Under Construction Worldwide

Romaniai!ii
.
0
.
4
Figure 5-12. Nuclear Reactors Under Construction

Sources: IAEA Power Reactor lnfonnation Syst9m; Uranium lnfonnation Centre/World Nuclear Association; Nuclear
News 2004; organization press releases/web pages

The current Federal portfolio focuses on four areas:
Existing plant R&D is focused on improving availability and maintainability of nuclear plants;
providing technology to predict and measure the extent of materials damage from plant aging; and
operating plants at higher power levels (power uprates), based on more accurate measurement and
knowledge of safety margins, reduced consumption of onsite electrical power, and equipment
upgrades.
See: http://www.climatetechnology.gov/library/2003/tech-options/tech-options-2-4-l.pdf
The Nuclear Energy Plant Optimization (NEPO) Program has supported the use of nuclear energy
in the United States by conducting research and development focused on improving the operations
and reliability of currently operating nuclear power plants while maintaining a high level of safety.
Improved efficiency is reflected in increases in power generating capacity and improvements in
reliability are reflected in increased operating predictability. The NEPO program has supported the
Secretary of Energy's priority to ensure U.S. energy security by protecting critical infrastructure that
supports the production and delivery of electricity in the United States and focusing on programs
that help increase the supply of domestically produced energy. Additionally, it has made significant
5-23
CEQ 015237
May28,2004
progress toward addressing many of the aging material and generation optimization issues which
have been identified as the key long-term issues facing current operating plants. Further information about current projects and recent results of the NEPO program can be obtained at the NEPO
web site: http://nuclear.gov/nepo2/default-nepo.asp
Research on nuclear power plant technologies for near-term deployment is focused on

advanced fission reactor designs that are currently available or could be niade available with limited
additional work ~o complete designd,evelopment and deployment in the 2010 timeframe.
DOE's Roadmap to Deploy New Nuclear Power Plants in the United States by 20103 was issued in
October 2001 and advises DOE on actions and resource requirements needed to support deployment
of new nuclear power plants around 2010. The primary focus of the roadmap is to identify the
generic and design-specific prerequisites to near-tenn deployment, to identify those designs that
best promise to meet the needs of th~ marketplace, and to propose recommended actions that would
support deployment. This includes, put is not limited to, actions to achieve economic
competitiveness and timely regulatory approvals.
The Nuclear Power 2010 Program is,ajoint government/industry cost-shared effort. The program is
designed to pave the way for an industry decision by 2006 to order at least one new nuclear power
plant for deployment in the 2010 timeframe. Activities under this program support cost-shared
demonstration of the Early Site Permit (ESP) and combined Construction and Operating License
(COL) processes to reduce licensing uncertainties and minimize the attendant financial risks to the
licensee. ht addition, the program includes technology research and development to fmalize and
license a standardized advanced reactor design, which U.S. power generation companies will fmd to
be more competitive in the deregulated electricity market. The economics and business case for
building new nuclear power plants is also being evaluated as part of the Nuclear Power 2010
program to identify the necessary financial conditions under which power generation companies
would add new nuclear capacity.
Research on the Next-Generation Fission Energy Systems will lead to advanced nuclear energy
systems that offer significant advances in the areas of sustainability, proliferation-resistance and
physical protection, safety, and economics. These newer nuclear energy systems will replace or add
to existing light water reactor capacity and should be available before 2020. To develop these nextgeneration systems, DOE manages the Generation IV Nuclear Energy Systems htitiative.See: http://www.climatetechnology.gov/library/2003/tech-options/tech-options-2-4-2.pdf
I
Development of next-generation nu~lear energy system<> is being pursued by the Generation IV

International Forum, a group of ten leading nuclear nauuns (Argentina, Brazil, Canada, France,
Japan, the Republic of Korea, the Republic of South Africa, Switzerland, the United Kingdom. and
the linited States) plus the European' Atomic Energy Community (Euratom), who have selectt:d six
promising technologies as candidates for next-generation nuclear energy systems concepts. The
Generation IV (Gen IV) Nuclear Energy Systems htitiative addresses the fundamental research and
3
'
"A Roadmap to Deploy New Nuclear Powei'flants in the United States by 2010," October 31,2003
(bttp://nuclear. gov/nerac/ntdroad mapvolume l.pdf and http://nuclear.gov/nerac/NTDRoadmapVolii.PDF)
.;
,,,,
.
5-24
.....~-
CEQ 015238
May28, 2004
development issues necessary to establish the viability of next-generation nuclear energy system.
concepts. By successfully addressing the fundamental research and development issues of system
concepts that excel in safety, sustainability, cost-effectiveness and proliferation resistance, the
systems are highly likely to attract future private-sector sponsorship and ultimate commercialization
by the private sector. Gen IV systems will not only be safe, economic and secure, but also include
energy conversion systems that produce non-electricity products such as hydrogen, desalinated
water, and process heat (see Figure 5-13). See also:
http://nuclear.gov/geniv/Generation IV Roadmap l-31-03.pdf and
http://nuclear.gov/reports/Gen-IV Implementation Plan 9-9-03.pdf
The Evolution ot Nuclear Power

Generation I
Generationn
l.lilifi.i'iliS:~~I
Generation Dl
commercial Power
Early Prototype
Reactors
Reactors
Generation Ill+
''}'}~-., ' "
0 eneratlon Ill
Evolutionary
Designs Offertng
----
Improved
Economics
- Shippingport
- Dresden, Fermll
- Magnox
---1950
cf
Gen I
-1960
"---~-
1970
- LWR-PWR. BWR
- CANDU
- AIJNR
- WERIRBMK
-AGR
- AP600
- EPR
GenII
1980
-System 80+
-----
'V
--~
2000
1990
...
--------rg---~
Gen Ill+ . :'''~''"G'eitlV' u
.,
--~------....:..: .;;;;~.:.--~:.~
2020
2030
Figure 5-13. Future Nuclear Power Concepts
The Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative (AFCI), under the leadership of DOE, is focused on
developing advanced fuel cycle technologies, which include spent fuel treatment, advanced fuels,
and transmutation technologies, for application to current operating commercial reactors and
next-generation reactors and to inform a recommendation by the Secretary of Energy in the
2007-2010 timeframe on the need for a second geologic repository. See:
The AFCI program will develop technologies to address intermediate and long-term issues
associated with spent nuclear fuel. The intermediate-term issues are the reduction of the volume
and heat generation of material requiring geologic disposal. The program will develop
proliferation-resistant processes and fuels for application to current light water reactor systems ~d
advanced gas-cooled reactor systems to enable the energy value of these materials to be recovered,
while destroying significant quantities of plutonium. This work provides the opportunity to
optimize use of the Nation's frrst repository and reduce the technical need for an additional
repository: The longer-term issues to be addressed by the AFCI program are the development of
S-25
CEQ 015239
May28,2004
fuel cycle technologies to destroy minor actinides, greatly reducing the long-term radiotoxicity and
heat load of high-level waste sent to a geologic repository. This will be accomplished through the
development of Gen IV fast reactor fuel cycle technologies and possibly accelerator-driven systems.
For more information see: http://nuclear.gov/reports/AFCI CongRpt2003.pdf.

Most R&D challenges remaining for near-term deployment options relate to advanced light water and gas
reactors, including fuel development, characterization, manufacture, testing and regulatory acceptance;
power conversion system design and testing, including resolution of uncertainties regarding materials,
reliability, and maintainability; and fission reactor internals design and verification. Additional research
needs to support deployment of nuclear plant systems include:
Support resolution of the technical, institutional, and regulatory barriers to the deployment of new
in the 2010 timeframe, consistent with recommendations in the Near-Tenn
Deployment Roadmap.
nucl~ar power plants
In cooperation with the nuclear industry, demonstrate the untested regulatory processes for Early
Site Permit and combined Construction and Operating Licenses to reduce licensing uncertainties
and attendant financial risk to the licensees.
Enable finalization and NRC certification of those advanced nuclear power plant designs that the
U.S. power generation companies may be willing to build.
Provide for development and demonstration of advanced technologies to reduce construction time
for new nuclear power plants and to minimize schedule uncertainties and associated costs for
construction.
Support operational safety, proliferation-resistant fuel cycle concepts; minimization of wastes; and
economy of both capital and O&M.
Of the other challenges that must be addressed to enable a future expansion in the use of nuclear energy in
the United States and worldwide, none is more important or more difficult than that of dealing effectively
with spent nuclear fuel. Compared to other industrial waste, the spent nuclear fuel generated during the
production of electricity is relatively small in quantity. However, it is highly toxic for many thausands of
years, and its disposal requires resolution of many political, societal, technical, and regulatory issues.
While these issues are being addressed in the license application for the Yucca Mountain repository,
several countries around the world have pursued advanced technologies that could treat and transmute
spent nuclear fuel from nu~.:iear power plants. These technologies have the potential to dramatically
reduce the quantity and toxicity of waste requiring geologic disposal. Over the last four years, the
United States has joined this international effort and found considerable merit in this area of joint
advanced research.
5-26
CEQ 015240
May28,2004
5.5 Fusion Energy

Fusion energy holds the possibility of an almost inexhaustible supply of zero-GHG electricity. Fusion is
the power source of the sun and the stars. Lighter elements are "fused" together in the core of the sun,
producing heavier elements and prodigious amounts of energy. On Earth, fusion has been demonstrated
in the l~boratory at powers of five t~ fifteen million watts, with pulse lengths in the range of one to five
seconds. Today there is little doubt that fusion power can eventually be produced at much larger scales.
The two principal approaches for confining the fusion reaction are magnetic and inertial. Magnetic fusion
relies on magnetic forces to confine the charged particles of the hot plasma fuel for sustained periods of
fusion energy production. Inertial fusion relies on intense lasers, x-rays, or particle beams to rapidly
compress a pellet of fuel to the point where fusion occurs; yielding a burst of energy that would be
repeated to produce sustained energy production.
Fusion power generation offers a number of advantageous features. The basic sources of fusion fuel,
deuterium and tritium, are actually heavy forms of hydrogen. Deuterium is abundantly available since it
occurs naturally in water, and tritium can be derived from lithium, a light metal found in the earth's crust.
Tritium is radioactive, but the quantities in use at any given time are quite modest and can be safely
handled. There are no chemical pollutants or carbon dioxide emissions from the fusion process. With
appropriate advances in materials, the radioactivity of the fusion by-products would be relatively shortlived, thereby obviating the need for extensive waste management measures. From a safety perspective,
the fusion process poses little radiation risk to anyone outside the facility. Also, since only a small
quantity of fuel is in the fusion system at any given time, there is no risk of a criticality accident or
meltdown and little after heat to be managed in the event of an accident. The potential usefulness of
fusion systems is great, but many technological challenges remain.

Fusion energy is an attractive option to consider for long-term sustainable energy generation. It would be
particularly suited for base-load electricity supply, but could also be used for hydrogen production~ With
the growth of world population expected to occur in cities and megacities, concentrated energy sources
that can be located near population centers, such as fusion energy, may be particularly attractive. Additionally, the fusion process does not produce greenhouse gases and has well-attested and attractive
inherent safety and environmental characteristics that will help gain public acceptance.
Energy scenarios imposing reasonable constraints on non-sustainable energy sources show that-fusion
energy could contribute significantly to large-scale electricity production during the second half of the
21 51 century. Also, the cost of fusion electricity is likely to be comparable to other environmentally
responsible sources of electricity generation.
Much basic research remains to be accomplished to make fusion energy practical and economic, but the
time requrred for the development of fusion power is consistent with the need to bring major new n~n
polluting energy sources on line in mid-century. Supporting technologies and research that are needed
include:
5-27
CEQ 015241
May28,2004
For both magnetic and inertial fusion:
increased scientific understanding of both magnetic and inertial fusion plasmas
approaches and configurations for both magnetic and inertial fusion energy that will take the best
advantage of the newest scientific insights
predictive simulations of fusion plasmas using the evolving terascale computing capabilities
structural materials with low-activation properties will be required to fulfill the ultimate potential of
fusion devices
tritium generation and heat-recovery systems are other common nuclear system technologies
required for both magnetic and inertial fusion
a systems approach so that engineering, technological and scientific advances needed for practical
fusion energy are pursued in concert
For magnetic fusion:
Develop wave/particle heating and fueling technologies that will be used to establish and control
magnetic fusion plasmas
Extend the limits of superconducting magnet technology to improve magnetic confinement of

fusion plasmas
For inertial fusion:
a technological basis for efficient, low-cost ion beams; develop high-average-power, durabl~ and
cost-effective solid-state and gas laser systems
development of low-cost, repetitive pulsed power driver/transmission lines for z-pinches and other
potentially attractive imploding liners/pinches including dense plasma jets
demonstration of useful gain from compression and burn of fusion energy-relevant targets in the
National Ignition Facility

Given the :.ubstantial scientific and technological uncertainties that now exist; the U.S. government will
employ an optimized portfolio strategy that explores a variety of magnetic and inertial confmement ~
approaches that lead to the most promising commercial fusion concept. Advanced computational
modeling is central to guiding and designing experiments that cannot be readily investigated in the
laboratory. This requires testing the agreement between theory and experiment, and pennits exploring
innovative concepts and designs for fusion plants.
5-28
CEQ 015242
May28,2004
To ensure the highest possible scientific return on limited resources, the DOE fusion program works with
other DOE programs and with other agencies along with the international scientific community in areas
such as materials science, ion beam physics, and laser physics. Large-scale experimental facilities are
necessary to test approaches for self-heated (burning) fusion plasmas; for inertial fusion experiments; and
for testing materials and components under extreme conditions. There are many overlapping challenges
to be met (Figure 5-14). Where appropriate, the rewards, risks, and cos~ of major facilities will be shared
through international collaborations. In addition, there is significant overlap with nuclear fission efforts,
particularly in the field of materials.
Burning Plasma
:
'
'
Component Testing
Demonstration
Figure 5-14. Overlapping Scientific and Technological Challenges Associated with

. Fusion Energy Production
The overall research effort is organized around a set of four broad goals:
Demonstrate with burning plasmas the scientific and technological feasibility of fusion energy.
Develop a fundamental understanding of plasma .behavior sufficient to provide a reliable predictive

capability for fusion energy systems.
Detennine the most pronlising approaches and configurations to confining hot plasmas for practical
fusion energy systems.
Develop the new materials, components, and technologies necessary to make fusion energy a
reality.
5-29
CEQ 015243
U.S. Climate Change Technology Program Draft_ Strategic Plan
May28, 2004

The current Federal fusion portfolio focuses on attaining the goals noted above through advances in the
basic sciences and to answer the major scientific questions and overcome the many technical challenges
that will make it possible to harness fusion power.
See: http://www .cl imatetechnology.govll ihr~ry/2003/tech-options/tech-options-2-5-l.pdf]
In one major effort, the United States, Ew:ope, Japan, China, Russia, and the Republic of Korea are
negotiating an agreement to construct a magnetic fusion-burning plasma science and engineering test
facility. Referred to as ITER, this international magnetic fusion experiment is part of a U.S. strategy to
achieve magnetic confmement fusion (seeFigure 5-15).
Prior to ITER operation in about 2014,
experiments on a wide range of plasma
confinement systems worldwide will
continue physics research in preparation for ITER operations. These
experiments will include detailed ,
simulations of ITER behavior as well
as innovative new ways of operating
fusion systems to optimize efficiency.
Because of the sophisticated measurement techniques employed on modem
fusion experiments, detailed data are
already available to validate computer
models.
In other efforts, the United States is
proceeding with inertial fusion through

the development of the National
Ignition Facility and other fusion
energy work including driver, target
fabrication and chamber technologies.
The drivers include lasers, pulsed
power driven z-pinches, and heavy ion .: .
accelerators.
Figure 5-15. ITER Schematic
<
Major investments in fusion materials, components and technologies for both MFE and IFE are
contingent on favorable results from ITER, NIF, and other IFE work. With such favorable results, and
favorable results from the accompanying scientific programs, it is anticipated that in the 2020 time frame
a U.S. fusion Component or Engineering Test Facility could be in operation. With success, electricity
from fusion could be put on the grid as early 2025.
J '-
.-~
.'
CEQ 015244
May28, 2004
Magnetic Fusion Energy

The DOE Office of Science Strategic Plan of February 2004, building on the DOE Office of Science
''Facilities for the Future" report and taking into account analysis provided by the Fusion Energy Sciences
Advisory Committee, defines the steps anticipated in the development of magnetic and inertial fusion
power over the next twenty years. These steps are organized around the broad goals described in
Section 5.5.2. The portions of this plan specifically relevant to the development of Magnetic Fusion
Energy are presented here. A plan for Inertial Fusion Energy is presented in the next section.
Burning Plasma
2017: Complete ITER experiments to determine plasma confinement in parameter range required
for an energy producing plasma.
2020: Complete experiments on ITER to determine the impact of the fusion process on the stability
of energy-producing plasmas.
2025: Achieve high fusion power for long durations on ITER to define engineering requirements
for fuson power plants.
.
Fundamental Understanding
2009: Achieve fundamental understanding of tokamak transport and stability in pre-ITER plasma
experiments.
2015: Major aspect relevant to burning plasma behavior observed in experiments prior to full
operation of ITER is predicted with high accuracy and understood.
2020: Deliver a complete integrated simulation of a power-producing plasma, validated with ITER
results, that enables the design of fusion power plants.
Most Promising Approaches and Configurations
2008: Achieve long-duration, high pressure, well-confined plasmas in a spherical torus sufficient to
design and build fusion-power-producing Next-Step Spherical Torus.
2008: Demonstrate use of active plasma controls and self-generated plasma current to achieve highpressure/well-confmed steady-state operation for ITER.
2012: Evaluate the ability of the compact stellarator configuration to confine a high-temperature
plasma,.
2015: Resolve key scientific issues and determine the confinement characteristics of attractive
,
confinement configurations.
2020: Determine the potential of one or more of the promising plasma configurations (for example
a spherical torus) for use as a component test facility or a fusion power source.
5-31
CEQ 015245
May28,2004
Materials, Components and Technologies
2006: Start production of superconducting wire needed for ITER.
2013: Deliver to ITER for testing the blanket test modules needed to demonstrate the feasibility of
extracting high-temperature heat from burning plasmas, and for a self-sufficient fuel cycle.
2024: Complete first phase of testing in ITER of blanket technologies needed in power-producing
fuison plants capable of extracting high-temperature heat from burning plasmas and having selfsufficient fuel cycle.
2025: Complete first round of testing in a component test facility to validate the performance of
chamber technologies needed for a power-producing fusion plant.
Inertial Fusion Energy

Inertial fusion is an alternative and complementary path to fusion power. The United States has primarily
pursued inertial fusion as part of the nuclear stockpile stewardship mission. Large single shot laser and
pulsed power facilities have been constructed to investigate and develop its scientific underpinnings. The
National Ignition Facility, now under construction, is designed to achieve the inertial fusion equivalent to
ITER's burning plasma. A smaller parallel effort in fusion energy technologies has developed driver,
target fabrication and chamber technologies. The drivers include lasers, pulsed power driven z-pinches
and liners (including dense plasma jets), and heavy ion accelerators.
The Nation's large investment in inertial fusion for Defense has created the potential for developing it as
a power source with relatively modest initial investments. The research community has formulated a
3-phase plan to develop this approach to fusion energy.
In Phase I the basic driver, target and chamber technologies are developed. In Phase IT the full scale
components for a test plant are developed in parallel and in concert with the validation and optimization
of ignition and target physics. The modularity of inertial fusion drivers, where large systems are
constructed from smaller components, reduces the cost and risk involved in the development of power
plant sized components. In Phase m the Engineering Test Facility (ETF) is constructed and operated.
The ETF is a full-scale power plant sized fusion facility with a high duty cycle, but with the added
capability and main mission of testing and developing materials, technologies and componentsfor follow
on commercial plants. It is thus envisioned that the ETF could carry out all the tasks given in Figure 5.11.
Phase I development of the laser drivers has been funded through the DOE's National Nuclear Security
Administration's (NNSA) high average power program and it is projected that there will be sufficient
technical progress to proceed to Phase IT within a few years. Phase 1 development of z-pinch IFE is
presently f:mded through NNSA, and highly leverages the single-shot inertial confinement fusion z-pinch
program funded through NNSA Phase 1 development of heavy ion IFE and other forms of potentially.
attractive drivers including dense plasma jets has been proceeding for many years with funding through
the Office of Fusion Energy Sciences. With a focused effort an ETF might be operational by 2020.
5-32
CEQ 015246
May28,2004
5.6 Conclusions
Among the many thrusts for addressing climate change with the aid of technology~ improved energy
efficiency, C02 capture and sequestration, and reduced emissions of non-C02 greenhouse gases, soot and
aerosols, are all important, if not essential, to goal attainment. Large quantities of energy supplied by low
or near net-zero emissions technology, however, form the core of any long-term technology component of
the overall strategy. Just meeting the expected growth in world energy demand over the span of the 21st
century will likely be challenging enough. Meeting such demand, while simultaneously reducing
emissions and maintaining economic prosperity, will be doubly challenging. Advanced technology in
energy supply can facilitate progress in this direction.
5-33
CEQ 015247
CEQ 015248
Iy.Iay 28, 2004
Capturing and Sequestering Carbon Dioxide
Technologies and improved management systems can help to correct imbalances in the global carbon
cycle. The main focus areas for R&D related to carbon cycle management include: (1) the capture of
C02 emissions from large point sources, such as power plants, oil refmeries, and industrial processes, and
its storage in geologic formations or other storage media, (2) the improved carbon balance between the
atmosphere and terrestrial biotic systems, called terrestrial sequestration, and (3) understanding the
potential for ocean storage and sequestration methodologies for carbon management Collectively, all
three approaches are referred to here as "capturing and sequestering carbon dioxide."
If current energy patterns persist, fossil fuels could remain the mainstay of global energy production well
into this century. The Energy Information
Sequestration
Administration projects that almost 90% of the global
Potential
Contributions
energy demand will be met by fossil fuels in 2025
because of their expected low prices relative to other
energy sources (see Chapter 3). In the United States,
about 80 percent of C02emissions presently occur as a
result of fossil fuel combustion, and the use of fossil
fuels in the electric power industry accounts for
39 percent of the energy-related C02emissions. The
use of fossil fuels for electric generation in the U.S.
is projected to grow to 41 percent in 2025, with coal
expected to account for 55 percent of the electrical
generation capacity and 84 percent of the electricityrelated C02 emissions. Longer-term projections in the
In aU lhreeofthe Advanced Technology~ under arrmgeof
hypothesized aJnstmin~ Sequestmtion redrnalogy oplioos amtributed
CCTP Reference Case indicate global coal use could
signiiamt/y to meeting the gJabal r:6mote change draUenge,
throughout the 21st ceotury. See Chapter J for deJJii1s.
increase by almost four-fold over the century, from
about 100 EJ in 2000 to 390 EJ in 2100.
In the CCTP's scenario analysis (Chapter 3 and Appendix B), the "Reference Case" scenario projects coal
markets will continue to grow steadily over the course of the 21st century. In the set of Closing the Loop
on Carbon (CI...C) scenarios, the CCTP analysis assumes_ that capture and sequestration technologies
become cost effective and hence are widely deployed. Under low to very high emission constraints,
between 60 and 320 GtC of C02 emissions were projected to be captured and sequestered over the course
of the century in the CLC scenarios. Even in some of the other CCTP scenarios, which focused on zeroemission supply technologies, fossil fuel combustion accompanied by carbon capture and storage was
projected to contribute substantially to reduced emissions (See Appendix B, Fi~es B-16, B-17, B-19,
and B-20). While the use of energy-efficiency, nuclear, and renewable energy technologies offer many
opportunities for reducing C02 emissions during this century, fossil fuel reserves are abundant and
economical, making carbon capture and storage a potentially attractive prospect
;Human activities primarily related to land conversion and agricultural practices, are also contributing_to
the buildup of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere. During the past 150 years, land use and land use change
were responsible for one-third of all human emissions of carbon dioxide (IPCC, 2000). Over the next
century, Lmd use. change and deforestation is likely to cause at least 10 percent of overall human caused
6-1
CEQ 015249
May28, 2004
C02 emissions. The dominant drivers of current and past land use emissions of carbon are the conversion
of forest and grassland to crop and pastureland and the depletion of soil carbon through agricultural and
other land management practices. It is estimated that humans have altered more than one half of the
Earth's surface over the past two centuries. It is widely recognized that past C02 emissions from land use
activities are potentially reversible, and improved land management practices can actually restore
depleted carbon stocks. Therefore, there are large opportunities to increase carbon terrestrial
sequestration.
The potential storage and sequestration
capacity for C02 in various "sinks" is quite
large (Figure 6-1). Some estimates indicate
that about 83 to 131 GtC could be sequestered
in forests and agricultural soils (IPCC 2001 ),
while others estimate geologic storage
capacities within a broad range of 300 to
3,200 GtC. 1 The wide range of the poten~al
for ocean storage and sequestration is
indicative of the uncertainty associated with
this alternative.
There are potential ancillary benefits to
sequestration as well. Many land management
practices that sequester carbon also improve
water quality, reduce soil erosion, and can
benefit wildlife. C02 injection can be
beneficially used to enhance the recovecy of
oil from depleted oil reservoirs and the
recovery of methane from un-mineable coal
seams.
:20,000,0:.:>
Gigalons of Carbon
'<
T f t l l " ' - -
: ., ,, ..
...._. ~.-....,....:--~h"~.,.
~-
_.,.,,-
10,000
3,200
10"00
100
??
6.0
From fores'ls. Gedoata Oceans Alit
Hum?'! and
(Fgtres shaw
Concepts
o~--
ActiVity &:tl9
r~
RI".JeOf Q'lpBCily)
Figure 6-1. Potential Storage Capacity

for COz Sequestration Approaches
Because carbon sequestration holds the potential both to reduce C02 emissions from point sources as well
as from the atmosphere, it has become a high priority for research and dC?velopment under the CCTP.
Near-term R&D opportunities include optimizing technologies and practices that sequester carbon in
terrestrial systems, and accelerating the development of technologies for capturing and geologically
storing C02 for enhanced oil recovery. Long-term R&D opportunities include further development of
geologic storage and terrestrial sequestration options as well as further understanding of the roles oceans
might play in sequestering C02
i'his chapter summarizes the potential and current research activities, and future challenges associated
with developing carbon sequestration technology.
From the National Energy Technology Laboratory citations, including Barriers to Overcome Implementation of
C02 Capture and Storage, lEA Report Ph3/22, Feb 2000, C~ Disposal from Power Stations, lEA GHG
Programme, 1993, C02 Utilization, lEA GHG Programme, 1995.
f
.1
6-2
CEQ 015250
6.1
May28, 2004
Carbon Capture
Carbon dioxide emissions from power plants vary according to the fuel used in combustion. Flue gas
from coal-frred power plants contains 10-12 percent C02by volume, and flue gas from integrated gasification combined cycle (IGCC) plants contains from 5-15 percent C02. For a combined cycle gas turbine
system, the C02 concentration is closer to 3%. Because most power plants use air-fired combustors, the
bulk of the flue gas is nitrogen (air is 79 percent nitrogen), making it difficult to concentrate and capture
C02. The C02 in flue gases must be concentrated (greater than 90 percent) for most storage, conversion,
or reuse applications. For this reason, significant efforts are underway to develop capture systems that
produce a highly pure, pJ;essurized stream of C02 at relatively low cost. Options for the captured C02
stream are discussed in later sections of this chapter, specifically related to geologic and ocean storage.

Advanced technologies can make important contributions towards producing relatively pure C02 from
combustion processes. Large C02sources, such as power plants, oil refineries, and other industrial
facilities are considered the most viable sites for carbon capture.
The current technology for C02capture uses a class of chemical absorbents called amines. Amines are
used to remove C02 from the gas stream to produce by-product food-grade C02 from power plants and
industrial sources (used, for example, to carbonate soft drinks). However, the cost is on the order of
$50 per ton of C02 and this is not cost-effective for greenhouse gas emissions reduction at a large scale.
Furthermore, current C02 capture systems require substantial energy and this can reduce a power plant's
net generation rate by as much as 30 percent. Opportunities for significant cost reductions exist since
relatively little R&D has been devoted to C~capture and separation technologies. Several innovative
schemes offer opportunities to significantly reduce C02 capture costs, compared to conventional
processes.

Realizing the possibilities for C02 capture requires a research portfolio that covers a wide range of
technology areas, including post-combustion capture, oxy-fuel combustion, and precombustion
decarbonization. In the near term, there is the potential to reduce the cost of capture and energy penalty
costs through innovative processes, such as using pure oxygen during combustion, precombustion
decarbonization technologies, regenerable sorbents, advanced membranes, and hydrate formation. After
component performance evaluations are completed, larger-scale tests would be appropriate. Within the
next few decades, development and deployment of full-scale systems are possible. R&D investments in
fully integrated capture and storage systems are needed to enable-commercial deployment.
A number of collaborative efforts are currently underway that will contribute to this strategy. Regional
Carbon Sequestration Partnerships are organized within the U.S. that include state agencies, universities,
and private companies to form the national network for determining the best approaches for capturing and
storing C02 The Partnerships will develop a framework to validate and potentially deploy_carbon
capture and storage technologies with a focus on determining which sequestration approaches are best
6-3
CEQ 015251
May 28,2004
suited for each geographic region. At the end of the first, two-year phase, the Partnerships will
recommend technologies for small-scale validation testing in a Phase IT competition expected to begin in
2005.
The Carbon Sequestration Leadership Forum is an international collaborative effort to focus international
attention on the development of carbon capture and storage technologies. The Forum will coordinate data
gathering and R&D joint projects to advance the deployment of carbon sequestration technologies
worldwide.
6.1.3 Current PorHolio

Across the current Federal portfolio of capture and storage-related RD&D, agency activities are focused
on a wide range of issues. See:
.
http://www.cl imatetechnology.gov/1 ibrary/20,03/tech-options/tech-options-3-1-1. pdf
The program is exploring a portfolio of new technologies to reduce the capital and energy penalty costs
for post combustion capture. Technologies under development include regenerabl~ sorbents, advanced
membranes, and novel concepts such as forming C02 hydrates to facilitate capture. The hydrate process
could be especially attractive for advanced coal conversion systems like IGCC.
A challenge for post combustion capture is the large amount of gas that must be processed per unit of C02
captured. This is especially true for combustion turbines where the concentration of C02 in the flue gas
can be as low as 3 percent. The C02 gas must be absorbed into a liquid via contact, and then the resulting
_mixture separated. Novel gas/liquid contactors are being explored. A breakthrough in separation
technology could enable amines to be more cost-effective.
Another approach being researched for capturing C02 from existing power plants is oxygen-fired
combustion instead of air To compensate for the increased heat from oxygen-frred combustion, C02 is
recycled to maintain furnace temperatures at levels suitable for boiler surfaces. C~ can be captured
simply by cooling the exhaust stream to remove the water it contains. However, oxygen separation and
purification through current cryogenic technology is expensive and energy intensive. Low-cost oxygen
separation technologies need to be developed using technologies such as oxygen transport membranes.
For new construction or re-powering of existing coal-fired power plants, there are some technology
options available that can provide a pure stream of C02 at relatively low incremental cost. Thee processes are referred to as pre-combustion decarbonization, and result in concentrated streams of hydrogen
and C02 In gasification, the hydrocarbon is partially oxidized, causing it to break up into hydrogen, car- .
bon monoxide and carbon dioxide, and possibly some methane and other light hydrocarbons. The CO
can be reacted with water (H20) to form H2 and C02. and the C02 and hydrogen can be separated. The
hydrogen can be used in a combustion turbine or fuel cell, and the C02 can be stored.
DOE's Carbon Sequestration Program is participating in collaborations with international partners in '
developing new capture and sequestration technologies. Among these are the Carbon Capture Project
(see Box 6-1), a cooperative agreement with Canada (Weyburn Project), and the Sleipner North Sea
Project (Box 6-2).
CEQ 015252
May28, 2004
Box&-1
Carbon Capture Project (CCP}
Areas identified for consideration for new or increased

emphasis focus on:
Developing more cost-effective C02 sorbents by

reducing sorbent-related capital costs, reducing
regeneration energy requirements, and increasing
sorbent life.
.
Understanding the C02 purity requirements to
ensure that C02 transportation and sequestration
operations are not compromised.
Developing pre- and post-combustion C02 capture
technologies that reduce the economic impacts of
contaminants in gas streams.
Box&-2
Slelpner North Sea Project
::;.
:.:.
r
Roughly one million metric tons per year of
vented CO:! from a natural gas platform in
the North Sea is being captured and
injected into the Utsira saline aquifer
formation. The Sleipner Project was
spearheaded by Statoil and began
operation in 1996. DOE is providing
research funding for measurement,
verification and transport modeling
activities to compliment and enhance the
injection experiment.
.....::
In 2001, DOE awarded a cooperative

agreement with British Petroleum (BP}
Corporation to develop innovative CO:!
capture technologies. BP is the operating
agent for the CCP, a consortia of eight major
international energy companies
(ChevronTexaco, Norsk Hydro, ENI,
PanCanadian, R()yal Dutch/Shell, Statoil, and
Suncor Energy) that are collectively providing
industry funding for the project. The CCP
aims to develop new, breakthrough
technologies to reduce the cost of CO:!
separaUon, capture, transportation, and
sequestration.
Develop pre- and post-combustion C{}z capture

technologies that enable sequestration of criteria
pollutants (SOx, NOx, HzS) with the COz.
Continuing to improve the cost-effectiveness of C02
separation membranes by improving selectivity,
permeability, and chemical stability.
Continuing to improve oxy-fuel boilers, both for new

and retrofit applications.
Reducing costs for pre-combustion and oxy-fuel
capture options by developing lower-cost oxygen
separation technologies.
Developing an integrated modeling framework for
evaluating alternative carbon capture technologies for
existing and advanced electric power plants.
Pursuing innovative, potentially high payoff concepts
in areas such as advanced materials and chemical and
biological processes. Examples include ionic
compound COz sorbents, novel microporous metal
organic frameworks (MOFs) suitable for carbon
dioxide separation, and metabolic engineering to
create strains of microbes that feed off carbon dioxide
and produce useful chemical by-products.
will
As capture processes are developed and refmed, it

be important to test their effectiveness. For
example, \.~0 2 can be captured using advanced processes from slip streams from existing fossil-fueled
6-5
CEQ 015253
May28, 2004
power plants, and then sequestered as part of the pilot testing that will be done in a variety of geological
settings under DOE's Regional Partnerships Program (discussed later).
6.2
Geologic Storage
There are different types of geologic

formations in which C02 can be stored,
including: depleting oil reservoirs,
depleting gas reservoirs, un-mineable coal
seams, saline formations, shale formations
with high organic content, and others.
These formations have provided natural
storage for crude oil, natural gas, brine, and
C02 over millions of years. In more recent
years, people have injected municipal and
even hazardous waste for long-term storage.
Each type of formation has its own
mechanism for storing C02 and a resultant
set of research priorities and opportunities.
Many power plants and other large point
sources of C02 emissions are located near
geologic formations that are amenable to
C02 storage. The Department of Energy
along with private and public sector
partners, is exploring the suitability of the
geology at a West Virginia site for geologic
storage (see Box 6-3).
6.2.1 Potential Role of

Technology
Box6-3
Carbon Sequestration Research at AEP's

Mountaineer Plant
AodRt"~~
CttNt~t Gto!o!
American Electric Power's Mountaineer. Plant in New Haven,

West Virginia is the site for a carbon sequestration research
project funded by the U.S. Department of Energy and a consortium of public and private sector participants. The research will
determine whether the geology near the Mountaineer Plant is
suitable for injection of CO:!, where It can be absorbed and storage. It the site proves to be geologically sound for storage, the
data collected during the study will be used to inform simulations,
risk assessment and permit applications, and to design the
monitoring plans for future applications.
The study is part of a $4.2 million carbon sequestration research
li.
~-
::
1
=~E::=:;.::tioofor =~~~~~~~=~manSgalby~ ~
widespread, and there is a large body of
.,_, .-... ,...,-_, ., --'!'.~~'"'"':"';;o=-7-'i'E::r'-=-EEEE.=E:=..=E:.....~!~i=,~=-:."!E.s'~"===E:
useful experience based on extensive domestic oil and gas operations. In .the near-term, injection of C02
into a geologic formation can enhance oil and coal-bed methane gas recovery to offset the cost of C02
capture. Enhanced oil recovery (EOR) has been in commercial practice since the 1970s, and in 2000,
34 million tons of C02 were injected underground as part of enhanced oil recovery (EOR) operations in
the United States. This is roughly equivalent to the annual C02 emissions from 6 million ca..wos. Coal-bed
methane (CBM) is the fastest growing source of domestic natural gas supply. While pilot projects have
demonstrated the value of C02-enhanced CBM recovery, there were no commercial deployments as ~
of2003.
6-6
CEQ 015254
May 28,2004
Longer-term targets include saline and depleting gas formations, which do not offer the value-added
benefit of enhanced hydrocarbon production. There is one commercial deployment in Norway, where one
million tons of C02 per year are injected in a saline formation at the Sleipner natural gas production field
in the North Sea.
The overall estimated capacity of geologic formations (see Figure 6-1) appears to be large enough to store
decades to centuries worth of emissions, although the C02 sequestration potential of geologic reservoirs
depends on many factors that are, as yet, poorly understood. These include reservoir integrity, volume,
porosity, permeability, and pressure. Because these factors vary widely, even within the same reservoir, it
is currently difficult to establish a reservoir's storage potential with certainty.

Potential C02 sources and sinks vary widely across the United States, and the challenge is to understand
the economic, health, safety, and environmental implications of potential large-scale geologic storage
projects. The geologic storage program was initiated in 1997, and initially focused on smaller projects.
However, field testing is necessary to verify the results of smaller-scale R&D, and the program is
becoming involved in larger projects as knowledge grows and opportunities and funding become
available. The current DOFJFossil Energy portfolio attempts to address important carbon storage-related
issues consistent with the Technology Roadmap/Program Plan. (The roadmap can be found at the
following link: http://www.netl.doe.gov/coalpower/sequestrationlpubs/SequestrationRoadmap4-2904.pdt). Regional domestic partnerships and international cooperation are seen as key to deploying
sequestration technologies. Planning for large-scale demonstrations needs to begin now, since these are
long lead time undertakings which are needed to demonstrate the viability of capture/sequestration
systems and gain public acceptance.

The Federal portfolio _for geologic storage activities includes several major thrusts designed to move
technologies from early R&D to deployment.
See: http://www .cl imatetechnology.gov/1 ibrary/2003/tech-options/tech-options-3-l-2.pdf)
Core RD&D focuses on understanding the behavior of C02 when stored in geologic formations. For
example, studies are being done to determine the extent to which C02 moves within the geologic
formation, and what physical and chemical changes occur to the formation when C02 is injected. This
information is key to ensure that sequestration will not impair the geologic integrity of an underground
formation and that C02 storage is secure and environmentally acceptable. The three major research
thrusts are:
Measurement and Monitoring: These activities are described more fully in Chapter 8. In brief, a
critical R&D need is to develop a comprehensive monitoring and modeling capability that not only
focuses on technical issues but also can help ensure that geologic storage of C02 is safe. Long-term
geologic storage issues, such as leakage of C02 through old well bores, faults, seals, or diffusioQ out
of the formation, need to be addressed. Many tools exist or are being developed for monitoring
geologic storage of C02, including well testing and pressure monitoring; tracers and chemical
sampling; surface and bore hole seismic; and electromagnetic/geomechanical meters, such as
6-7
CEQ 015255
May28, 2004
tiltmeters. However, the spatial and temporal resolution of these methods may not be sufficient for
performance confirmation and leak detection.
Health, Safety and Environmental Risk Assessment: Assessing the risks of C02 release from
geologic storage sites is. fundamentally different from assessing risks associated with hazardous
materials, for which best practice manuals are often available. The assessment of risks includes
identifying potential subsurface leakage modes, likelihood of an actual leak, leak rate over time, and
long term implications for safe sequestt:ation. Diagnostic options need to be developed for assessing
leakage potential on a quantitative basis.
Knowledge Base and Technology for C02 Storage Reservoirs: These activities seek to increase the
knowledge base and technology options. One attractive option is sequestration in deep, llllDlineable
coal seams. Not only do these formations have high potential for adsorbing C02 on coal surfaces,
but the injected C02 can displace adsorbed methane, thus producing a valuable by-product and
decreasing overall sequestration cost. One potential barrier is the tendency of coal to swell in
volume when adsorbing C02. This can cause a sharp drop in permeability, and not only impedes the
flow of C02, but also the recovery of methane.
Another option for geologic storage of C02 is in saline formations. The idea that large saline
formations with good top seals can provide effective sequestration sites is a relatively new concept.
About two thirds of the U.S. is underlain by deep saline formations that have significant
sequestration potential. Since the water from such formations is typically not suitable for irrigation
and other uses, there is the potential in many situations that C02 can be injected without presenting
a problem for future use. Because of the potential for C02 to dissolve in the aqueous phase, the
storage capacity of saline formations is enhanced. However, there are a large number of
uncertainties associated with the heterogeneous reactions that may occur between C02, brine, and
minerals in the surrounding strata, especially with respect to reaction kinetics. For example, saline
formations contain minerals that could react with injected C02 to form solid carbonates, which
would eliminate potential migration out of the reservoir. On the negative side, the carbonates could plug
the plug the formation in the immediate vicinity of the injection well.
Yet another option for geologic storage of C02 is depleting oil and gas reservoirs. Since such formations
are generally gas tight, the risk of leakage due to "natural" causes is expected to be minimal.
Furthermore, there is the potential for enhanced oil and gas production, the sale of which can help
mitigate sequestration costs. Work is underway related to monitoring technology, cost optimization,
performance assessment models, and capacity assessment.
An efficient mechanism is needed for deploying technologies developed under the core RD&D program.
The Regional Partnership Program (see: http://fossil.energy.gov/programs/sequestration/partnerships) is
creating a nationwide network of federal, state, and private sector partnerships to determine the most
suitable technologies, regulations, and infrastructure for future carbon capture, storage, and sequestration
in different areas of the country. Seven partnerships are currently in place covering most of the U.S. and
part of Canada. This is a relatively new thrust that will receive increasing emphasis as technologies from
core RD&D activities mature.
'\
\
6-8
CEQ 015256
May28, 2004
The Carbon Sequestration Leadership Forum (see Box 6-4) is the international outreach part of the
program, which was formed to facilitate development and worldwide deployment of technologies for
separation, capture, transportation, and long term storage of C02
Also improving the knowledge base is the
FutureGen project (Box 6-5). It is expected to be
the world's first coal-fueled prototype power plant
that will incorporate geological storage. It will
. provide a way to test some of the key technologies
developed with federal support, and demonstrate to
.the public and regulators the viability of largescale carbon sequestration.
Box6-4
Carbon Sequestration Leadership Forum (CSLF)
Established by the State Department and DOE in

February 2003, the CSLF coordinates data
gathering, R&D
and
joint projects
to advance the
development
and
deployment
of carbon
sequestration technologies worldwide. The CSLF is
a particularly attractive mechanism for achieving
intemational cooperation for larger field tests. See:
http://fossil.enerqy.gov/programs/seguestration/cslf
,:
~-;_:_
"
=~-,. _:~- ,:
..
:::
:;.; ~
'""''"11!1
...'!"'!'!,.-'!"",
. !!"._,II!I.-.II!'J".,,.I!!'!\',.,,.!""!!
. ,!I! ',_", '!'l! -;.:A!" ! '.'.' .'!" ;. , ~! !'l'l, _.,_ '!'l! ',"?-~-,;:.,_" '!, ,~;!l! ! ;::'! !'!.';'Pf! !", ,"'_"'i!"! ', , "! !'!,\'.!.; .!1! .,; ,'! '1!"2! '!~;o~-!F,;:i;"i
R&D will continue to focus on understanding and reducing potential health, safety, environmental and
economic risks associated with geologic sequestration. Some of the key activities associated with this
include:
Defining the factors that determine the

optimum conditions for sequestration in
geological formations such as depleting oil
and gas reservoirs, saline formations, and coal
seams, as well as unconventional
hydrocarbon bearing formations.
...
Boxe-s
Future Gen
FutureGen is a public-pri\tate initiative to build the

world's first integrated sequestration and hydrogen
production power plant. When in operation, the
prototype will be the cleanest fossil fuel power plant
in the world. The plant will be a '1iving prototype:
with the future technological innovations incorporated
into the design as needed. An industrial consortium . -_,: _:.-_:.
representing the U.S. coal and power companies will
work closely with the DOE to implement this project.
Other countries have been invited to participate via
the Carbon Sequestration Leadership Forum.
Developing the ability to predict and optimize

C02 storage capacity and resource recovery.
Developing the ability to track the fate and

transport of injected C02 in different
formations.
Harnessing geochemical reactions to enhance

containment.
Developing injection practices that preserve

cap integrity, and practices to mitigate the
impacts of leakage.
Developing an understanding of C02

properties in shales and other unconventional
hydrocarbon bearing formations
Taking advantage of geologic differences in various regions by developing cost-effective syste~ to

integrate energy conversion with carbon capture, geologic storage, and subsurface conversion of
C02 into benign materials or useful byproducts (e.g., through biogeochemical processes that can
crea1e methane or carbonates).
6-9
CEQ 015257

.
May28,2004
Special opportunities will be investigated. For example, some of the lowest cost estimates for
capture/sequestration options are for systems where flue gas components from coal-fueled plants are not
scrubbed but rather stored in geologic formations with C02 This eliminates the need for costly flue gas
cleanup systems, but work is needed to determine the potential effects of this option.
Successful pursuit of novel concepts is needed to reach program goals. In the long term, C02 capture can
be integrated with geologic storage and/or conversion. Many C02 conversion reactions are attractive, but
too slow for economic chemical processes. Use of impurities in captured C02 (e.g., SOx and NOJ or
additives could possibly enhance geologic storage, enhancing the opportunity to combine C02 emissions
reduction and criteria pollutant emissions reduction. Novel concepts, demonstrated at the laboratory
scale, will be required to meet to long-term goals of the CCTP program. Technological innovations could
come from concepts associated with areas not normally related to traditional energy R&D fields. In an
effort to stimulate new ideas by reaching out to scientists and engineers from research disciplines not
related to energy, the National Academy of Sciences was engaged to facilitate the process. This resulted
in eight new projects as well as others for possible future consideration.
Field tests will be needed to verify R&D results. It is anticipated that many of these tests will eventually
be carried out through the Regional PartnerShip Program based on analysis of C02 sources and sinks
carried out by participants to determine the highest benefit projects.
6.3
Terrestrial Sequestration
A wide range of technologies and practices, including tree planting, forest management, and conservation
tillage practices are available to increase the sequestration of carbon in plants and soils. Terrestrial
carbon dioxide (C02) sequestration can play a significant role in addressing the build up of GHGs in the
atmosphere. Carbon sequestration activities can provide a positive force for improving landscape-level
land management and provide significant additional benefits to society, such as improvements in wildlife
and fisheries habitat, reductions in soil erosion, and improved water quality. Terrestrial sequestration
represents a set of technically and commercially viable technologies that have the capability to reduce the
rate of C02 increase in the atmosphere. Given the size and productivity of the U.S. land base, terrestrial
sequestration has distinct economic and environmental advantages. Globally, the potential for terrestrial
sequestration is also significant, due in part to low-cost opportunities to reduce ongoing emissions from
unsustainable land use practices and land conversion and to enhance carbon stocks via afforestation and
forest restoration.
Sequestration technologies refer. broadly to equipment, processes, decision tools, management systems
and practices, and techniques that can enhance carbon stocks in soils, biomass, and wood products, and
reduce emissions. Examples of terrestri~ Sequestration technologies include conservation tillage,
conse.~ :-~~on set-asides, cover crops, buffer strips, biomass energy crops, active forest management,
active wildlife habitat management, low-impact harvesting, precision use of advanced information
technologies, genetically improved stock; and advanced bio-products.

An array of actual and potential technologies can be found in the short-, mid-, and long-tenn. fu the short
term, some technologies and practices being routinely used can be expanded to increase carbon storage.
6-10
CEQ 015258
May28, 2004
In addition, improvements to many current practices are needed t9 enable them to enhance above and
belowground carbon stocks, and manage wood products pools. In the mid~ to long-term, research can
focus on options that take advantage of entirely new technologies and practices.
Some practices, such as set~asides, provide one~time multi-decade benefits by increasing land~based
carbon stocks from lower to higher stock levels per unit area. Increasing terrestrial carbon stocks is
attractive because this can potentially offset a major fraction of emissions, and "buy" time over an interim
period, allowing for development of other low~ or COrfree technologies. Carbon stock management
technologies and practices that enhance soil and forest carbon sinks need to be maintained once they
reach higher equilibrium levels. The bene~!s can be reversed by fire, plowing of cropland soils, and other
disturbances. While they cannot be relied on indefinitely, the potential improvements in stocks are of
such magnitude that they can play a significant overall role in addressing the increase in atmospheric C02
emissions from the US and globally throughout the 21 51 cent~.
Other opportunities described in this section can provide bent?fits essentially indefinitely, e.g., changes in
crop management practices can reduce annual emissions of trace greenhouse gases; sustainable biomass
energy systems can displace fossil fuels, providing indefinite net C02 emissions reductions; and enhanced
forest management and durable wood products provide a mechanism to allow forests to continually
sequester carbon.
Table 6-1 illustrates the potential for sequestration and offset of large amounts of carbon emissions over
the next century. Estimates of the global potential for terrestrial sequestration and offsets range from
about 2 GtC per year over the next 50 years (IPCC 2001) to as high as 5.6~10.1 GtC/yr over the next 25 to
50 years (US DOE 1999). The estimates in Table 6~1 generally represent technical potential that does not
reflect barriers to implementation, competition across land uses and sectors, or landowner response to
public polices and economic incentives. When such barriers and land/activity competition are considered
(McCarl and Schneider, 2001), estimates of the market potential emerge. These market estimates, while
smaller in magnitude, are projections of landowner response to levels of potential climate policy
economic incentives.

Realizing the opportunities to sequester carbon in terrestrial systems will require managing our resources
in new ways that cross~utting technologies and practices. Within a constraint of available resources, a
balanced portfolio is needed that supports basic science, demonstrations of emerging technologies and
innovative partnerships with the private sector, and techniques and metrics for measuring success. The
portfolio needs to include:
Design, develop and demonstrate carbon management strategies consistent wit!: P(!Onomic 'and
environmental goals for terrestrial ecosystems
Improve the understanding of the impacts of carbon management on ecosystem services
Detennine how terrestrial systems capacities can be manipulated to enhance carbon sequestration in
time and space
6~11
CEQ 015259
May28, 2004
Analyze the relationship between natural resource and agricultural policy and terrestrial
sequestration technologies
Evaluate existing and new market-based adoption and diffusion strategies for terrestrial
sequestration technologies.
Optimize management practices and techniques accounting for all greenhouse gases and their
effects; and
Develop methods to measure changes in carbon pools and to verify sequestration rates.
Table 6-1. Summary of Estimates of the Annual Potential for Carbon Sequestration and
Offsets for Major Land Uses Within the United States and Globally
Land Base
Cropland
Grazing land
Potential Annual
Sequestration
TgC/yr
United States
Potential Annual
Sequestration
TgC/yr
Global
55-164
70
460-880
850-900
29.5-110
1,700
210
50
1,200-1,600
--
--
Forests
Urban/Suburban
Deserts and degraded
lands
Wetland
Dedicated bioenergy
91.2-152
sequestration
453 substitution
20
Reference
Lal, et. al. 1998
McCarl and Schnider, 2001 (at $50/tCeq)
IPCC 1996
US DOE 1999
Follett et. al. 200 l
US DOE 1999
Joyce and Birdsey 2000
IPCC 1996
800-1,300
US DOE 1999
100-700
US DOE 1999.
388 sequestration
316-1,477
substitution
500-800
Tuskan and Walsh, 2001

Sampson et. al. 1993
US DOE 1999
~

Much of the research currently underway that could have applications for increasing terrestrial carbon
sequestration is being undertaken for multiple reasons, often unrelated to climate change. Significant_
investments have been made in developing sustainable natural resource management systems that provide
economic and environmental benefits. In particular, advances have been made in increasing forest
productivity, enhancing soil quality, and in producing biomass feedstocks.
6-12
CEQ 015260
May28,2004
Across the current Federal portfolio of terrestrial sequestration-related RD&D, multi-agency activities are
focused on a wide range of issues, including:
o
Cropland management and

precision agriculture that can
increase the amount of carbon
stored in agricultural soils by
increasing plant biomass inputs or
reducing the rate of loss of soil
organic matter to the atmosphere.
See:
http://www.climatetechn~logy.go
v /I ibrarv/'2 003/tec h-opti on s/tec h-
options-3-2-1-l.pdf
o
Conversion of croplands to other

less-intensive land uses to
conservation reserves and buffer
areas. See:
http://www .climatetechnology.go
v/library/2003/tech-options/techoptions-3-2-l-2.pdf
Short rotation woody crops sequester carbon in soils and wood

products, and components used for energy increase carbon
sequestration.
Whether advanced forest and

wood products management can offer significant carbon sequestration opportunities.
See: http://www.climatetechnology.gov/library/2003/tech-options/tech-options-3-2-l-3.pdf
Grazing Management to increase amount of carbon in soils.

See: http://www .climatetechnology.gov/1 ibrary/2003/tech-options/tech-options-3-2-1-4. pdf
Restoration of degraded rangelands using low-cost, reliable technologies.

See: http://www.climatetechnology.govllibrary/2003/tech-options/tech-options-3-2-l-5.pdf
Wetland restoration and management for carbon sequestration and greenhouse gas offsets.
See: http://www .cl imatetechnology.gov/1 i brary/2003/tech-options/tech-options-3-2-l-6.pdf
Reclaimed mined lands using grassland, cropland, and forest restoration practices.
See: http://www .climatetechnology.govllibrary/2003/tech-options/tech-options-3-2-l-7.pdf
Biotechnology used in modifying the chemical composition of plants and microorganisms to

enhance carbon sequestration (see Box 6-6).
See: http://www .cl imatetechnology .gov/1 ibrary/2003/tech-options/tech-options-3-2-2-l.pdf
Ter.~strial
Sensors, Measurements, and Modeling.

See: http://www.climatetechnology.gov/library/2003/tech-options/tech-options-3-2-3-l.pdf
Measuring, monitoring and verification for forests.

See. http://www.climatetechnology.gov/library/2003/tech-options/tech-options-3-2-3-2.pdf
6-13
CEQ 015261 .
May28, 2004
BoXB-6
Genetic and Molecular Controls on Carbon Sequestration - Biomass Allocation

and Tissue Chemistry
Enhancing the natural capacity of terrestrial ecosystems to store carbon is a viable strategy for stabilizing
rising CO:! concentrations in the atmosphere. However, gains in improving the sequestration potential of
croplands, grasslands, and biomass lands will require major scientific advancements in understanding the
processes that control the initial uptake, ultimate chemical forms, and subsequent carbon transfer in plants
and soils.
Researoh sponsored by the U.S. Department of Energy is underway to discover the genetic mechanisms that
control the quantity and quality of carbon allocated to stems, branches, leaves, and roots of short-rotation
bioenergy crops as a means of understanding the biological processes that underlie carbon sequestration
(see figure below). The study uses genetically well-characterized hybrid poplar populations from the Pacific
Northwest, and couples genetic knowledge with biochemical processes to better understand fundamental
mechanisms of carbon storage in terrestrial ecosystems. A combination of field and laboratory analyses
address how biomass allocation and tissue chemistry influences either the amount or longevity of plant and
soil-based pools of organic matter. Plant biologists hope that studies such as these will lead to better
understanding whether enhanced allocation to long-lived plant parts (stem vs. leaves) will result in Increased
carbon storage In terrestrial biomass or whether preferential placement of biomass either above- or below
ground might ultimately enhance carbon sequestration in soils. Chapter 9 addresses the basic researoh
strategies In support of biomass allocation and tissue chemistry.
Abo1l1l Grvund
Leaves
Allove Ground
30%Ugnln
20% HemlceDulose
40'1r.Cellulose
Blandlas
Stem
Allocation
C8rbon
Genes
'
Below Gro101d
Tap Roell
Struclllral Roots
RneRaoll
Below Ground
?%Ugnlll
?% HemlceBulosa
?'!G.Cellulos

Areas identified for consideration for future portfolio planning for new or increased emphasis may
enhance our understanding of controlling processes and parameters in all aspects of terrestrial
sequestration. This includes carbon sequestration as well as the production of fuel, power, and products
from biomass, which would reduce use of fossil-fuel resources. Some basic research questions cut across
all of the land uses and potential technologies, while others are specific to a particular land use or
management practice. Research is needed to further:
Establish the carbon sequestration potential for management practices and techniques across all
major land uses including cropland, f~rests, grasslands, rangelands, and wetlands; across cultivation
and management systems; and across regions.
6-14
CEQ 015262
May 28,2004
Design, develop, and test management systems to increase carbon sequestration and maintain
storage while meeting economic and environmental goals.
Develop bioenergy and additional durable uses of bio-based products and improve management of
residues and wood products.
Improve biomass supply technologies (harvest, handling, on-site separation and processing,
transportation) to reduce costs and impacts. Enhance yields and harvest and transport techniques, to
reduce costs of feedstocks.
Explore the use of trees and other vegetative cover in urban environments to both sequester carbon
and reduce the urban heat island effect.
Evaluate carbon stock vulnerabilities and stability.
Better understand the implications of potential sequestration options on the emissions of other
greenhouse gases.
Improve the perfonnance of technologies and practices to provide additional benefits including
improvements in wildlife habitat, improved water quality, and reductions in soil erosion.
Enhance sequestration potential through the use of advanced technologies, including biotechnology
techniques to enhance seed stock qualities, precision nutrient, and land use management using
geographic infofR~:~~tion system and other tools, alternate tillage and harvest techniques.
In the longer-term, basic research questions also relate to the development and application of advanced
technologies. There are many opportunities for research in biotechnology (genomics, genetics,
proteomics), and in managing biological and ecological processes affecting carbon allocation, storage,
and system capacity that may aid in managing carbon. Also, a better understanding of the functional
genomics of high-potential biomass crops can increase yields and design crops that increase separation
and conversion efficiency for power, fuels, chemicals and other bio-products.
6.4
Ocean Sequestration
Because of the vastness of the ocean, use of the ocean as a "sink" for carbon has generated some interest.
To understand the role the ocean could play, we must address the capacity of the ocean to sequester C02,
its effectiveness at reducing atmospheric C02 levels, the depth andfonn (gas, liquid, caltrate) of
introduction of the C02 stream, and finally the potential for adverse environmental consequences.- Little
is known about the prospects for long-term sequestration in the ocean, or about the potential for negative
environmental consequences to ocean ecosystems and natural biogeochemical cycles.
Ocean carbon sequestration strategies seek to increase the d~p ocean inventory of C02 Inventories of
C02 in oceans indicate that the oceans take up about 2 GtC/year or about 1/3 of the global emissions.
Ultimately, it has been estimated that the oceans will take up about 70 percent of C02emissions as carbon
is transported across the ocean thermocline and mixed with deep ocean waters, which can take centuries
to occur ([IPCC] 2001).
6-15
CEQ 015263
May28, 2004
6.4.1 Potential Role Qf Technology

Two strategies are typically considered for ocean carbon sequestration: (1) direct injection of a relatively
pure stream of C02 into the ocean interior and (2) iron fertilization to enhance the ocean's natural
biological pump. Under the direct injection approach, C02 would be captured from large point sources,
e.g., fossil-f:rred power plants, industrial processes, etc., and then pressurized and injected at depth, ideally
at 2,000-3,000m below surface, where it would remain for centuries. While this approach would
potentially reduce the level of atmospheric C02concentration, it has yet to be tested or deployed in a
continuous mode at industrial concentrations.
Fertilization of the oceans with iron, a nutrient required by phytoplankton, is a strategy being considered
to enhance the draw-down of C02 from the atmosphere and to accelerate the biological pump. Iron
fertilization is based on enhancement of the natural process of carbon fixation by phytoplankton (primary
production) leading to sequestration of carbon in the deep ocean via the biological pump. The biological
pump involves fixation of free C02by photosynthetic organisms (e.g. phytoplankton) in the upper ocean
and the subsequent gravitational settling of reduced biogenic fonns of carbon (organic carbon), slow
mineralization, and burial of the biogenic carbon formed in the upper levels of the ocean.
Through sedimentation, some of the carbon fixed into particulates is ultimately deposited in ocean
sediments, while other fixed carbon could be re-mineralized back into C02 by bacteria. The remainder
will be re-mineralized back to C02 over a range of time scales. The net result is transport of C02from
the atmosphere to the deep ocean, where it remains on average, on the order of hundreds to thousands of
years. The food web's structure and the relative abundance of species influence how much carbon will be
pumped to deeper waters. This structure is dictated largely by the availability to the phytoplankton of
inorganic nutrients such as nitrogen, phosphorus, silicon, and iron.
Ocean storage could be a major constituent in the mitigation of mitigating GHG emissions and closing the
carbon cycle. Physical-chemical principles predict that a considerable quantity of C02 (far exceeding the
estimated available fossil energy resources of 5,000- 10,000 GtC) may be dissolved in deep ocean
waters. However, a more realistic criterion needs to be based on an understanding of ocean biogeochemistry. After some time, injected carbon would be distributed widely in the oceans and any far-field impact
of the injected C02 on the oceans would be similar to the impact of anthropogenic C02 absorbed from the
atmosphere. Researchers think that, at the C02 concentrations that would be typical of the far field, the
primary environmental impacts would be: associated with changes in ocean pH and carbonate-ion concentration. AB points of reference, the pH of the surface ocean has been reduced by about 0.1 units since
pre-industrial times. Adding 1300 GtC (about 200 years of current emissions) to the ocean would
decrease average ocean pH by about 0.3.~its.
Roughly 3/41h of the sea floor is deeper thim 3,000 meters. If 5,000 GtC were converted to C02, liquefied,
and placed on the sea floor, its volume would roughly equal that of an 8 em layer over the seafloor deeper
than 3,000 meters. (In practice, this co~ would accumulate in topographic lows). The degree to which
this capacity will be utilized will be based on a number of factors such as costs, equilibrium pC02. ,
environmental consequences, and public acceptance? (Smith 1997)
2
5,000 GtC will displace approximately 18,000 cubic km. Over an average ocean area of 3.5 x 1014' m2the average
depth of CO! would be about 5 em. Furthermore, if 3.4 of the ocean is below 3,000 m., then average depth below
3,000 m. =5 emf (3/4) =7.3 em.
6-16
CEQ 015264
May28,2004

The two approaches for carbon sequestration in the ocean are distinctive in nature, e.g. direct injection is
essentially a physio-chemical entrainment, while iron fertilization deals with the enhancement of
.
photosynthesis, a natural biological process. Therefore, to adequately assess their potential as mitigation
strategies, specific R&D criteria need to be addressed. However, one criteria the two have in common is
the evaluation of any adverse impact on the ocean biosphere. Additionally, both technologies require
further research on detei:mining their effectiveness (including the question of ''pennanence"). A research
portfolio is required that seeks to demonstrate, via experimentation and computer simulations, the ability
of the world's oceans to effectively store a~thropogenic C02 without negative environmental
consequences.
A key question for ocean carbon sequestration is the fate of carbon, whether directly injected into the
deep ocean or removed directly from the atmosphere by purposely enhancing the ocean's biological
pump. The extent to which this carbon will either leak out to the atmosphere or be neutralized by sediments is key to evaluating the long-term effectiveness of ocean sequestration. At present, the principal
tools for evaluating the efficiency of sequestration are general circulation models that break the ocean up
into boxes tens to hundreds of kilometers on a side and tens to hundreds of meters in depth. Moreover,
certain areas of ocean dynamics are not well represented in any models. Particularly important in this
respect are the dynamics governing exchange between the bottom boundary layer and the interior layers,
and mixing associated with western boundary currents. These are not well understood and so are likely to
be poorly represented in circulation models. Resolutiol_l of these physical issues is likely to be important
for evaluating the long-term efficiency of sequestration. Additionally, evaluating the impact of fertilization on the carbon cycle, as well as, on the marine ecosystem requires that models of biogeochemical
cycling and ecosystem dynamics be embedded into general circulation models.

On-going research activities target ocean carbon sequestration using direct injection and iron fertilization.
These activities are summarized below:
Direct Injection. Currently, the technology exists for the direct injection of C02 Previous
laboratory experiments concentrated on establishing an understanding of the processes that occur
when C02 comes into contact with high pressure seawater. As a result, a much better understanding
of the influence of C02 hydrates on the dissolution processes exists. This research has shown that
wholesale conversion of a stream of liquid C02 into hydrates is unlikely to occur. However, these
experiments have shown that a thin hydrate film can form rapidly, mthe order of 1 second, at the
liquid'CO:Jseawater interface. Furthermore, the hydrate film is unstable in water unsaturated with
C02 Rather the hydrate ftlm will undergo a continuous cycle of collapse and regeneration. Current
research is aimed at determining physical, chemical, and biological impacts of this technique. Field
experiments are being conducted to adequately assess potential impacts on marine environment at
an hcreasingly sufficient scale downstream of the release zone.
See: http://www.climatetechnology.gov/library/2003/tech-options/tech-options-3-3-2.pdf .
Iron fertilization. Fundamental research related to iron fertilization is targeting the magnitude of
carbon export through the water column, and effects on the growth of hannful phytoplankton or
6-17
CEQ 015265
May28, 2004
diatom species. A number of recent experiments are aimed at these questions.

See: http:/I www .c Iimatetechnology .gov/1 ibrary/2003/tech-opti ons/tech-opti ons-3-3-2. pdf
The Southern Ocean Iron Fertilization Experiment (SOFeX), funded by the National Science
Foundation and DOE occurred in January-February 2002 (see Box 6-7). These demonstrations
aimed to determine the magnitude of export production- that is, how much carbon is transported to
.the deeper ocean after iron fertilization. SOFeX, a jointly funded NSF-DOE project, occurred
during the austral summer of 2002. NSF has also funded small-scale experiments in the equatorial
Pacific Ocean. The mechanics of producing an iron enriched experimental patch and following it
over time was developed in four release experiments in the equatorial Pacific (IronEx I and II,
Martinet al. 1994; Coale et al. 1996, 1998) and more recently in the Southern Ocean (SOIREESouthern Ocean Iron Enrichment Experiment, Boyd et al. 2000). A similar strategy was also
employed in the recent Eisenex experiments in the Atlantic sector of the Southern Ocean. The iron
induced transient imbalance between phytoplankton growth and grazing in the equatorial Pacific
during IronEX TI resulted in a 30 fold increase in plant biomass (Coale et al. 1996). Similarly, a six
fold increase was observed during the SOIREE experiment in the Southern Ocean. These are
perhaps the most dramatic demonstrations of iron limitation of nutrient cycling, and phytoplankton
growth to date, and have fortified the notion that iron fertilization may be a useful strategy to
sequester carbon in the oceans (see Box 6-8).

Better understanding the potential environmental impacts of ocean carbon sequestration is the highest
research priority. Research is also needed to more fully understand the prospects for long-term
sequestration in the ocean by the two methods. Several areas are identified for consideration in future
portfolio planning and are summarized below.
Direct Injection. Goals of future studies at larger scales are required for direct injection to
determine time dependency of pH excursions (near and far-field) for a variety of plume geometries
and ocean topographies, as well as the long term effects of hypercapnia (elevated concentration of
COz) on benthic or sediment dwelling organisms. Some of the specific R&D considerations may
include: ( 1) determination of the effects of changes in pH and in C02 concentrations on the
physiology and ecology of organisms from mid-water and deep sea habitats, (2) pilot experiment to
determine the feasibility of C02 injection, monitor its ecological impact and characterize its far field
effects by collecting time series da~. (3) increased understanding of the behavior of C02 released in
the ocean through laboratory studies, small scale field experiments and near-field modeluig, and
(4) improved global/regional modeling to quantify benefits and optimize site selection.
Iron Fertilization. There are a multitude of questions remaining regarding the role of iron in
shapin~ ~-= nature of the pelagic community. The most pressing question is: Does iron enrichment
accelerate the downward transport of carbon from the surface waters to the deep sea? More
specifically: How does iron affect the cycling of carbon in high nutrient, low chlorophyll (HNLC),
low nutrient, low chlorophyll (LNLC) and coastal systems? If iron does stimulate carbon uptak~.
what are the temporal and spatial scales over which this flxed carbon may be remineralized? This is
crucial to predicting whether fertilization is an effective carbon sequestration mechanism. The
focus of the SOFeX and IronEX experiments (Boxes 6-7 and 6-8) has been from the scientific
perspective, but this focus is shifting towards the application of iron enrichment as a carbon
6-18
CEQ 015266
May28, 2004
Box 6-7
. The Southern Iron Fertilization Experiment
Southern Ocean
Iron
Fertiliza~on
Experiment:
SOFeX
January mean 1996-2001
The Southern Ocean Fertilization Experiment (SOFeX) joinUy funded by the Department of Energy and the
National Science Foundation demonstrated that carbon fixation by ocean phytoplankton in the Southern
Ocean south of New Zealand is iron limited and can be enhanced by fertilizing ocean surface water with iron.
Data from SOFeX demonstrate that iron fertilization may offer a potential approach for enhancing carbon
sequestration in the ocean by increasing the rate of carbon fixation by ocean phytoplankton. The SOFeX data
will be used to constrain estimates of the amount of carbon in particles, including phytoplankton that is
exported downward into the deep ocean where it is isolated from the atmosphere, a prerequisite for ocean
carbon sequestration. Recent research results found that that fertilization of the surface waters in the
Southern Ocean with iron triggered blooms of.phytoplankton and led to increased uptake of atmospheric COz
in regions with both low and high silicate concentrations. The fact that a sustained bloom oocurred in the
region with low silicate concentrations is important because it was hypothesized that siUca would become a
limiting nutrient for carbon fixation once iron was no longer limiting. The bloom in the fertilized patch with low
silicate waters dominated by phytoplankton that do not require silicate (i.e., non-diatoms), whereas diatoms,
which require silicate, dominated the bloom in the high silicate waters.
Measurements of the flux of particulate organic carbon showed that the adding of iron produced small but
measurable increases in the flux of particulate carbon to the deep ocean (where it is less likely to return to the
atmosphere). The small increase in flux suggests that Iron fertilization would have to be done over a large
area of the ocean and sustalhed for extended periods of time In order to reduce the concentration of
atmospheric C~. Further research is necessary in determining environmental, ecological, and economic
consequences of a long-term iron fertilization strategy.
sequestration strategy. However, some fundamental questions remain regarding the role of natural
or anthropogenic iron fertilization on carbon export. Some of the most pressing questions are:
What are the best proxies for carbon export? How can carbon export best be verified? What are the
long term ecological consequences of iron enricl:unent on surface water community st.-~;;i.ure, and
on midwater and benthic processes?
Specific R&D needs in the use of iron fertilization to enhance the ocean's biological pump for
carbon sequestration include: (1) increased understanding of the biological pump and the nutrients
that regulate it, (2) determination of the extent increased primary production in surface waters
enhances the export of carbon to deeper waters, (3) detennination of the impact of sequestration on
biogeochemical cycling, (4) evaluation of the effects of fertilization on plankton community
6-19
CEQ 015267
May28, 2004
structure and trophic dynamics, and (5) validation models of sustained fertilization with improved
biological parameterization.
6.5
Conclusions
The development of technical, economic, and environmental acceptability of sequestration strategies has
important implications for the dynamics of the future energy system. As the current energy infrastructure
evolves around fossil fuels, the viability of sequestration preserves many options fora future of near-netzero GHG emissions. The option of sequestration has the potential to reduce the cost of stabilization
concentrations in the atmosphere, and further support economic growth in developing countries.
If carbon sequestration proves technically and economically viable, fossil fuels can continue to play an
important role as a primary energy supply. The ability to cost-effectively and safely separate an<!_
sequester carbon has enormous implications for the dynamics of the energy sector. The current energy
infrastructure is designed around fossil fuels and the viability of carbon capture and sequestration
preserves a number of options for an energy future. While an energy infrastructure in the next century
will be different from today; without the options that capture and sequestration provides, infrastructure
changes must occur sooner and of a much more dramatic degree than would otherwise be the case. A
more gradual transition that continues the use of fossil fuels, particularly coal, can avoid potentially
disruptive consequences that might occur is a rapid change to non-fossil energy sources is required.
Boxl-8
lro!1EX
NSF funded several iron fertilization experiments in the equatorial Pacific Ocean. The lronEx 1 experiment
showed unequivocally that there was a biological response to the addition of Iron. However, although plant
biomass doubled and phytoplankton production increased fourfold, the decrease in C~ fugacity (in effect the
partial pressure of C~ decreased by 10 micro atm) was only about a tenth of that expected (Martin stat.
1994;Watson stat. 1994; Wells, 1994). In the lronEX 2 experiment the abundance and growth rate of
phytoplankton increased dramatically (by greater than 20 and twice, respectively), nitrate decreased by half,
and C~ concentrations were significantly reduced (the fugacity of C~ was down 90J18tm on day 9). Within a
week of the last fertilization, however, the phytoplankton bloom had waned, the Iron concentration had
decreased below ambient, and there was no sign that the iron was retained and recycled in the surface waters
(Monastersky, 1995; Coale et at. 1996; Cooper et at. 1996; Frost, 1996). For additional Information on basic
research associated with enhancing the oceans' biological pump, see Chapter 9.
6.6
References
Energy Information Administration (2003). International Energy Outlook 2003. Washington D.C.,
U.S. Department of Energy.
Energy Information Administration (2004). Annual Energy Outlook 2004. Washington D.C.,
U.S. Department of Energy.
Follett, R.F., J.M. Kimble, and R. Lal. 2001. The Potential of U.S. Grazing Lands to Sequester Carbon
and Mitigate the Greenhouse Effect. Lewis Publishers, New York, USA.
6-20
CEQ 015268
May28,2004
httergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 1996. Climate change 1995, impacts, adaptations
and mitigation of climate change: scientific-technical analyses. Cambridge University Press, New York,
p.872.
httergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2001). Climate Change 2001: Working Group 1: The
Scientific Basis. "Chapter 3: The Carbon Cycle and Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide." Cambridge,
Cambridge University Press.
httergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). ~00 1. Summary for Policymakers to Climate
Change 2001: Synthesis Report of the IPCC Third Assessment Report.
htternational Energy Agency (2002). World Energy Outlook 2002. Paris, International Energy Agency.
Joyce, L.A. and R. Birdsey, tech. eds., 2000. The impact of climate change on American's forests: A
technical document supporting the 2000 USDA Forest Service RPA Assessment Gen. Tech. Rep.
RMRS-GTR-59. Fort Collins, Colorado: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky
Mountain Research Station, p. 133.
Lal, et. al. 1998. The potential of U.S. cropland to sequester carbon and mitigate the greenhouse effect.
Ann Arbor Press, Chelsea, Michigan.
McCarl, B. and Schneider, E., 2001. Greenhouse gas mitigation in U.S. agriculture and forestry. Science,
vol. 294, December 21,2001.
Sampson R.N., L.L. Wright, J.K. Winjum. J.D. Kinsman, J. Benneman, E. Kursten, and J.M.O. Scurlock.
1993. Biomass Management and Energy. Water, Air and Soil Pollution 70:139-159.
Smith, W.H.F. and D.T. Sandwell. 1997. "Global Seafloor Topography from Satellite Altimetry and
Ship Dept Soundings." Science, 277:1957-62
Tusk:an G.A. and M.E. Walsh. 2 001. Short-rotation woody crop systems, atmospheric carbon dioxide
and carbon management: A U.S. case study. The Forestry Chronicle, 77:259-264.
U. S. Department of Energy. 1999. Carbon Sequestration: Research and Development. DOFJSC/FE-1.
6-21
CEQ 015269
CEQ 015270
May28, 2004
Reducing Emissions of Non-C02 Greenhouse Gases
Several gases other than C02 are known to have greenhouse gas warming effects, which when concentrated in the Earth's atmosphere, contribute to climate change. The more significant of these are:
methane (C&} from natural gas production, transportation and distribution systems, bio-degradation of
. waste in landfills, coal mining, and agricultural
Other Greenhouse Gases
production; nitrous oxide (N20) from
Potential
Contributions
industrial and agricultural activities; certain
fluorine-containing substances (e.g., HFCs,
PFCs); and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6) from.
industrial sources. (See Box 7-1.)
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change's (IPCC) Third Assessment Report
states that "well-mixed" non-C02 gases,
including methane, nitrous oxide, chlorofluorocarbons, and other gases with highglobal warming potentials (GWPs) may be
responsible for as much as 40 percent of the
estimated increase in radiative climate forcing
between the years 1750 to 2000. 1 In addition,
emissions of black carbon (soot) and other
aerosols, as well as tropospheric ozone
precursors have important effects on the
Earth's overall energy balance.
an
In three of the Advanced Technology Scenarios, under a range of

hypalhesired conslraints, Other Greenhouse Coses technology options
contributed significantly to meeting the global dimate change challenge,
throughout the 21st century. see Chapter :s for detal1s.
Box7-1
Developing technologies for commercial

readiness that can reduce emissions of these
non-C02greenhouse gases (GHGs) is an
important component of a comprehensive
strategy to address concerns about climate
change. In all of the CCTP scenarios, costeffective reductions in emissions of non-C02
gases contribute between 20 and 110 Gt of
carbon-equivalent emissions over the 20002100 time period (cumulatively). These
reductions are in addition to the substantial
emission reductions that occur in the Reference
Case due to the expanded deployment of
available technologies.
What are the "Other" Greenhouse Gases?

The term "non-C02 greenhouse gases" covers a broad
category of gases, but usually refers to methane, nitrous
oxide, and the high global warming potential (GWP) gases
hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and
sulfur hexafluoride (SFs). Tropospheric ozone,
tropospheric ozone precursors, and black carbon (soot)
are also important contributors to global warming. Of
these, only ozone is a greenhouse gas. Chiarofluorocarbons (CFCs) and other related chemicals
contnbute to both global warming and stratospheric ozone
depletion. Because these chemicals are already being
phased out under the Montreal Protocol, they are not
addressed in this plan. To streamline terminology for
purposes of readability, and unless otherwise noted, the
term "non-C02 greenhouse gases" includes methane,
nitrous oxide, high-GWP gases, tropospheric ozone,
tropospheric ozone precursors and black carbon aerosols.
~
~
.
.
~J
~~-
~
.~.:
:n
l~
j
.!
1,~
it
~
~
lloo~~v;~~~
...::;.,~:\'~'"3;'~(!J:/f.:f_i~2!!!.6~~~,i!:i~a~
..s-.~lEv11cl,~:t:i::JR;:Tl"'~;;-._.,~~~~<~-:;-.!-'t;:w~:
.. -~:t:~~~.r,.[!il~.~--ri!1:iJ!1n~w~;;.~~=fE,l2~~~:J;(&;:'~'J'~7FA~'i%::'""!t~~~
ii.
The radiative forcing due to increases of the well-mixed greenhouse gases from 1750 to 2000 is estimated to be
2.43 Wm-2: 1.46 Wm-2 from C0 2; 0.48 Wm-2 from CH4; 0.34 Wm-2 from the halocarbons; and 0.15 Wm-2
from N20. [Text from IPCC 3'd Assessment Report, WG-1, Summary for Policy Makers, Page 7.]
7-1
CEQ 015271
May28, 2004
In the context of global warming, emissions of the non-C02 greenhouse gases are usually converted to a
common and roughly comparable measure of the "equivalent C02 emissions". This conversion is
perfonned based on physical emissions, weighted by each gas' global wanning potential (GWP). The
GWP is the relative ability of a gas to trap heat in the atmosphere over a given time frame, compared to
the C02 reference gas (per unit weight). The choice of time frame is significant, and can change relative
GWPs by orders of magnitude. All non-C02 gases are compared to C02, which has a GWP of 1. The
global warming potentials of other GHGs, using a 100-year time horizon, range from 23 for methane to
22,200 for SF6, as shown in Box 7-2.
Non-C02 gases have different GWPs due to differences in atmospheric lifetimes and effectiveness in
trapping heat Methane and some hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) have relatively short atmospheric lifetimes
as compared to other non-C02 gases. Thus, emissions
Box7-2
reductions among these gases manifest themselves as lower
Global Wamilng Potentials* of
atmospheric concentrations in a matter of a few decades.
Selected Greenhouse Gases
Perfluorocarbons (PFCs) and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6), in
(100'YearTime.Ho~o~) .
contrast, can remain in the atmosphere for thousands of years.
Emissions of these GHGs essentially become permanent
additions to the Earth's atmosphere, with concomitant increases
Carbon dioxide (C~)
in the atmosphere's ability to capture and retain radiant heat.
Methane (CHi)
Finally, tropospheric ozone and black carbon aerosols (soot) are
very short-lived in the atmosphere (i.e., remaining airborne for a
Nitrous.oxide(~p)
period of days to weeks) and therefore do not become wellH~~uorcarbcins:
mixed in the atmosphere. Primarily for this reason, no GWP
12000
HFC.23
metric exists for these gases and aerosols, but they are
HFC.125
~
nonetheless recognized as significant contributors to climate
change.
1300
HFQ-1348
There is a strong record of successful action to reduce emissions
of non-C02 gases between industry and government, and these
partnerships provide a solid foundation from which to pursue
additional technological developments and more substantial
future emission reductions. Some highlights of the current
activities include:
Industry and the USEPA have developed nine successful

public/private partnerships to reduce emissions of methane
and high GWP gases. 2 These programs have led to
substantial emission reductions, with U.S. methane
emissions currently below 1990 levels and emissions of
many sources of high GWP gases also declining. They
also provide excellent forums for transferring technical
infonnation in an efficient and cost-effective manner. The
HFC.143a
HFC.152il
.~~:'_.
HF.C.227ea
. ..
'~
.
.g(OO
.. ;
HFC.~36fa
HF~10!TiEIB
": {
1~..
Fully FIQQrln~~:$~
- . - . . .....: CF-4
CzFs
c_.F,o
C&Ft4
SFs
..
5700
1.1900
~
900o
22200
Sourc~: IPCC- fd Assessme~. Ripdrt 2f!Ol
The Landfill Methane Outreach Program, Natural Gas STAR Program, AgSTAR Program, Coalbed Methane
Outreach Program, SF6 Emission Reduction Partnership for Electric Power Systems, Voluntary Aluminum
Industrial Partnership, SF6 Emission Reduction Partnership for the Magnesium Industry, PFC Reduction/Climate
Partnership with the Semiconductor Industry, HCFC-22 Partnership Program
7-2
CEQ 015272
U.s: Climate Change Technology Program Draft Strategic Plan
May28,2004
partnership programs host or participate in annual technical conferences with the respective
industries. Public-private partnerships help facilitate effective use of the technologies that are and
will soon become available.
The Federal government is currently addressing agricultural sources of methane and nitrous oxide
through a combination of voluntary partnerships and RD&D efforts. Cooperative efforts between
government and the agriculture industry are needed to evaluate and develop technologies for
lowering N20 emissions from soils and methane emissions frOm livestock enteric fermentation.
The U.S. Department of Energy and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency have teamed to
co-fund the development of the first ventilation air methane (VAM) project in the United States
utilizing a thermal flow reversal reactor to oxidize mine ventilation air which contains low concentrations of methane. The process generates thermal energy that can have many uses. EPA is also
working cooperatively with Natural Resources Canada (NRC) to deploy a similar technology
developed by NRC's CANMET Energy Technology Centre.
An international network of those involved in research on non-C0 2 greenhouse gases has been
formed by the IEA Greenhouse Gas R&D Programme, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
and the European Commission Directorate General Environment. The experts involved in this
network cover emissions, abatement options, and systems modeling for policy advice. The network
provides an international forum for identification of needed research, as well as creating opportunities for international deployment of non-C02 emission reduction technologies.
An international analytical effort has been undertaken by the Stanford Energy Modeling Forum to
better characterize the role of non-C02 mitigation in addressing climate change.3 This multi-year
effort has led to the development of data on the cost and performance of currently available and
near-to-market technologies to reduce non-C02 emissions. In addition, the nineteen international
modeling teams participating in the project have incorporated data on non-C02 gases into their
economic and integrated assessment models and are improving tlie capabilities needed to analyze
comprehensive climate strategies focusing on both C02 and non-C02 options.
Future emissions growth will depend on the future level of the activities that emit these gases, as well as
the amount of capture or control that occurs. In the CCTP Reference Case, global emissions of other
GHGs were projected to grow from about 2.4 Gt carbon-equivalent emissions in 2000 to about
3.5 Gt carbon-equivalent emissions between 2000 and 2100. Methane emissions are projected to grow
between 2000 and 2050 and then to stabilize. This trend results from countervailing forces among the
various emission sources. Some, like landfills and livestock manure management, increase thioughout
the period, while others (especially coal mining and natural gas systems) decline, especially in later years.
N20 emissions follow an even more pronounced pattern, peaking in 2050 and then declining. This occurs
despite continued growth in emissions of N20 from agricultural soils, because of greater declines in
emissions due to projected changes in land use. Emissions of high GWP gases are much smaller than
CH4 and N20 and they are projected to increase steadily throughout the period in the Reference Case.
As discussed in detail in the sections that follow, many of the industries that emit non-C02 gases are
engaged in partnerships with the government to reduce their emissions. These partnerships are
3
Results from this study, EMF 21, are to be published in a special issue of the Energy Journal in early 2005. See
http://www.stanford.edu/group/EMF/research/index.htm
7-3
CEQ 015273
May28,2004
demonstrating the potential for significant near-term emission reductions from currently available
technologies. In addition, longer-term analyses have identified the potential for current and future
technologies to lead to even more significant emission reductions. Historically, non-C02gases were
.either not included or were treated in a cursory manner in climate change modeling and scenario studies.
This situation is changing, however, and many modelers are incorporating the non-C02 gases into their
models and are developing the capability to assess the role of the non-C02 gases in addressing climate
change. Studies published to date indicate that substantial mitigation of future increases in radiative
forcing could be achieved by reducing emissions of these other GHGs. It is possible that such reductions
could contribute as much as one-half of the abatement levels needed to stay within a total radiative
forcing gain (e.g., 1 watt per square meter) that would be consistent with commonly discussed
stabilization ranges of C02 concentrations.

All of the CCfP scenarios assume progress in reducing emissions of the more significant non-C02 .
greenhouse gases. This assumption is based on current achievements in reducing emissions of these gases
as well as the result of detailed analyses of the technical and economic potential to reduce emissions. In
the scenarios, C~ emissions are reduced in absolute terms by 45 to 50 percent by 2100 and NzO
emissions are 30 to 35 percent below. Emissions of high GWP gases are higher in 2100 than 2000, but
substantially lower than in the Reference Case.
There are a number of potentially fruitful areas for technologies to mitigate growth in emissions of nonC02 GHGs, and strong promise that over time emissions could be reduced substantially. The strategy for
addressing non-C0 2 GHGs has two key elements. First, it focuses on the key emission sources of these
GHGs and identifies specific mitigation options and research needs by gas, sector, and source. Given the
diversity of emission sources, a generalized technology approach is not practical. Second, the strategy
emphasizes both the expedited development and deployment of near-term and close-to-market technologies and expanded R&D into longer-term opportunities leading to large-scale emission reductions. By
stressing both near- and long-term options, the strategy offers maximum climate protection in the nearterm and a roadmap to achieve dramatic gains in later years.
The discussion of the key emission sources of other GHGs is organized around five broad categories- or
"target areas"- as listed in Table 7-1. Following the table, each target area is discussed in turn.
Table 7-1. Target Areas for Reducing Emissions of Non-C02 GHGs (2000 Emissions in
Tg C02 Equivalent)
Target Area
u.s.
%of Total
Emissions
437
475
121
U.$.NonC~
Global
Emissions
2836
5428
368
%of Global
Non.COz
31%
60%
4%
CRt Emissions From Energy and Waste

39%
CRt and N20 Emissions from Agriculture
43%
Emissions from High Global Warming
10%
Potential Gases
4%
8%
N20 Emissions from Combustion and
390
97
Industrial Sources
Emissions of Tropospheric Ozone
NtA<a>
Precursors and Black Carbon
(a) Emissions estimates exist but they cannot be converted into C02 equivalent units.
Sources: Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emuseons and Smks: 1990-2001, (Apnl2003)
USEPA #430-R~03-004; Global Emissions of Non-C02 Greenhouse Gases, 1990-2020, (May 2004) USEPA, Draft.
~
7-4
CEQ 015274
7.1
May28,2004
Methane Emissions from Energy and Waste
In 2000, methane emissions from the energy and waste sectors accounted for 31 percent of global nonC02 GHG emissions, and nearly 50 percent of global methane emissions. The major emission sources in
these sectors include coal mining, natural gas and oil systems, landfills, and wastewater treatment. As
Table 7-2 shows, among the energy and waste-related methane emission sources, oil and gas systems and
landfills are the largest emission sources, accounting for more than 9 and.ll percent of global non-C02
emissions respectively.
Table 7-2. U.S. and Global Methane Emissions from Energy and Waste in 2000
(Tg C02 Equivalent)
u.s.
Target Area
Emissions
%of Total
U.S. Non-C02
Global
Emissions
%of Global
NonC02
Cl-4 Emissions from Landfills

206
18%
9%
814.3
Cf4 Emissions from Coal Mining
61
439
5%
5%
CH4 Emissions from Natural Gas and Oil
142
12%
1013
11%
Systems
CH4 Emissions from Wastewater Treatment
28
2%
569
6%
Total
437
39%
2836
31%
..
Sources: Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emrsswns and Sinks: 1990-2001, (Apnl2003)
USEPA #430-R-03-004; Global Emissions ofNon-C02 Greenhouse Gases, 1990-2020, (May 2004) USEPA, Draft.
The energy and waste sectors present some of the most promising and cost-effective near-term. reduction
opportunities. Reducing methane emissions, the primary component of natural gas, can be cost-effective
in many cases due to the market value of the recovered gas. Efforts in the U.S. to voluntarily encourage
these economically attractive opportunities have already been successful by focusing on the deployment
of available, cost-effective technologies. A$ Table 7-3 shows, emissions from the key sources in the U.S.
have declined in absolute terms by about 9 percent since 1990, equal to about 40 Tg C02 equivalent.
Table 73. Change in U.S. Methane Emissions from Energy and Waste 1990-2000
(Tg C02E)
1990
2000
Percent Change
Emissions
Emissions
-3%
Landfills
212
206
-30%
Coal Mining
87
61
142
NatGas&Oil
149
-5%
-9%
449
409
Total
Source: Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emrsswns and Smks: 1990-2001,
(April2003) USEPA #430-R-03-004
Source
Despite this success, significant opportunities remain for further emission reductions through the
expanded deployment of currently available technologies and the development of promising new
technologies on the cusp of commercialization. These longer-term technologies could lead to substantial,
additional methane reductions in the future. The remainder of this section discusses these technical
7-5
CEQ 015275
May28,2004
opportunities for the three major emission sources in this category: landfills, oil and gas systems, and
coal mines.
'
7 .1.1 Landfills
Methane emissions from landfills are a result of the decomposition of organic material (yard waste, food
waste, etc.) by bacteria in an anaerobic environment. Emission levels are affected by site-specific factors
such as waste composition, moisture, and landfill size. Landfills are the largest anthropogenic methane
emission source in the U.s~. releasing ari estimated 212 Tg C~ equivalent to the atmosphere in 2000.
Globally,landfills are also a significant emission source, accounting for an estimated 814 Tg C02
equivalent or alniost 10% of global non-C02 emissions. The majority of emissions currently come from
developed countries where sanitary landfills facilitate the anaerobic decomposition of waste. Emissions
from developing countries, however, are expected to increase as solid waste will be increasingly diverted
to managed landfills as a means of improving overall waste management. By 2020, three regions are
projected to account for more than a 10% of the global emissions: Africa (16%), Latin America (13%)
and Southeast Asia (12%).4
7.1.1.1
Potential Role of Technology
The principal approach to reduce methane emissions from landfills involves the collection and combustion (through use for energy or flaring) of landfill gas. Landfill gas (LFG) utilization technologies can be
d"ivided into two main categories: electricity generation and direct gas use. About 75 percent of the
projects in the U.S. involve electricity generation, using reciprocating engines or combustion turbines.
Direct use technologies account for about 25 percent of total projects, but their implementation has grown
in recent years. Some of these technologies use landfill gas directly as a medium-Btu fuel, while others
require the gas to be upgraded and delivered to a natural gas pipeline.
7.1.1.2
Technology Strategy
Additional Cl-4 emission reductions a~ landfills can be achieved through RD&D efforts focused on
improvements in landfill gas (LFG) collection efficiency, gas utilization technologies, and alternatives to
existing solid waste management practices. In the near term, RD&D efforts focused on improving
collection efficiency and demonstrating promising emerging gas use technologies can yield significant
benefits. These approaches could increa~ emission reductions from the waste currently contained in
landfills, which will einit Cf4 for 30 or more years. Longer-term reductions will result from research on
advanced utilization technologies and dev.elopment of solid waste management alternatives, such as
bioreactor landfills.
.
Global Emissions ofNon-C02 Greenhouse Gases, 1990-2020, (May 2004) USEPA, Draft.
7-6
CEQ 015276
7.1.1.3
May28,2004
Current Portfolio
The current Federal portfolio focuses on three areas:
Research and development of anaerobic and aerobic bioreactor landfills that more quickly stabilize
the readily decomposable organic constituents of the waste stream through enhanced
microbiological processes.
See:. http://www .cl imatetechnology .gov/library/2003/tech-options/tech-options-4-1-l.pdf
Research and development of emergi'?-g technologies that facilitate the conversion of landfill gas to
readily usable forms, such as compressed natural gas/liquefied natural gas, methanol/ethanol.
See: http://www.climatetechnology.gov/librar{/2003/tech-options/tech-options-4-l-2.pdf
Research and development on improving landfill gas (LFG) collection efficiency and enhancing
electricity production from LFG through new and improved electricity generation technologies (fuel
cells, microturbines, Organic Rankine Cycle and Stirling-cycle engines).
See: http://www .cl imatetechhology.gov/library/2003/tech-options/tech-options-4-1-3. pdf
7.1.1.4
Future Research Directions
Future applied research efforts should focus on improving landfill gas collection efficiencies, developing
additional economical gas utilization technologies, and long-term alternatives to current solid waste
disposal practices. Development and deployment of near-term technologies to recover landfill gas from
current waste disposal sites could reduce emissions by 50 percent. Over the long term, however,
emissions could theoretically be eliminated through the commercialization of advanced utilization
. technologies and deployment of alternative waste management systems (e.g., mechanical biological
treatment, organic waste disposal restrictions) that would significantly diminish anaerobic decomposition
of organic materials in the municipal solid waste stream
7.1.2 Coal Mines

Coal mines are a significant methane emission source in the U.S. and worldwide, accounting for
10 percent of total anthropogenic methane emissions. Methane trapped in coal deposits and in the
surrounding strata is released during normal mining operations in both underground and surface mines.
In addition, handling of the coal after mining (e.g., through storage, processing, and transportation) results
in methane emissions. Underground mines are the largest source of coal mine methane (CMM)
emissions.
U.S. CMM emissions in 2000 were 61 Tg C02 e<J.Uivalent and are projected to increase to 70 Tg COz
equivalent by 2010. Worldwide emissions of methane from the coal industry are estimated to be 432 Tg
C02 equivalent and are expected to rise to 495 Tg C02 equivalent by the year 2010 as coal production
increases. Globally, the major coal producing countries and. regions of China, India, the United States,
Russian, Ukraine, Australia, Central and Eastern Europe, the United Kingdom, and Southern Africa
account for almost all CMM emissions.
7-7
CEQ 015277
May28,2004
Underground mines present the greatest opportunities for reducing emissions; however, emission
reductions are also possible at surface mines. Emissions from both underground and surface mines vary
depending on the technology used to mine the coal, the rate of coal production, the technologies
employed to remove the methane from the mines, and the local geological conditions.
7.1.2.1
Upstream and downstream technologies are integral to reducing methane emissions from coal mines. The
most important upstream technological contributions are in the recovery of methane from mine degasification operations and in the oxidation of low-concentration methane in mine ventilation air. Degasification systems are used to remove methane from the coal seams to provide for a safe working environment.
These systems generally consist of boreholes drilled into the coal seams and adjacent strata, with in-mine
and surface gathering systems used to extract and collect inethane. CMM can be recovered in advance of
mining or after mining has occurred and may consist of surface wells, in-mine boreholes, or some
combination of the two. Solely from a technical viewpoint, the most appropriate drainage technology is
dependent on the surface topography, subsurface geology, reservoir characteristics, mine layout, and mine
operations. J:?egasification technologies are used around the world and are commonplace in most the
aforementioned countries. Surface gob wells are used to extract methane after mining has occurred and
in-mine horizontal boreholes are standard at many gassy mines. However, advanced degasification
employing long-hole in-mine directional drilling has only been successful in a limited number of
countries including the U.S., Australia, the UK, Germany, and Mexico and only the U.S. and Australia
have had success with pre-mine drainage using surface wells. Although gas drainage is practiced
primarily at underground mines, drainage is also occurring at surface mines in some countries.
Horizontal boreholes are be drilled into the coal seam ahead of mining and the methane extracted.
In a number of countries, commercially-applied technologies have led to large reductions in CMM emissions through use of the captured methane. These technologies have included the use of coal mine
methane as fuel for power generation (primarily internal combustion engines), injection into the natural
gas pipeline system and local gas distribution networks, boiler fuel for use at the mine, local heating
needs, thennal drying of coal, vehicle fuel, and as a manufacturing feedstock (e.g., methanol, carbon
black, and dimethyl ether production). Technology advances in gas processing over the last decade have
also resulted in projects upgrading the quality of CMM and liquefying the gas which in tum provide more
end-use options and improve access to markets.
Although considerable effort is still directed at improving methane drainage recovery efficiencies and
broadening the application of end-use technologies, attention is also focused on the capture and. use of
coal mine ventilation air methane (VAM). Mine ventilation air generally contains less than 1% methane
in accordance with regulatory standards. The low concentration greatly limits possible uses of the
methane. VAM, though, is the largest sources of underground methane emissions, and presents a
significant opportunity to further mitigate greenhouse gas emissions from coal mines if capture and use
technologies can be successfully applied. Worldwide VAM emissions in 2000 were 238 Tg C02
equivalent and are expected to increase to 282 Tg C02 equivalent by 2010 and 308 Tg C02 equivalenf
by 2020. U.S. VAM emissions in 2000 were about 37 Tg C02 equivalent and are anticipated to rise
slightly to 40 Tg C02 equivalent by 2010 .and remain steady thereafter.5
5
USEPA, July 2003. "Assessment of the Worldwide Market Potential for Oxidizing Coal Mine Ventilation Air,
EPA 430-R-03-002.
7-8
CEQ 015278
7.1.2.2
May28,2004
Technology Strategy
RD&D efforts into emerging methane reduction technologies for coal mines should target ventilation air
methane (VAM) and advanced coalbed methane drilling techniques. The development of technologies to
use VAM will enable overall emission reductions at underground mines to reach 90 percent, as compared
to the current technical recovery limit of 30 to 50 percent. The most promising approach for recovering
VAM emissions is through commercialization of technologies that convert the low-concentration
(typically under 1 percent) methane directly into heat using thermal or catalytic flow reversal reaction
processes. The heat can then be employed for power production or other heating. Future efforts will need
to focus on continued testing and commercial deployment of ventilation air methane combined with
market development support to ensure that it is seen by industry as an energy resource rather than being
vented to the atmosphere.
The other potentially important approach to reduce emissions is the development of advanced drilling
technologies. Over the 1990's, advances in steerable motors and stimulation techniques have increased
the ability to recover a higher percentage of the total methane in coal seams. This methane, much of
which is high quality, may then find a viable market. The most promising technologies include in-mine
and surface directional drilling systems, which may enable fewer wells to produce more gas, and
advanced stimulation techniques, such as nitrogen and C02 injection, which increase the recovery
efficiency of surface wells. While it is difficult to characterize the potential for enhanced gas drainage,
these technologies have been shown to obtain drainage efficiencies of 70 to 90 percent. Future RD&D
activities will need to focus on the continued testing and commercial deployment of directional drilling
and use of other gases in coalbed niethane recovery. In addition, market development support will be
needed to ensure that increased drained emissions are put to productive use rather than vented to the
atmosphere.
7.1.2.3
Current Portfolio
The current Federal portfolio focuses on two areas:
Research on advances in coal mine ventilation air systems is focused on flow reversal reactors and
lean fuel turbines. See:
http://www .cl imatetechnology. gov/1 i brary/2003/tec h-options/tech-options-4-1-4. pdf
Research on advances in coal mine ventilation air systems is focused on use ofVAM in flow
reversal reactors, lean fuel turbines, as combustion air in small scale reciprocating engines or large- ..
scale mine-mouth power plants, as co-combustion medium with waste coal, and use of
concentrators to increase methane concentration.
See: http://www .cl imatetechnology .gov/library/2003/tech-options/tech-options-4-1-5 .pdf
7.1.2.4
Future RD&D efforts will focus on achieving full commercialization and deployment of ventilation air..
methane (VAM) and advanced coalbed methane drilling techniques. These technologies alone could
reduce emissions from underground mining operations by 90 percent. Additionally, efforts could focus
on developing new, fully automated mining systems that eliminate methane emissions.
7-9
CEQ 015279
May28, 2004
The combined use of ventilation air methane and advanced drainage techniques could reduce methane
emissions from underground coal mines by 90 percent or more in the near- to mid-temL Since
underground mining represents about 83 percent of U.S. coal mine methane emissions, this would
represent the potential for a 75 percent reduction in overall U.S. methane emissions from this source.
7.1.3 Natural Gas and Petroleum Systems

Methane emissions from the oil and gas industry accounted for approximately 11 percent of global nonCOz emissions in 2000. Russia and the U.S. accounted for over 30 percent of global methane emissions
from oil and gas systems. Emissions occur throughout the production, processing, transmission and
distribution systems and are generally process related. Nonnal operations, routine maintenance, and
system upsets are the primary contributors. Emissions vary greatly from facility to facility and are largely
a function of operation and maintenance procedures and equipment. Over 90 percent of methane
emissions from oil and gas systems, however, are associated with natural gas rather than oil related
operations.
As demand for oil and gas increase, global methane emissions are projected to increase by more than 72%
between 1990 and 2020. In many developed countries, however, there is increasing concern about the
contribution of oil and gas facilities to deteriorating local air quality, particularly emissions of nonmethane volatile organic compounds. Measures designed to mitigate these emissions, such as efforts to
reduce leaks and venting, have the ancillary benefit of reducing methane emissions. In addition, as
economies in many Eastern European countries undergo restructuring, efforts are underway to modernize
gas and oil facilities. For example, Germany expects to reduce emissions from the former East German
system through upgrades and maintenance. Russia also plans to focus on opportunities to reduce
.emissions from its oil and gas system as part of modernization.
7.1.3.1
Reducing methane emissions from the petroleum and natural gas industries necessitates both procedural
and technology improvements. Methane emission reduction strategies generally fall into one of three
categories: (1) technologies or equipment upgrades that reduce or eliminate equipment venting or
fugitive emissions, (2) improvements in management practices and operational procedures, or
(3) enhanced management practices that take advantage of improved technology. Each of these
technologies and management practices requires a change from business as usual in terms of how the
daily operations are scheduled and conducted. To date, over 60 emission reduction opportunities have
been identified by corporate partners in EPA's Natural Gas STAR Program. In many cases, these actions
are cost-effective and can have wide applicability across industry sectors.
7-10
CEQ 015280
7.1.3.2
May28, 2004
Technology Strategy
Despite the current availability of cost-effective methane emission reduction opportunities in the natural
gas and petroleum industry, RD&D efforts could have an important impact on future methane emissions.
Both in the near and long term, RD&D efforts should focus on increasing market penetration of current
emission reduction technologies, improving leak detection and measurement technologies, and
developing advanced end use technologies.
Current Emission Reduction Technologies- Perhaps the greatest environmental benefits would be
associated with an enhanced demonstration and deployment effort focused on currently available
emission reduction technologies. In 2000, deployment of these tecluiologies in the U.S. reduced
emissions by 15 Tg C02 equivalent, approximately 12 percent of total industry emissions. An
enhanced effort would encourage additional technology penetration and emissions reductions.
Leak Detection and Measurement- Additional benefits could be realized through improvements in
and deployment of leak detection and measurement technologies. While potential industry-wide
emission reductions are difficult to quantify, improved identification and quantification of methane
losses and leaks would promote mitigation activities. These new technologies will allow for quick,
relatively inexpensive detection ofleaks that are cost-effective to repair. Some ofthe emerging leak
detection and measurement technologies include the High-FlowTM Sampler and an IMSS camera.
Advancing End Use Technologies- Research aimed at advancing fuel cell and micro-turbine
technologies could reduce emissions at remote well sites by enabling remote power gene~tion at
these locations. For example, power generated from the lower quality gas can be used to support
instrument air systems and eliminate the need for gas-driven pneumatic devices and pumps.
7.1.3.3
Current Portfolio
The current Federal research and development portfolio primarily focuses on leak detection measurement
and monitoring technologies for natural gas systems.
See: http://www .cl imatetechnology. gov/1 ibrary/2003/tech-options/tech-options-4-1-6. pdf
7.1.3.4
RD&D could further facilitate emission reduction with more accurate and cost-effective leak d~tection
and measurement equipment, which could be effective in reducing fugitive and vented emissions from
gas production, processing, transmission, and distribution operations. Long term research and development efforts C('uJd focus on identifying additional opportunities. In particular, these efforts could target
the leading emission sources, such as reciprocating compressors and wellhead venting. Long term
research and development efforts could also focus on revolutionary equipment designs. This might focus
on "smart equipment," such as smart pipes or seals, that could alert operators to leaks or self-repairing
pipelines made of material that can regenerate and automatically seal leaks. Development of additional
technologies could enable emission reductions of 50 percent in the mid-term.
Future RD&D efforts could have an important impact on methane emissions, both in the near and long
term. Enhanced leak-detection and measurement efforts can yield significant methane emission
7-11
CEQ 015281
May28,2004
reductions. Demonstration of improved teChnologies has indicated that emissions at compressor stations
and gas-processing plants can be reduced cost effectively by as much as 80 to 90 percent. More
importantly, an enhanced demonstration and deployment effort focused on currently available emission
reduction technologies would encourage additional technology penetration. In the U.S. alone, this effort
could reduce emissions by an additional37 Tg C02 equivalent in 2010.
7.2 Methane and Nitrous.Oxide Emissions from Agriculture

Over 40 percent of total U.S. non-C02 greenhouse gases come from CH4 and N20 emissions from
agriculture. Globally, agricultural sources of methane and nitrous oxide contribute an estimated 5,428 Tg
C02 equivalent, nearly 60 percent of global non-C02 emissions. These emissions result from natural
biological processes inherent to crop and,livestock production and cannot be realistically eliminated,
although they can be reduced. For example, emissions ofN-oxides can likely be decreased by 15 to
35 percent through programs that improve crop Nitrogen use efficiency, through plant fertilizer
technology, precision agriculture, and plant genetics. Table 7-4 shows N20 and Methane emissions from
agricultural sources (Tg C02 Equivalent).
Table 7-4. U.S. and Global Methane and N20 Emissions from Agriculture
{2000- Tg C02 Equivalent)
u.s.
Source
Emissions
. %of Total
u~s. Non-C01
Global
Emissions
%ofGlobal
NonCOz
N20 Emissions from Agriculture
314
27%
2875
32%
Enteric Methane Emissions
116
10%
1712"
19%
38
3%
199
2%
<1%
643
7%
475
41%
5428
60%
Methane Emissions from Manure

Methane Emissions from Rice
Total
Sources: Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990-2001, (April2003)
USEPA #430-R-03-004; Global Emissions ofNon-C02 Greenhouse Gases, 1990-2020, (May 2004) USEPA, Draft.
Key research efforts have focused on the largest agriculture GHG emission sources including:
Nitrous Oxide Emissions from Agricultural Soil Management

Methane and Nitrous Oxide Emissions from Manure Management
Methane Emi.ssions from Livestock Enteric Fermentation
7.2.1 Advanced Agricultural Sy$tems for Nitrous Oxide Emissions Reductions

Low efficiency of nitrogen use in agriculture is primarily caused by large nitrogen losses due to leaching
and gaseous emissions (ammonia, nitrous oxide, nitric oxide, and nitrogen). In general, N20 emissions
from mineral and organic Nitrogen can ~ decreased by nutrient and water management practices which
optimize a crop's natural ability to compete with processes where plant available Nitrogen is lost fro;n the
soil-plant system.
7-12
,
....
CEQ 015282
7.2.1.1
May28,2004
Key technologies in the area of nutrient management can be applicable to N20 mitigation, focus on the
following areas:
Precision agriculture - targeted application of fertilizers, water and pesticides.
Cropping system models - tools to assist farmer management decisions.
Control release fertilizers and pesticiiles- deliver nutrients and chemicals to match crop demand
and timing of pest infestation.
Soil microbial processes -.use of biological and chemical methods, such as liming, to manipulate
microbial processes to increase efficiency of nutrient uptake, suppress N20 emissions, and reduce
leaching.
Agricultural best management practices -limit N-gas emissions, soil erosion, and leaching.
Soil conservation practices - utilizing buffers and conservation reserves.
Livestock manure utilization- development of mechanisms to more effectively use livestock

manure in crop production.
Plant breeding - to increase nutrient use efficiency and decrease demand for pesticides.
7.2.1.2
Technology Strategy
Technologies and practices that increase the overall Nitrogen efficiency" while maintaining crop yields
represent viable options to decrease N20 emissions. Focused RD&D efforts are needed in a number of
areas to develop new technologies and expanded deployment of commercially available technologi~s and
management practices. Strategic areas for emphasis include:
Further development of precision agriculture technologies to meet the fertilizer and energy
reduction goals could lead to increased adoption of these technologies and improved performance.
"Smart materials" for prescription release of nutrients and chemicals for major crops currently
require modest breakthroughs in materials technology to reach fruition.
Soil microbial processes could also be manipulated to increase N-use efficiency; however, further
development is needed to insure full efficacy and avoid the introduction of environmental risks.
First-generation integrated system models, technology and supporting education and extension
infraStructure need to be implemented, and research on using these techniques to improve
management expanded.
Development of genetically-designed major crop plants to utilize fertilizer more efficiently.
7-13
CEQ 015283
May28,~004
Increased extension efforts are needed to fully utilize best management practices.
Basic research on process controls and field monitoring programs are needed to ensure that
theoretical understanding exists as technology evolves and that changes in management practices to
mitigate greenhouse gas emissions actually function as theorized.
'
Development of accurate measurement technologies and protocols for assessment and verification.
7.2.1.3
Current Portfolio
Although many mitigation options for N20 emissions can be readily identified, their implementation has
not been carried out on a large scale. Other than programs to limit Nitrogen losses, programs that directly
address the issue of N20 emissions from agricultural soil management are very limited. The current
Federal portfolio focuses on N20 emissions from agricultural soil management, precision agriculture,
understanding and manipulation of soil microbial processes, expert system management, and the
development of inexpensive, robust measurement and monitoring technologies.
See: http://www .c li matetechnology.gov/1 ibrary/2003/tech-options/tech-opti ons-4-2-1. pdf
7.2.1.4
In the future, full development and utilization of the technology portfolio will need continued refinement
and possibly redirection as new ancillary technology evolves. For example:
Precision agriculture in general requires advances in rapid, low-cost, and accurate soil nutrient and
physical property characterization; real-time crop water need characterization; real-time crop yield
and quality characterization; real-time insect and pest infestation characterization; autonomous
control systems; and integrated physiological model and massive data/information management
systems.
hnproved understanding of specific soil microbial processes is required to support development of

methods for manipulation and how manipulation impacts GHG emissions.
To continue to improve systems management, models that represent an accurate understanding of

plant physiology must be coupled with soil process models including decomposition, nutrient
cycling, gaseous diffusion, water flow, and storage on a mass balance basis are needed tOunderstand how ecosystems respond to environmental and management change.
Other options could include improved utilization of the Nitrogen in manure on croplands/pasturelands to
offset use of synthetic nitrogen and decreasing the quantity of nitrogen excreted from livestock by better
inatching the intake ofnitrogen(e.g., protein) with the actual dietary requirements of the animals. A large
portion of the N20 emissions from soils comes from livestock waste directly deposited on pastures, so
this has significant mitigation potential both in the U.S. and globally.
Wide scale implementation of these technologies and improved management systems in the U.S. could
lead to reductions in nitrous oxide emissions from agriculture from 15 to 35 percent. In some developing
countries, where greater inefficiencies are identified and where potential use of N is likely to increase
7-14
CEQ 015284
May 28, 2004 .
greatly in the future as the demand for more crop and pasture production increases, the potential is even
greater.
7.2.2 Methane and Nitrous Oxide Emissions from Livestock and Poultry
Manure Management
. Globally, nitrous oxide and methane emissions from livestock and poultry manure management totaled
approximately 400 Tg C02 equivalent in 2000. Livestock and poultry manure has the potential to
produce significant quantities of C~ and N20, depending on the waste management practices. When
manure is stored or treated in systems that promote anaerobic conditions, such as lagoons and tanks, the
decomposition of the biodegradable fraction of the waste tends to produce CE4. When manure is handled
. as a solid, such as in stacks or deposits on pastures, the biodegradable fraction tends to decompose
aerobically greatly reducing C~ emissions; however, this practice enhances N20 production, which has a
greater global wanning potential. Practices that minimize both GHGs are needed.
7.2.2.1
Methane reduction and other environmental benefits can be achieved by utilizing a variety of technologies and
processes. Aeration processes, such as aerobic digestion, auto-heated aerobic digestion, and composting,
remove and stabilize some pollutant constituents from the waste stream. These technologies facilitate the
aerobic decomposition of waste and prevent methane emissions. Anaerobic digestion sys~ms, in contrast,
encourage methane generation and the collection and transfer of manure-generated off-gases to energy
producing combustion devises (such as engine generators, boilers or odor control flares). Solids separation
processes remove some pollutant constituents from the waste stream through gravity, mechanical, or
chemical methods. These processes create a second waste stream that must be managed using techniques
different from those already in use to manage liquids or slurries. Separation processes offer the
opportunity to stabilize solids aerobically i.e., to control odor and vermin propagation.
7.2.2.2
Technology Strategy
Methane collection from anaerobic digestion systems plays an important role in reducing emissions from
livestock manure management. In addition, these systems can provide additional odor-control and energy
benefits by collecting and producing electricity from the combustion of methane using devises such as
engine generators, boilers. Although the use of commercial farm scale anaerobic digesters has increased
over the past 5 years due to private sector activities, significant opportunity remains. Currently there are
only 12 companies that provide proven commercial scale anaerobic digestion systems and gas utilization
options for farm applications in the U.S. As of 2002, there were an estimated 35 anaerobic digester
systems in use at commercial swine and dairy farms in the U.S. that produce about 1 million kWh /year.
Expanded technology research and extension efforts should include commercial scale demonstration
projects and evaluation of available and emerging technologies to determine their effectiveness in
reducing emissions, overall environmental benefits. and cost-effectiveness. For example, a number of
emerging anaerobic digester systems adopted from the sewage industry are currently under evaluation for
farm scale applications. In addition, it is important to encourage research on odor and nitrogen emission
control and ensure that it is coordinated with research on ~ production and emission technology
development.
7-15
CEQ 015285
7.2.2.3
May28,2004
Current Portfolio
The current Federal portfolio focuses on centralized digester technologies, farm-scale digesters,
separation process technologies, and aeration process technologies.
7.2.2.4
Emissions of C~ from manure management systems can be significantly decreased through adoption of
methane recovery technologies at confined animal feeding operations, where liquid manure management
systems are commonly employed. Commercially available approaches that may have some opportunity
to reduce methane emissions from waste management practices include:
Reduction of carbon in the lagoons by solids separation.

Shifts from anaerobic lagoons to solid waste management systems.
Aeration of lagoon waste sys~ems.
Development of centralized anaerobic digestion systems for multiple farm operations.
Expanded extension efforts to the livestock, agricultural, energy and regulatory communities in a number
of key livestock producing states (for example, by expanding the activities currently conducted through
the AgSTAR Program), could lead to additional emissions reductions in the U.S. Additionally, research
that utilizes new technological developments in analytical instrumentation and molec~ar biology related
to a commercial farm's operational ability would be useful. If such activities were undertaken globally,
the emission reductions could be substantial.
7.2.3 Methane Emissions from Livestock Enteric Fermentation

Methane emissions from enteric fermentation are the second largest global agricultural GHG source,
contributing an estimated 1712 Tg C02 of emissions in 2000. Methane emissions occur through
microbial fermentation in the digestive system of livestock. The amount of~ emitted depends
primarily on the animal's digestive system, and the amount and type of feed. Ruminant livestock such as
dairy cattle, beef cattle, and buffalo emit the most ~ per animal, while non-ruminant livestock such as
swine, horses and mules emit less. Because C~ emissions represent an economic loss to the farmerwhere feed is converted to ~ rather than to product output-viable mitigation options can entail
efficiency improvements to reduce C~ emissions per unit of beef or milk.
7.2.3.1
Reductions in this energy loss can be achieved through increased nutritional efficiency. The goal of much
livestock .mtrition research has been to enhance production efficiency in order to indirectly reduce CF4
emitted on a per unit of product basis through breed improvements, increased feeding efficiency through
diet management, and strategic feed selection. Without reductions in national herds, however, this
approach will not result in net decreases of methane from this source. Historic and near-term projected
trends show both a decreasing herd size and reduced ~ emissions on a per unit product basis.
7-16
CEQ 015286
7.2.3.2
May28,2004
Technology Strategy
Technologies that would likely reduce c:E4 emissions in addition to enhancing production efficiency
include precision nutrition and improvements in grazing management, feed efficiency, and livestock
production efficiency. This includes but is not limited to: investigating between-animal differences to
determine if inheritable genetic traits for reduced methane production can be passed on, dietary
manipulation of grains, oils, and fats that reduce methane production.
Key technologies that would likely reduce Cf4 emissions include:
Precision nutrition can minimize excess nutrients, particularly N, while meeting the nutritional
needs of the ruminal microflora and those of the animal for growth, milk production and digestion.
Improved grazing management that can increase forage yield and digestibility.
Using ionophores to improve feed efficiency can inhibit the formation of Cf4 by rumen bacteria.
Improve livestock production efficiency with natural or synthetic hormone feed additives or
implants to increase milk production and growth efficiency and reduce feed requirements.
7.2.3.3
Current Portfolio
The current Federal research portfolio focuses on improved feed and forage management and treatment
practices to increase the digestibility and reduce residence digestion time in the rumen, best-management
practices for increased animal reproduction efficiency, and use of growth promotants and other agents to
improve animal efficiency. See:
7.2.3.4
RD&D efforts in a number of areas could result in the development of new technologies and expanded
deployment of commercially available technologies and management practices for mitigating GHG
emissions from the agricultural sector while maintaining or improving crop and livestock production.
Some promising areas for emphasis are:
Genetic engineering of plants to enhance digestibility of feeds, reduce fertilizer requirements, and
provide appropriate nutrients to enhance beneficial microbial competitiveness.
Development of livestock with increased productivity and dietary energy use efficiency that can be
productive in various environments and use reduced feed resources.
Improved understanding of specific rumen microbial processes to support development of methods

for making desirable engineered microbes competitive with natural rumen microbes.
Development of models that represent accurate understanding of animal nutrient needs.
Development of vaccinations that can reduce methane production in the rumen.
7-17
CEQ 015287
May28,2004
Approximately 25 percent increase in production efficiency could be realized if maximum

implementation occurs. A larger potential exists in developing countries where the livestock population
is expected to dramatically increase over the next few decades and where production efficiency (e.g., high
methane per unit product) is very low. In these countries use of improved production techniques can
reduce the business as usual baseline emissions of methane.
7.2.4 Methane Emissions from Rice Fields

Another significant source of global anthropogenic methane is the growth of rice, which is the dietary
staple of a large proportion of the world's population. It is generally grown in flooded paddy fields,
where methane is generated by the anaerobic decomposition of organic matter in the soil. Traditional wet
cultivation emits an estimated 642 TgC{}zequivalent of methane. Emissions from this source have
leveled off in the last two decades.
RD&D efforts in a number of areas could result in the development of new technologies and expanded
deployment of commercially available teChnologies and management practices for mitigating GHG
emissions from the agricultural sector while maintaining or improving crop and livestock production.
Although water management, cultivar selection and nutrient management are potential options for
limiting CH4 emissions from rice fields, further research and development is needed to detennine their
cost-effectiveness and feasibility. A number of opportunities for future research exist within the Methane
Emissions from Rice Fields area, some of which include plant genetics, water management, and nutrient
management.
In general, the greatest challenges for mitigating CH4 emissions from rice fields are uncertainty of
changes in management, which affect rice yields and feasible management practices that reduce CH4
emissions, without increasing Nitrogen losses and reducing yields. In addition, reduction of methane
emissions could be difficult to implement since, in many cases, the necessary actions could involve
significant changes in agricultural practices (e.g., shifting to different water management regimes). In
principle, application of known techniques could reduce methane emissions by 30 to 40 percent by the
year 2020. Achieving these large emission reductions would, however, require finding suitable incentives
and delivery mechanisms to induce changes in existing practices.
7.3 Emissions of High Global-Warming Potential Gases

In 2000, high global warming potential (GWP) gases represented just under 10 percent of total _:u.s. nonC02 GHG emissions and only 4 percent of global non-C02emissions. There are two different types of
emission sources in this category, and e~ch requires different research and development priorities. As
discussed below, emissions of high o'WF gases used as substitutes for ozone depleting substances (ODS)
being phased out under the Montreal Protocol are currently increasing. High OWP gases are also used .J
emitted by several other industries and in many cases these emissions can be readily managed or
eliminated. Table 7-5 shows emissions of Substitutes for Ozone Depleting Substances and High OWP
Gases (Tg C02Equivalent).
7-18
;j
.r.:
.,
CEQ 015288
May28,2004
Table 7-5. U.S. and Global Emissions of High GWP Gases (2000- Tg C02 Equivalent)
u.s.
%of Total
Global
%ofGlobal
Source
Emissions U.S. Non-CO;a
Emissions
Non-C01
Substitutes for Ozone Depleting Substances
1%
5%
126
57
Industrial use of High GWP Gases
3%
5%
242
64
Total
4%
121
10%
368
.
Sources: Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990-2001, (April2003)
USEPA #430-R-03-004; Global Emissions of Non-C02 Greenhouse Gases, 1990-2020, (May 2004) USEPA,
Draft.
7.3.1 Substitutes for Ozone Depleting Substances {ODSs)

Emissions of high GWP gases used as substitutes for ozone-depleting substances (ODS) are a growing
emission source in the U.S. and globally. These high GWP gases are being used as replacements for
chemicals (like CFCs) that deplete the stratospheric ozone layer (see Box 7-1). ODSs, which are also
GHGs, are being phased out under the Montreal Protocol and, thus, are not counted in national
inventories. To address ozone depletion, the refrigeration, air conditioning, fire suppression, foam
blowing and solvent cleaning industries, and others, are in the midst of the ODS phaseout.
7.3.1.1
For many industries, the ODS phaseout is accomplished by switching to alternative chemicals. For most
industries, the most popular and highest performing alternatives are chemicals like HFCs, that do not
deplete the ozone layer but are potent greenhouse gases. At the same time, the phaseout is providing
industries with an opportunity to improve processes and practices related to chemical use, management,
and disposal in ways that reduce the emissions of HFCs and PFCs, where those chemicals are used as
alternatives. As the ODS phaseout continues, opportunities exist to find better life-cycle climate
performance (LCCP) alternatives and/or continue reducing emissions.
7.3.1.2
Technology Strategy
To reduce emissions of GHGs used as ODS substitutes, focus should be given to the following:
(1) finding alternative gases with lower or no GWP to perform, as safely and efficiently, the same
function currently served by the HFCs and PFCs; (2) exploring technologies that can reduce the use of the
chemical and/or the rate at which it is emitted; and (3) supporting responsible handling practi~s and
principles that reduce unintended and unnecessary emissions.
7.3.1.3
Current Portfolio
The Federal R&D portfolio focused on reducing hydrofluorocarbon emissions from the supermarket
refrigeration and motor vehicle air conditioning sectors, which are two of the largest sources.
Motor Vehicle Air Conditioning: Hydrofluorocarbon Emissions. The motor vehicle industry ~
phased out the use of CFC-12 (with a GWP of about 10,000) in new car air conditioners between
1992 and 1994, and since then has used exclusively HFC-134a (with a GWP of 1300). Research
and development is underway to commercialize even lower-GWP refrigerants, mainly C02
7-19
CEQ 015289
May28, 2004
(GWP=l) and HFC-152a (GWP=120). Due to the high-pressure and toxic effects of C02, and the
flammability of HFC-152a, additional safety engineering and risk mitigation technologies are being
developed. Furthermore, research and testing is needed to maintain or improve the energy
efficiency (and hence gas usage and C02 emissions) of the new air conditioners. In the U.S., direct
refrigerant GWP emissions can be reduced by more than 95% and indirect fuel use emissions
reduced by 30% or more, for a total reduction of total vehicle fuel emissions in vehicles with air
conditioning by up to 2%.
Supermarket Refrigeration: Hydrofluorocarbon Emissions. Supermarkets are phasing out the use
of ozone-depleting refrigerants and substituting hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), which are potent
greenhouse gases. Technologies such as distributed refrigeration, which reduces the need for
excessive refrigerant piping (and hence emissions), and secondary-loop refrigeration, which
segregates refrigerant-containing equipment to a separate, centralized location while using a benign
fluid to transfer heat from the food display cases, are being developed.
7.3.1.4
Several near-term opportunities exist to reduce emissions. Continuation of the responsible use practices
developed to control emissions of ODSs has had and will continue to have a substantial effect on HFC
and PFC emissions. Research indicates that approximately 80% of the previous use of ODSs has been
replaced through conservation methods and use of non-fluorocarbon technologies. Continued emphasis
on this success is needed, for example, by mandating the use of equipment and technologies to reduce
emissions during service and maintenance.
Long-term research should focus on technologies that hold the most potential for reducing or eliminating
total GHG emissions, including associated energy production emissions, and are practical for their
applications. Key areas for consideration over the long-term are the investigation of new technologies
and processes to replace current uses of ODSs and avoid or reduce emissions of high GWP gases.
A focused RD&D program to develop and deploy safe, high performing, cost-effective. climate protection
technologies could result in U.S. emission reductions of 50 percent or more by 2020. However, due to
the long lifetimes of many of the products that use these gases, efforts need to be taken in the near term to
realize the stock turnover necessary to achieve these reductions in a cost-effective manner.
7.3.2 Industrial Use of High GWP Gases

High GWP synthetic gases are generally used in applications where they are critical to highly complex
manufacturing processes and provide safety and system reliability, such as in semiconductor ~ufac
turing, electric power transmission and distribution, and magnesium ,;:-:.:::.mction and casting. High GWP
gases are also emitted as production byproducts from the manufacture of refrigerants (HCFC-22) and
from the production of primary aluminum.
7.3.2.1
Incremental improvements to current technology have been made through the initiation of voluntary
public/private industry partnerships. EPA's partnerships with the U.S. primary aluminum, HCFC-22
7-20
CEQ 015290
May28, 2004
manufacturing, electric utility, magnesium, and semiconductor sectors are identifying new technologies
and process improvements that not only reduce emissions of high GWP gases but also improve
production efficiency, thereby, saving money. With continued support, production technologies are
expected to further improve allowing these industry sectors to cost effectively reduce and possibly
eliminate emissions of high GWP gases.
7.3.2.2
Technology Strategy
High GWP gas emitting industries are implementing a research, demonstration, and deployment (RD&D)
strategy focused on the pollution prevention hierarchy. The industries have established long-term goals
of reducing and in some cases eliminating high GWP emissions and are pursuing these goals by investigating and implementing source reduction, alternative process chemicals, high GWP gas capture and
reuse, and abatement.
While the U.S. sources of high GWP emissions are well defined, they are also very diverse and thus a
customized approach for each industry is required. New and enhanced research and development will
accelerate and expand options to stabilize and reduce emissions. Opportunities exist for both near- and
long-term RD&D on technologies including alternative chemicals for plasma etching for semi-conductors
and magnesium melt protection, as well as continued demonstration of advanced plasma abatement
devices for the semi-conductor industry.
7.3.2.3
Current Portfolio
The current Federal portfolio for industrial emissions of high GWP gases focuses on five areas:
Research on the Semiconductor Industry: Abatement Technologies. Abatement of high GWP gases
from the exhaust gas stream in semiconductor processing facilities may be achieved by two
mechanisms: 1) thermal destruction and 2) plasma destruction.
See: http://www.c 1imatetechno logy. gov/1 ibrary/2003/tech-options/tech-opti ons-4-3-l.pdf
Research on the Semiconductor Industry: Substitutes for High GWP Gases. One method of
reducing high GWP gas emissions from the semiconductor industry is to use an alternative chemical
or production process. Replacing high GWP gases with more environmentally friendly substitutes
for chemical vapor deposition clean and dielectric etch processes is a preferred option when viewed
from the perspective ofEPA's pollution prevention framework.
Semiconductors and Magnesium: Recovery and Recycle. Three recovery-and-recycle technologies

are being investigated and evaluated: membrane separation, cryogenic capture, and pressure swing
absorption.
Aluminum Industry: Perfluorocarbon Emissions. Current efforts to reduce perfluorocarbon

emissions from primary aluminum production focus on using more efficient smelting processes to
reduce the frequency and duration of anode effects, which create the PFC. Another concept, now in
the research and development phase, involves replacing the carbon anOde with an inert anode.
7-21
CEQ 015291
May28,2004
Doing so would completely eliminate process related perfluorocarbon emissions.

Electric Power Systems and Magnesium: Substitutes for SF6. The challenge is to identify
substitutes to SF6 with low or no global-warming potential that satisfies the magnesium industcy' s
melt protection requirements and meet the electric power industcy's high-voltage insulating needs.
See: http://www .c Iimatetechnology. gov/1 ibrary/2003/tech-options/tech-opti ons-4-3-5. pdf
7.3.2.4
With U.S. industries implementing voluntary emission reduction strategies focused on cost effective
process optimizations and gas management and handling, present high priority R&D needs are focused on
technologies that may allow industcy to eliminate high GWP emissions altogether. Such technologies
include:
Environ.inentally friendly alternative cover gases for magnesium melt protection.
hitproved process controls and computer based operator-training tools to further reduce PFC
emissions from aluminum smelting.
New electric power transmission equipment that does not require SF6 insulation.
Long-term research should focus on technologies that hold the most potential for reducing or eliminating
total GHG emissions, including associated energy production emissions, and are practical for their
applications. Many of these research efforts may prove to be high-risk due to unknown commercial
viability, and thus are unlikely to be pursued by the industcy without significant government funding.
Long term R&D focused on eliminating high GWP emissions might include research and demonstrat~on
of inert anode technology for primary aluminum smelting or constructing high voltage power
transmission equipment that does not r~uire SF6insulation. These types of innovative technologies
would elin'linate emissions of high GWP gases from these sources but presently face significant barriers
to commercialization.
EPA's successful public-private industry partnerships provide excellent forums for transferring technical
information in an efficient and cost-effective manner. The partnership programs host or participate in
annual technical conferences with the respective industries. Public-private partnerships help facilitate
effective use of the technologies that are and will soon become available. Examples of successful
research partnerships to reduce high GWP gas emissions include: Semiconductor Manufacturing, Electric
Power Systems, Magnesium, Aluminum, HCFC-22 Production, Retail Food (Supermarket) Refrigeration,
and Motor Vehicle Air Conditioning.
Several near-term opportunities exist to reduce emissions. A focused RD&D program to develop safe,
high performing, cost-effective climate protection technologies could result in emission reductions of
40 percent or more over the near term and a dramatic reduction and, in some cases, elimination of
emissions by key industries within a few decades.
7-22
CEQ 015292
May28,2004
7.4 Nitrous Oxide Emissions from Combustion and

Industrial So~uces
Stationary and mobile source combustion and. the production of various industrial acids account for about
8 percent of non-C02 emissions in the U.S. and 4 percent of globally. U.S. emissions associated with
industrial acid production declined significantly after 1996 due to voluntary ind._stry action, and could
remain relatively stable. Although generally not accounted for in N20 emission inventories, significant
emissions of NOx from combustion sources are chemically transformed in the atmosphere and are
eventually deposited as nitrogen compounds which subsequently result in emissions ofN20 in a manner
similar to emissions from fertilizer application. In 2001, the U.S. N20 emissions from combustion and
industry accounted for nearly 10 percent of total Non-C02GHG emissions, with the combustion sources
accounting for over 70 percent of these. Table 7-6 shows N20 emissions from Combustion and Industrial
Sources.
Table 76. U.S. and Global N20 Emissions from Combustion and Industrial Sources
(2000 - Tg C02 Equivalent)
%of Total
Global
u.s.
%of Global
U.S. Non-CO:~.
Emissions
Emissions
Non-C01
Source
5%
230
2%
N20 from Combustion
72
5%
160
2%
NzO from Industrial Sources
25
4%
97
8%
390
Total
Sources: Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: /990-2001, (Apnl2003) USEPA #430R-03-004; Global Emissions of Non-C02 Greenhouse Gases, /990-2020, (May 2004) USEPA, Draft.
. Research and development priorities differ between N20 combustion and industrial sources. The
priorities for each of the sources are discussed below.
7.4.1 Combustion
The largest non-agricultural contributors to N20 emissions result from the combustion of fossil fuels by
mobile and stationary sources. N20 can be formed under certain conditions during the combustion
process and during treatment of exhaust or stack gases by catalytic converters. Since N20 emissions do
not contribute significantly to ozone formation or other public health problems, N20 has not been
regulated as an air pollutant and has historically not been a focus of emission control research.
7.4.1.1
A better underStanding of how and when N20 forms and how N20 emissions can best be prevented and
reduced is needed. For both stationary and mobile combustion sources, N20 emissions appear to vary
greatly with different technologies and under different operating conditions, and the phenomena involved
are poorly understood. For stationary sources, catalytic NOx reduction technologies can reduce N20
emissions. Other NOx control technologies either have no impact or can increase N20.
. 7-23
CEQ 015293
7.4.1.2
May28,2004
Technology Strategy
Understanding how NzO is formed during combustion and under what circumstances catalytic
technologies contribute to N20 emissions is key to identifying the most promising approaches and
technologies for reducing NzO emissions. The main research thrust in the near term is to improve
scientific understanding of these basic questions.
7.4.1.3
Current Portfolio
The current Federal research portfolio on N20 emissions from combustion is focused on better
understanding the formation and magnitude of N20 emissions from fuel combustion and catalyticconverter operation; evaluating the climate-forcing potential of atmospheric nitrogen deposition,
especially from combustion; and developing emission models to assess the potential climate benefits from
changes in emissions from nitrogen oxide.
Additionally, Federal research on advanced engine/combustion technologies and alternate fuel vehicles
will contribute to a reduction in N20 emissions. Research in these areas is described in the Transportation
section of Chapter 4 {Reducing Emissions from Energy End-Use and Infrastructure).
7.4.1.4
Because NzO has never been a focus of vehicle emission regulations, N20 measurement technology for
motor vehicles is at an early stage of development. Improved N20 measurement technologies must be
developed that can accurately quantify N20 levels during laboratory or in-use vehicle and engine testing.
Finally, research is needed to assess the role of airborne nitrogen compounds emitted from combustion
sources and deposited onto the ground to soil-generated N20 emissions.
The development of new combustion technologies that reduce or eliminate N20 emissions will require
new Federal efforts to facilitate jqint public/private RD&D activities that can effectively address the
reduction of N20 emissions from combustion and industrial sources. For the most part, these activities
should focus on research needs that would form the basis for identification of new technologies in the
future. Some areas for near-term technology development have also been identified, however. Below are
some examples of key collaborations.
Develop Improved N20 MeasureiE~nt Technology for Vehicle Emissions- Collaborative research
between US-EPA National Vehicle! and Fuels Emission Laboratory (NVFEL), manufacturers of
vehicles/engines, emission control technology, and analytical equipment manufacturers on
developing N20 measurement techniques for emerging gasoline and diesel engines and their
emlssion control systems. Measurement technology is needed for both laboratory and field
measurement.
Characterization ofN20 from gasoline and diesel engines. Collaborative research between US EPA
NVFEL, manufacturers of vehicles/engines and emission control technology on developing a
vehicle and engine testing progran}to generate data about N20 emissions for a variety of vehicles
f.;
'
7-24
CEQ 015294
May28,2004
and engines equipped with a range of current and advanced emission control technologies and
operated over a range of real-world operating conditions.
N20 emissions from combustion sources could be significantly reduced with improved catalyst
technologies and other advances.
7.4.2 Industrial Sources

Nitric acid is an inorganic compound used primarily to make synthetic com.m.ercial fertilizer. As a raw
material, it also is used for the production of adipic acid and explosives, for metal etching, and in the
processing of ferrous metals. Facilities maldng adipic acid used to be high emitters of nitrous oxide
(N20), but now that adipic acid plants in the United States have implemented nitrous oxide abatement
technologies, nitric acid production is the largest industrial source of N20 emissions.
7.4.2.1
The nitric acid industry currently controls NOx emissions using both non-selective catalytic reduction
(NSCR) and selective catalytic reduction (SCR) technologies. NSCR is very effective at controlling N20
while SCR c.an actually increase N20 emissions. NSCR units, however, are generally not preferred in
modem plants because of high-energy costs and associated high gas temperatures. A catalyst to reduce
N20 emissions from SCR plant is being developed in the Netherlands, and manufacturer of nitric acid is
testing a catalyst for use in the ammonia burners in nitric acid plants. Both approaches are claimed to be
capable of reducing N20 emissions by up to 90 percent and are easily installed on existing plants. It is
expected that these will be available for commercial application by 2010. Another manufacturer has
developed an integrated destruction process; however, this process is only considered suitable for use on
new plants because of the high capital costs and long operational down times needed to retrofit existing
plants.
7.4.2.2
Portfolio Rationale or Strategy
Additional research is needed to develop new catalysts that reduce N20 with greater efficiency, and to
improve nonselective catalytic reduction technology to make it a preferable alternative to selective
catalytic reduction and other control options.
7.4.2.3
Current Portfolio Emphasis
The current Federal portfolio focuses on developing catalysts that reduce N20 to elemental nitrogen with
greater efficiency and promoting the use of nonselective catalytic reduction over other NOx control
options such as selective catalytic reduction and extended absorption.
See: http://www .cl imatetechnology. gov/1 i brary/2003/tech-options/tec h-options-4-4-l. pdf
7.4.2.4
Future Applied Research Needs
The use of a catalyst that can reduce a higher percentage of N20 emissions is not the focus of the current
research. The technology is primarily implemented to reduce NOx emissions, not as an N20 emissionreduction technology. In the longer term, for N20 emissions from nitric acid production, an advanced
7-25
CEQ 015295
May28,2004
non-selective catalytic reduction technology that is not energy intensive will need to be developed and
implemented at all nitric acid production.
7.5 Emissions of Tropospheric O~one Precursors and Black Carbon

Emissions of black carbon (BC) and tropospheric ozone precursors cannot be compared on an equivalent
basis with GHG emissions because there is no GWP metric for these gases and aerosols. The role of
black carbon and. tropospheric ozone in global warming is still incompletely understood and additional
research is needed to characterize emission sources, atmospheric interactions, and mitigation potential.
Research to date indicates, however, that these substances are significant contributors to global warming,
potentially as large as other non-C0 2 GHGs. Mitigation options for BC and tropospheric ozone can
already be identified in various sectors. However, it is difficult to quantify, with a high degree of
.
certainty, the emission imJ?lications of different mitigation scenarios for these substances, and even more
difficult to quantify the climatic implications of such scenarios. Activities to reduce tropospheric ozone
precursors and BC will have large public health and local air quality benefits, in addition to their role in
mitigating climate change. In fact, it is expected that even in the absence of climate change driven
mitigation actions reductions in troposphefic ozone and black carbon will be achieved as local and
regional air quality concerns are addressed, in the U.S. and many other countries.
7.5.1 Potential Roles of Technology

Ozone and particulate matter (PM), of which BC is a component, have been key targets of air pollution
control efforts in the U.S. for many years. Together, national, state, and local regulations have had the
primary purpose of reducing the significant human health and environmental impacts from high levels of
tropospheric ozone and particulate matter. Emission control programs aimed at reducing ozone have
focused on the primary precursors that contribute to formation of 1-hour peak ozone concentrations in and
near urban centers-emissions of nitrogen oxides (NOx) and volatile organic compounds (VOC).
Programs aimed at reducing PM have led to significant advances in emission control technologies in both
the transportation and power.generation sectors, which have and will continue to reduce emissions of .
black carbon in the U.S. Power plants and other large combustion sources use control technologies such
as high-efficiency electrostatic precipitators, fabric filters, and scrubbers to reduce particulate matter,
including black carbon. Other stationary source regulatory efforts have addressed biomass burning and
include new source performance standards for residential wood heaters and limits on open and
agricultural burning.

The approach to address the most significant sources of tropospheric ozone precursors and black carbon
involve the following abatement technology areas:
Transportation control technologies -PM 2.5 emissions from on and off-road diesel vehicles (the
largest source of black carbon emissions in the U.S.) are being targeted by stricter vehicle emission
standards, where per-vehicle PM emissions are expected to be reduced by 90% over the next
decade. Total national mobile source PM2.5 emissions are expected, by 2020, to decline by 53%
compared to 1996 levels and by 24% compared to projected 2020 baseline levels.
7-26
CEQ 015296
May28,2004
Temperature reduction in cities -Heat islands form as cities replace natural vegetation with
pavement for roads, buildings, and other structures. There are several measures available to reduce
the urban heat island effect that can decrease ambient air temperatures, energy use for cooling
purjloses, GHG emissions, and the chemical formation of smog (ozone and precursors). (See
Urban Heat Island Technologies in the Buildings subsection of Chapter 4.)
Biomass burning ..., Important sources of black carbon aerosols in the U.S. include combustion of not
only fossil fuels but also biomass burning. Available options to reduce open biomass burning
include changing the frequency and conditions of prescribed burning and reduCing open waste
burning.

The current Federal portfolio focuses on the foliowing representative technologies.
Transportation control technologies include advanced tailpipe NOx controls (including NOx
adsorbers), particulate matter filters (traps) for diesel engines (including catalyzed traps capable of
passive regeneration), and hybrid and fuel cell vehicles.
Representative technologies for temperature reduction in cities include:

-
Strateg_ically planted shade trees

Reflective roofs: There are over 200 Energy STARTM roof products, including coatings and
single-ply materials, tiles, shingles and membranes. Energy savings with reflective roofs range as
high as 32 percent during periods of peak electricity demand (and average 15 percent for the
summer season).
Reflective paving materials: There are several reflective pavement applications being developed,
including new pavement and resurfacing applications, asphalt, concrete and other material types.
Alternatives to biomass burning include prescribed burning programs (which are directed at
minimizing wildfires), and regulation or banning of open burning (such as in land clearing).

Basic research is needed to both better understand the role of black carbon and tropospheric ozone
precursors in climate change and to achieve emission reductions in the near and long term. Some of the
areas where basic research is needed include:
The study of the roles of tropospheric ozone and BC in global warming has begun only relatively
recently. While there are strong indications that these pollutants are important actors in climate
change, much more research is needed to address the complex optical, chemical, and meteorological
factors involved. For black carbon, this new research would be aimed at establishing more clearly
how these pollutants affect solar radiation and cloud formation. For black carbon and tropospheric
ozone, new research should focus on how atmospheric concentrations vary with geography, time,
and the presence of other compounds in the atmosphere.
7-27
CEQ 015297
May28,2004
Greater understanding of the use of different definitions of and measurement protocols for BC (and
its differentiation from elemental carbon and organic carbon), and the implications of such
differences for climate assessments, is also needed.
Quantification of the synergies and potential tradeoffs among GHGs, BC, tropospheric ozone, and
other criteria air pollutants for different mitigation options, whether these options are targeted for
climate, air quality, or both issues.
Regarding black carbon emissions from open biomass burning, potential mitigation optio.ns include
wildfire suppression and altering prescribed burning practices. However, it. remains difficult to
quantify benefits due to large uncertainties in the time dynamics of wildfrres and uncertainties in
emissions factors resulting from different kinds of fires. Further research into this area could
support practices that reduce the climate effects of black carbon from wildfires. This type of effort
could also enhance carbon sequestration on forestlands.
Other questions requiring new research relate to gasoline and diesel vehicle emissions of GHGs. A
thorough study of life cycle GHG and particulate matter emissions is needed to resolve questions of
the overall climate impacts of vehicle emissions (including C02 and organic carbon particles) of
vehicles operating on gasoline as compared to diesel fuel. New research is also needed to answer
questions raised by very limited data about the relationship between diesel engine technology and
the size of emitted particles (since extremely small particles remain in the atmosphere longer and
thus could have a larger climate effect relative to other particles). Similarly, understanding the size
characteristics of gasoline particle emissions will be increasingly important.
Research and development of alternative, non-carbon based fuels in the longer term could lead to
significant reductions in emissions of tropospheric ozone precursors and black carbon. Additional longer
term R&D include:
Efforts to develop technologies to reduce NOx emissions from on-road heavy-duty diesel engines.
are moving beyond engine-based technologies to exhaust after-treatment technologies.
For both NOx and particulate control technologies for diesel engines, designs capable of being
retrofitted onto engines in the existing fleet could significantly accelerate the heath and climate
benefits of these technologies by reducing the time that is otherwise required for engines to be
retired and replaced by new models.
Improved understanding is necessary to translate these measures into quantifiable reductions in ozone
precursors and the climate benefits of reduced black carbon.
7.6 Conclusions
New and improved technologies are required to reduce emissions of non-C02 GHGs across a wide variety
of emission sources. If successfully developed through R&D and deployed, such technologies could
. contribute significantly to the goal of mitigating future increases in radiative climate forcing, in both the
near-term and long-term. Methane emissions reductions of as much as 25 percent could be achieved by
2050 by focusing on additional methane capture, recovery and utilization, particularly from natural gas
7-28
CEQ 015298
May28,2004
systems and landfills. Methane emissions reductions of as much as 50 percent or more may be possible
by 2100, if longer-term research opportunities, particularly in the agriculture sector, are pursued.
Emissions of nitrous oxide could be reduced by as much as 35 percent through long-term R&D on
improved catalysts to reduce N20 emissions from combustion and precision agriculture technologies to
.address N20 emissions from agricultural soils. For high-GWP gases, significant near-term reductions are
possible by targeted deployment of existing technologies, and emission reductions of up to 55 percent or
more could be realized through longer-term R&D aimed at the development of chemical substitutes.
7-29
CEQ 015299
May28,2004
Enhancing Capabilities to Measure and

Monitor Greenhouse Gases
The sources of GHG emissions and the mitigation strategies that might employ the use of advanced technologies, as presented in the previous chapters, are varied and complex. Measurement and monitoring
systems will be required ~o assess the efficacy, durability, and environmental acceptability of such mitigation strategies. These systems might include a wide array of GHG sensors, measurement platforms,
monitoring and inventorying systems, and associated analytical tools, including databases and inference
methods. Development and application of advanced technologies to measurement and monitoring of
greenhouse gases can reduce costs and increase cost-effectiveness of needed measurements. Advances in
development of these technologies can establish baselines and measure carbon storage and GHG fluxes at
various scales, from individual projects to large geographic areas.
8.1 Potential Role of Technology

Measurement and monitoring systems are critically important to addressing the uncertainties associated
with the cycling of GHG through the land; atmosphere, and oceans, as well as in measuring and
monitoring GHG emissions and sequestration outcomes. These systems offer the potential to:
Characterize inventories, concentrations and cross-boundary fluxes of C02 and other greenhouse
compounds, including the size and variability of the fluxes;
Characterize the efficacy and durability of particular technologies, or other measures and actions,
and verify and validate claims of value for results of actions;
Measure (directly or indirectly through proxy measurements) anthropogenic changes in sources and
sinks of GHGs and relate them to causes, in part, to understand better the role of various
technologies and strategies for mitigation, identify opportunities and guide research investments;
Explore relationships among changes in GHG emissions, fluxes and inventories due to
implementation of climate change technologies and changes in surrounding environments; and
Optimize the efficiency, reliability, and quality of measurement and monitoring that maximizes
support for understanding and decision making while minimizing the transaction costs of_~tigation
activities.
A completely integrated ensemble of observation systems will be employed to measure and monitor the
sources and sinks of all gases that have an impact on climate change using techniques ranging from local
in situ sensors to global remote sensing satellites. These would involve technologies aimed at a spectrum
of applications, including C02 from energy-related activities (including end-use, infrastructure and energy
supply; C02 capture and sequestration) and GHGs other than C02 (including methane, nitrous oxide,
fluorocarbons, ozone, and other GHG-like substances, such as black carbon/soot). An integrating sy~tem
architecture will serve as a guide for many of the step-by-step development activities in these areas (see
Figure 8-1). This will facilitate coordinated progress over time toward effective solutions, interoperable
8-1
CEQ 015300
May28, 2004
Figure 8-2. Measurement and Monitoring Technologies for Assessing the Efficacy,
Durability, and Environmental Acceptability of Emission Reduction and
Stabilization Technologies
functionality, and common interfaces of the resulting data and systems. A architecture will function
within the context and coordination with other federal programs (e.g., CCSP, the Interagency Working
Group on Earth Observations, the U.S. Weather Research Program) and international programs (e.g., the
World Meteorological Organization, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) that provide or use
complementary measurement and monitoring capabilities across a hierarchy of temporal and spatial
scales.
In the near term, opportunities for advancing GHG measuring and monitoring systems present themselves
as integral elements of the climate change technology and research and development programs and
initiatives. Other efforts must focus on the significant emission sources and sinks, and on measurement
and monitoring of carbon sequestration projects. At the same time, technology can be developed to
address knowledge gaps in greenhouse gas emissions or improve inventories. In some cases it is not
necessary to measure emissions directly. In such cases, emissions can be measured indirectly, by
measuring other parameters, such as feedstock, fuel, or energy flows (referred to as "parametric" or ~
"accounting-based" estimates), or by measuring changes in carbon stocks. Under CCTP, there is a need
to undertake research to test, validate, and certify such uses of proxy measurements.
8-2
CEQ 015301
May28,2004
In the long term, the envisioned approach is to evaluate data needs and pursue the development of an
integrated and overarching system architecture that focuses on the most critical and supplementary data
needs. Common databases would provide measurements and data for models that could estimate
additions and removals of various GHG inventories, forecast the long-term fates of various GHGs, and
integrate results into relevant decision support tools and global-scale monitoring systems. This approach
would include protocols for calibrated and interoperable data products, emissions accounting methods
development, and coordination of basic science research in collaboration with CCSP. Tools would be
validated by experimentation to benchmark protocols, so that they would be recognized and accepted by
the community-of-practice for emissions-related processes.
The technologies that are emphasized in the following sections have been selected on the basis of several
criteria:
Is the measurement and monitoring technology critical to a technol~gical option that mitigates a
substantial quantity of greenhouse gas emissions, on the order of a gigaton of carbon equivalent or
more over the course of a decade from the U.S. 7
Will the measurement and monitoring technology reduce a key uncertainty associated with a
mitigation option?
Is the measurement and monitoring technology sufficiently differentiated from, or adequately

integrated with comparable efforts in the CCSP?
Is the measurement and monitoring technology essential to assuring that a proposed technology
does not threaten either human health or the environment?
8.2 Energy Production and Efficiency Technologies

Measurement and monitoring systems provide the capability to evaluate the efficacy of efforts in reducing
GHG emissions through the use of: (1) low-emission fossil-based power systems; (2) potentially GHGneutral energy supply technologies, such as , biomass energy systems, and other renewable energy
technologies such as geothermal; and (3) technologies to more efficiently carry and/or transmit energy to
the point of use. In this section, the measurement and monitoring R&D portfolio for energy production
and efficiency technologies is presented.

Measurement and monitoring technologies can enhance and provide direct and indirect emissions
measurements at point and mobile sources of GHG emissions. Point sources can range from electric
generation plants, to industrial facilities, while mobile sources typically refer to vehicles. Table 8.1 summarizes the nature of point and mobile sources and the potential roles for measurement and monitoring
technologies. The technology strategy will emphasize the potential role of measurement and monitoring
technologies in applications across a range of scales, from the individual vehicle to the larger power pjant
or industrial facility, as well as the balance between near- and long-term developments. In the near-tenn,
8-3
CEQ 015302
May28, 2004
Table 8-1. Proposed R&D Portfolio for Measurement and Monitoring of Energy
Production and Use Technologies
GHG Emission Source

Power Generation
Industrial Facility
Transportation
Nature of Emissions and Scale
R&D Portfolio of Measurement

and Monitoring Technology
Component and system-level

Many different processes, but mostly technologies to enable and
demonstrate direct measurements,
point sources
continuous emission monitoring, onMany mobile sources and widely
board diagnostics, remote sensing,
distributed
data transmission an archiving,
inventory-based reporting, and
decision support systems.
Large point sources
technologies that measure multiple gases across spatial dimensions are needed. In the long-term,
development of a system (or systems) that includes measurement and monitoring at a distance and
provides accounting of emissions is needed.

R&D programs for measurement and monitoring technologies that span the federal complex are focused
on a number of areas, including:
High-temperature sensors for NOx and ozone, ammonia and either gas emissions, with application in
caustic industrial environments (e.g., steel mills, pulp and paper industries);
Engine diagnostics and controls;
Fast-response mass spectrometers;
Continuous emissions monitors (CEMs) for measuring multiple gases at point sources,
Light Detection and Ranging (LIDAR) for remote monitoring of truck emissions, and
Development of an International Measurement and Verification Protocol for estimating energy

savings.
For more details on the current R&D activities. See:

http://www.climatetechnology.gov/library/2003/ tech-options/tech-options-5-2. pdf!

There are several areas identified for consideration in future portfolio planning for new or increased
emphasis. These include:
Improvements in perfonnance, longevity, autonomy, spatial resolution of measurements, and data

transmission of CEMs are needed along with the ability to measure multiple gases
8-4
CEQ 015303
May28,2004
More thorough process knowledge and life-cycle analysis is necessary .
Tower, aircraft and satellite-based sensors for direct measurement of C02 and other gases or
indicators. tracers, and isotopic ratios are in need of development.
Low cost, multiple wireless micro sensor networks to monitor migration. uptake, and distributio~
patterns of C02 and other GHG in soil, forests, vehicles, and facilities.
Data protocols and analytical methods for producing and archiving specific types of data to enable
interoperability and long-term maintenance of data records, data production models, emission
coefficients that are used in estimating emissions.
Direct measurements to replace proxies and estimates where more cost-effective, optimize
emissions from sources, and better understanding of the processes behind the formation of GHG.
8.3 COa Capture and Sequestration

As discussed in Chapter 6, capture and sequestration of C02 can be accomplished by various approaches,
including capture and geologic storage, terrestrial sequestration. and ocean sequestration. Advanced
technologies can make significant contributions to measure and monitor GHG emissions that are captured
and sequestered.
Contributions towards assessing the integrity of geologic structure, leakage from reservoirs, and
accounting of sequestered GHG are useful. Integrated carbon sequestration measurements of different
components (e.g., geologic, oceans, soils, and ecosystems) across a range of scales, from the point use
and to regional or larger scales, will provide a consistent net accounting of GHG inventories, emissions,
and sinks. Advanced technologies can provide histories of C02 concentration profiles near the
sequestered sites and track the potential release of C02 to the atmosphere different measurement and
monitoring strategies associated with the three alternative storage and sequestration approaches are
described in the sections that follow.
8.3.1 Geologic Sequestration

.
Measurement and monitoring technologies are useful in their ability to assess the performance and
efficacy of geologic storage systems. They will be critically important in assessing the integrity of
geologic structures, transportation, and pipeline systems, the potential of leakage of sequestered GHG in
geologic structures. and in fully accounting for GHG emissions.
8.3.1.1
Technology Strategy
Realizing the possibilities of these technologies requires a research portfolio that embraces a combination
of measu..-ement and monitoring technologies that focus on separation and capture, transportation, and
geologic storage. In the near-term, technologies can be improved to measure efficacy of separation aQd
capture, and the integrity of geologic formations for long-term storage. Within the constraints of
available resources, a balanced portfolio needs to address the objectives shown in Table 8-2.
8-5
CEQ 015304
May28, 2004
Table 8-2. Proposed R&D Portfolio for Measurement and Monitoring Systems for
Geologic Sequestration
System Concepts
R&D Portfolio
Separation and Capture
Monitors for C02 emissions using process knowledge.

Sensors to monitor fugitive emissions around facilities
Transportation
Geologic Storage
Detectors for surface leakage

Indicators of leakage base on natural and induced tracers
Seismic/electromagnetic/electrical resistivity/pressure monitoring networks
8.3.1.2
Leak dete<tion systems from pipelines and other transportation

Pressure transducers
Remote detectors
Gaseous tracers enabling remote leakage detection
Current Portfolio
Recent progress has been made in developing measurement and monitoring technologies for geologic
carbon sequestration. [See http://www.climatetechnology.gov/library/2003/tech-options/tech-options-53.pdfl. A few examples include: (1) Seismic methods
are being used at the Sleipner test to map the location
1
Geological
sequ..=!
of carbon dioxide
of C02 storage, (2) Models, geophysical :methods, and
(GEQ..SEQ) is a comprehensive program
tracer indicators are being developed through the
examining a range of issues that include cost
GEO-SEQ project (see Box 8-1), (3) Detection of C02
optimization, monitoring, modeling, and capacity
emissions from natural reservoirs has been investiestimation, associated with C02 sequestration
~:_-~ - .:
in geological formations. The GEO-SEQ Project
gated by researchers at the Colorado School of Mines,
is a public-private applied R&D partnership, formed ~
University of Utah, and the Utah Geological Survey,
with the goal of developing the technology and
\l
including isotopic discrimination of biogenic C02
information needed to enable safe and cost-effective ~
from magmatic, oceanographic, atmospheric, and
geologic sequestration by the year 2015. The effort, IF.
supported DOE, and involving several of its national ~
natural gas sources, and (4) Fundamental research on
laboratories,
universities, and industry, condUcts
~
high-resolution seismic and electromagnetic imaging
applied research and development to reduce the cost :_ ,~.:-.=,
and on geochemical reactivity of high partial-pressure
and potential risk of sequestration, as well as to
C02 fluids is being conducted.
II
I
8.3.1.3
..:::.::.::,:~:~::::~~~0,,:,~;."., ;." : ;,~;_,. J
Several important research and developinmt challenges lie ahead, including:

:
Tying the experimental research to the process models for geological storage :sy:srems, where fate
and transport of the stored of COz-are measured and verified with the models. Verification of C02
storage in geologic structures in both thenear- and long-term.
The ability to assess the continuing integrity of subsurface reservoirs using integrated system of
sensors, indicators, and models. The heterogeneity of leakage pathways and probable changes over
time makes detection and quantific~tion difficult.
8-6
CEQ 015305
May28,2004
Indicators such as seismic, electromagnetic imaging and tracers are needed for quantitative
determination of C02 stored
Improvements in leak detection from separation and capture and pipeline systems. Low leakage
rates occurring at spatially separated locations make full detection difficult
8.3.2 Terrestrial Sequestration

Sequestering carbon in terrestrial ecosystems (forests, pastures, grasslands, crop lands, etc.) can be used
to increase the total amount of carbon retained in biomass, soils, and wood products. Methods used to
measure and monitor terrestrial sequestration of carbon must address both the captur~ and retention of
carbon in biomass and soil components of ecosystems. To evaluate net sequestration it will be necessary
to evaluate greenhouse gas emissions that might occur from management practices and other
environmental factors.
8.3.2.1
Technology Strategy
The measurement and monitoring systems will require an R&D portfolio that provides for integrated,
hierarchical systems of ground-based and remote sensing technologies. The system must be applicable to
a wide range of potential activities and a very diverse land base, have sufficient accuracy to satisfy
reporting requirements of the 1605(b) voluntary reporting system, and be deployed at a low cost so that
measurement and monitoring does not outweigh the value of the sequestered carbon. A balanced
portfolio should address: (1) remote sensing and related technology for land cover and land cover change
analysis, biomass and net productivity measurements, vegetation structure, etc.; (2) low-cost portable,
rapid analysis systems for in situ soil carbon measurements; (3) flux measurement systems; (4) advanced
biometrics from carbon inventories; (5) carbon and nutrient sink/source tracing and movement, including
using isotope markers; and, (6) analysis systems that relate management practices (e.g., life cycle wood
products, changes in agriculture rotations, energy use in ecosystem management, and others) to net
changes in emissions and sinks over time (e.g., changes in agriculture rotations, energy use in ecosystem
management, and others).
8.3.2.2
Current Portfolio
Current research activities associated with terrestrial sequestration are found across a number of federal
agencies. For a detailed discussion on technologies and current research activities, see:
http://www .cl imatetechnology. gov/1 ibrary/2003/tech-options/tech-opti ons-5-4. pdf,
http://www .climatetechnology .gov/library/2003/tech-options/tech-options-3-2-3-l.pdf, and
http://www.climatetechnology.gov/library/2003/tech-options/tech-options-3-2-3-2.pdf
In summary, the current portfolio includes the following:
EPA with assistance from USDA/Forest Service prepares national inventories of emissions and
sequestration from managed lands. These inventories capture changes in the characteristics and
activities related to land uses, and are subject to on-going improvements and verification
~
procedures.
8-7
CEQ 015306
May28,2004
The USDA Forest Service Forest Inventory and

Analysis Program and the Natural Resources
Conservation Services National Resources
Inventory provide baseline information to assess
the management, structure, and condition of U.S.
forests, croplands, pastures, and grasslands. This
information is then converted to state, regional,
and national carbon inventories. Hierarchical,
integrated monitoring systems are being designed
in pilot studies such as the Delaware River Basin
interagency research initiative.
Prototype soil carbon analysis systems have been

developed and are undergoing preliminary
field testing.
Satellite and low-altitude remote sensing systems

have been developed that can quantify agricultural
land features at spatial resolution of approximately
0.5 square meters.
Prototype versions of Web-based tools are being

developed for estimating carbon budgets for
regions.
Multidisciplinary studies are providing increased

accuracy of carbon sequestration estimates related
to land management and full accounting of
land/atmosphere carbon exchange.
.,
The Agriflux and Ameriflux programs (see Boxes

8-2 and 8-3) are being implemented and will
improve the understanding of carbon pools and
fluxes in large-scale, long-term monitoring areas.
The flux measurements will provide essential
quantitative data for calibrating/ validating remote
sensing and other estimates of carbon
sequestration.
Other research activities focusing on imaging and
remote sensing methods include LIDAR and
RADAR, used for 3-dimensional imaging for the
forest structure.
Box8-2
netw:::f~:~g
~- ~- ;
The Agriflux
developed by
the USDA to measure ttie effects of
environmental conditions and agricultural
management decisions on carbon exchange

~
between the land and the atmosphere. Studies ~
will Identify crop management practices to
optimize crop yield, crop quality, and carbon
sequestration and other environmental
}
conditions. Research will lead to new ways for IF;_: :~_~,
prediction and early detection of drought in
__
agricultural systems based on weekly and
t~
I~
m.nnthlv r.limAfA fnrAt".ARfR
Boxa-3
Amerlflux
Ameriflux towers such as theone pictured

above are taking long-term measurements of
C~ and water vapor fluxes in 15 sites
throughout the world, including the U.S. Data
gathered from these measurement sites are
important to understand interactions b_!3tween
the atmospheric and terrestrial systems. The
AmeriFiux network is apart of an International
scientific program of flux measurement
networks {e.g . AmariAux, FLUXNET-Canada,
CarboEurope, and AsiaRux) that seeks to
better understand the role of the terrestrial
biosphere carbon cycle.
!r.
~
"
:;=~~.:: ~~':.~:f-;;~f::..-=:.:~..:.::-r:--~!::;ifi~.tr:-4.::~~."ii,F.":f=-~#J.~?::-!"'f.E;-r.g-::~=J:.t::r.:.ff..;:
Isotopes are being used to assess sequestration potentials by monitoring fluxes and pools of carbon
in natural ecosystems.
8-8
CEQ 015307
May28,2004
BoxB-4
Increased accuracy of carbon

sequestration estimates is being
accomplished for use in land
management and full carbon
accounting procedures.
Tillage and land conservative practices

are ongoing and offer test-:beds for
ground-based and remote sensing
methods, as well as verification of
rules of thumb for emission factors.
Many of the DOE National

Laboratories are conducting research
and development on novel in situ and
remote sensing technologies and laserbased diagnostics, supported by a
variety of federal agencies. These
novel diagnostics include microbial
indicators, Fourier Transform Infrared
(FTIR) Spectroscopy, Laser Induced
Breakdown Spectroscopy (LffiS),
Light Detection and Ranging
(LIDAR), and a variety of satellite
programs (see Box 8-4).
8.3.3 Future Research

Directions
Novel Diagnostics
Laser Induced Breakdown Spectroscopy (UBS) is a
robust chemical analysis technique that has found
application in a range of areas where rapid, remote and
semi-quantitative analysis of chemical composition is
needed. The technique In Its essential form is quite simple.
Ught is used to ionize a small portion of the analyte and the
spectral emission (characteristic of the electronic energy
levels) from the species In the resulting plasina is collected
to determine the chemical constituents. Most often the light
. comes from a laser since high photon fluxes can be obtained
readily with this type of light source. By focusing the light
from the laser to a small spot, highly localized chemical
analysis can be performed.
,Yght .Qetactlon And Banging (LIDAR) uses the same
principle as RADAR. The lidar instrument transmits light out
to a target. The transmitted light Interacts with and Is
changed by the target. Some of this light is reflected I
scattered back to the instrument where it is analyzed. The
change In the properties of the light enables some property
of the target to be determined. The time for the light to travel
out to the target and back to the lidar Is used to determine
the range to the target.
Fourier Transform Infrared Spectroscopy (FTIR)
technology has the capability to measure more than 100 of
the 189 Hazardous Air PoUutants(HAPs) listed in Title Ill of
the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 (CAAA). The FTIR
has the ca.pabillly of measuring multiple compounds
simultaneously, thus providing an advantage over current
measurement methods which measure only On$ or several
HAPs; FTIR Methods can provide a distinct cost advantage
since It can be used to replace several traditional methods.
Research topics identified for consideration in future R&D portfolio planning are categorized as follows:
National implementation of a hierarchical system to quantify stocks, emissions, and sinks from the
plot scale to a national scale.
Development of imaging and volume measurement sensors for land uselland cover and biomass
estimates.
Development of low-cost, practical methods to measure net carbon gain by ecosystems, including
life cycle analysis of wood products, at multiple scales of agriculture and forest carbon
sequestration.
Isotope markers to determine source and movement of GHGs in geological, terrestrial, and oceanic
systems.
Novel sequestration concepts that focus on enhancing mechanisms of C02 capture from free air,~.
new sequestration products from genome sequencing, and modification of natural biogeochemical
processes.
8-9
CEQ 015308
May28,2004
8.3.4 Ocean Sequestration

Sequestering carbon in oceans generally refers to two techniques: direct injection and fertilization. For
direct injection, C02 streams are separated, captUred, and transported using processes similar to those for
geologic sequestration, and injected below the main oceanic thermocline (depths of greater than 1,000 to
1,500 meters). Fertilization techniques include the addition of nutrients to the ocean surface to increase
the rate of biological fixation. Near the surface, carbon is fixed by phytoplankton, which are then eaten
by sea animals. The sea animals eventually die and break down, becoming organic waste that is eaten by
bacteria. The C02released by this process dissolves, leaving the remaining detritus on the sea floor.
Measuring and monitoring technologies associated with C02 injection are directed towards the performance of the quantities of C02 injected and dispersion of the concentrated C02 plume. Measurement and
monitoring technologies associated with ocean fertilization are focused on the quantity of carbon exported
deeper in the water column and the stability and endurance of the carbon sink. Researchers believe that
carbon sequestration in oceans can be enhanced significantly, but this has yet to be demonstrated, and the
environmental impact of such an approach has not been fully evaluated.
8.3.4.1
Technology Strategy
Realizing the opportunities for these technologies will require R&D investments in direct measurement,
model analysis, as well as indirect indicators that can be used across spatial scales for use in obtaining
process information and for ocean-wide observations. In the near term, a number of advances are
possible, including: (1) measurement of comprehensive trace gas parameters (total C02, total alkalinity,
partial pressure of C02, and pH) to monitor the C02 concentration in seawater; (2) development of
indirect indicators of fertilization effectiveness using remote sensing technology; and (3) development of
C02 sensors that ''track" the dissolved C02 plume from injection locations. In the long-term. a system
that monitors C02 in the oceans, temporally and spatially, using integrated measurement and monitoring
concepts, satellite-based sensors, and other analysis systems that can avoid costly ship time.
8.3.4.2
Current Portfolio
Research activities in support of measurement and monitoring technologies associated with ocean
sequestration have been underway for several years.
See: http://www.climatetechnology.gov/library/2003/tech-options/tech-options-5-5.pdf)
For more than 13 years, DOE and NOAA have sponsored the ocean carbon dioxide survey during the
World Ocean Circulation Experiment, monitoring the carbon concentration in the Indian, Pacific, and
Atlantic Oceans from oceanographic ships (Box 8-5).
The Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute has also carried out a series of C02 injections at depths
greater tha.l3,000 meters and observed the behavior of the injected C02 using a video camera and other
sensors.
8-10
CEQ 015309
May28, 2004
Another R&D effort underway is to develop low-cost discrete measurement sensors that can be used in
conjunction with the conductivity, temperature, depth, and oxygen sensors to measure the ocean profile
on oceanographic stations.
8.3.4.3
Future Research
Directions
Future R&D investments in measurement

and monitoring for ocean sequestration
need to address several uncertainties with
regard to direction injection and iron
fertilization approaches. The mechanisms
for direct injection require that measurement and monitoring technologies must
assure the following:
Measurement of C02 injected and

the tracking and dispersion of the
concentrated C02 plume,
Monitor the plume or pool to verify

trajectory and lack of contact with
the mixed layer, and
Monitor the local fauna for adverse

effects of enhanced acidity or
alkalinity and/or pH changes.
BoxN
World Ocean Circulation Experiment

The World Ocean Clf!o=Uiation Experiment (WOCE) was a
component of the World Climate Research Program (WCRP)
designed to investigate the ocean's role in decadal cUmate
change. NSF, NASA, NOAA, the Office of Naval Researoh
(ONR), and DOE supported U.S. participation In WOCE.
SCientists from more than 30 countries collaborated during
the WOCE field program to sample the ocean on a global
scale with the aim of describing Its large-scale circulation
patterns, its effect on gas storage, and how it interacts with
the atmosphere. As the data are coUected and arohived, they
are being used to construct improved models of ocean .
ciroulatlon and the combined ocean-atmosphere system that
should improve global climate forecasts.
In 2004, as its final activity, the WOCE program wilt publish

a series of four atlases, concentrating respectively on the
hydrograph of the Pacific, Indian, Atlantic and So~em
Oceans. The Southam Ocean is given a separate volume
because of the importance of the ciroumpolar flow on the
transport of heat, freshwater and dissolved components.
The volumes each have three main components: full-depth
sections, horizontal maps of properties on density surfaces
and depth levels, and property-property plots. The vertical
sections feature potential temperature, salinity, potential
density, neutral density, oxygen, nitrate, phosphate, silicate,
CFC.11, d3He, tritium, 14C, 13C, total alkalinity and total
carbon dioxide, against depth along the WOCE Hydrographic
Program one-time Hnas.
With iron fertilization, it is not well

understood whether the excess production
stimulated by iron fertilization is exported
out of the mixed layer, and on what time scale it remains out of contact with the atmosphere. To better
understand this, the following R&D investments in measurement technologies are necessary:
Measurement of the amount of C02 drawn down per unit of fertilization effort.
Characterize the fate and transport of C02 exported deeper in the water column and its longevity
using fertilization technologies including the spatial and temporal COz concentration histories.
The technologies that can provide accurate monitoring of local C02 concentrations and pH will be
needed. Monitoring of fauna most likely will involve sampling bacterial populations using
advanced biological techniques; but may also include macrofauna as appropriate.
In addition to the specific measurements noted above, it will also be necessary to conduct ocean~
circulation studies and modeling, needed for selection of injection and fertilization site and
estimating storage time scale. As in deep ocean injection, the impact of fertilization on the ocean's
8-ll
CEQ 015310
U.S. Climate Cha_nge Technology Program Draft Strategic Plan
May28,2004
biota and chemistry will need to be monitored carefully for the dissociation behavior and possible
impacts (e.g., pH changes, fish behavior) to deep ocean systems, including the effects of nutrient
fluxes on plankton biogeochemistry.
Monitoring the fate and location in the ocean of the stored carbon (from either technique above) could be
facilitated in the long run through development and deployment of autonomous underwater vehicles
(AUVs) with suitable arrays ofmonitoring_and reporting technologies.
8.4 Other Greenhouse Gases

As discussed in Chapter 7, a wide varie!J of substances other than carbon dioxide contribute to the
atmospheric burden of greenhouse gases. Other GHG include methane, nitrous oxide, black carbon
aerosols, perfluorocarbons, SF6, HFC' s, and tropospheric ozone precursors. These gases are emitted from
both point sources (industrial plants) and diffuse sources (open pit coal mines, landfills, rice paddles, and
others), and offer unique challenges for measurement and monitoring emissions due to their spatial and
temporal variations. A robust R&D program will need to include direct measurements of emissions and
reporting methods and become part of a larger integrated system.

Advanced technologies can make important contribution to direct and indirect measurement and
monitoring approaches for point and diffused sources of emissions. Realizing the contributions of these
technologies will require a R&D portfolio that combines a number of areas.
In the near-term, technical improvements to measurement equipment and sampling procedures can
improve extended period sampling capabilities that would allow better spatial and temporal resolution of
emissions estimates. Software development that allows further integration of measurement data with
emission modeling processes can lead to improved estimates. In addition, instruments to measure from
stand-off distances (tower measurements) and airborne and space borne sensors to address regional,
continental, and global reductions of GHG emissions can be developed.
In the long-term, development of inexpensive continuous emission monitors (CEMs), satellite based
sensors, and improved accounting estimates of emissions offer promise. Integrating modeling techniques,
including inverse modeling procedures that integrate bottom-up emissions data with top-down, regional
or global data are also desirable to identify data gaps or confirm source levels. To facilitate the delivery
of cost-effective solutions, the strategy will couple academic and national lab research and development
to benchmarking and transfer to industry~ to industrial for production and deployment.
I

There are a wide range of current R&D programs being undertaken in the area of measurement and
monitoring of emissions of other GHGs. A detailed review of these R&D activities can be found at:
http://www.climatetechnology.gov/library/2003/tech-options/tech-options-5-6.pdf
The following is a summary of some of these programs:
National inventories are prepared by EPA annually and rely on both indirect modeling techniques
and direct measurement data. These inventories capture changes in the characteristics and activities
,;
8-12
CEQ 015311
May28,2004
related to each source, and are subject to on-going improvements and verification procedures. The
indir~ct modeling procedures developed for these inventories are particularly important to capture
emissions from diffuse, area sources where individual measurements are not practical.
There are generally well established measurement procedures for energy and industrial point
sources, as well as for diffuse sources that are involved with voluntary programs of reduction (e.g.,
natural gas, coal mines) or are have been subject to monitoring through regulatory programs for
other gases (e.g., landfills). There is ongoing integration of these direct measurement results with
indirect modeling procedures as part of the national inventory process.
Recent activities for sources such as agricultural soils, livestock, and manure waste, focus on
advanced modeling of emissions with verification and validation by direct measurements.
Improvements to sampling and measurement techniques are a current priority for these sources.
A number of measurement technologies have evolved to address the diffuse nature of many of the
non-C02 sources. These include advanced chamber techniques for in situ sensors, FfiR, tracer gas,
micrometeorological methods, and leak detection systems. The results of these measurements are
being used to verify and feed back to emission factor development.
An emerging area of importance concerns black carbon and tropospheric ozone precursor emissions.
While there is long history of monitoring associated with particulate matter and ozone precursor
emissions for criteria pollutant inventories, investigations into the particular sources, speciated
fonns, and fate .of these gases that are most applicable to climate forcing potential have become a
priority research area.
Analysis and research is being conduced by EPA to improve greenhouse gas inventories and
emissions estimation methods, implementing formalized quality control/quality assurance
procedures and uncertainty estimation. This concentrated effort will improve all emission estimates
for all source categories by identifying areas where improved or expanded measurement and
monitoring efforts are needed.
Several areas have been identified for consideration in future portfolio planning for new or increased
emphasis. These include:
Further development of measurement, monitoring and sampling techniques for agricultural sources,.
particularly in the area ofN20 from agricultural soils and CH4 and N20 from manure waste. These
techniques need to address the temporal and spatial variation that is inherent to these ~mission
sources.
Increase emphasis on the need for high quality and current emission factors for black carbon, and to
some extent, tropospheric ozone precursors where there is limited measurement data available~
Continuous emission monitors (CEMs) that can measure multiple gases are well developed, but
improvements in perfonnance, longevity, autonomy, spatial resolution of measurements, and data
8-13
CEQ 015312
May28,2004
transmission are needed to measure multiple gases. CEMs have particular application to the
industrial and point sources; however, applying CEM technology to more diffuse sources is also an
area for further research.
0
Modeling activities that increase the a~curacy of spatial and temporal estimates of nitrous oxide and
methane from area type sources such as wetlands, wastewater treatment plants, livestock, and
agricultural soils. These are sources that are typically too numerous to measure and monitor on an
individual basis, but require indirect modeling
BoxB-6
techniques to account for national and regional
Glory Aerosol Polarimetry Sensor (APS)
emissions. More sophisticated modeling
As part of the NASA's Glory mission, the APS is
practices could improve the accuracy of the
specifically
designed for long-term monitoring of the
estimates, particularly in terms of greater
global distribution and transport of carbon soot
representation of changing conditions of
aerosols and other aerosol types. Multi-spectral
operation ..
measurements of the polarization state of the
Long-term monitoring of the global distribution

and transport of carbon soot aerosols and other
aerosol types (see Box 8-6).
In order to integrate continental and global

measurements with regional and local
emissions data, the development of
sophisticated modeling procedures are required
that can fmgerprint large-scale measurements to
unique sources.
Develop Improved N20 Measurement

Technology for Vehicle EmissionsCollaborative research between US-EPA
National Vehicle and Fuels Emission Laboratory
(NVFEL), manufacturers of vehicles/engines,
emission control technology, and analytical
equipment manufacturers on developing NzO
measurement techniques for emerging gasoline
and diesel engines and their emission control
systems. Measurement technology is needed for
both laboratory and field measurement.
8.5 Integrated Measurement and

Mvnitoring System
Architecture
reflected sunlight at multiple viewing angles are

extremely sensitive to particle properties and enable
one to infer detailed aerosol microphysics and
chemistry (via spectral refractive index) and to
distinguish between natural and anthropogenic
aerosols. Thus, the APS will provide a drastic
improvement .in the carbon soot aerosol monitoring
capability over the existing satellite instruments
measuring only the intensity of the reflected sunlight.
In conjunction with the Climate Change Science

Program, the CCTP will enable a hierarchical system
of measuring and monitoring tools, including sensors
deployed on satellites and aircraft, observations from
The integrated system architecture established the

context of a systems approach to delivering the
ground networks, point-source sensors, and in situ

stations.
8-14
CEQ 015313
May28,2004
information needed to plan, implement, and assess greenhouse gas reduction actions (see Figure 8-2).
This architecture provides a framework for assessing measwement and monitoring technology
developments in the context of their contribution to observation systems that support integrated system
solutions for greenhouse gas reduction actions. It will enable the benchmarking of planned improvements
against current capabilities.
Predictions
Earth System
Analysis/Models
Atmosphere/GHG
Oceanic
Terrestrial
Geologic
DATA
Observation
Systems (across
High Performance
Computing.
Communication,
&Visualization
Decision Support
r+
Standards&
lnteroperability
Management
Systems
Assessments
llo.. GHG Reduction
"'
Decision Support
Systems
Actions
spatial scales)
Remotely-sensed
In situ
"'
Observations
on:going feedback to optimize value and reduce gaps
Figure 8-3. Integrating System Architectural Linking Measurement and Monitoring

Observation Systems to Greenhouse Gas Reduction Actions
An integrated measwement and monitoring capability will have the ability to integrate across spatial and
temporal scales and at many levels, ranging from carbon measwements in soils, to emissions from
vehicles, from large point sources to diffused area sources, from landfllls to geographic regions. This
capability is graphically depicted in Figwe 8-3. The integrated system builds on existing and planned
observing and monitoring technologies of the CCSP and includes new technologies emerging from the
CCI'P R&D portfolio.
Advanced measurement and monitoring technologies offer the potential to collect and merge global and
regional data from sensors deployed on satellite and aircraft platforms with other data from ground
networks, point-source sensors, and other in-situ configurations. Wireless microsensor networks can be
used to gather relevant data and send to compaCt, high performance computing central ground stations
that will merge other data from aircraft and satellite platforms for analysis and decision making. An
integrated system provides the benefits of compatibility, efficiency, and reliability while minimizing the
total cost of measurement and monitoring.
The strategy for developing an integrated system is to focus on the most important measurement needs
and apply the integrated concept design to ongoing technology opportunities as they arise. In the nearterin. development of observation systems at various scales are needed. In the longer-term, merging these
spatial systems into an integrated approach are needed.
8-15
CEQ 015314
May28, 2004
Satellites
FTIR,LIDAR,
LIBS,
Hyperspectral
and
Multispectral
Imaging
Point Sources
Micro and In Situ
FTIR: Fourier Transfonn Infrared Spectrometer
LIDAR: Light Detection and Ranging
LIBS: Laser Induced Breakdown Spectroscopy
Continuous Emission Monitors

OBD: on-board dia~nostics
Figure 8-4. Hierarchical Layers of spatial Observation Technologies and Capabilities

The current Federal R&D portfolio has bee~ targeted on a number of developments. For a detailed
analysis of the current research, see:
http://www .cI i matetechnology. gov /1 ibrary/2003/tech-opti ons/tech-options-5-1. pdf.

Some examples of the current R&D activities include:
Global: Satellites such as NASA's Earth Observation System research satellites and NOAA's
operational weather and climate satellites, NOAA's distributed ground networks, and Mauna Loa
are well known.
Continental: Recent research has tried to determine the net emissions for the North American
continent using different approaches: inversion analysis based on C02 monitoring equipment as
currently arrayed, remote sensing coupled with ecosystem modeling, and compilation of land
inventory infonnation. European researchers have embarked on a similar track by combining
meteorological transport models with time-dependent emission inventories provided by member
states of the European Union.
8-16
CEQ 015315
May28,2004
Regional: Advanced technology,

such as satellites, to monitor and/or
verify a country's anthropogenic
and natural emissions. NOAA is
building an atmospheric carbon
monitoring system under the CCSP
using small aircraft and tall
communications towers that will be
capable of determining emissions
and uptake on a 1000 k:m scale.
Local (micro or individual): A

number of techniques are currently
used to directly or indirectly estimate
emissions from individual sites and/or source sectors, such as mass balance techniques, eddy
covariance methods (i.e., AmeriFlux sites, source identification using isotope signatures),
application of emissions factors derived from experimentation, forestrj survey methods, and
continuous emissions monitors in the utility sector.

Development of an integrated measurement and monitoring system is in its early stages of development
and will require evaluation of measurement priorities and data quality needs. As such, there are numerous
opportunities for consideration in future portfolio planning.
Developing a system that merges data from across the spectrum of measurement and monitoring systems,
with infonnation from one layer helping to calibrate, constrain, and verify information in other layers.
Data fusion and integration technologies enable the integration of information from numerous sources,
such as satellite observations, real-time surface indicators, and reported emissions inventories. This data
integration may require additional technology capacity in the area of data handling and processing, and; in
some cases, it may depend on the design of innovative sensors, platforms, computational models and
systems, and integration into decision support resources. Cross-verification of these data elements
requires coordination with national and international standards setting bodies to develop protocols for
interoperability of datasets. Data systems are also required for integrating and comparing data between
hierarchical layers of the system and for appUcation of the measurement and monitoring techn6logies.
Some measurements are needed to be averaged or need processing to reflect the variability in emissions
rates or volumes, as well as spatial and temporal variability.
Developing and using platforms for all spatial scales and measurement layers, from new types of global
sensors on satellite platforms to new airborne platforms (e.g., remotely operated or autonomous). GHG
emission sources and geologic seguestration may require portable platforms for sensors and autonomous
units that measure, analyze, and report emissions while ocean sequestration will require development._;md
deployment of autonomous submersible systems with appropriate sensors and reporting capabilities.
8-17
CEQ 015316
May28,2004
Developing decision support tools to incorporate the data and information created from the measurement
and monitoring systems (e.g., change in emissions, regional or continental information, fate of
sequestered gases), along with model sensitivities and model predictions generated by CCSP activities
into interactive tools for decision makers. These tools provide the basis for what-if scenarios assessments
of alternate emission reductions technologies (e.g., sequestration, emission control, differential
technology implementation time schedules in key countries of the developing world, etc.)
8.6 Conclusions
Meeting the GHG measuring and monito~ng challenge is possible with a thoughtful system design that
includes near- and long-term advances in 'technology. In the near-term, it is possible, for example, to:
(1) incorporate transportation measuremeht and monitoring sensors into the onboard diagnostic and
control systems of production vehicles; (2) prepare geologic sequestration measurement and monitoring
technologies for deployment ~ith planned demonstration projects; (3) exploit observations and measurements from current and planned Earth observing systems to measure atmospheric concentrations and profiles of GHGs from planned satellites; (4) undertake designs and deploy the foundation components for a
national, multi-tiered monitoring system with optimized measuring, monitoring, and verification systems;
(5) deploy sounding instruments, biological and chemical markers (either isotopic or fluorescence), and
ocean sensors on a global basis to monitor changes in ocean chemistry; (6) maintain in situ observing
systems to characterize local-scale dyn~cs of the carbon cycle under changing climatic conditions; and
(7) maintain in situ observing systems to monitor the effectiveness and stability of COz sequestration
activities.
In the long-term, with sustained future investments, it may be possible, for example to: (1) model
emissions based on a dynamic combination of human activity patterns, source procedures, energy source,
and chemical processing; (2) develop pr~ess-based models that reproduce the atmospheric physical and
chemical processes (including transport and transformation pathways) that lead to the observed vertical
profiles of greenhouse gas concentrations due to surface emissions; (3) determine to what degree natural
exchanges with the surface affect the net national emissions of GHGs; (4) develop a combination of
space-borne, airborne (including satellite, aircraft, and unmanned aerial vehicles) and surface-based
scanning and remote sensing technologies to produce three-dimensional, real-time mapping of
atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations; (5) develop specific technologies for sensing of global
methane "surface" emissions with resolution of 10 km; and (6) develop remote sensing methods to
determine spatially resolved vertical greenhouse gas profiles rather than column averaged profiles; and
(7) develop space-borne and airborne monitoring for soil moisture at resolutions suitable for ~asurement
and monitoring activities.
With continuing progress in GHG measuJing and monitoring systems, policy decisions and research plans
for the development a~:' ~eployment of advanced climate change technologies can be informed imd
guided by field data. The technology components of future strategies to reduce, avoid, capture or
sequester C02 and other greenhouse gas emissions, can be better supported, enabled and evaluated.
8-18
CEQ 015317
May28,2004
Fortifying the Basic Science Contributions to

Climate-Related Technology Development
Chapters 4 though 8 of this report provide detail on the broad set of technology R&D programs currently
under way to help meet the Climate Change Technology Program goals, along with ideas for future
research directions that may assist these programs in their pursuit of these aggressive goals. Many of
these future research directions must be supported by basic scientific research that could lead to
fundamental discoveries-e.g., new properties, phenomenon, materials or scientific understandingwhich could then be applied to solving specific problems affecting the performance and advancement of
energy technologies, carbon sequestration, and GHG monitoring and measurement.
As discussed in Chapter 3, a diverse range of energy sources will be required to meet the climate change
challenge. Similarly, a broad range of basic science research is needed to enable the development of a
diverse suite of new energy technologies that emit little or no greenhouse gases. Science is on the
threshold of a variety of discoveries in biology, nanoscience, physical processes, and environmental
sciences that offer potential opportunities for innovations in both technologies and instrumentation. In
addition, the mpidly developing global infrastructure for computing, communications, and information is
expected to accelerate the scientific process through computational modeling and simulation, and reduce
the time and cost of bringing new discoveries to the marketplace. Such new discoveries may hold the
ultimate key to reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. The enormous challenge associated with
maintaining economic growth while simultarieously reducing greenhouse gas emissions calls for new
breakthroughs in science and technology that dramatically change the way energy is produced,
tmnsformed, and used in the global economy.
Truly innovative or revolutionary concepts are often too risky or multidisciplinary for one program
mission to support, or they do not fit neatly within the constructs of other mission-specific program goals.
Therefore, not all of the research on innovative concepts in climate-related technology is, or shouid be,
aligned directly to one of the existing technology R&D progmms. Basic, explomtory research on
innovative concepts is one expected pathway to "breakthrough technology." AdditiC?nally, investigations
into the underlying fundamental phenomena that crosscut energy and environmental technologies
represent another essential pathway.
This chapter discusses both types of research contributions to climate-related technology development.
Section 9.1, Basic Science in Support ofApplied R&D, describes the basic, fundamental science under
way or planned to explore the key technical challenges associated with the five goals explored in
Chapters 4 through 8. Section 9.2 describes an Integrative R&D Planning Process that will better
integrate the basic science research efforts with the applied programs related to climate change
technology. Section 9.3, Exploratory Research on Innovative Concepts and Enabling Technologies, deals
with areas that are independent of specific technology applications but that have great potential for
breakthroughs. in new or unknown areas important to the climate change challenge. The CcrP
recognizes that clarifying and communicating the research needs of applied energy R&D programs will
help the basic science programs focus some of their efforts in key areas of need.
9-1
CEQ 015318
9.1
May28,2004
Basic Science in Support of Applied Research and Development
Basic science research enables both current and new generations of technologies that are needed to
address the problem of greenhouse gas emissionS. The outcomes expected from basic science research
are time-variant:
fu the near term, basic scientific research will contribute to studying the feasibility of new
technologies, solving key materials and process issues, and developing new instrumentation and
methods. For example, science-based analyses will help to assess the viability of carbon
sequestration over the next decade; to enable better understanding of the interactions between
engineered systems and natural systems (e.g., in systems involving biotechnology}; and to solve
materials and chemistry problems in advanced energy systems such as hydrogen production and fuel
cells.
fu the mid term, science will take nascent ideas and develop them to the point of entering the
technology cycle. For example, innovations achieved through the support of science programs may
result in new nanomaterials and devices for energy transformation, the ability to capture bioenzymes in biomimetic membranes for various energy applications, advances in plasma science for
the development of fusion energy, and identification of new materials and efficient processes for
hydrogen production, storage, and conversion.
fu the long term, the current wave of research "at the frontier" may open up entirely new fields
involving genomics and the molecular basis of life, computational simulations, advanced analytical
and synthetic technologies, and novel applications of nanoscience and rianotechology. It is hard to
predict discoveries that will open entirely new ways of making, transforming, and using energy.
The remainder of Section 9.1 focuses on the current portfolio of basic science research that contributes
to the CCI'P technology goals. This current portfolio is divided into five general research categories:
physical sciences, biological sciences, environmental research, advanced scientific computation, and
fusion energy sciences. Some of the key elements of the current portfolio within each of these research
categories are described in the sections below. The final section (9.1.6) provides examples of basic
researchoutcomes that are directly linked to the five technology goals described in Chapters 4 through 8.
9.1.1 Physical Sciences

Physical sciences research includes fundamental, strategic, and exploratory investigation in tn.a'terials
sciences, chemistry, and geosciences. Examples of research relevant to CCTP goals are as follows:
Materials sciences research currently being conducted by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)
that is relevant to climate-related technology involves fundamental research for the development of
advanced materials for use in fuel cells; exploration of corrosion and high-temperature effects on
materials with potential cross-cutting impacts in both energy generation and energy use technol~
gies; investigations of radiation-induced effects relevant to nuclear fission and fusion technologies;
development of membranes that could lead to more efficient gas separation, enabling lower-cost
hydrogen production processes; fundamental research in condensed matter physics and ceramics
that might lead to high-temperature superconductors and solid-state materials for more efficient and
reliable power transmission and distribution systems; electrochemistry research leading to better
9-2
CEQ 015319
May28,2004
energy storage devices that facilitate the use of solar and wind technologies; chemical and metal hydrides research related to hydrogen
storage; and nanoscale materials science (see Figure 9-1) and technology that offer the promise of designing materials and devices at
the atomic and molecular level to achieve new properties and
phenomena.
Chemical sciences research provides a foundation for the fundamental understanding of the interactions of atoms, molecules, and
ions with photons and electrons; the making and breaking of
chemical bonds in gas phase, in solutions, at interfaces, and on
Figure 9-1. Carbon
surfaces; and the energy transfer processes within and between
Nanostructure
molecules. The fundamental understanding resulting from this
research-an understanding of the chemistries associated with combustion, catalysis, photochemical
energy conversion, electrical energy storage, electrochemical interfaces, and molecular specific
separation from complex mixtures-may result in reductions in carbon dioxide emissions.
Advances in chemical sciences will enable the development of hydrogen as an energy carrier; new
alternative fuels; low-cost, highly active, durable cathodes for low-temperature fuel cells;
separations and capture of C02; and catalysts for new industrial and energy processes.
Geosciences research supports mineral-fluid interactions; rock, fluid, and fracture physical
properties; and new methods and techniques for geosciences imaging from the atomic scale to the
kilometer scale. The activity contributes to the solution of problems in multiple DOE mission areas,
including development of the scientific basis for evaluating methods for sequestration of C02 in
subsurface regions; for the discovery of new fossil resources, such as oil and gas, and methane
hydrates; and for techniques to locate geothermal resources, to map and model geothermal
reservoirs, and to predict heat flows and reservoir dynamics.
9.1.2 Biological Sciences

.
.
Biological sciences research investigates the underlying biological processes of
plants and microorganisms, potentially leading to new processes and products for
energy applications, and will allow the harnessing of natural processes for GHG
mitigation. For example:
Research on microbes centers on their ability to harvest, store, and

manipulate energy in almost any form to carry out life's functions. Current
genomic research is focused on sequencing microbes that either aid in carbon
sequestration or produce fuels.
Genomic research (see Figure 9-2) -for example, on the Poplar genome-is
characterizing key biochemical functions that could improve the ability of
these trees to both sequester carbon and produce biofuels.
Research on biological catalytic reactions aims to improve the understanding

of reactions in photoconversion processes and advanced techniques for
screening and discovering new catalysts.
Figure 9-2. Human

Genome
9-3
CEQ 015320
May28,2004
Research related to engineered plants and soil microorganisms can provide a basis for use and
renewal of marginal lands for bio-based energy feedstocks, incorporating stress resistant plants and
microbes, and developing advanced bioengineering approaches to capturing and retaining nitrogen
and other essential plant nutrients.
Biotechnology has the potential to provide the basis for direct conversion of sunlight into hydrogen.
Work in this field can accelerate an understanding of fundamental aspects of microbial production
systems, including thermophilic, algal, and fermentative approaches.
Development of new bio-based industrial processes involves combining biological functionality

with nano-engineered structures to achieve new functionalities and phenomena. Incorporating
biological molecular machines (such as elements of photosynthetic chromophores) into nano
structures has the potential to achieve the selectivity and efficacy of biological processes with the
high intensity and throughput of engineered processes.
Research on key biotechnology platforms includes designs for biorefineries to produce biofuels,
biopower, and commercial chemical products derived from biomass rather than fossil fuels; fuel
cells powered by bio-based fuels or bio-generated hydrogen; engineered systems to support
processes such as direct photoconversion utilizing biobased processes of water, C02, and nitrogen to
useful fuels; and small modular biopower systems for incorporation of biological processes.
9.1.3 Environmental Sciences
Environmental sciences research is focused on understanding the basic chemical, physical, and biological
processes of Earth's atmosphere, land, and oceans and how these processes may be affected by mitigation
strategies or energy production and use. A major part of the research is designed to provide the data that
will enable an objective assessment of the potential for, and consequences of, global warming, a topic
very important to the climate change issue, but not directly related to climate mitigation technology. In
addition to studying the consequences of global warming, some ongoing environmental sciences research
is relevant to the development of some of the technologies discussed in Chapters 4 through 8, including
the following:
research to assess the efficacy and potential ancillary benefits and unintended adverse effects of
enhancing carbon sequestration in terrestrial and ocean systems through, for example, fertilization
of such systems with a limiting nutrient to enhance carbon fixation by autotrophs or injecting C02
into the deep ocean;
understanding, quantifying, and predicting biological and ecological

processes affecting carbon allocation, storage, and capacity in
terrestrial systems (see Figure 9-3);
identifying how efforts to increase terrestrial carbon sequestration

might influence nutrient cycling, the emissions of other GHGs, and
local, regional, and global climate through impacts on heat balances
and :dbedo;
Figure 9-3. Ameriflux
9-4
CEQ 015321
May28, 2004
understanding the ocean biological pump through research to identify the biogeochemical
mechanisms of conversion and transport of carbon between the atmosphere and surface waters, and
between the surface waters and the deep
as well as research to identify key processes for
carbon cycling in marine sediments and how those processes are coupled to the water column;
ocean,
clarification of how black carbon aerosols and tropospheric ozone precursors contribute to global
warming; of how the effects vary with geography, time, and the presence of other compounds in the
atmosphere; and of how to manage emissions to address both local public health and global
environmental impacts;
development of sensors that allow measuring and monitoring of environmental carbon flows.
Development of computational models that can simulate and predict carbon flows resulting from,
for example, specific carbon management policy actions and that provide a consistent picture of the
effectiveness of efforts to reduce anthropogenic emissions;
research on indoor air quality and its interrelationship with other buildings-related environmental
factors, so as to understand the possible ramifications of increasing the energy efficiency of
buildings.
9.1.4 Advanced Scientific Computation

Advanced scientific computation has emerged as a powerful tool for science and engineering. Examples
of areas in which modeling and simulation are being employed to assist in the development of advanced
energy systems include:
modeling and simulation of advanced fusion energy systems to support the International
Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER) and the National Ignition Facility (NIF),
modeling of combustion (see Figure 9-4) for advanced diesel

engines and other combustion systems,
improved software and controls foradvanced electric power grids,
advanced models for evaluation of C02 in ocean environments and

understanding the potential long-term distribution and fate of C02
pumped into the deep ocean,
improved models of photovoltaics and other materials,
improved models of the aerodynamics of wind turbines and other

fluid dynamics processes,
computer-assisted simulations of proposed advanced components

and energy systems,
Figure 9-4. Advanced

Computer Simulation
Combustion Shockwave
9-5
CEQ 015322
May28,2004
modeling and simulation of nanoscale systems (the computational effort required to simulate
nanoscale systems far exceeds any computational efforts in materials and molecular science to
date), and
predictive modeling of physical systems.
9.1.5 Fusion Energy Sciences

Fusion energy sciences research includes plasma science and plasma confinement research, which serves
as the foundation for long-term exploration of fusion as a commercially viable power source. A major
scientific challenge today is to make fusi<?n energy practical by advancing the predictive capability based
on detailed experiments, sophisticated modeling,. and terascale computing. Dramatic advances in
scientific understanding have been achieved using advanced computer capabilities. New instrumentation
allows more refined measurements of the interior of complex hot plasmas. Enhanced scientific diagnostic
and computational capabilities will be key to further advances (for exiunple, see Figure 9-5). The next
major frontier for fusion energy sciences ,is an understanding of the physics of "burning" plasma-plasma
in which the burnup .of the fusion fuel contributes the heat necessary to sustain the fusion reaction-of the
type necessary for a fusion power plant. The ability to extend fusion to practical energy applications is
critically dependent on this understanding, which requires construction of a new experimental facility
such as the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER), discussed in Chapter 5. The U.S.
program portfolio goals include:
demonstrating with burning plasmas the scientific and

technological feasibility of fusion energy,
developing afundamental understanding of plasma behavior

sufficient to provide a reliable predictive capability for fusion
systems,
determining the most promising approaches and configurations

for confining hot plasmas for practical fusion energy systems, and
developing the new materials, components, and technologies

necessary to function in a fusion reactor environment.
Figure 9-5. Magnetic

Fusion Energy
Simulation
9.1.6 Basic Science Research in Support of CCTP Goals

Boxes 9-1 through 9-5 summarize specifjc examples of basic research outcomes directly linked to the five
technology-related goals described in Chapters 4 through 8, which are
reducing C02 emissions from energy end use (Ch. 4),
8
reducing C02 emissions from energy supply (Ch. 5),
8
capturing and sequestering carbon (Ch. 6),
8
reducing emissions of other GHGs (Ch. 7), and
measuring and monitoring GHGs (Ch. 8).
9-6
CEQ 015323
May28,2004
The examples provided in the boxes are not iritended to be comprehensive, but rather, are illustrative of
some of the key areas in which Federal investments in fundamental science research support technology
development in the applied research programs.
Box9-1
Examples of Basic Research Contributions to CCTP Goal1:

Reducing C02 Emissions from Energy End Use
Physical and Fusion

Sciences
Novel materials for
storage and release of
energy
New electrochemical
systems and separations
processes for distributed
power applications
New materials and
processes for catalysts,
tribology (new lowfriction materials),
coatings and hightemperature materials that
provide more efficient
energy generation and
industrial processes
Biological and Environmental

Sciences
Gombining biological
func~ionality with nano-
engineered structures for
new bio-based industrial
processes
Research
on buildings
related environmental
factors such as indoor air
quality
Advanced Computing
Modeling of the
physical and chemical
properties of materials
for enhanced industrial
materials
Investigating softwarebased means for
controlling an advanced
electric grid
infrastructure
Modeling
potential
security and natural

threats on electric
infrastructure
-,
'
~
9-7
CEQ 015324
U.S. Climate Change Teehnology Program Draft Straiegic Plan
May28,2004
Box9-2
Examples of Basic Research Contributions to CCTP Goal2:
Reducing Emissions from Energy Supply
Physical and Fusion
Sciences
Advanced materials,
coatings, and
nanomaterials for
hydrogen production,
storage, and transportation
Improvements in
membranes, catalysts, and
reformers for fuel cells
Improved understanding
of semiconductor
materials and
nanostructures for
photovoltaics
Geosciences research to
predict heat flows and
geothermal reservoir
dynamics
Structural dynamics of
materials for wind
turbines
Basic research on hightemperature, corrosionand radiation-resistant
materials capable of
functioning at 900C for
next-generation fission
reactors
Nanomaterials research
for new industrial
processes
Combustion research for
cleaner and more efficient
use of fossil and bic.;-.,, i.i
Advanced subsurface
imaging and alteration of
fluid-rock interactions for
fossil fuel exploration and
extraction
Biological and
Environmental Sciences
Microbial and plant
research for the
photosynthetic production
of hydrogen-rich fuels and
hydrogen
Integrated bio-nanoengineered devices for
hydrogen and hydrogen
fuels production
Biological fuels cells based
on microbial redox
processes
Microorganism research
supporting biofuels
production
Integrated bio-nano
systems for direct
photosynthetic production
of hydrogen and highenergy fuels
Assessment of
environmental impacts of
hydropower on fish
migration
Microbial research for in
situ bioprocessing of fossil
fuels
Assessment of
environmental impacts of
fossil fuel recovery
Advanced Computing
Design of materials,
nanostructures and
devices, and biological
systems for hydrogen
applications
Oil and gas reservoir
modeling, simulation,
and assessment
Model configurations for
confining hot plasmas
Modeling and simulation
of refining and
combustion for new and
more efficient processes
.,
.
..
;
.~;
..
9-8
CEQ 015325
May28,2004
BorN
Examples of Basic Research Contributions to CCTP Goal 3:

Carbon CaptUre and SequestraUon
..
Physical and Fusion

Biological and
Sciences
Geophysics,
Microorganism research
geochemistry, and
for efficacy and impacts of
hydrology of C02
terrestrial and ocean
repositories
sequestration
Materials and chemistry
Natural soil carbon cycle:
for separation, capture,
biosciences of soil and
and transformation of C02
plant carbon partitioning
Chemistry of carbon and
Ocean bio pump research:
C02 in ocean and soil
nutrient and carbon cycles
environments
and impact of long-term
sequestration
Genomic-based research to
develop means for capture
of CO:z from the
atmosphere
Environmental and
ecosystem research to
determine efficacy and
impacts of sequestration
strategies
Bioteclmology research
(genomics, genetics,
proteomics) that may aid
in managing carbon
Advanced Computing
C02 geological
repository modeling,
simulation, and
assessment
Ocean carbon cycle
modeling, simulation,
and assessment
'
9-9
CEQ 015326
May28,2004
Box9-5
Measuring and Monitoring GHGs
Physical and Fusion

Biological and
Sciences
Research on atmospheric
Microbial genomics
physical and chemical
research to develop ecoprocesses that lead to the
genomic sensors and
observed vertical profiles
sentinel organisms and
of GHG concentrations
communities in oceans
due to surface emissions
and soils
Development of remote
Research to quantify the
sensing methods to
net national emissions of
determine spatially
GHGs
resolved vertical GHG
Development of specific
profiles rather than
technologies for airborne
column-averaged profiles
remote sensing of global
Development of combined
CH4 "surface" emissions
airborne and surface-based
with 10-km resolution
scanning techniques for
remote sensing that yield
three-dimensional, realtime mapping of
atmospheric GHG
concentrations (platforms
may include satellites,
aircraft, unmanned aerial
vehicles, and surfacebased sensor suites)
Advanced Computing
Data capture, storage,

processing, analysis, and
visualization methods
and technologies
Models for simulating
and predicting GHG
emissions based on
dynamic combinations of
human activity patterns,
energy technologies and
energy demand, and
industrial activities
9-11
CEQ 015328
May28,7004
Box9-4
Reducing Emissions of Other Greenhouse Gases
Physical and Fusion

Sciences
Research on materials and

chemistry to replace
industrial processes that
use high GWP gases
Research on thin films and
membrane materials for
filtration
Combustion research to
reduce emissions of
nitrous oxide, ozone
precursors, and soot
Catalysis research to
reduce emissions
Biological and
Understanding soil
biology to reduce
emissions of N02 and Cf4
with better management
Better understanding of
microbial process in the
rumen, animal
metabolism, and grazing
to reduce methane
emissions by livestock
Advanced Computing
Computational chemistry
and materials for design of
new GHG free processes
Computational analyses of
soil biology of carbon and
nitrogen cycles
9-10
CEQ 015327
May28,2004
9.2 Integrative R&D Planning Process

Effective integration of basic, fundamental science and applied technology R&D presents a challenge for
any research program. The CcrP research portfolio is no exception. However, this challenge must be
tackled byCCTP through an integrative R&D planning process because the technical objectives of the
technology programs cannot be met without new breakthroughs in the scientific foundations that support
them.
Over the course of the next year, CcrP plans (depending on resources available) to initiate a process for
integrative planning that brings together applied technologists from the federal programs, research staff
within fundamental science programs, and outside experts in vllrious science and technology disciplines,
including industrial experts. This will most likely be a workshop-based process, combined with
considerable pre- and post-workshop data gathering, analysis, and planning. It will build upon the
process that DOE's Office of Basic Energy Sciences (BES) has undertaken over the past few years. BES
has a tradition of workshops to establish the status of and future directions for scientific areas. Attendees
at these workshops includes academics, f~derallaboratory researchers, industrial researchers, and federal
program staff as appropriate.
In recognition of the growing challenges in the area of energy and related environinental concerns, BES
recently initiated a new series of workshops focusing on identification of the underlying basic research
needs related to energy technologies. The first of these workshops, in October 2002, undertook a broad
assessment of basic research needs for energy technologies to ensure a reliable, economical, and environmentally sound energy supply for the future. This workshop was attended by more than 100 people
from academia, industry, the national laboratories, and federal agencies. A subsequent meeting in
January 2003 focused on specific discussions of energy biosciences. (The final report and details on the
charge, organization, program, schedule, membership/attendees, and related information can be found at
http://www.sc.doe.gov/bes/besac/Basic Research Needs To Assure A Secure Energy Future FEB200
3.pdD. Subsequent Office of Science activities have included a workshop on hydrogen production, storage, and use (whose report, Basic Research Needs for the Hydrogen Economy, is available at
http://www.er.doe.gov/production/bes/hydrogen.pdO; catalysis (report in preparation): and the
roadmapping of various technology development processes, such as carbon sequestration.
The workshop series planned by CCTP will
articulate, in detail, the known technical challenges faced by the climate-related technology
development programs;
postulate about future technical c~enges that may emerge within the technology development
programs;
look for common needs across technology areas;
describe the basic science capabilities relevant to these technical challenges;
explore basic research pathways that could help solve technological problems;
prioritize basic research pathways based on a CCTP's criteria (see Chapter 2); and
.....'
.
9-12
CEQ 015329
May28,2004
develop an integrated research/technology-development roadmap related to climate change

technologies that describe planned research activities, milestones, outputs (identifying those that
will be handed off to other activities), go/no-go decisions, end points, and intersections with other
programs.
In addition to developing an integrative plan, another goal of this process is to provide focus for the
process described in Section 9.3 for Exploratory Research on Innovative Concepts and Enabling
Technologies. The process of developing the plan and the focus areas will have the additional advantage
of creating stronger interpersonal links between the researchers conducting the work described in
Section 9.1 and those conducting work described in Sections 4 through 8. Increased discussion among
research personnel from various complementary fields and face-to-face exploration of ideas is a good way
to foster innovative ideas and create synergies. An important conclusion, apparent from this plan, is that
the challenge of reducing C02 and other GHG emissions must be dealt with in a multidisciplinary
manner. This requires the participation of investigators with different skill sets. Basic science skills have
to be complemented by awareness of the overall nature of the problem in a national and world context,
and with knowledge of the engineering, design, and control issues in any eventual solution. The
traditional structure of research, operating mainly within the narrower confines of specific disciplinary
groups, will not be sufficient. The need for multidisciplinary efforts presents great challenges and
opportunities when making investment decisions about the basic research that is needed and is to be
undertaken.
9.3 Exploratory Research on Innovative Concepts and Enabling

Technologies
As discussed in Chapters 4 through 8 and in Section 9.1 above, federal efforts cover a wide range of
technology development activities and related basic science research aimed at addressing new and
improved technology to reduce GHG emissions while providing a robust energy future. The climaterelated research portfolio should also include innovative research efforts that fill gaps in DOE's research
continuum between basic research and applied technology R&D and that explore novel concepts leading
to breakthrough technology developments. Hence, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) has proposed a
new investment approach toclimate change technology research and innovation. This approach will
focus exclusively on climate change goals, be based on open and competitive solicitations, and not
specify, a priori, a technology or a means by which the goals should be achieved.
The intent is for DOE to provide modest research grants, via a competitive solicitation process, for
exploratory research on new, advanced, and/or revolutionary technical concepts, not elsewhere covered
among federal R&D programs, that could have high-impact payoffs for the President's climate change
goals. The resulting program would not duplicate, but complement and potentially enrich, the existing
portfolio of climate change-related basic research and applied technology R&D. To merit consideration
for funding under this program, proposals would have to be strategic in purpose; high-impact; high-risk,
cross-cutting, multidisciplinary, or integrative; and be different or distinct from past or ongoing R&D.
On November 19, 2002, DOE issued a "Request for Information and Statement of Interest" regarding
potential future competitive solicitations for research on innovative climate change technologies. The so-
called RFI was issued to explore and gauge the depth and breadth of potential interest in such solicitations
and to identify potential concepts that might be candidates for funding. The announcement closed on
9-13
CEQ 015330
May28,2004
January 31,2003. DOE received 180 responses (technology ideas), representing the interests or
submissions of 79 different organizations or responding entities. The ideas fell into the following
categories:
Strategic research. Strategic research is basic research applied to a particular problem or technological focus area. Many of the agency's existing research programs are either basic or applied in
their missions, and restricted by the intent of the appropriation. As a result, strategic research often
finds no specific program able or willing to explore novel concepts along unconventional lines. A
number of the more intriguing RFI responses fell into this "in-between" zone.
Advanced concepts. Advanced concepts are high-risk, long-term ideas that are often too risky or
unconventional for applied R&D programs to support, but are too purposeful or applied for basic
research programs to support. Yet, many are sufficiently promising to suggest high impact if
successfully pursued. Many such concepts, for example, are now appearing in biotechnology. As
opposed to development ofbiofuels (e.g., ethanol) or bio-energy (e.g., wood chips, detritus),
advanced concepts attempt to unlock the potential of the biological processes of plants and microorganisms through a combination of genornics, chemistry, biotechnology and bioengineering. Such
approaches may result in the development of microorganisms or catalytic enzymes that operate on
microscales with high efficiency. Potential applications include bioconversion of sunlight to
energy; photon-driven water splitting; simultaneous production of hydrogen and capture of C02
from the atmosphere; biomechanisms to store and release usable energy; bioproduction of feedstocks for the chemicals industry; new materials requiring less resources; hydrogen in bioproducts;
and biosystems for carbon sequestration.
Integrative concepts. Integrative concepts cut across R&D program lines and attempt to combine
technologies and/or disciplines, and often promise some of the highest results, yet often experience
difficulty in finding funding support from any of the areas. Without leadership from the top,
integrative concepts are often too difficult to coordinate across agencies or across traditional R&D
program or mission areas, and fall by the wayside. For example, efforts to reduce non-C02 GHGs
from agricultural sources should occur concomitantly with conservation and programs to sequester
C02 in the soil that are all directed to improving air, soil, and water quality while maintaining or
improving agricultural production.
Novel concepts. Novel concepts, almost by definition, are different or atypical and do not have
funding support areas within the boundaries of traditional R&D organizations. They may build on
scientific disciplines outside routine or expected areas; represent unfamiliar territory; or perhaps be
competitive with, or otherwise threatening to, other, more traditional approaches. Such concepts
can suffer poor reviews by tradition-bound peers .o.r simply present too high of a risk for regular,
metric-monitored investments. Yet, such concepts may provide valuable ways to reduce GHG
emissions, reduce GHG concentrations, or otherwise address the effects of climate change, if
pursued and explored. Somewhere within the overall program support for climate change
technology R&D, there needs to be provision for funding and exploring novel concepts that do not
fit well within regularly appropriated R&D programs.
Greenhouse gases other than C02 Beyond C02, there are anthropogenic emissions of a number of
other GHGs, including methane, nitrous oxide, and several high-global-warming-potent~al (GWP)
gases. Concentrations of these gases in the atmosphere can contribute to global warming. In the
9-14
CEQ 015331
May28,2004
near term, it may be easier to capture and co,ntrol emissions of such gases than to control some of
the major sources of C02. For some of these gases, near-tenn technological advances could result
in rapidly attainable and cost-effective GHG emission reduction strategies. Other agencies, such as
USDA or EPA, have the agency leads in inventorying and mitigating emissions of various sources
for these other GHGs. There are few technology R&D programs to address opportunities in these
areas.
Measuring and monitoring systems. Accurate measurements underlie many climate-related actions
and strategies for reducing GHG emissions. Improving the ability to measure and monitor allimportant GHGs, including their emissions, inventories, and fluxes, across a variety of media (soil,
water, air) and spatial (local, regional) boundaries is a top priority. RFI responses included innovative new systems for remote and continuous monitoring of GHGs (including gases other than C02).
Other proposed monitoring systems included features for detection and location of GHG leaks..
Feedstocks and materials. Often neglected in the usual emphasis of R&D on energy are the more
routine activities of heavy industry, mining, manufacturing, agriculture, and construction, which
require resources, materials, feedstocks, and other material inputs and output to their production
processes, all of which have associated GHG emissions in their resource cycles. One RFI concept
suggested systematic analytical methods to identify, review, and select promising areas for new
technologies to be applied to reduce such emissions, capture carbon, or otherwise substitute
processes or materials that result in little or no net C02 or other GHG emissions.
Enabling technologies. Enabling technologies contribute indirectly to the reduction of GHG

emissions by enabling the development, deployment, and use of other important technologies that
reduce GHG emissions
Decision-support tools. Numerous RFI responses proposed various analytical, assessment, software, modeling, or other quantitative methods for better understanding and assessing the role of
technology in long-tenn approaches to achieving stabilization of GHG concentrations in the
atmosphere. While individual R&D programs sponsor the development of such tools, the tools
thus developed are applicable mainly within their
respective
areas of responsibility or technologies.
<
None of the programs support broad-based tools that may be applied or integrated across all
technologies.
In February 2004, the President requested Congressional support for a Competitive Solicitation Program
(CSP) to carry out this exploratory research program. The CSP is intended to explore novel cpncepts,
technologies, or technical approaches not supported elsewhere that could, if successful, contribute in
significant ways to the reduction, avoidance, or pennanent sequestration of GHG emissions. Proposals
would be subjected to merit review by peer evaluation. Awards would be.made on the basis of four .
criteria: (1) potential contributions to the research goal, (2) novelty, (3) technical merit, and (4).quality of
the research team and institutional support. A technical review committee, consisting of officials of
programs bat might benefit from the research results, will oversee the CSP.
9-15
CEQ 015332
May28,2004
10 Conclusions and Next Steps

Global climate change is a long-term energy and environmental challenge that may require fundamental
changes over the course of the 21 51 century in the way the world produces and uses energy, as well as in
many other GHG-ernitting aspects of industry, agriculture, land use and other activities associated with
modem civilization. Global emissions of carbon dioxide (C02), the most important of the greenhouse
gases, are closely aligned with the world's use of fossil fuels. AF. the population grows and economies
develop, the world will likely see multi-fold increases in energy use. If energy technology does not
advance beyond direct combustion of fossil fuels with free venting of C02 emissions, increases in C02
emissions, with associated increases in C02 concentrations, will accompany such growth. Emissions of
non-C02 greenhouse gases, including methane, nitrous oxide, and others, are also of concern. These
other GHGs are, and will likely continue to be, significant contributors to climate radiative forcing.
Within the context of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), the
United States formulated and is implementing a comprehensive strategy. This strategy is science-based,
encourages scientific and technological breakthroughs, harnesses the power of markets, and encourages
global participation. It embraces the idea that sustained economic growth is central to the solution, not
the problem. because economic growth makes possible the needed investment in research and development to advance technology and the capital required for implementation. The U.S. strategy takes a
century-long perspective, focuses on UNFCCC goal attainment, and seeks to engage interested parties in
cooperative planning and collaboration at international, State, regional and local levels.
At the core of this U.S. strategy is an ambitious undertaking, guided by science, to attain on a global
scale, in partnership with others, a technological capability that can meet the energy and economic needs
of the future, while significantly reducing global emissions of greenhouse gases (GHGs). The President
established a new Cabinet-level management structure to oversee the Federal leadership of this undertaking, which resulted, in tum, in the establishment of two implementing anns, the Climate Change
Science Program (CCSP) and the Climate Change Technology Program (CCTP). Together, the relevant
budgets associated with CCSP and CCI'P account for more than $4 billion per year in coordinated
Federal investment
10.1 CCTP Actions to Date

For its part, the CCTP aims to accelerate the development of advanced technologies that can enable and
facilitate progress toward the attainment of the UNFCCC goal of stabilizing concentrations of GHGs in
the Earth's atmosphere, and do so at substantially reduced costs. In pursuing this aim. CCTP's first steps
were to: (I) organize an R&D planning process around a comprehensive set of strategic goals for technology development; (2) explore the potential of a wide range of technologies to reduce GHG emissions
over the long-term; (3) assess the adequacy of the current portfolio to make progress against each gQal;
(4) identify priorities for current emphasis and future research; (5) apply criteria for investment; and
(6) make recommendations within the annual planning and budgeting processes of the participating R&D
agencies. As directed by Presidential leadership and with engagement and support of the Cabinet, CCfP
is coor~inating a major realignment and expansion of Federal climate-related technology developmenf.
10-1
CEQ 015333
May28,2004
New technology initiatives have been launched. Core programs are being examined and strengthened.
Emphasis in certain areas is being redirected. Proposed technology investments, otherwise unrelated to
climate change, are being evaluated, in part, on their ability to contribute to CCI'P strategic goals. In
some technical areas, climate change strategic goals have provided new and compelling motivations and
program rationales, strengthening support for some R&D programs. Directions for future research are
being identified, put forward and evaluated. ..
10.2 Insights for PorHolio Planning

The CCTP planning and coordination processes are informed by inputs from many sources. Some are
drawn from nearly four decades of study of the issues, and more recent global analyses. Others are drawn
R&D planning materials from existing programs. Others
from detailed technology roadmaps and other
are shaped by expert opinion and technical workshops. Long-term perspectives were assisted by
computer modeling and scenario analyses. From these collective inputs, insights for portfolio planning
are drawn, as summarized below:
1. The CCfP analysis suggests that the world's energy system and associated infrastructure could
be gradually transformed over the course of the 21st century in many and varied ways, under a
range of GHG emissions constraints and technology assumptions. Many alternative pathways
could provide the energy supplies and services needed to sustain economic growth, while
simultaneously reducing GHG emissions sufficiently to make meaningful progress toward
stabilizingGHG concentrations in the atmosphere. The costs of such transformations, however,
vary widely. Some pathways are attended by estimated costs exceeding trillions of constant 2004
dollars per year by close of the 21st century. Advanced technology options, if successfully
developed, could cost substantially less.
2. The CCTP analysis suggests that continued use of fossil fuels, even in some carbon-constrained
scenarios, could remain the largest source of energy supply throughout the 21st century. In all of
the CCTP hypothesized carbon-constrained cases, the growth of fossil fuel use without capture.
and sequestration was slowed and eventually reversed, but remained significant in absolute terms.
The analysis suggests that the full potential of conventional oil and natural gas resources could be
realized in all but a few of the most stringent emissions constrained cases. Coal could continue to
supply a large portion of the world's energy needs if C02capture and storage were to become a
viable technology option.
3. The CCfP analysis suggests that all four of the emissions-related CCTP strategic goals- i.e.,
energy efficiency and reduced energy end-use, low-emissions energy supply, carbon sequestration, and reduced emissions of non-C02 gases -could be important to reaching the overall
UNFCCC goal. Reductions of non-C0 2 GHG emissions, such and methane and N20, for
example, offer relatively low-cos~. early opportunities for reducing GHG emissions and could
play important roles in meeting various GHG emission reduction trajectories. Similarly,
continued efficiency improvement and terrestrial sequestration appear as potentially large
contributors to reduced GHG emissions, which could help to reduce burdens otherwise placed on
the other technology areas. Given the uncertainties associated with technology development, it
appears prudent to pursue all four of these mutually reinforcing goals in parallel.
~l
'1 :~!
10-2
CEQ 015334
May28,2004
4. The CCI'P analysis suggests that an array of advanced technology options, if they could be made
available and commercially viable, could be an effective avenue to significantly lower-cost
solutions. 1 In the analysis, overall costs were minimized when advanced technologies were
assumed to develop successfully and greatly improve their performance. Moreover, the potential
for overall cost reduction was large. In some cases, the technology advancement was projected to
reduce GHG emissions-reduction cost by over 90 percent, compared to scenarios with only
moderate technological advancement.
5. The CCfP analysis suggests that certain elements of the CCfP technology portfolio are robust,
that is, they were found to contribute significantly to progress toward CCfP strategic goals under
a range of varying assumptions and planning scenarios. These robust elements include:
Terrestrial and product-based sequestration of C02;

Reductions of emissions of non-C02 other GHGs, including methane and nitrous oxide;
Energy efficiency and other reductions in energy use;
Increasing efficiency in electricity supply, even if from unsequestered fossil fuels;
Renewable and nuclear energy, at levels expected in the Reference Case baselines;
Transition to low GHG-emission transportation technologies, fuels and systems;
Advent of new, competitive energy carriers, including hydrogen and alternative fuels;
Infrastructure improvements in the electric power grid, improving efficiency and enabling
widespread innovation in energy-related advanced technology, products and service;
Enhanced means and methods for measuring and monitoring GHGs; and
Supporting basic and strategic research, aimed at facilitating technical progress in the applied
R&D areas.
6. The CCfP analysis suggests that some elements of the CCfP technology portfolio are important,
if not central, to progress under certain planning circumstances, but not necessarily under all
circumstances. When assumed to be successful, each contributed to overall lower cost solutions.
The largest economic benefits, by inference, would be captured when all of the advanced
technologies evidenced some significant degree of success and competed in the marketplace.
These conditional elements include:
Capture and engineered sequestration of C02 from fossil fuel-based energy systems. When
successful, such technologies played a transforming role. When combined with other highefficiency coal-based technologies, such systems significantly lowered costs of reducing C02
emissions;
Accelerated development of advanced forms of renewable energy, beyond the Reference
Case;
Accelerated development of advanced forms of nuclear energy, beyond the Reference Case;
'Accelerated development of advanced energy supply, including fusion energy, advanced biotechnology-based technologies, very large solar energy applications, and others; and
Novel approaches, not elsewhere covered, and system-wide enabling technologies.
1
The assumed performance characteristics of the advanced technologies featured in the CCTP analysis are, by
today's standards, high but attainable. The assumptions fall within reasonable ranges of feasibility and most are
consistcllt with long-term R&D program goals. All are believed achievable with sustained research and
development effort.
10-3
CEQ 015335
May28,2004
7. The CCTP analysis suggests $at, should additional resources be made available and applied to
CcrP strategic goals, significant opportunities might exist for additional or accelerated progress
in technology development. Additional resources could increase the diversification of the
portfolio, enable exploratory research of potentially high-payoff technical areas not currently
covered, accelerate development and commercial readiness of technologies in key areas and, in
general, increase the likelihood that the overall portfolio would achieve emission reductions faster
and at lower costs. These opportunity elements include:
Accelerated advances in energy efficiency;

Accelerated and broadened programs in engineered and geologic sequestration;
Accelerated development of technologies and strategies for reducing emissions of other
greenhouse gases, aimed at the frrst-haii of the 21st century;
Accelerated development of renewable fonns of energy, including wind;
Exploration of other long-tenn, large solar technologies, including related enabling
technologies;
Accelerated advances in biotechnology-based energy supply and C02 sequestration options;
Accelerated development of new and advanced nuclear fission concepts, meeting
Generation IV criteria, with a demonstration;
Pursuit of certain enabling technologies in power transmission; and
Innovative and novel approaches, not elsewhere covered, with potentially high-payoffs, such
as ultra-low electrical resistance transmission wires, or "bio-X" applications (i.e., genetically
engineered molecular machines) for hydrogen and C02 sequestration.
8. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, the CCTP analysis suggests that the timing regarding the
commercial readiness of the advanced technology options is an important CCI'P planning
consideration. Allowing for capital stock turnover and other inertia inherent in a global energy
system, low or near net-zero GHG-emitting technologies would need to be available and moving
rapidly into the marketplace decades before the "peaks" occurred in the various emissions
trajectories needed to meet hypothesized emissions constraints. Allowing for appropriate leadtime periods, some technologies would need to be commercially ready for widespread implementation, should the need arise, as early as 2020, and likely no later than 2040. Given the
expected path for R&D, such considerations suggest that the technologies would need to be
proven technically viable before this time, and that initial demonstrations would need to take
place between 2010 and 2030.
10.3 Application of Prioritizing Criteria

In Chapter 2 (Section 2.3), criteria were presented for prioritizing CCI'P portfolio investments. These
criteria are described in Box 2-4 and summarized below in Box 10-1. In accord with its charter, the
CCTP reviewed the relevant elements of the overall Federal R&D portfolio, assessed its adequacy with
regard to its potential to make technical progress toward goal achievement, and made recommendations
for improvement.
The CCTP's portfolio review, planning and prioritization process, which resulted in certain
recommendations, was not an exhaustive bottom-up review of individual projects, but one better
characterized as a strategic review with selected emphasis on key opportunities (Presidential initiatives)
10-4
CEQ 015336
U.S. Climate Change Technology Program Draft Strategic. Plan .
May28,2004
and realignments of certain areas needing attention. The process is not easily reduced to quantitative
analysis, due in part to the large number of variables and uncertainties associated with the nature of the
climate change challenge, and in part to CCTP's unusually long planning horizon. Nevertheless,
prioritization criteria as outlined below were applied, augmented by inputs from many quarters, and
tempered by experienced judgment of agency leaders and senior technical management.
Box 1o-1
Summary of CCTP Portfolio Planning and Investment Criteria
1. Maximizing Potential Return on Investment

2. Acknowledging the Proper and Distinct Roles for the Public and Private Sectors
3. Focusing on Technology with Large-Scale Potential
4. Sequencing R&D Investments in a Logical, Developmental Order
5. Supporting a Diversified Portfolio
6. Ensuring Attention to System-Wide and Other Factors
Note: See Box 2-4 for detailed explanations.

===:= -
- -- ----
Once broad thrusts and areas of strategic emphasis were identified, guided by the insights of Section 10.2,
the process was supplemented by screening and analysis on a project-by-project basis, performed within
the line-management organizations of the R&D agencies. applying CCTP and other program mission
criteria. Results of this process are selectively highlighted in Section 10.4, organized by CCTP strategic
goal. Further details may be found among the data of Appendix A. The process is ongoing.
In all cases, Criterion # 1 above was foremost in consideration. In general, benefits are defined as
potential contributions to CCfP strategic goals, integrated over time, as explored under a range of varying
assumptions and uncertainties. Costs are defined primarily as the extent of investment required of the
Federal government to meet certain R&D program goals, where private sector technology development
costs were also considered. Each technical concept weighed was required to have a plausible path to .
commercialization. In this process, relative comparisons among competing technology options provided
insights. Areas that faired well in the prioritization process included efficiency, certain solar and wind,
hydrogen, production and end-use technology, sequestration, high-efficiency coal (FutureGen), nuclear
(Generation IV), and fusion (ITER).
Criterion #2 was used, in part, to screen out of the existing portfolio certain activities that did not fit well
with proper and distinct roles of the public and private sectors. Areas that did appear to have significant
return, or were inappropriate as currently structured, faired poorly in the overall prioritization scheme. In
the intense competition for scare resources, these areas are shown in Appendix A as decreases. Examples
include certain industrial programs and niche areas for solar.
10-5
CEQ 015337
May28,2004
Criterion #3 formed the basis for the formation or continuation of a number of key technology initiatives
that promised large-scale, potentially transforming impact. As highlighted in various sections of Chapters 4 through 9, these include FreedomCAR, the International Partnership for the Hydrogen Economy,
the Hydrogen Fuel Initiative, FutureGen, the Carbon Sequestration Leadership Forum, nuclear fission's
Generation IV, and fusion's ITER.
Criterion #4 was applied to identify and add weight to certain kinds of technology investment areas where
the potential for early contributions were important, such as in efficiency, terrestrial sequestration and
other GHGs, or to explore key technologies where the outcomes of early feasibility assessments could be
decisive to later work, such in C02 capture and geologic storage. Criteria #5 recognized the need for
having strong R&D programs in all goal areas, and within each goal area across multiple technology
paths to various alternative futures. This is evidenced by support for advanced technologies in all three of
the scenarios, in addition to support for technologies that play important roles in the Reference Case and
Baseline scenarios. Finally, Criterion #6 was applied to activities that explored the institutional, legal,
safety or other non-technical areas important to a technology's acceptance and implementation. These
areas included work at the Department of Transportation on hydrogen codes and standards, or in the
Department of Energy on regional partnerships for sequestration.
10.4 Portfolio Priorities and Future Research

Emerging from this planning and prioritization process, the current CCI'P portfolio constitutes an array of
research activities that are reasonably well aligned with CCI'P strategic goals. CCI'P acknowledges that
its portfolio is at an eady stage of development and evolving, as it continues to review, assess and search
for further refinements. The CCTP portfolio evidencing current priorities is fully identifi~d in
Appendix A, discussed within specific goal contexts of Chapters 4 through 9, and highlighted below and
elsewhere.2
10.4.1
Energy End Use
Reducing emissions from energy enduse and related infrastructure is a key component to the success of
any CCI'P technology strategy. According to the CCI'P analysis, contributions from improved energy
efficiency must not only keep pace with historical trends of approximately one percent improvement per
year, in order to meet expectations in the Reference Case, but achieve even more in all of the advanced
technology scenarios.
The CCI'P portfolio investment in this strategic area is substantial. Across all agencies, the total investment in RD&D in future energy efficiency technologies is more than $720 million/year. Owing to the
readiness of many of the technologies in the near-tenn. this area of the CCI'P portfolio also has a large
component of deployment activities -- more than $500 million/year. As outlined in Chapter 4, there are
many opportunities for advanced technology to reduce C02 emissions from energy efficiency and reduced
end-use energy consumption. In general, the existing CCfP portfolio is diverse, supporting an array ~f
potentially productive avenues for reduced emissions in all sectors of the economy. Research efforts ate
directed at lowering energy consumption and emissions in residential and commercilll buildings.
Lowering energy use in industrial facilities and processes through advanced technology is also supported.
2
U.S. Climate Change Technology Program Research and Current Activities, DOE/PI-0001, U.S. Department of
Energy, November 2003. See CCTP website at: http://www.climatetechnology.gov.
CEQ 015338
May28,2004
One of the more significant thrusts is toward new transportation technologies. Analyses suggest that this
sector may have the highest growth in global C02 emissions over the next 25 years. The CCI'P portfolio
emphasizes transportation research and technology development, including the introduction and expanded
use of low-carbon fuels and other energy carriers, such as hydrogen. Research initiatives are directed
toward advanced light and heavy vehicles, organiZed primarily under the FreedomCAR and the 21 51
Century Truck Partnership, involving DOT, DOE, and DoD. These programs include research on fuel
cell vehicles using hydrogen (in cooperation with the Hydrogen Fuels Initiative).
Another important component of this strategic goal is modernizing the electricity transmission grid and its
associated infrastructure, particularly when such modernization is seen as enabling technology for many .
other new and advanced supply and end-use technologies. Significant efficiency gains are possible from
the adoption of advanced technology and practices, such as distributed generation technologies; energy
storage; sensors, controls and communications, and power electronics; applied in both developed and
emerging economies. High-Temperature Superconductivity (HTS) has the potential to revolutionize
electric transmission systems. Technologies are needed that would make it possible to store energy for
many hours at attractive costs to effectively take advantage of the benefits of intennittent renewable
energy technologies, thus pennitting very large contributions from renewable energy to electricity
supplies in the long-term. These areas in the CCTP portfolio are increasing in emphasis. More detail on
these initiatives can be found in Chapter 4.
10.4.2 Energy Supply

Despite large and relatively cost-effective contributions expected in the CcrP technology stiategy from
energy efficiency gains and other fonns of reduced energy use, and despite the large and continuing role
played by use of unsequestered conventional fossil fuels, large quantities of low or near net-zero GHG
emitting energy supplies would also be required under the range of hypothesized GHG emission
constraints and advanced technology planning assumptions. Accordingly, the CCTP portfolio places a
high priority on the development of such energy supply technologies. Across all agencies, the CCfP
portfolio invests $1.2 billion in RD&D in this area. Recent changes in the CCTP portfolio demonstrate
increasing emphasis on low-emissions fossil-based power and fuels; hydrogen; renewable energy and
fuels; nuclear fission; fusion energy. Details may be found in Chapter 5.
Selected highlights include: (1) FutureGEN, aimed at demonstrating the viability of a near-zeroemissions, high efficiency, coal-based electricity generation plant that has the ability to co-produce lowcost hydrogen; (2) the Hydrogen Fuel Initiative, which complements the FreedomCAR initiative, focuses
on research to produce, store, and deliver hydrogen; (3) the International Partnership for the Hydrogen
Economy (IPHE); which now involves more than a dozen countries; (4) increasing emphasis on wind
energy and photovoltaiCs; (5) the next-generation fission energy systems (Generation IV Nuclear Energy
Systems Initiative), that can offer advances in sustainability, proliferation resistance, physical protection,
safety, and economics; (6) the Nuclear Power 2010 program, designed to pave the way for an industry
decision by 2005 to order at least one new nuclear power plant for deployment in the 2010 timeframe;
(7) the Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative (AFCI), focused on developing advanced nuclear fuel cycle
technologies; and (8) an international magnetic fusion experiment (ITER}, which involves the United
States, Europe, Japan, China, Russia, and the Republic of Korea.
10-7
CEQ 015339

10.4.3
May28,2004
Carbon Capture and Sequestration
The CCI'P analysis suggests that sequestration of C02 can play a potentially transforming role in at least
one of the envisioned advanced technology scenarios, and a significant role in the other two. AJ; portions
of this element of CCI'P strategy is relatively new, many questions remain. The development of
technical, economic, and environmental acceptability of sequestration, in its varied forms needs to be
explored and resolved. Early resolution of geologic and ocean approaches as options are important, as
they would have implications for various other R&D investment strategies. The CCfP portfolio shows
increasing emphasis in this area. Across -all agencies, the total R&D investment requested for FY 2005 is
more than $85 million, and includes res~ch on carbon capture; geologic storage; terrestrial
sequestration; and ocean sequestration.
Details are presented in Chapter 6. Selected highlights include: (1) the Carbon Sequestration Leadership
Forum, established in February 2003, which coordinates data gathering, R&D and joint projects to
advance the development and deployment of carbon sequestration technologies worldwide; and (2) the
Regional Carbon Sequestration Partnership, which includes seven regional partnerships of state agencies,
universities, and private companies to form the core of a nationwide network designed to determine the
best approaches for capturing and permanently storing GHGs.
10.4.4 Other Greenhouse Gases
The CCfP analysis suggests that there are a number of potentially fruitful areas for technologies to
mitigate growth in emissions of non-C0 2 GHGs. Analysis suggests, further, that emission-reduction
contributions from other GHGs can be significant The strategy for addressing non-C0 2 GHOs has two
main elements. First, it focuses on the key emission sources of these GHOs and identifies specific
mitigation options and research needs by gas, sector, and source. Given the diversity of emission sources,
a generalized technology approach is not practical. Second, the strategy emphasizes both the expedited
development and deployment of near-term and close-to-market technologies and expanded R&D into
longer-term opportunities leading to large-scale emission reductions. By stressing both near- and longterm options, the strategy offers maximum climate protection in the near-term and a roadmap to achieve
dramatic gains in later years.
The CCI'P portfolio, across all agencies, is currently funded at about $15 millionlyr for deployment
activities in this area. Research aimed at reducing emissions of these GHGs is focusing on: .(1) methane
emissions from energy and waste; (2) methane and nitrous oxide emissions from agriculture; (3) emissions from high global warming potentia.J. gases; (4) nitrous oxide emissions from combustion and
industrial sources; and (5) emissions oftf5>Pospheric ozone precursors and black carbon. Details are
provided in Chapter 7.
10.4.5
Measurement and Monitoring
A wide assortment of GHG. sensors, measurement platforms, monitoring and inventorying systems, 3._!ld
inference methods will likely be needed to meet basic OHG emissions measurement requirements of the
future. Measurement systenls must be developed that can establish baselines and measure carbon storage
and GHG fluxes at various scales, from individual projects to large geographic areas. Improved measurement and monitoring technologies and capabilities can also inform the state of climate science and help to
identify and guide future opportunities fQr technology development.
,,
10-8
CEQ 015340
May28,2004
In the CCIP portfolio, all agencies, combined, invest about $10 million/yr in this area. Apart from these
investments, there are additional investments, unaccounted for here, embedded within the various
technology research projects, such as in the regional sequestration demonstrations. One example, with
support from NASA, USDA, and DOE, is Laser Induced Breakdown Spectroscopy (LffiS). Under the
Applied Terrestrial Sequestration Partnership, USDA, DOE, and NETL are working to improve
measuring and monitoring of GHG emissions and changes in soil carbon. Supported by all three agencies
and NASA, LIBS is a breakthrough carbon measurement technology. Its ability to quickly and cost
effectively measure carbon in soils will be key to the monitoring of terrestrial sequestration projects.
Another important project is Agriflux, a US_DA-led network of 30 sites for measuring the effects of
environmental conditions and agricultural management decisions on carbon exchange between the land
and the atmosphere. Stu~ies will identify crop management practices to optimize crop yield, crop quality,
and carbon sequestration and carbon dioxide concentrations and other environmental conditions expected
in the 21st century. A third example is AmeriFIUx., a research networkof75 cites, used in collecting,
synthesizing, and disseminating long-term measurements of C02, water, and energy exchange for a
variety of terrestrial landscapes across the United States.- Details are provided in Chapter 8.
The CCIP is encouraging integrative system design, with near- and long-tenn advances in technology. In
the near-term, it is possible to: (1) incorporate transportation measurement and monitoring sensors into
the onboard diagnostic and control systems ~f production vehicles; (2) prepare geologic sequestration
measurement and monitoring technologies for deployment with planned demonstration projects;
(3) exploit observations and measurements from current and planned Earth observing systems to measure
atmospheric concentrations and profiles of GHGs from planned satellites; (4) undertake designs and
deploy the foundation components for a national, multi-tiered monitoring system with optimized measuring, monitoring, and verification systems; (5) deploy sounding instruments, biological and chemical
markers (either isotopic or florescence), and ocean sensors on a global basis to monitor changes in ocean
chemistry; (6) maintain in situ observing systems to characterize local-scale dynamics of the carbon cycle
under changing climatic conditions; and (7) maintain in situ observing systems to monitor the effectiveness and stability of C02 sequestration activities.
In the long-term, with sustained future investments, it may be possible to: (1) model emissions based on
a dynamic combination of human activity patterns, source procedures~ energy source, and chemical
processing; (2) develop process-based models that reproduce the atmospheric physical and chemical
processes (including transport and transformation pathways) that lead to the observed vertical profiles of
greenhouse gas concentrations due to surface emissions; (3) determine to what degree natural exchanges
with the surface affect the net national emissions of GHGs; (4) develop a combination of space:borne,
airborne (including satellite, aircraft, and unmarined aerial vehicles) and surface-based scanning and
remote sensing technologies to produce three-dimensional, real-time mapping of atmospheric greenhouse
gas concentrations; (5) develop specific technologies for sensing of global methane "surface" emissions
with resolution of 10 km; (6) develop remote sensing methods to determine spatially resolved vertical
greenhouse gas profJles rather than column averaged profiles; and (7) develop space-borne and airborne
monitoring for soil moisture at resolutions suitable for measurement and monitoring activities.
10-9
CEQ 015341
May28, 2004
10.4.6 Basic Science Support to Climate-Related Technology Development

A diverse range of energy sources will be required to meet the climate change challenge, and similarly a
broad range of basic science research is needed to enable these diverse energy technologies. Science is on
the threshold of a variety of discoveries in biology, nanoscience, computational modeling and simulation,
physical proce~ses, and environmental sciences that offer opportunities, many yet unimagined, for
innovations in both technologies and instrumentation. In addition, the rapidly developing global infrastructure for computing, communications, and information is expected to accelerate the scientific process
and reduce the time and cost of bringing new discoveries to the market place. Such new discoveries may
hold the ultimate key to greenhouse gas emissions i-eduction.
In this area of the CCTPportfolio, three strategic thrusts are being pursued. One is to identify and more
closely link basic research in the fundamental sciences to the technical challenges in the applied R&D
associated with the CCTP strategic goals, described in Chapters 4 through 8. A second is to undertake an
improved R&D planning processes that will better integrate the basic science research efforts with the
applied programs related to climate changetechnology. The third is to carry out, subject to the availability of funds, an exploratory research program on innovative concepts and enabling technologies, which
have great potential for breakthroughs in new or unknown areas important to the climate change
challenge.
10.5 Next Steps

While much has been accomplished, more remains to be done. The CCTP portfolio has undergone
review, realignment and expansion, punctuated by important new technology initiatives. The portfolio,
however, is stiJI evolving. The CCTP Draft Strategic Plan, itself, is preliminary in nature and will benefit
from an extended period of public dialogue and interaction.
The following represent "next steps." They are organized around the broad approaches, outlined by the
President.
10.5.1
Strengthen Climate Change Technology R&D
Continue to review, realign and expand, where appropriate, Federal support for climate change
technology research, development, demonstration, and deployment.
Assess the adequacy of the current portfolio to support programs toward CCTP strategic goal
attainment.
In k:-: t~.chnology areas, perform long-term assessments of potentials, including limiting factors.
Assess ideas for future research directions, prioritize their importance, and make decisions about
funding high-priority areas.
Subject to availability of funds, establish an exploratory research program to pursue novel or

innovative concepts, not elsewhere covered, which have potential for high-impact.
10-10
CEQ 015342
May28,2004
Strengthen decision support tools, including modeling and scenario analysis. Work with CCSP and
others to develop a roadmap for a 5-10 year plan for strengthening these tools and their application
to CCTP R&D planning and other mitigation-related purposes.
10.5.2 Strengthen Basic Research at Universities and National Laboratories
Establish within each of the participating Federal R&D agencies a process for improving the
integration with, and application of, basic research to overcoming fundamental barriers impeding
technical progress on climate change technology development.
Develop means for expanding participation in climate change technology R&D, including relevant
basic research, at universities and other non-Federal research institutions.
10.5.3
Enhance Opportunities for Partnerships
Encourage formation of public-private partnerships as a common mode of conducting CCTP R&D

portfolio planning, program execution, and related technology demonstration, transfer, and commercialization activities.
10.5.4 Increase International Cooperation
Continue to expand international participation in key climate change technology activities.
Assist in the coordination of U.S. support of the IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report, Working Group
ill on Mitigation, as means for stimulating international efforts to develop advanced technologies.
Work with others to support the continued effort to negotiate and execute bilateral agreements that
encourage international cooperation on climate change science and technology research.
Develop additional means to enhance the effective use of existing international organizations to
explore and shape expanded R&D on climate change t:echnology development.
Develop globally integrated approaches to fostering capacity building in developing countries, and
support these for technology transfer and promotion of U.S. exports or licensing of advanced
climate change technology.
10.5.5 Support Cutting-Edge Demonstrations
Encourage, through annual Federal R&D budget guidance, as part of routine planning and budget
formulation, the identification of high priority technologies suitable for demonstra~~n.
10.5.6
Ensure a Viable Technology Workforce of the Future
Explore possibilities for establishing CCfP-sponsored educational curricula in K-12 progratllS'

related to climate change and advanced technology options.
10-11
CEQ 015343
May28;2004
Explore possibilities of expanding internships related to climate change technology development in

Federal agencies, national and other laboratories, and other Federal Research and Development
Centers.
Explore the possibility of establishing graduate fellowships for promising candidates who seek a
career in climate change related technology research and development.
10.5. 7 Provide, as Appropriate, Supporting Technology Polley
Working with others, including energy and climate change policy officials, evaluate, through
dialogue and analysis, the pros and cons of various technology policy options for stimulating
private investment in CCfP-related research activities.
Working with others, including energy and climate change policy officials, evaluate various
technology policy options for stimulating private investment in certain qualifying climate change
related equipment, and/or related measures that would accelerate experimentation with and
adoption of advanced climate change technology.
10.6 Closing
With this Draft Strategic Plan, CCfP completes a series of important first steps in the continuing process
to strengthen Federal R&D in support of accelerating development of climate change technologies. As
part of the Plan's development, CCfP explored the nature of the challenge, gathered input from many
sources, brought to bear certain analytical tools, and drew insights to help identify potential roles for
technology and recommend priorities. The Plan provides an organizing framework for thinking about
future R&D investments and, perhaps, a basis for engaging with others in pursuit of technology-based
solutions at many levels. Finally, it portrays a long-term vision of what might be possible with sustained
innovation and R&D leadership. With this Plan, the CCfP hopes to inspire action by others desiring to
address this issue substantively and invites public participation in its continued evolution.
10-12
CEQ 015344
Appendix A
Federal Research, Development, Demonstration and Deployment
Investment Portfolio for Fiscal Years 2003 and 2004, with Budget
Request Information for Fiscal Year 2005, U.S. Climate Change
Technology Program
CEQ 015345
....
:.I
'
~l
.:.
CEQ 015346
Appendix A
Federal Research, Development, Demonstration and Deployment
Investment Portfolio for Fiscal Years 2003 and 2004, with Budget
Request Information for Fiscal Year 2005, U.S. Climate Change
Technology Program
In order for the U.S. Climate Change Tec~ology Program (CCTP) to carry out its mission, it is necessary
to assess on a periodic and continuing basis the adequacy of Federal investments in the CCTP-relevant
research portfolio and make recommendations. A first step in this regard is to compile an inventory, or
baseline, of all the Federal research, development, demonstration and deployment (RDD&D) activities
among the participating agencies relevant to the vision, mission and goals of the CCTP. This baseline,
and subsequent years of data, can be used to identity and track trends and other changes in the portfolio.
The CCTP, OMB and other agencies agreed upon a set of classification criteria to identify RDD&.p
activities that would be included as part of the CCTP. These criteria are provided on page A-2.
The baseline information for the Federal R&D budget shown here are for Appropriations for Fiscal Years
2003 and 2004, and for the Administration's Budget Request for 2005. For each year, respectively, the
participating Federal agencies submitted budget data for RDD&D activities that met the CCTP/OMB
criteria. Table A-1 is a summary table for all participating agencies.
Table A-2 summarizes the Federal RDD&D investment in four Presidential Climate Change Initiatives.
These initiatives are the Hydrogen Fuel Initiative, Nuclear Power Generation VI, ITER, and Carbon
Capture and Sequestration.
The tables that follow show details of climate change technology RDD&D for each agency. Each table,
in addition, presents a breakout for each year showing the amounts of funds allocated to research,
development, and demonstration (RD&D), and to deployment activities. These two columns sum to the
total RDD&D assigned to CCTP.
This baseline activity and resulting portfolio is consistent with the fulfilling of the requirement for the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to report annually on Federal climate change expenditures.
The multi-agency RDD&D baseline for CCTP constitutes the technology component ofOMB's Federal
Climate Change Expenditures Report to Congress.'
Report to Congress on Federal Climate Change Expenditures, August 2003. This report is an account ofFederal
spending for climate change programs and activities, both domestic and international. The report is provided
annually, as required by Section 559(b) of Public Law 107-115, Foreign Operations, Export Financing, and
Related Programs Appropriations Act, 2002.
A-1
CEQ 015347
A.1
Climate Change Technology Program Classification Criteria
Research, development, and deployment activities2 classified as part of the Climate Change Technology
Program (CCTP) must be activities funded via discretionary accounts that are relevant to providing
opportunities for:
Current and future reductions in or avoidances of emissions of greenhouse gases,3
Greenhouse gas capture and/or long-term storage, including biological uptake and storage;
Conversion of greenhouse gases to beneficial use in ways that avoid emissions to the atmosphere;
Monitoring and/or measurement of GHG emissions, inventories and fluxes in a variety of settings;
Technologies that improve or displace other GHG emitting technologies, such that the result would
be reduced GHG emissions compared to technologies they displace;
Technologies that could enable or facilitate the development, deployment and use of other
GHG-emissions reduction technologies;
Technologies that alter, substitute for, or otherwise replace processes, materials, and/or feedstocks,
resulting in lower net emission of GHGs;
Technologies that mitigate the effects of climate change, enhance adaptation or resilience to climate
change impacts,.or potentially counterbalance the likelihood of human-induced climate change;
Basic research activities undertaken explicitly to adOr"ess a technical barrier to progress of one of the
above climate change technologies, and
Green~ouse
gas emission reductions resulting from clear improvements in management practices or
purchasing decisions.
In this context, "research, development, and deployment activities" is defmed as: applied research; technology
development and demonstration, including prototypes, scale-ups, and full-scale plants; technical activities in
support of research objectives, including instrumentation, observation and monitoring equipment and systems;
research and other activities undertaken in support of technology deployment, including research on codes and
standards, safety, regulation, and on understanding factors affecting commercialization and deployment;
supporting basic research addressing technical barriers to progress; activities associated with program direction;
and activities such as voluntary partnerships, technical assistance/capacity building, and technology
demonstration programs that directly reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the near and long tenn.
Greenhouse gases (GHGs) are gases in the Earth's atmosphere that vary in concentration and may contribute to
long-term climate change. The most important GHG that arises from human activities is carbon dioxide (CO;),
resulting mainly from the oxidation of carbon-containing fuels, materials or feedstocks; cement manufacture; oi'
other chemical or industrial processes. Other GHGs include methane from landfills, mining, agricultural
production, and natural gas systems; nitrous oxide (N20) from industrial and agricultural activities; fluorinecontaining halogenated substances (e.g., HFCs, PFCs); sulfur hexafluoride {SF6); and other GHGs from industrial
sources. Gases falling under the purview of the Montreal Protocol are excluded from this definition of GHGs.
A-2
CEQ 015348
Note: Programs and activities presented for consideration can include earmarks, but earmark
descriptions and funding levels must be clearly called out as such in the information provided. Programs
and activities funded by mandatory authorization should not be included.
Specific examples of climate change technology activities include, but are not limited to:
Electricity production technologies and associated fuel cycles with significantly reduced, little, or
no net GHG emissions;
High-quality fuels or other high-energy density and transportable carriers of energy with
significantly reduced, little, or no net GHG emissions;
Feedstocks, resources or material inputs to economic activities, which may be produced through
processes or complete resource cycles with significantly reduced, little or no net GHG emissions;
Improved processes and infrastructure for using GHG-free fuels, power, materials and feedstocks;
C02 capture, permanent storage (sometimes referred to as sequestration), and biological uptake;
Technologies that reduce, control or eliminate emissions ofnon-C02 GHGs;
Advances in sciences of remote sensing and other monitoring, measurement and verification
technologies, including data systems and inference methods;
Technologies that substantially reduce GHG-intensity, and therefore limit GHG emissions;
Voluntary government/industry programs designed to directly reduce greenhouse gas emissions;
Programs that result in energy efficiency improvements through grants or direct technical
assistance.
A-3
CEQ 015349
TASLEA-1
CCTP PARTICIPATING AGENCY FY 2003 to FY 2005 BUDGET REQUESTS
CATEGORIZATION OF RDD&D FUNDING TO CUMATE CHANGE TECHNOLOGY
Funding ($ MUIIons)
Agency Summary
AGENCY
Major Program
FY%005
FY 20!l4 Appropriations
{WI Rescission)
FY 2003 Actual
RDO&DSpllt
DeployRD&D
ment
May28,2004
CCTP
Budgot
RDD&DSpUt
Deploy.
RD&D
ment
President's Request
CCTP
Budgot
Approp.
CCTP
RDD&DSpHt
Deploy
RD&D
Butl!iol:
ment
Request
USDA
(TableA-3)
NRCS
0.5
Forest Service R&D
0.5
0.5
Biofuels/Blomass Programs
SubTotal USDA
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
19.3
21.7
41.0
21.4
22.9
44.3
21.5
10.8
32.3
19.8
22.2
42.0
21.4
23.4
44.8
22.0
11.3
33.3
9.7
9.7
DOCINIST
(TableA-4)
Measurement and Tools
10.1
10.1
9.8
9.8
Advanced Technology Program
30.1
30.1
18.1
18.1
40.2
40.2
27.9
27.9
9.7
9.7
83.4
83.4
41.0
41.0
48.0
48.0
83.4
83.4
41.0
41.0
48.0
48.0
Sub-Total DOCJNIST
DoD
(Table A-li)
H2&FuelCells
SubTotal DoD
DOE
(TableA-6)
Energy Elftdency and Renewable Energy
784.6
437.7
1202.3
798.3
438.:1
12:14.6
784.1
486.7
1250.7
Fossu EnellJY
241.1
12.2
25:1.3
449.2
14.3
483.5
5:19.4
Nuclaar Energy
255.4
39.1
294.5
287.8
23.2
311.0
301.6
1.2
11.0
312.7
Ollice 01 Sdence
298.3
Olfioe of Electricity Transmission and Oisbibution
Sub-Total DOE
540.6
298.3
338.8
338.8
361.9
46.2
30.5
76.7
S0.5
21.0
71.5
84.4
6.5
90.9
1605.6
519.5
2125.1
1922.6
494.8
2417.4
2051.5
SOSA
2556.8
361.9
001
(TableA7)
001/USFWS
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
DOl/USGS
0.5
o.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.5
0.5
0.2
D.2
Sub-Total DOl
DOT
(TableA-8)
Fuel can Bus Program

HAZMATIRSPA
Sub-Total DOT
0.2
0.2
0.5
1.0
0.5
1.0
0.5
0.1
0.6
0.6
D.2
0.~
1.0
0.1
1.1
1.6
0.2
1.8
472
EPA
(Table A-ll)
CCP Buildings
40.7
40.7
48.3
48.3
472
CCP lndlstry
26.2
26.2
26.4
26.4
28.1
28.1
CCP Transpor1ation
23.3
23.3
22.9
22.9
22.5
22.5
CCP Carbon Removal
1.7
1.7
1.7
1.7
1.7
1.7
CCP State and Local Voluntary Activities
2.5
2.5
2.6
2.6
2.6
2.6
CCP lntemationel Cepacity Building
7.3
7.3
6.7
6.7
7.4
7.4
101.7
101.7
108.6
108.6
109.5
109.5
Sub-Total DOT
NASA
(Table A10)
Vehicle Systems
-.
Siiii-Total NASA
151.6
151.6
221.3
221.3
209.1
209.1
151.6
151.6
221.3
221.3
209.1
209.1
11.2
11.2
12.5
11.2
11.2
12.5
NSF
(Table A11)
NSF
Sub-Total NSF
12.5
'
12.5
USAID
(Table A12}
Global Climate Chango Program
Sub-Total USAID
AGENCY TOTAL
U.S. Climate Change Technology Program
1901.4
201.8
201.8
201.8
845.2
201.8
2746.6
A4
2247.1
175.5
175.5
175.5
802.4
175.5
3049.5
2354.9
153.6
153.6
153.6
780.0
153.6
3134.9
Dmft Strategic Plan
CEQ 015350
May28, 2004
TABLEA2
PRESIDENTIAL CUMATE CHANGE INITIATIVE FUNDING
FY 2003 to FY 2005 BUDGET
Funding ($ Millions)
FY2003
Agency
Program
Actual
HYDROGEN FUEL INITIATIVE

DOE-EERE
H2 TedlllcCogy
Fuel Cell Tedlllologies
DOE-EERE Sub-Total
DOE-FE
Fuels (H2 from Coal)
DOE-FE Sub-Total
DOE-NE
Nuc:tear Hydrogen lnillaUve
DOE-NE Sub-Total
DOE.SC
38.1
82.0
53.9
652
95.3
77.5
92.0
147.2
172.8
2.3
4.9
16.0
2.3
4.9
. 16.0
2.0
6.4
9.0
2.0
6.4
9.0
BES, Mateflab Sdences & Engineering Hydrogen
14.8
BES, Chemical Sciences, Geosciences &

EnBfliY Blosciences Hydrogen
14.4
DOE.SC Sub-Total
29.2
DOE Sub-Total
..
DOT
96.3
168.5
227.0
.,
. ....
HAZMAT/RSPA
DOT Sub-Total
TOTAL Hydrogen Fuel Initiative
96.3
0.6
0.8
0.6
0.8
159.1
227.8
NUCLEAR POWER GENERATION IV
~~emtion IV Nudear EnBfliY Systems
DOE-NE
lnlllaUw
TOTALGENIV
16.11
27.7
16.91
27.7
I
I
30.5
30.5
ITER
DOE.SC
Fusion Enelgy Sciences (ITER Only)
TOTAL ITER
8.0
38.0
.8.0
38.0
CARBON SEQUESTRATION
DOE FE
C02 Capture & Sequeslratlon
39.1
39.1
TOTAL Carbon Sequestration
u.s. Climate Change Technology Program
A-5
ol0.3
49.0
40.3
4!;t.O
Draft Strategic Plan
CEQ 015351
TABl.EA-3
May28,2004
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULlURE. FY 2003 tO 2005 BUDGET REQUESTS

CATEGORIZATION_ OF RDD&D FUNDING TO CUMATE CHANGE TECHNOLOGY
Funding (S Millions)
USDA
Major
Program
Sub-Program Description
ROD&DSpllt
DeployRD&D
ment
carbon cycle
NRCS
CCTP
Budget
RDD&DSpllt
DeployRD&D
ment
0.5
0.5
Forest Service Inventories Cf cari:Jan biomaSS
FY2011S
Prellldenl'B Request
FY 2004 ApproprtaUons
(WI Rescission)
FY 20113 Actual
0.5
0.5
0.5
CCTP
BUdget
Approp.
RDD&DSpUt
Deploy-
ment
RD&D
D.5
0.5
CCTP
Budget
Request
0.5
0.5
0.5
R&D
Blofuels/Biomass
Bloenergy Research
.2.4
2.4
2.4
2.4
2.4
2.4
Bialuelsll!iomass Research; folmula funds,

Nalional Research lmllaUw
2.5
2.5
4.6
4.6
4.6
4.6
Blaluels/Biomass, Forest and Rangeland

Resaan:h
Biomass R&D (Section 9008 Farm Bill)
0.5
0.5
0.4
0.4
0.5
0.5
13.9
13.9
14.0
14.0
14.0
14.0
ARS
CSREES
FS
NRCS
RD
Renewable Enet11Y Grants and Loans fmdude
21.
21.7
21.
41.0
22.2
42.0
22.9
22.9
21.4
22.!1
44.3
21.4
23.4
44.8
10.8
10.8
21.5
10.8
32.3
22.0
11.3
33.3
theSe?)
Sub-Total, USDA Slol'llelsiBiomus Programs underCCTP
19.3
I
USDA Program Totals
19.8
..
'
A-6
t.
Dtaft Strategic Plan
CEQ 015352
May28,2004
TABLEA-4
DOC I NIST- FY 2003 to FY 2005 BUDGET REQUESTS
CATEGORIZA110N OF RDD&D FUNDING TO CUMATE CHANGE TECHNOLOGY
Funding ($ Mllllona)
.DOCINIST
FY2DD4Apprapffalfons
FY:zoas
fiitRliSdulon)
Pnsldonl's~
FY2003Aclllal
RDD&IISpUt
lbjor
CCTP
RDD&DSpUt
llePlay-
""'-"
SUI>.f'nlg- Dosalplloa
~===""
CC1P
RDD&IISDlil
Bulgot
Deploy-
1110111
CCTP
lladgol:
Req-
"0.5-
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.3 .
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
O.li
0.6
0.6
O.li
O.li
O.li
0.0
0.0
0.4
0.4
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
~----...,....
rallng-alogleo and-moddslof
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
G.7
0.7
NISTIIII!o-reletonctfor"'!"""
0.4
0.4
D.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
1.0
1.0
0.8
0.8
o.a
0.8
0.4
0.5
0.5
0.6
0.11
~~-dalgn-.
llr*glaaloradllewlngllilldng
.........
...
llldp-.;elorde!Mnd
__
_U-Ighbl
tloo
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.2
0.2
02
02
02
02
1.5
1.5
1.2
1.2
12
1.2
1.6
1.6
1.6
1.6
1.6
1.6
1.7
1.7
12
1.2
1.2
1.2
10.1
10.1
9.1
1.1
mont
Bulgll
O.G
RD&II
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.3
loriiJ.IImde mal!lillllc:dllciiiD Ill~-~- Thotecmologyha lllopolontlallo
Elllclen!Ughl!ng
.,_,
Deploy-
RD&II
u.5
OomlopOI'ficOI.-.'!"'1- ...............
RD&II
0.6
....
_.,__gooo-by...u:lnQOOOiliJ
~lorligl>llngby ......... 50%andto-into
amorblol~$508by2021J.
=..o:o:::==:-.:..:::""
............ .,_.,.,.,._.__.
Roclomoter
paGbhllon ProJocl
__
......... lor _ _ _ llff1lklgollllo
~.!"~Device
-copabllly..._.,
===
IIH!nnll,llld..., _.allna-"" oiSICpowor
o...lopmonLol~~a,portallle,rell-llme
-beOJIPiedlo .
Fallric:ricn ..dSignal proceu""*'>'.<ll<mlcal~Procealng

..-..........,ent,envlran-monlloring,ond
Chii10Cio!b:don.
Noutton Imaging of
fuoiCdlo
Oomlop-lorc:llalocllrillnlleoltdrlcol,
..-davlcaa,to-'the~tol
~lllgiHIIdenc:ydavlcaalor-........... and-applloallona.
and-"'*--and--.
. . .-.
..-::-.::..=:
-IXImoln>logyb~Uiol- keylochRic:al
bantcnllllii-'Yatrec:tlnglw ........... olnlbull

ond -~ tHicebllld 1\oc:llllolelhe ropld
devolopmentofproctlcll
ceo and
~~tocttnlqunpermlt .....
-.lnllltu-olzalonllld ...- o l
~~'
FueiCollllalerbls
~EnervY
sy.temsl'mgram
lllennal Conductivilv
Meauementa
e.::--:..:.~==--
..-.,_
- - .... oei(SOFC) llllladolatopncktond

lmpme ... porlormonce .. , _ _ .... sot'Ca.
~llld-..,tHioelunila
;;:==t!n..~Roletonct-,
lor
pcuW~ngNIST....-,
:=:.~-oflnllora4v.....S
..-----g
dl-.andmalllngNIST-....-.tly
--n-IXINIST~TOlling and
lfiAilna-
:::::::...."'=~
lor 1 3 -........ Tho 11112 Energy Poky""'
-~~--
....
o o - - - l l l d HVAC.,....,.toNIST
,.....,lllvo
1l1la _.,.,evalualcO llo rnooillofhydrollu-n

Refrtaenrnta ProrJam (HfC) ro~ a n d - rettaennto'.l-dera
... ...,.... olchctrdlgerant- and C02
-bylw-plm.wllldlarerolaladlo
..ppmon~.-.,. Tho--111ermod)tlamk:
lllllpll,----.-.
---......-.. . . .
holl
..,.,.,_ond-..uveayolomaludfto
En"'JYEIIIci"'t
V-lon
Buldingtor
~---lor....uatinglhelt'o-
Envinlnmenlalond
Eoonorric
crclepodormance olllulloq~ln-.g
~::.,._
u_...., _...andvacwm,elrapeed,humloltr.
andaltlfph,...-'*lhol--to
-ol----tol)fabal
~-da ... llovelapmontatma-..--ln..._ue,
-of-
aoouratotr monllartho Eodb'ollllnoaphenl ood oceana.,

data torprodlollnglhe
dlange
!odlnolagfos. NIST mllnblnalonnal,_
--~~~---~!
-tol\odlllallolnfllloolqlorollililylnd!mlb
dlanga b<flnolotlyresa~n:h.
[Siondanlsond
Tha.............,.ol_ond .........- -..
Mnllhment Sdenoa lorlw-co...-ollllo l!mDiphero,ll
lorthoChelricll
dlanga'" dlreci!Jrelalo41Dotmorphatlc
~oltho
......-.-1110101 ___
cllemlcal-lncbllnglholoii~IGfblng
cadlon.Primaly-lndUdegreonhouloga....
OZOMphoiDmolry, ......... llld.._ln C0Z lor
KlneUc,
=:~nd
Rofatence
Spectnd
Data
-~::=.:.~-=:..ta..,.-:=.
..
~- utilily In <loYolajllng dlmate dlangto

tedlnatogloa. Tbeoedaloln- pllyalcolpnlll0fll01 of
lulda,...., aa>iaooclty andlhermal-ctivitr. ond
th110110<t;namlcpropertloa ollctUfda ond va- .......
llllthllpyandenlhlpy,raadlon- -niJ,and
IJVMSIIR apedn. laotopiG data lor otmolphadc
mllhane help dbllngu&oh n1111ndand anllvopogenlc
r'"b -Maasu ..montandTooto
U.S. Climate Cllonge Technology Program
A7
Draft SltafeQ/c Plan
CEQ 015353
May 28, 21104
TASLEA-4
DOC I NJST FY 10031o FY ZOOS BUDGET REQUESTS
CATEGORIZAliON OF RDD&D FUNDING TO CUMATE CHANGE TECHNOLOGY
Funding{$ MllUOna)
DOCINIST
RDD&DSpl'll
Sul>l'lograna Dac:rfplloa
~Tedtndogy
Program (ATP)
:rp occepll pmpasala .... .., --dllc:lpino lor
RDD&EIJ!p!il
Doptoy.
CCTP
7Jl
RD&D
3.0
12.5
12.5
10.7
10.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
1.7
1.7
0.1
O.B
&.0
&.0
.2.!1
2.9.
1.6
1.&
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1'110111
Budgll
based
Approp.
3.0
RDD&~SJ>Ill
lloploJo
Budgot
7.&
RD&D
--cUing a _ . - . ATPlnltloc:lrio:dr
rial<y R&D pn>jecb- ...
forlxaad
poloftlal
CCTP
llei>...,..
llajor
Plat!...
FY2005
President's R-ut
FY20114APPfDPIIadons
(W' Resdssloa)
FY2ll03ktuo1
RD&D
CClP
Badgot
Roquost
--l!a.llnughl""ffllttlllppwillllloprivala
Hclor,ATP'&udylllgo-.-fltllo
dovelapmeltlor-~.,.,..,.....
lllgnllconl...........alpcrotllond-........l'orlhe nation. Projocllllnded kii!Ucalogarylnclude:

~lypoaol..., colllyllleml (lprojodo),copa-.
hydrogen.......-..... - - -
--l!s.
-Tedtndogy ATP occepll pmpasala k1 qloCIInlell ........ l'or

a OOII1Jdllan. ATP lnciiiKhnlcally
rial<y R&D pnojecb will ... polanlloll'orlxaad based
llnughl""ffllttlllppwillllloprivala
Hclor,ATP'oudy&tago_ICCOI.,.Ielhe
.......,_cUing
Program (ATP)
~r--.rDQ~alhltpnll!Ue
llliPiclnl--111 ond -...&clbenells

lbrlhe natlan. Projocll Amdoclkllllls alegory Include:
~key-ont"""""*'t''nlorllol-(10
Pf1'ltdll,- &oflr .........lllcllmg lildVloloCIIn
~codTodmoloiiY
Program (ATP)
(4projodo), ond ....... oyllllmll'orwlndlurlllncs.

AlP occepll pmpasala In onr
for
a - - . ATPbulsloc:lrio:dr
rllky R&D pnojecb with ... pofonllol forbloocl-d
-cUing
--
pll1norllllptlwlthllo
privata
..-,ATP'ooody&fltgo-lsaccol...,.lle
..........,...,
_llnugh
_ llll:llndagloolhltp<o
....
olgnllconl- payoiiiiHidtoldelprudlorlhe111tlan. Projocllllndedkllllacalogaryln<lolo:

.,......,....,..mforlnoul-.
=:,;,~ evolullloocbfnga......,.won. ATPlnltlecllnlcolly

!AlP ....... _ . . ...., - dllclplno lor
"'.
"ky-.......
R&D proJoc:ll with ... polanllollbrlxaad boNd
llnugh porln"""""' with ... privoto
Hctor,ATP'oeody&fltgo--lhe
clovolopmonlo!lnnovallve llll:llndagloolhlt..,.....
.......,_payolllond-...dbenells
...... nation. Projocllllncled kii!Ucalogarylnclude:
~--forlllgh
llnmMIIIaoUtag
. . . . . __,
..,....,..,dgllll_-.llquld
fablwofFialldanl-. end magnolc .......tlan.

(AclvanoedTedmoloiiY I"TP occepllpmpasalakl onr-...:adllc:lpino for
a OOII1Jdllan. AlP lnlo ledPcollr
~(ATP)'
rllky R&D pnojecbwlth ... pofonllol lor broad boNd
--llnughl""ffllttlllppwillllloprlv&flt
..-,ATP'aeody&fltgo_lll_lla
..-cUing
~~--llll:llndagloolhllp<omiH
olgnllclni..........W-IIoand ............ INIIells

l'orlhenatlan,
Projocllllnded!nllllsca~ogarylncluda:
-m~--.--
.,.,.....-...,._ _ _ welclng,
reaclve maledola Joining lldlnaloclr, agrlculbnl"""""
ollc:loncr. and ....Weal -IIIDdelng.

~dTedmoiOIIY
IPrm(ATP)'
~=-....:.=.~ln~
lisky R&D ....... will ... pofonllol forlxaad boNd
- - tlvvughp~wlthllaprlv&flt
..-,ATP'oeody&tago-accolentalho
"-!opmentor_...........,....,..,.....
.._. . . . . . -purllcdon.-
oiQnllcMioommon:lol....,..lllond'llldnpnlociiNIIello
l'orlllanatlan. Projocllllndedkllllacalogarykldude:
c:lelonhg-...og, olnm ecole, and continuous molal
~codTed1rloloiiY
l'nv-m (ATP)
--~-- onrlldlnlcll dlodpine IW

ATPa....,.._..ln
--cUing a - - . ATPlndllllchnlcollr
risky R&D pnojecb with ... polenlollbrblved boNd
........ ,......
'lllnlughp~wiiiiiMprlvolo
..-,ATP'oeqotago lmmlmon!oe-'orofltllo
==-=:===
...
devdopmenlollnnov-~lhet .......
pllolovolllllcmotoriolspn>onolno,lllld~
---~--~-
SubTOIIIAclven-Tecbttologrl'mgrom
D!JC I NIST PROGRAM TOTAL
U.S. CUmate Clulllge Technology Program
30.1
31l.1
111.1
40.2
40.2
21.s
AB
..
11.1
27.9
9.7
9.7
Dtaft. Stmegic Plan
CEQ 015354
May28,2004
TABLEAS
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE FY 2003 to FY 2005 BUDGET REQUESTS
DoD.
Major
Program
Sub-Program
DescrfpUon
Fuel CeU & Hydrogen
Anny
FY 2003 Actual
ROD&DSpDt
DeployRD&D
ment
CCTP
Budget
FY 2004 ApproprilUons
FY21105
(WI Rescission)
Ptesldent's Request
RDD&DSput
DeployRO&D
ment
CCTP
RDD&DSpllt
Deploy-
Budget
Approp.
RD&D
ment
CCTP
Budget
Request
45.4
45.4
15.3
15.3
33.0
33.0
16.4
16.4
7.4
7.4
6.5
8.5
r"l"Force
3.0
.3.0
0.8
0.8
DARPA
16.5
16.5
15.4
15.4
as
8.5
2.1
2.1
2.0
2.0
83.4
83.4
41.0
41.0
48.0
48.0
Navy
OSD
DoD Program Totals
A9
Draft Strategic Plan .
CEQ 015355
TABLEA-6
May28,2004
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY FY 2003 to FY 2005 BUDGET REQUESTS
CATEGORIZATION OF RDD&O FUNDING TO CUMATE CHANGE TECHNOLOGY

DOE
Major
Program
Sub-Program
FY 2004 Appropriations
(WI Rescission)
FY 2003 Actual
RDD&DSpllt
Deploy.
RD&D
ment
CCTP
Budget
RDD&DSpUt
Deploy.
RD&D
ment
FY2005
President's Request
CCTP
Budget
Approp.
RDD&DSpllt
DeplOyRD&D
ment
CCTP
Budget
Request
EERE
H2 TectlnOiogy
36.9
1.2
38.1
78.3
3.7
82.0
90.8
4.6
95.3
~Energy
zeta Energy Buildings
74.4
7.9
82.3
79.7
2.8
82.5
78.3
2.0
80.3
\MndEnergy
35.8
5.9
41.6
35.9
5.4
41.3
37.6
4.0
41.6
Hydropower
3.8
1.2
5.0
3.5
1.4
4.9
4.4
1.8
6.0
G - Technology
23.9
4.5
28.4
21.4
4.1
25.5
23.8
2.1
25.8
~~&WoodM~~ernsRW
81.4
82.6
72.8
7.6
fnlergo1ierml8ntal ACIMI!es
Department Energy Management
7.6
85.3
3.9
88.5
14.4
14.7
14.7
16.0
1.4
1.4
2.0
2.0
2.0
NCCTI (EERE Energy Supply)
16.0
2.0
3.0
3.0
Facilities & lnfraslructura
5.3
Program Dlrection (Incl. $3M in FY05 for CCTP)
10.9
1.8
5.3
13.0
12.6
10.7
Renewable Program Support
13.0
1.6
4.9
Reduction lor Prior-year balances
Energy Supply (Sub-Total)
72.6
3.9
14.4
(13.0)
12.4
11.5
11.5
18.7
2.0
20.7
4.9
(13.0)
280.0
42.2
322.2
312.0
44.6
356.6
340.7
34.1
374.8
Vehicle TecllnoiOgfes
169.6
4.8
174.2
173.1
4.9
178.0
150.8
6.0
156.7
Fuel Cal Technclogies
53.9
53.9
85.2
85.2
77.5
Weathenzaticn Assistance Grants

State Energy Prcgram Grants
State Energy Activities
Gateway Deployment
3.8
77.5
223.5
223.5
227.2
227.2
291.2
291.2
44.7
44.7
44.0
44.0
40.8
40.8
5.3
5.3
2.3
2.3
2.4
2.4
38.9
40.8
4.3
30.9
35.2
2.5
27.2
29.7
DIS!Ittned Energy RBSOUIC8S
51.8
8.3
60.1
52.8
8.2
81.0
45.2
7.9
53.1
Bullling TBChnOiogtes
47.6
10.7
56.3
48.4
11.5
59.9
49.4
8.9
56.3
lnduslrial TIICMolagles
82.3
14.8
96.8
78.3
14.7
93.1
41.9
18.2
58.1
Bl~ & Bloreline~ Systems R&D
24.1
24.1
7.5
7.5
8.7
17.9
17.9
FEMP
EESI
2.4
Program Management
49.3
Energy Efficiency & Conserv Sub-Total

EERE Sub-Total
484.7
764.6
19.3
19.3
27.7
77.0
19.7
19.7
8.7
2.4
395.5
437.7
56.7
28.3
391.7
436.3
85.0
880.2
1202.3
486.2
798.3
878.0
1234.6
11.5
152.9
152.9
8.9
8.9
47.6
423.4
764.1
34.1
81.7
452.6
486.7
875.9
1250.7
FE
Clean Coal Power Initiative
11.5
FullnGan
Clean Coal Power Initiative ~ncl FuturoGen)
Advanoed Cenlral Systems
282.0
282.0
69.9
69.9
68.2
68.2
46.5
46.5
lmovation for Exisling Plants

C02 Capture & Sequestration
39.1
39.1
40.3
40.3
49.0
49.0
Fuels
2.3
2.3
4.9
4.9
16.0
16.0
Advanced Research (AR)-Coal Utilization Sdence
8.8
8.8
11.9
11.9
8.0
8.0
AR-Materials
8.7
8.7
11.1
11.1
8.0
8.0
AR Focus Anla camp Energy Science
5.0
5.0
4.9
4.9
4.0
4.0
AR UriiiiiiSily Coal Research
2.9
2.9
2.9
2.9
3.0
AR. Coal TI!CilnOiogy Export

other Pwr Sys Fuel CeiJs.AR
3.4
Olher Pwr Sys-fuel Calls-Systoms
1.0
0.8
0.8
3.4
3.0
1.0
1.0
9.9
9.9
9.7
9.7
1.0
10.9
10.9
Other Pwr Sys-Fuel Cells-V21 Hybrids
13.1
13.1
12.8
12.8
Olher Pwr Sys-fuel Calls-Innovative Syslems
33.0
33.0
35.1
35.1
3.0
3.0
2.5
2.5
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
6.0
8.0
9.9
9.9
8.0
8.0
other Pwr Sy&-Novel Generallon

Petroleum
Advanced Metallurgical Processes
Prcgram Oirac:lion
FE Sub-Total
23.0
23.0
34.4
1.7
38.1
71.0
2.4
73.4
89.9
02
00.1
241.1
12.2
253.3
449.2
14.3
463.5
539.4
1.2
540.6
A10
Dmft Strategic Plan
CEQ 015356
TABLEA-6
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY FY 2003 to FY 2005 BUDGET REQUESTS
CATEGORJZAnON OF RDD&D FUNDING TO CUMATE CHANGE TECHNOLOGY
DOE
Major
Program
Sub-Program
CCTP
RDD&DSpllt
DeployRD&D
ment
FY2005
FY 2004 Approprtallons
rNI ResciSalon)
FY 2003 Ac;tual
Budget
RDD&DSpUt
DeployRD&D
ment
May28,2004
Pr2sldont"s Request
CCTP
Budget
Approp.
RDD&DSpllt
Deploy
ment
RD&D
CCTP
Budget
Request
NE
NERI
NEPO
eetlelaticln IV Nuclear Energy Systems lnitia!lv8
17.4
~Fuel Cycle InitiatiVe
6.6
4.8
16.9
Nuclear Power 2010

NE H21ri11ative
17.4
4.8
16.9
31.6
6.6
1.9
T/.7
31.6
1.9
27.7
19.6
30.5
30.5
19.6
102
102
2.0
2.0
6.4
6.4
9.0
9.0
57.3
57.3
66.7
66.7
46.3
46.3
112.5
128.8
128.8
163.2
51.9
51.7
1.6
53.3
52.7
0.8
53.5
294.5
287.8
23.2
311.0
301.6
11.0
312.7
254.6
254.6
226.1
226.1
8.0
8.0
38.0
38.0
8.6
8.6
8.5
8.5
7.1
7.1
~Accelerator applications
lnfrasiiUCIUI'8
Program Oii8Ction
sc
NE Sub-Total
Fusion Energy Sclemles (leSS ITER)
Fusion Energy Sciences (ITER Only)
BER. Climate Change Research: CCTI
BER, Climate Change Research:
Cal1x!n Sequeslrlllkln Researth
BER, Life Sdenae$: CCTI
BER. Life Sciences:
Carllon Sequaslralion RIISaatch
BER, Life SCiences: Genomics: GTL
Sllqueslrallon
BER, Life Sdences: Genomlcs: GTL -Hydrogen
255.4
2.7
39.1
240.7
240.7
7.2
7.2
6.0
6.0
7.1
163.2
7.1
7.1
7.1
12.7
12.7
13.5
13.5
2D.2
10.6
10.6
19.0
19.0
20.2
3.3
3.3
3.3
3.3
3.4
3.4
BES. Matsriala SCianoell & Enginatlflng - Hydrogen
3.0
3.0
3.1
3.1
14.8
14.8
BES, Chemical Sciences. Geosciences & Energy

Biosc:iances- CCTI
~~es. C1lemlcal Scianals, Geosc:iances & Energy
Blosc:iances. CCTI Sequeslralion
BES, Chemical Sdancas, Gaosc:iences & Energy
Blosc:iances. HydrOgen
9.0
9.0
9.1
9.1
9.2
9.2
Eledricily Raliablllly (FY 03 Only)
EERE Program Dil9ciiOn
OETD
s.z
[lieS, Matanala SCiances & ~ CCTI
sc Sub-Total
EERE
112.5
6.7
6.7
6.6
6.6
6.7
6.7
4.6
4.6
4.7
4.7
14.4
14.4
298.3
298.3
43.2
30.3
73.6
3.0
0.1
3.1
Eledricily Raliablllly
47.0
OTALDOE
u.s. Climate Change Technology Program
20.8
336.8
361.9
67.8
75.7
361.9
5.0
80.7
3.4
0.3
3.7
~7
1.5
10.2
46.2
30.5
76.7
50.5
21.0
71.5
84.4
6.5
90.9
1605.6
519.5
2125.1
1922.6
494.8
2417.4
2051.5
505.4
2556.8
Program Oinlcllon
OETD Sub-Total
336.8
A-11
CEQ 015357
. May 28, 2004
TABLEA-7
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR FV 2003 to FV 2005 BUDGET REQUESTS

CATEGORIZATION OF RDO&D FUNDING TO CUMATE CHANGE TECHNOLOGY
DOI/USFWS
CCTP
RDD&D~t
Major
Program
DOI/USFWS
DOl/USGS
Sub-Program
Description
{WI Rescission)
FY 2003 Actual
RD&D
[Terrestrial Sequeslration
Geolglc Division 1Energy Program
DOl/ USFWS Program Totals
Deployment
Budget
RDD&OSpllt
RD&D
Deployment
FY2ll05
President's Request
CCTP
Budget
Approp.
RDD&DSpllt
RD&D
CCII'
Deploy-
Budget
ment
lll!quest
0.2
Q.2
0.2
Q.2
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.5
0.5
.;
A-12
CEQ 015358
TABLEA-8
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTAnON FY 2003 to FY 2005 BUDGET REQUESTS
CATEGORIZAnON OF RDD&D FUNDING TO CUMATE CHANGE TECHNOLOGY
Funding ($ Million)
DOT
FY 2004 Appropriation
FY 211115
fill Rescission)
Presldenl's Request
FY 2003 Actual
CCTP
RDD&DSpllt
Major
Sub-Program
HYdrogen Rosean:h
Fuel CaD Bus Program
RD&D
mont
CCTP
RDD&DSIIUt
Deploy-
Program
DeployBudget
0.2
0.2
HAZMAT/PipeBne Cades and Standarcls

and lnl'ra$lruCIIn Safety R&D {RSPA)
May28,2004
RD&D
mont
0.5
Budget
Approp.
RDD&DS!dlt
DeployRD&D
o.5
1.0
0.5
0.1
0.6
0.5
0.5
0.1
0.6
1.0
0.1
1.1
Program Support for HAZMATIRSPA
mont
CCTP
Budget
Request
1.0
D.2
0.7
0.6
0.2
o.a
1.6
0.2
1.8
0.1
HAZMATIRSPA SUb Tolal
0.1
Hydrogen Vehicle Safely and CAFE

(NHTSA)
DOT Program Totals
0.2
0.2
A13
Draft Strategic Pllin
CEQ 015359
May28,2004
TABLEA-9
EHVIRONIIIEHTAL PROTECliON AGENCY- FY 2003 to 2005 BUDGET REQUESTS
CATEGORIZAnON OF RDO&D FUNDING TO CUMATE CHANGE TECHNOLOGY
FY20115
FY 2004 Pntsldenfs
FY21ll13Ac:mol
EPA
Major
Pnlgnm
CCPBullcling11
Sub-Program Descrfpllon
Enelgy-Conmercill6-. ENERGYSTARinl!loCo........Wondlnolilutionol-
RDD&!JSplit
lloplorRD&D
-nt
17
PnsO!ent's
Request
CCTP
CCTP
RDD&DSprrt
Budgot
Appnrp.
"*'I
21.2
21.2
Deploy-
Bucl;ot
17.9
RD&D
Rarruest
RDD&DSpllt
llepJorRD&D
mont
CCTP
Budgot
Raquasl
zu
21.1
2&.1
26.1
47.2
47.2
prowtdao~_....,lllllllfliY....,.gomooll!lol
... pra41collonllcont ..m;a fa<l!lo- l'nollllll!lo

""""-'ent. EPA'aENERGY STAR~-
pmweniiMf!IYm.,.gomenl-lllalhelplln
-8
.,..,...tngcurenlllllfliY~,oetllnggools,
uvtngs, ... I'8WIIdna~IIH:IIb.
~S::r:":"~fiaiSeclorpr-:..~::=~=::::~~!~
:12.1
22.8
27.1
411.7
27.1
--oacrllr:lnglubno,llylelllcomlorl.
SUb-Tolll
CCP
Bulldlnfls
Enelgy __
IIIGIRlOI_
. CCI' lndusuy
ENERGY STAR In tholn_l _ _

CUJ1011o
c:orpanllllllfliY llllllllgemenl, provlcllng- and
~
""'...
~-
..
3.3
3.5
3.5
3.3
3.3
3.6
3.6
3.0
3.2
3.2
3.3
3.3
2.&
2.8
2.1
2.7
Z-7
2.
2.4
2.4
Z-4
2.4
2.4
2.
Z-5
Z-5
2.5
2.&
2.&
2.
2.4
2.5
2.5
z.s
z.s
411.7
48.3
:z.a
2.2
3.1
3.1
3.3
3.1
3.1
3.
rnowces.pedftc to meet 1te needt.-ofrnamfadlnfs.
CCMnlllned Hall o n d Comt>lned Hallond Poww(CHP), _ . , _ . , lll!lo
sequenllol produdlon orp....r end thetmolenerw-.

oln;lo luohoun:e. CHP II .,... tlldMI, d..,er, ond
--llwltoconvenllallll;onoraaan. TlleCHP
-nddjlllevalunblly-mlllaiHoblllre-l!lo
envinlnr1lenlollmpoctof-gonentllonbyloolednglho
UMOfCHP.
Green -
Pamenllllpo
Pawerl'
lrfn...,.llen
___
TlteGreen
EPAvoM!tlry-m
1!1111-lo
NGAOOtht ...-lmpecllolelectidly
grr-byfollorintlthtdoveloprnentolgr
___
!The -...,... power" IJIIRenlr ,.,_ lo elo<*ldly
.......,..,.....,,__
Ollpflladln-orlnpmttom..- - - Bydtooaln;ID pun:llae greenpoworprocMI, yavcan
_.,.,_....,._..lodrnlcal
. _ . 1hoG'""
_ _ ... .,..,........,...lllorpUellanll!lol
-lollllng.,....poworforepat11onofl!let~
l=~=llvolunlory----
[Pnonlrlp thll.._..aea --~~~ doMIIop long.

iiann~-~atrmg~uandoet
lur-aeaiGHG)o-.-.ngooll.
~-
iWUt-VIIH
Ia elne,
vokrnlery,
EPAprotPm llwough whldl
.......,_
_
a>ellyRUIIcipolsold-bt,
benollllntl_bo11om ... andl!loonvhnmenl.
~leol-progromlrlldowoporCnento
dnfgnthtlr-..ad--progremsbtBore<IID
-help
-doMIIop,lmjllemenl,
W.IIDWIMprwidoahellldlnlcolo-.
Ill
and........, walla redrcllan
NollniGHSTAR
11te NaluntGH STAR Program l s o - . voklotary
~::.::.=a;;~==~.
~and--end-..._.teoiD
idontilyendprurnotetho~llon o f - -
-ologloo-pncllooolo---ol-LlndiiiU-OUirudt
~=--u:-...=:,:;:':!t"~
lllo_ol_geanerenewabloonergy...,...By
~-olmolltanoltwogltlhedtwolopmonl
-liVe.
i"llatdDguenetJIYpnrjeds,I.UOPIIelptr-.
and............,.prolecllhe envtnrnmentandbuDd
latarn.
CoolledU-. Oulrudt
!Th
ea-.. -Qulruclt Pn>gnm (CMOP)Ie.
'"*"""'Y PfOIIIOm- goelle!D roduc:e .......,.
orrialonlfnlmcoalmlnlng~.Our-leto
promoCo lho prollbtblo........, lind UH ofooll mine

motheno(CMM), """""""' goo21 lmeoapotoniH
- Bywwllng_.m,lrwilhoool
oompenlealllllnllledlnCIIOPIIelptr!Didenllfy
andfn1rlomontmel!lodsiD use CI4U ..,-.ry.ln tum,
Ilion- nillgote - ciulngo,lmproe nino oololf

andprocirdivilf,endrecuttlnlnlndolpnlllls.
u.s. Clhnata Change Tecttnology Proer.m
A-14
Dnltl Sflal8tllc Plan
CEQ 015360
TABLEA-9
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY- FY 20031o 2005 BUDGET REQUESTS
CATEGORIZATION OF RDD&D FUNDING TO CUMATE cHANGE TECHNOLOGY
Funding 1$ Mmlons)
May 28, 20114
FY211115
Prnldonro Reques1
FYZOll4 PI"IISI<hnt's
FY 200l Actual
EPA
MaJor
RDD&OSplit
Request
CCTP
RDD&DBplit
Deptll}'-
Program
Sub-Program Oescrlpllan
RD&O
~f'rD11nm
==!':t"""r.n::...~=:."'u".:=:d
CCTP
Deploy-
mont
Badgot
1.1
t.l
RD&O
.......
lleplo1-
CCTP
Badgot
RDD&OSpllt
Budget
mont
Roquest
1.1
1.1
l.t
Apprap.
RD&O
of Agdcuilrn IIJSOA)- toaelha"' - t o prliCke$

iludnoduce~OUHgiOembllonoatU.S.IIrmo. The
-watwllbU.S.IWfnoonddUy~to
-doM!Iopm..toi_,.JIUift_llltsyllomStlla
pn>dul:e !arm......._ ond-wall!r Md li"pollullon.
EPAIIOlMdatecllnk:ol_ond_to okflnlle
_ , .... ........,_olthopojo<ls.
2.1
2.0
2.0
z.o
2.1
2.1
1.2
1.0
1.0
1.2
1.2
26.2
19
111.2
21.4
1&.7
21.4
16.7
21.1
IU
16.11
28.1
IU
0.1
0.6
0.6
0.1
o.a
0.8
3.
3.7
5.6
5.11
5.0
5.0
~~'::"'"l'lopMp<ovldepublico -
llud............., -
prlvote ln$Jilly """'enllips

u.s.
emlollons alhl"' "ggobal""'"*'t'polonlloi"(GWP)gu...
Theoo~lnvalvo.-lndullriallldote
dovdGping....._improvomenlllntllelrlndullrlol
-londucoo_oi,....._(PFC.),
h y d r o - (HFCo),MidiiUIM"heulluoddo (SF6)-
-1-Now--
.. partiQdoJtf poiA!nt~ -
EPA-tlleSignlkaniNowAIIemotlveoPo&ty
(SNAP)I'raFimiDidenlllyollem-.ID~g
- a n d topodlhllllollal_..mce end
~- TalloYelopthollollalo""""tahl'
..,d~-.EPA-ta..... ond
---tohunuulhoeldlondllo
en..__l'..-byuseol-lntllocontextol
~eppllc:allons. EPA!Oquireo-ol
ln!ormallonCXIVIIII1Qawldonngoolhoolllond
...- - Thooolndudogk>botWIIftlllng
-TotoiCCPindustrv
CCP
nnspot1011on
::::--!--:-_... .- 0
"""'"' ,.opr~e~a~y ~-tho- end truck
~,lloYelopo and..,.,... EPA'a unique hydrlulc
----lH:l.-ora-.
-ond-Mc1Nnandulb1!-l
onglnoo(IIIChadoondeocland--comiiUation
__
,to-~-
......
~~=.:.=.CIIJoblilyal
jEPA'a-VIIhlcleand Fuel Emloolono ~to
=llellnt
ollnol odl-lnSE llldllgat:tntond

lnolool--perEPAchargoiOidot
coe---dlmlop"""""""-lilloydo model and--lllllpao ID&1JIIPGIIR&D and
poDOf-..; ondparlcipato InCA Fuel C e l - l p
IIon_..,.
"'*"""'YT..........
-tt.
~-===-=.::::..ao:-llo-fatreQIUtlan. 'llloMPfOGIMIInoduce
emlollonsbymHfllolp......... - - .... lorge
- . l n $ J i l l y...... _ a n d _ a n d _
Tho~"'ofemenloofllllelblorallo
SmoiiiiVoy T..,_t Pamenohlp ond Ill BetlWorlqJiocn

lor c:amn..... tJRIIIIMI. Tho llmiiiWOy T..,_t
IJIIIIMI1Np--tho-g andrdnlodln<*m:y"'
~-dmantotldenl-and
by odoptlng ........ a n d - oavlng
~ThogollollleiiWDdrploaoofatColl'lllUIIIrO
lstoOIIIlrtnnavatiYoiOIU1fanato-.nullntlchalangea
-by""".,.ond"""""""' by,..matrng-
bonolliDialnducovohldeO\>Oand-tnovolod.
S..b-Tolll CCP Tna_....,
CCPCorllon
R......al
CCP State ond

lAcal VatuntoJy
Ac:tlvllles
U.t
22.1
22.1
22.&
1.7
1.7
1.7
1.7
1.7
z.o
lUi
2.G
~~
7.3
&.7
&.7
7.4
7.4
EPA Program Totals
101.7
101.7
108.6
108.6
109.5
109.&
--_lt____
In....,...
23.3
...
-ondi.OCIIIVotuntaryAcllriliot
EPA
-Ra-al
EPA paoUclpDo
and ......... d.......-oa..,.-llltnlool-
-wllh.-andlocal,_mt~~lnto,.&ladln
adopting -ting fodoral"""""""' _ , _ almod at
at
~--... ..... .. ga
ao:hlelntlalrquallly _ _ _ _ ullln
:::::.
. . . -..b- -tocltllolagnodudlcHoaln.-..IM-
CCPln_,
CopadtyBulldlftt
-IICCttlleoalmodat-"'gllleadajl-ol
and ... d_,.,.,_lol
,_alcapacllytoaddn.. k..,..,.laladto
cl- claonQa (OAR, OIA)
U.S. Climate Change Technology ProGram
A-16
Dratt Sfmleglc Plan
CEQ 015361
May28,2004
TABLEA-10
NASA- FY 2003 to FY 2005 BUDGET REQUESTS
Funding ($ MHIIons)
NASA
Major
Program
Sub-Prcgr.un
Description
Vehicle Systems
Ullra-EIIident Englns Tsct.nology
Vehicle Syatems
Propulsion & Power
Vehicle Systems
Low Emissions AHematlw Power
NASA Program Totals
RDD&DSpUt
Deployment
RD&D
FY2Illl!i
President'S Reli est
FY 201M Appruprlatlons
IWI Re5clsslon)
FY 2003 Actual
CCTP
Budget
67
67.0
84.6
84.6
151.E
151.6
A-16
RDD&DSpUt
Deploy.
RD&D
ment
CCTP
Budget
Approp.
91.9
91.9
129.4
129A
221.3
221.3
RDD&DSptlt
RD&D
Deployml!flt
CCTP
Budget
Request
8112
882
120.9
120.9
209.1
209.1
Dmft Strategic Plan
CEQ 015362
TABLEA-11
NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION FY 2001 to FY 2005 BUDGET REQUESTS
Funding ($ MDilons)
Na~onal
Science Foundation (NSF)
Major
Program
Energy
Production
SUb-Programs
Descrlpllon
BasiC researdl related to allemaliva 50iliC8S
lhal WOI.fd lllduce greenhoUSe-gas emissions,
such as fuel cells or photavl:.ilaiCS
(Wll'lesclsJrlan)
FY 2003 Actual
RDD&OSpllt
Deployment
RD&O
CCTP
Budget
SBIR PrajBCIS
Energy Enlclency BasiC researdl on lmpnwecl combustion
processes 111a1 would minimize ~as
emissions
SBIRPI'OjBCIS
Ciubon Dloldde Research on materials and pmcesses to
c:aphn cartxm ctioJdde for CIOI'Mirsfon or
Capture
ISI!CIUIJSiraUon
COnversion and Research on materiels and pmcesses, e.g.
Sequealr.ltlon of ~~s. to convert carbon didS to a
carbon Dioxide nonvolatlle ronn or to enable long-tenn storage,
e.g. adscrbantll
Olher Greenhouse Research on materials and pmcesses for
Gases
saparaticn, c:aphn, containment. and
c:ooverslon of other greenhoUSe gases, SUCh as
melhana
SBIR Projects
Monitoring and Research on new led1riques lelllfing 1o
Measurement sensars and dsta cclledlon relovanl to dimate
RDD&DSpllt
DeployRD&O
ment
2.00
May28,2004
FY2005
President's Request
CC'TP
RDD&OSDIIt
Budget
Approp.
2.1X
RD&O
CCTP
Deploy-
Budget
ment
Request
2.21:
2.2t
2.00
1.00
2.00
1.00
2.211
2.2{
1.10
1.11
1.00
0.70
1.00
1.00
1.(!(
1.1X
o:n
1.00
1.[)(
12[
12[
0.51l
0.5(
0.7t
0.7C
1.00
1.00
1.1X
1.00
1.1C
1.00
1.10
1.00
1.0C
lchanaa
SBIRProjBCIS
NSF Program Totals
1.00
1.00
1.(1(1
1.00
t1.20
11.20
12.50
12.50
Note: NSF h.. reqlllllted no fUnda for apeclftc pn~~~rams Uad expllcllly to ~ tecl!nology ruean:h for FY04 or FYO&. The
budget request Ia organized by Dfnlctcmlte and DI'VIalon, which are aUgned with academle dllclpUnes. tile care programs In Divisions
reapond to unaoddted raearc:h propcaa/8, many of which are releVant to cdmaiiM:banga SCienc:e ortecl!nology but also of a
tile numllenl given here arellltlmabla of 1 . . -reaultlng from apec111c proposals frOm tile resean:~teammunlty. They have been
generated by extrapoldng the eatlmabla of FYOZ and FYO:S Investments In tbaM areas. NSF does solicit proposals In certain
fundamental priority area, .uctlu nanotechnOlOgy, blocomplexlty In the environment, or chemlcltlaensons resean:1t. Many proposals
funded In these pn1111111ms are likely to be directly relevant to cdmaleochange technology development. Also, It Ia poalble that one or
more major resevch centere funded bY NSF (up to $4 mUIIon/yolll') could rocus on cdmate.chanqe technOioAY. Slmdarty, bale ,.,...rch
A17
CEQ 015363
TABLEA12
May28,2004
USAID FY 2003 to FY 2005 BUDGET REQUESTS

Funding ($ MIUlons)
USAID
RDD&DSpllt
MaJor
Sub-Program
Description
Program
USAID
CCTP
Global Climala Change Program
ment
Budget
RD&D
President's Req est
Deploy-
CCTP
Budget
ment
Approp.
RDD&DSpllt
DeployRD&D
FY2005
FY 2004 ApproprtaUona
_(W/ Rescission)
FY2003Actual
RDD&DSpDt
Deploy-
RD&D
ment
CCTP
Budget
Request
201.1
201.8
175.5
175.5
153.6
153.6
201.8 .
201.8
175.5
175.5
153.6
153.6
(Technology)
USAID Program Totals
A-18
.,
Dtaft Strategic Plan
CEQ 015364
Appendix B
CCTP Scenarios: Additional Analysis
CEQ 015365
May28,2004
Appendix B
CCTP Scenarios: Additional Analysis
This appendix supplements Chapter 3 of the CCTP Draft Strategic Plan, providing additional detail on
the methodology, underlying assumptions, and computer model that were used to support the analysis, as
well as presenting more detail on the results of the computer model runs. The appendix is organized as
follows: Section B.l explains the general approach, including an overview of all the scenarios examined
in the analysis; Section B.2 provides energy and GHG emissions results for the Reference Case;
Section B.3 provides energy and emissions results for the emissions-constrained scenarios; Section B.4
presents cost results.
8.1. Overview of the Scenario Modeling Approach

As discussed in Chapter 3, the CCTP analysis of the role that advanced technology might play in future
GHG emissions reductions began with a review of previous published scenario analyses. This review
revealed three primary technology-based themes in published scenarios that led to GHG emissions
reductions. The three the~es are: (1) Closing the Loop on Carbon (CLC), (2) A New Energy Backbone
(NEB), and (3) Beyond the Standard Suite (BSS). (See Chapter 3 for more discussion of these themes).
In order to further explore these advanced technology scenario themes and examine specific technology
pathways of interest, CCfP conducted a modeling exercise and supplementary scenario analysis.
The model used in this modeling exercise is called MiniCAM (the Mini Climate Assessment Model},
.which is an "integrated assessment" model. Integrated assessment models are tools for exploring the
. complex interrel~tionships among economic activity, the energy and industrial system, managed and
unmanaged ecosystems, the associated greenhouse gas emissions, and the resulting impacts on climate.
Consistent with the nature of the GHG management challenge, integrated assessment models generate
results over a century-long time scale. MiniCAM was one of the six models included in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Special Report on Emissions Scenarios (SRES). Box B-1
provides a brief description of the model. In the CCTP exercise, the MiniCAM was supplied with various
sets of assumptions (these sets of assumptions comprise alternative "scenarios" of the future) and then
made projections of advanced technology usage, the associated worldwide GHG emissions, and the cost
of reducing world GHG emissions to various levels.
A total of seventeen scenarios were modeled using Mini CAM. These include:
A "Reference Case" that assumes: ( 1) a moderate rate of future technological improvement that
would be expected to occur naturally in the future, without dramatic technological discoveries, 1 and
(2) no actions aimed solely at reducing GHG emissions. (This Reference Case provides projections
of GHG emissions that serve as a basis for comparison to the emission levels in the emissionconstrained scenarios.)
However, this Reference Case does assume improvements in energy efficiency and advancements in energy
technologies and technologies to reduce non-C02 GHGs that could be associated with current R&D efforts.
B.l
CEQ 015366
May28,2004
BoxB-1
TheMiniCAM
MiniCAM models the energy and industrial system, including land use, in an economically consistent global
framework. It has sufficient technical detail to enable analysis of a wide variety of technology systems and
impacts over both short and long timescales (up to 100 years in the future). MiniCAM is referred to as a partial
equilibrium model in that it explicitly models specific markets and solves for equilibrium prices only in its areas of
focus: energy, agriculture and other land uses, and emissions. It does not cover the entire economy (e.g., it
leaves out some aspects of the service sector and labor markets). This targeted focus allows MiniCAM to be a
more technologically detailed model of global and regional markots in fuels, energy carriers, and agricultural
products than what has been practical with a general equilibrium approach.
MiniCAM operates through a forecasted time. horizon of 100 years by solving, for each modeled time step
(currently 15 years), for the set of prices that equllibrlates all energy, agriculture, and greenhouse gas emissions
markets. However, the focus is not just on prices, as the supply and demand behaviors for all of these markets
are modeled as functions of these prices. Through the equilibrium or market clearing procedure, all feedbacks
among energy markets are explicitly considered. Energy prices, production levels, demand, and market
penetration are mutually consistent. For example, gas production will increase with a rise in gas price, which
drives a decrease in gas demand. Therefore, by solving for these clearing prices, the model is concurrently
determining all of the quantities of supplies and demands in the model. In equilibrium, these market clearing
prices (e.g., the prices of gas, coal, electricity, emissions, etc.) are by definition Internally consistent with all other
prices. And in parallel, all supply and demand behavior is completely consistent with all assumptions about the
key model parameters and drivers, including the following: (1) technology characteristics (from prOduction to
end-use), (2) fossil fuel resource bases (cost-graded resources of coal, oil, and natural gas); (3) renewable and
land resources (hydroelectric potential, cropland, etc.); (4) population and economic growth (drivers of demand
growth); (5) policies (energy, emissions, fiscal, etc.).
In every individual market, technology or fuel shares are allocated according to a loglt function. The logit function
captures the notion that every market actually characterizes a range of different suppliers and purchasers, and
each supplier and purchaser is different and may have different needs. These differences may call for an
individual bias toward one particular fuel or technology over the others. The loglt allocates shares based on
prices, but ensures that even higher priced goods will gain some share of the market. Hence, the logit approach
is Intended to capture the observed heterogeneity of real markets.The MiniCAM Is based on three end-use sectors (buildings, Industry, transportation) and a range of energy
supply sectors, including fossil-fuels, biomass (traditional biomass such as use of wood for heat, and modem
biomass that can be used as a fuel for electricity production or as a feedstock for bio-fuel production), electricity,
hydrogen, and synthetic fuels. For electricity generation, the model's technological detail covers generation from
coal, oil, natural gas, biomass, hydroelectric power, fuel cells, nuclear, wind, solar photovoltalcs, electricity
storage (e.g., coupled with prOduction of electricity using solar and wind generation, and exotic technologies such
as space solar and fusion. Hydrogen can be produced from coal, oil, natural gas, biomass, and electrolysis
(using electricity). Synthetic fuels may come from coal, oil, natural gas, and biomass. MiniCAM also includes
engineered carbon capture and .storage (sequestration) from fossil fuels, and commercial biomass supply
generated regionally by an agricultural-land use model.
..
...:~ .
i!
;~
~~
-;..;
1;,
t~~
;,.
{~~
"(:
,.
~,:
d
;;;:
,'
~
~:
The MiniCAM includes regional detail for 14 regions, which include the United States, Canada, Western Europe,
Japan, Australia & New Zealand, Former Soviet Union, Eastern Europe, Latin America, Africa, Middle East,
China and the Asian Reforming Economies, India, South Korea, Rest of South & East Asia.
B.2
CEQ 015367
May28,2004
Four "baseline scenarios" that"include: (1) the same level ofteclmological improvement as in the
Reference Case, i.e.; a moderate rate of technological improvement, and (2) four different levels of
future hypothetical GHG emissions constraints. (These baseline scenarios provide projections of
the costs associated with meeting various emissions constraints that serve as basis for comparison to
the advanced technology scenarios.)
Twelve "advanced technology scenarios," which combine (1) three different "advanced
teclmology" futures (CLC, NEB and BSS) and (2) the same four different hypothetical emission
constraints as in the baseline scenarios.
The remainder of this section provides more detail on the assumptions behind these seventeen scenarios.
The initial economic assumptions, such as the rate of growth and composition of GOP, regional population growth, and the future disparity in wealth between rich and poor countries, were kept constant for all
seventeen scenarios.2 These basic economic assumptions are consistent with the B2 "storyline" from the
IPCC's SRES and include the following: (1) world population grows to approximately 9.5 billion in
2100; (2) the world economy grows to over $200 trillion in 2100; and (3) final energy demand grows to
almost 900 EJ by 2100 (from about 400 EJ in the year 2000). This scenario is a mid-range
energy/economic case. Of the scenarios examined in the IPCCs SRES process, the majority projected
growth in primary global energy demand from today's levels of -400exajoules (EJ) to between 650 and
1800 EJ in 2100.
To formulate the seventeen scenarios, these basic economic assumptions are combined with sets of
assumptions about technological change and GHG emissions constraints. In the Reference Case, there
are no emissions constraints, and a moderate amount of technology improvement, compared to today' s
technology, is assumed to occur. For instance, energy efficiency is assumed to increase over time in all
end-use sectors (hence energy intensity, measured as energy consumed per unit of economic activity, is
assumed to decline). In addition, advancements are assumed to occur in fossil fuel technology (e.g.,
synfuels are available toward the end of the century), as well as renewable energy and nuclear energy
technology (see Table B-1 for more detail). These assumptions attempt to simulate the "natural"
evolution of technology over time that would occur in the absence of highly-intensive ~fforts to improve
technology through R&D3 or to reduce GHG emissions. Despite the level of technology improvement
that would be expected to occur naturally, as simulated in the Reference Case, GHG emissions continue
to rise throughout the century, as the world economy and population grow.
In the four baseline scenarios; the model was used to constrain GHG emissions to four alternative
emissions constraints (reduced levels of GHG emissions that change over time), as shown in Figures B-1
Note that the initial assumptions input to the model are the same, but as the model makes its projections, there~are
some feedbacks between the costs of meeting various emission reductions and the overall economic performance
of the economy, so the final projections of global economic output and other factors vary somewhat between the
scenarios.
However, this Reference Case does include some technological improvements that could be associated with
current R&D and deployment efforts.
B.3
CEQ 015368
May28,2004
World Carbon Enisslons 1990-2100
World Other GHG Enissions 1990-2100

.
..8.
25
~CJ20
>
:1
e
c
0
CJ 2.0
Jm>
;;
10
M
c
-e
l3
3.0
~ ~2.5
8_15
.2
3.5
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
0
'90
'20
'50
'35
'90
'00
'20
'50
'35
'00
Year
Year
Figure B-1. C02 Emissions Pathways for

the Four Emissions-Constrained Scenarios
Figure B-2. Other GHG Emissions Pathways

for the Four Emissions-Constrained Scenarios
and B-2.4' 5 The timing and level of the hypothetical emissions reductions assumed in the CcrP scenario
analysis was a direct result of the use of these particular emissions constraints, and is not a result or
conclusion of the analysis. Using the Reference Case assumptions about technology improvement, the
model projected different mixes of technologies to minimize overall costs along each emission trajectory
for the baseline scenarios.
The model achieves the emissions constraints by imposing an economic value on carbon emissions that
permeates the world economy. The economic value of carbo~ is applied as a price signal in the model
and is varied upwards or downwards until the emissions in any given period are consistent with the
constrained emissions in that period.6 Using this method, MiniC.M4 meets the hypothetical emissions
constraints at a minimum economic cost, because the marginal costs of emissions reductions are
equalized among different options and across regions of the world. This is consistent with economically4
These emissions trajectories are consistent with various WRE trajectories. See Wigley, Richels, and Edmonds
(1996), "Economic and En.vironmental Choices in the Stabilization of Atmospheric C02 Concentrations", Nature,
volume 379, number 6562, pages 240-243. The WRE trajectories are a set of emissions trajectories created in the
mid-1990's that were projected to lead toward stabilization of C~ emissions over the next several hundred years
at minimum economic cost. While the WRE trajectories were developed several years ago and are only one of
many possible trajectories consistent with stabilization of C02 emissions at minimum cost, they continue to serve
as a commonly accepted "standard" set and a common point of reference for analysis of GHG emission reductions
aimed at stabilizing global concentrations. They are used here for illustrative purposes, not as examples of desired
emission reduction levels. The level and timing of emission reductions needed to meet UNFCCC goals remains
uncertain.
As shown in Figure B-1, the Reference Case emissions trajectory is lower than the WRE trajectories. This is
primarily a result of the significant contraction of the economy in the Former Soviet Union and other changes,
which have put the world on a recent emissions pathway below what was expected when the WRE trajectori~
were developed. .
The emissions cannot exceed those in the imposed emission constraints, but they sometimes fall slightly below
because the technology ~dvancement assumptions lead to reductions in GHG emissions even without emissions
constraints.
B.4
CEQ Ol5369
May28,2004
efficient, global participation in achieving emissions reductions. However, the costs are dependent on the
assumptions about the cost of various technologies.
In each of the advanced technology scenarios, the Reference Case technology assumptions are altered by
assuming a particular set of energy supply and demand technologies benefits in the future from accelerated advances ~n technology performance and cost, above and beyond those assumed in the Reference
Case and the baseline scenarios. Using these assumptions about improved technology, the model projects
energy use, emissions and costs of achieving the same hypothetical emission constraints that are used for
the baseline scenarios.
Seveml common assumptions were made_ in all three of these advanced technology scenarios. All of the
advanced technology scenarios assume very aggressive advancements in end-use energy efficiency,
beyond the levels assumed in the Reference Case and baseline scenarios. In addition, all assume
terrestrial sequestration is available and can remove 60 GtC of C02 emissions over the course of the 21 51
Century. Model was run with the same emissions constraints as those imposed in the baseline scenarios.'
Further, all of the advanced technology scenarios assume that reductions in other (non-C02) GHGs occur
through both the application of current technology (e.g., technology to capture methane from coal mines
and natuml gas production/transportation operations) and technology advancements aimed at reducing
non-C02 GHG emissions from specific source categories. These technologies (energy efficient end-use
technologies, terrestrial sequestration, and technologies to reduce other gases) are core to all scenarios as
a result of critical role they are envisioned to play in all futures. While they are core to all, significant
R&D will be required for their deployment at the levels assumed in these scenarios.
. In addition to these common assumptions, each of the three advanced technology scenarios assumes
significant advancement occurs in a particular set of technologies. In the CLC scenario, engineered
carbon capture and stomge is assumed to become available at reasonable costs. (Engineered capture and
stomge is also assumed to be available in the NEB and BSS scenarios, but the cost is considembly higher
than in the CLC scenario). In the NEB scenario, nuclear and renewable technologies are assumed to
improve significantly, beyond the levels in the Reference Case and baseline scenarios. In the BSS
scenario, new forms of energy (e.g., fusion, advanced bio-technology and others) are assumed to be
available at costs that allow them to compete for market share. The assumptions for each of the three
advanced technology scenarios are described in Box B-2, with details shown in Table B-1. The
technology assumptions in the table reflect midpoints in a range of costs for the technology when it is
deployed at very large scales (tens to hundreds ofEJs).
In addition to the basic assumptions abou~ technology shown in Table B-1, every run of an integrated
assessment model, even a compact one such as MiniCAM, requires literally hundreds ofnwnerical
assumptions about regional resource sizes, extraction costs, technology costs, and more. Many such
assumptions are embedded in the logic of the model. Others are specified for a given scenario.
7
Because of the accelerated technology devc;lopment in the three advanced technology scenarios, emissions may
naturally fall below the emissions constraints in the early part of the century when these constraints are not very
demanding. In some sense, early emissions reductions resulting from advancements in technology can come for
free. However, the extent to which these emission reductions occur varies among the advanced technology
scenarios. For this reason, the cumulative emissions over the century for the three scenarios do not always
perfectly match each other.
,.
B.5
~
CEQ 015370
c::
j:ll
Table B-1. Assumptions in the CCTP Reference Case and Baseline Scenarios, as well as Advanced Technology Scenarios
'
I
8
tc
b.
Scenario
Fossil
Efficiency
Reference
Case and
Baseline
Scenarios
Limitations on unconven-
tional oil limit long-term
penetration. The natural gas
resource base is large, but
large-scale unconventional
sources (i.e., methane
hydrates) are limited.
Synfuels from coal are
available in large quantities
late in the century.
The world
experiences an
approximately one
percent annual
decrease in global
energy intensity
(energy/ODP) over
the century.
The efficiency of fossil

electricity generating
technologies increases by
approximately 10% beyond
the assumed gains in the
Reference Case over the
century.
Energy intensity
improvement
increases annually
starting in 2020 so
that it is 10% lower
than the Reference
Case by the end of
the century.
Closing the
Loop on
Carbon
--
Sequestration
Exotics*
No exotic forms of
energy are competior technically feasible.
tive over the full
Terrestrial sequestration century.
is also precluded.
Engineered sequestra-
tionisnoteconomi~ly
Average carbon storage

costs drop from
$37/tonne in 2020 to
$10/tonne in 2035 and
remain constant
thereafter. A total of
60 OtC of terrestrial
sequestration is
deployed over the
century (no cost is
assumed).
Same as Reference
Case
Renewables and Nuclear

Substantial cost decreases
in renewables and nuclear
bring their costs below
today's levels. The average price for wind power
drops to 4 cents/kWh, and
the average price of solar
PV drops to 6 cents/kWh
by the end of the century.
The average price for
nuclear power is 5.9 cents/
kWh by century's end.
Same as Reference Case
Other Greenhouse
Gases
Non-C~
OHO emissions rise with increased

activity in the industries
tha~ emit them, but
emission reductions per
unit of activity occur
when they economic
sense, e.g., reductions in
methane emissions occur
when the price of natural
gas rises enough to offset
the cost of capturing
methane.
Additional cost-driven
reduction of non-C02
gases occurs when the
model's cost curves
indicate that the cost of
such a reduction is less
than or equal to the
economic value of the
equivalent carbon
dioxide emissions. Non
COz OHO emissions are
further reduced, beyond
this cost-driven amount, ,
I
on the assumption that I
technology for capturing
other OHOs will advance
overtime.
~
~
IPi
~
1::'.:1
a
a
~
~
~
ll)
~
;:s
3:
~
N
?I
Vl
......:1
c::
Table B-1. Assumptions in the CCTP Reference Case and Baseline Scenarios,
as well as Advanced Technology Scenarios (contd)
(')
Scenario
Anew energy
backbone
Fossil
b:l
.!J
~
0
.......
Ul
-...)
Efficiency
Sequestration
Same as Closing the Technical and other

LDop on Carbon
limitations on carbon
capture and sequestration limit the allowable
resource base. The
effective average cost of
storage is $37/tonne in
2035 and rises by
almost a factor of three
by the end of the
century. A total of
60 gtc of terrestrial
sequestration is
deployed over the
century (no cost is
assumed).
Same as Closing the Same as New Energy
Backbone
LDop on Carbon
Exotics*
Same as
ReferenceCase
Competitive
"representative
exotic" comes on
after mid-century,
and reaches an
average cost of
approximately
$4 cents/kWh by
2100.
Same as Closing
Same as New Energy Competitive
Beyond the
"representative
the Loop on
Backbone
Standard
exotic" comes on
Carbon
Suite
after mid-century,
and reaches an
average cost of
approximately
$4 cents/kWh by
2100.
* Exotics include fusion, Bio-X, space-based solar power, an!i other novel concepts.
Beyond the
Standard Suite
Renewables and Nuclear

Increased rates of
improvement in solar,
wind, and nuclear
technology. The average
cost of wind power drops
to 3 cents/kwh), and the
average cost of energy
from solar pvs drops to
3 cents/kwh by 2100.
The average cost of
nuclear power drops to
4.5 cents/kwh in 2100.
Other Greenhouse
Gases
Same asCclosing the
LDop on Carbon.
iQ
1
t1
;::;
Same as Closing the

LDop on Carbon.
Same as Reference
Case
Same as Closing the

Loop on Carbon.
J
N
.90
~ay28,2004
Therefore, the results of the model runs are heavily dependent on a wide range of assumptions and should
be interpreted as illustrative,' not in any way predictive.
8.2. The CCTP Reference Case: Energy and Emissions Projections

In the CCI'P Reference Case, world primary energy demand is projected to rise from approximately
400 RT today to 1200 EJ by the end of the centwy (Figure B-3). Fossil fuels are projected to remain
dominant in the energy system (accounting for 75% of cumulative energy supply between 2000 and
21 00), coupled with a significant global expansion of renewable energy (11% of cumulative energy
supply), nuclear energy (5% of cumulative..energy supply), and energy derived from biomass (9% of
cumulative energy supply). Coal and natural gas use are projected to increase three-fold over the centwy,
and oil use is projected to increase through the middle of the century and then begin a decline, as
increasingly expensive sources of oil must be tapped. These fossil fuel increaSes, particularly in the latter
half of the century, are based on the assumption that unconventional fossil resources (e.g. oil shale, tar
sands, and methane hydrates) ultimately become; available. Renewable energy (solar and wind)and
biomass-derived energy, combined, rival the scale of today's petroleum industry by the end of the centwy
in the Reference Case. The cumulative amount of energy supplied by various sources is shown in
Figure B-4. (Note that while the CCfP Reference Case was not explicitly calibmted to EIA's projections
over the next several decades, it is generally consistent with EIA projections, which extend to 2025.)
World Primary Energy Demand, 1990-2100

1,400
1,200
1,000
~
w
800
600
400
200
'20
'90
'00
'50
'35
Year
~
Coal
IJJ Oil
01 Gas
mExotics
mBiomass
Nuclear
;:a Renewables
Figure B-3. Reference Case Energy Demand
B.8
CEQ 015373
May28,2004
World Primary Energy Demand

Cumulative Exajoules (EJ) overthe Century
Figure 8-4. Cumulative Energy Demand in the Reference Case
As a result of increasing energy use and industrial activity, greenhouse gas emissions are projected to rise
in the Reference Case. Carbon dioxide emissions are projected to increase by a factor of three, from
6.5 GtC in 2000 to 19.4 GtC/yr by 2100 (Figure B-5). This is primarily a result of continuing reliance on
fossil fuels throughout the century. Of the total projected C02 emissions, about one half is attributable to
coal and the remaining half to natural gas and oil combined. The C02 emissions projected by Mini CAM
fall in the middle of the range projected in the IPCC SRES analysis, as shown in Box B-3. 8
World Carbon Emissions from Fossil Fuels,
1990-2100
'90
'20
'50
'35
'00
Year
!!Coal
!lOU
GIGas
Figure B-5. C0 2 Emissions in the Reference Case

8
While the CCTP Reference Case is consistent with the B2 storyline, it is not identical to the Mini CAM B2
scenario L'lat was used as part of the SRES process. For example, in the CCTP Reference Case, C02 emissions
approach 19.5 GtC by the end of the century; whereas they were slightly above lSGtC/yr in the SRES
MiniCAM B2 run. The difference is a result of variations in assumptions.
B.9
CEQ 015374
May28,2004
Box B-3
Emissions Projections for Various Energy-Economic Models

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's (IPCC) Special Report on Emission Scenarios (SRES)
included four families of scenarios: A1, A2., 81, and 82. Each family of scenarios has its own demographic,
economic, and technology assumptions. Using these assumptions, six peer reviewed energy-economic models
were used in the IPCC study to estimate future energy demand and the associated C02 emissions. The results
from the analysis are shown below. The 82 scenario is a mid-range SRES scenario. When MiniCAM, the
specific model employed as part of CCTP's analysis, participated in the IPCC SRES process, its 82 results (see
red bold line) fell within the midrange of other peer-reviewed models.
-ltNo
/tifF
filM
~.. ltM!BIE
+ltM'OU
+ ltt.mA
4-.I'CN
fJJ .. i" POEBG::

- JtOHJU
II- JIGit,t
'II~
---PBNJM
- il - i'NIIINJU
-'1)-PI.WOU
0. M'No
/Q .. -. /tMI6.
Mini-CAM 82
Reference Case
-IW&'
.... /Wf>A
..... JD\.10:
IC.II!t.l!liO:
+II!IOM
-1-IMM'OU
-ElM
.. !(..
EIM!BIE
+ Bt.mA
...... BMOM
-I - EllN9ItE
- .. - EHlN!BtE
- .. - EIQf.H)U
-B!N!BIE
.. , .. !!No .
..... 11!18'
II!M
El .....
+t:llf.fRI\
--BitolpU
-I -mm..KJIJI
-'1)-BDJR&.
..... 5)1,
---21Yo
--ran
--+-nDII
---'Z!II>
B.lO
CEQ 015375
. May 28, 2004
Regarding non-C02 GHG emissions, the Reference Case projections show methane (CH4) emissions
rising to 1.7 gigatons of carbon equivalent (GtC-eq) by 2035 and staying essentially flat thereafter.
Nitrous oxide (N20) emissions are projected to rise to 1.22 GtC-eq by 2020, remain roughly level through
2035, and decline somewhat thereafter (Figure B-6). In addition to CH4 and N20, a number of other
small-volume, non-C0 2 greenhouse gases are projected to contribute to the growing amounts of GHG
emissions over the course of the century.
Carbon Equivalent Emissions, 1990-2100

CCTP Reference Case
mCF4
DC2F6
~SF6
E3 HFC-143a
HFC125
D HFC-134a
D HFC-245fa
IIN20
l3CH4
'90
'20
'50
'35
'00
Year
Figure 8-6. Emissions of Other (Non-C02) GHGs in the Reference Case, in terms of
Carbon-Equivalent Emissions
8.3. CCTP Emissions-Constrained Trajectories: Energy and

Emissions Results
.
In each of the CCTP emissions constr~t scenarios, including the baseline scenarios and the advanced
technology scenarios, carbon emissions are~ not permitted to exceed the constraints presented previously
in Figure B-1. Sixteen emissions-constrained scenarios were analyzed, including the baseline and three
advanced technology scenarios, all of which applying four emission constraints, as described in
Section B.2.
.
For each of the sixteen cases, four charts are provided to show the energy and emissions results; these are
presented. in Figures B-7 through B-22. The first chart (upper left) shows the primary energy mix over
ti1e century, including the relative contributions of carbon-emitting, carbon-free, and carbon-neutral
energy technology. Classes of technology delivering this energy include:
~
B.ll
CEQ 015376
May28,2004
Energy use reduction, which includes energy efficiency9

Fossil fuel use (without sequestration)
Fossil fuel use (integrated with or offset by carbon capture and storage, which is called "engineered
sequestration" in these figures)
Nuclear energy
Renewable energy (pP.marily solar and wind energy)
Energy from biomass
"Exotic" new energy forms, such as fusion, advanced bio-technology, space solar, and others.
The contribution of each of these classes of technology varies by scenario (see Figures B-7 through
B-22). However, a fundamental pattern that persists across the three CCfP scenarios is that
unsequestered fossil fuels (shown by the gray area at the base of the charts) peak and decline over the
course of this century. This is a result of the imposed emissions constraints. ht all scenarios, the decline
is accompanied by the introduction of carbon-neutral energy (i.e., sequestered fossil energy) and carbonfree energy (i.e., nuclear, renewable and biomass based energy), as well as a reduction in total energy use
(beyond the level resulting from the energy efficiency improvements in the Reference Case).
The second chart provided for each scenario (lower left) shows the projected C02 emissions from fossil
fuel use without sequestration (the gray area at the bottom of the chart), together with C02 emissions that
are mitigated from the level projected in the Reference Case (the mitigated emissions, for each mitigation
source, are shown as the colored areas above the gray area). The sources of emission mitigation include:
Terrestrial sequestration
Engineered sequestration (capture and storage of C02)
Energy use reduction (including energy saved as a result of energy efficiency in energy end use
sectors and energy production)
Renewable energy
Nuclear energy
Biomass energy
Exotic forms of energy
Changes in the global fuel mix (e.g., switching from coal to natural gas)
Note that some of these key classes of technology (e.g., energy use reduction, renewables, nuclear, and
biomass energy) deliver significant reductions in carbon intensity of the world economy as part of the
Reference Case. The mitigation shown in the charts presented in Figures B-7 through B-22 re-presents
mitigation beyond the levels in the Reference Case.
The next chart (upper right) shows the cumulative energy consumption over the century (the sum of
annual energy consumption in every year of the century, by energy source). The final chart (lower right)
shows cumulative C02 emissions mitigation, by source.
Energy use reduction reflects a reduction in overall energy demand as a result of both supply and end-use energy
efficiency gains that are achieved through increased technological performance, price-induced penetration of
energy efficiency into the marketplace, and structural change in the economy as it grows.
B.l2
CEQ 015377
U.S. Climate Change Technolqgy Program Draft Strategic Plan
May28,2004
The sections below (B.3.1 through B.3.4) discuss the energy and C02 emissions results for the four sets of
scenarios -the baselines, as well as the three advanced technology scenarios: Closing the Loop on
Carbon, A New Energy Backbone, and Beyond the Standard Suite.
8.3.1. Baseline Scenarios Assuming Reference Case Technology Assumptions
Figures B-7 through B-10 provide energy and C02 emissions results for the baseline cases that meet the
four levels of emissions constraints. The baseline technology scenario uses the same technologies as the
Reference Case. In the very high emission conatraint case, unsequestered fossil fuel use and C02
emissions are considerably lower than in the other cases. Energy use reduction and biomass supply a
large portion of the energy in this very high constraint case, although unsequestered fossil remains the
largest source of cumulative energy supply. Nuclear and renewables also play a big role in the energy
supply in baseline scenarios.
As the emission constraint lessens, energy end use reduction and biomass play a somewhat diminishing
role, while the total cumulative amount of renewables and nuclear stays relatively constant. (This result is
highly dependent on the relative costs assumed for these energy technologies in the Reference Case. As
the constraint gets tighter, the relatively more expensive technologies must be called upon to meet the
higher levels of reduction.)
In the low emission reduction case, a large portion of the required emissions reduction can be met by
energy use reduction (use of highly energy-efficient technology and other means of energy use reduction)
and terrestrial sequestration.
8.3.2. Closing the Loop on Carbon

Figures B-11 through B-14 presents results for the four Closing the Loop on Carbon emissions constraint
cases. Under the very high emission constraint, unsequestered fossil fuels remain the largest energy
source. However, after the middle of the century, fossil fuels accompanied by carbon capture and storage
become a key energy supplier. The early penetration of low-cost terrestrial sequestration and energy
efficiency helps buy time, while these advanced technologies are developed and deployed. Energy enduse reduction also plays a big role by reducing the total energy demand; this decreases the burden on
carbon capture and storage, as well as on other energy sources that have zero (or near-net-zero) emissions,
such as renewables, biomass, and nuclear. By the end of the century, though, these zero- or near-net-zero
emissions sources have achieved market success, providing nearly as much energy as the total global
energy of today.
As the carbon constraint is relaxed, sequestered fossil fuel use declines. Compared to sequestration,
energy use reduction plays a much more dominant role in meeting the required emissions reductions in
the low and medium reduction cases than in the very high and high emissio~s reduction case. Nuclear
and renew1bles play an important role in reducing emissions over the course of the century under lill the
carbon constraint cases within the Closing the Loop on Carbon scenarios.
One key observation that can be made by comparing the CLC scenario to the NEB and BSS scenarios
(Figures P -15 through B-22), is that energy use reduction is generally projected to be highest in the CLC
scenario. This occurs because the CLC scenario assumes a higher level of energy efficiency in the fossilfueled energy supply technologies (e.g., coal-based power production), in addition to including the same
B.l3
CEQ 015378
May28,2004
level advanced energy efficiency in the end-use sectors that all of the advanced technology scenarios
assume. The supply-side efficiency decreases the primary energy required to meet the demand for
primary energy, thereby adding to the energy use reduction, even before the imposition of any constraint
on carbon. The BSS and NEB scenarios do not include the fossil technology energy efficiency
improvements, and therefore energy use reduction is lower in these two.
Another observation is tha.t, in the CLC low emissions constraint case, no carbon capture and storage
(called "engineered sequestration" in the charts) occurs. The main difference between the baseline and
the CLC in this low emissions constraint case is that there is more end-use reduction in the CLC. This
occurs because the level of energy efficienc;y is assumed to be substantially higher in the CLC scenario
than in the baseline case. This results in lower energy use even without the imposition of a GHG
emissions constraint. In addition, the CLC scenario assumes substantial improvements in fossil energy
supply technology efficiencies, which also decrease energy use. Furthermore, terrestrial sequestration
contributes 60 GtC of carbon emissions reductions over the course of the century in all of the emissions
constraint scenarios. Together, these ~hanges lead to carbon emissions that are low enough to meet the
low emissions constraint without the introduction of any carbon capture and storage technologies.
B.3.3. A New Energy Backbone
This Scenario would most likely come about as a result of either extraordinary improvements in
renewable and nuclear energy technology that enable them to capture a larger share of the energy market
based purely on economic advantage, or technical or s.ocietallimitations that inhibit carbon capture and
storage from gaining a significant market penetration. As illustrated in Figures B-15 through B-18, the
increase in market share for biomass, renewable energy, and nuclear energy leads to a peak and decline in
fossil fuel use in these NEB scenarios, although energy end use reduction also plays an important role.
While diminished in terms of relative market share, fossil fuel use at the end of the century in all of the
NEB scenarios is comparable to or higher than today's level in absolute terms (i.e., exajoules). Also, in
the New Energy Backbone, sequestered fossil fuels penetrate the market in all of the cases except the low
emission reduction requirement case. However, the penetration rate is generally considerably lower than
in the corresponding Closing.the Loop on Carbon cases.
B.3.4. Beyond the Standard Suite
This scenario explores the possibilities of new breakthrough technologies,.recognizing that nations around
the world are working on innovative energy technologies, ~uch as fusion, and that basic science investments have the potential for unexpectedly large technological payoffs. Given the size of the global
energy system, it is highly likely that the standard suite of technologies, including energy efficiency,
renewables, biomass, and fossil fuels will continue to play a dominant role in this future, as these "exotic"
technologies will take many decades to penetrate the global energy system to a large scale. However,
particularly in the later half of the century, exotics could potentially play a major role in the energy system, especially if R&D is effective. Such technologies are most likely to compete most directly with
higher priced renewable energy, biomass, nuclear, sequestration, and efficiency than against the lowe~
cost traditional fossil energy system. The results are shown in Figures B-19 through B-22.
B.14
CEQ 015379
World Primary Energy Demand, 19902100

Cumulative Exajoules (EJ} 20002100
1,400
!=
~
(')
1,200
Ill Exotics 0%
1,000
11 Unsequesterad
BOO
Fossll33%
600
11 Renewables
12%
400
::r
200
~--~~~we:.'-~~~~ii:'fi~,..~
,.,.,;~,,i)\ '!'-"'lf-!.'i'7:1;-!!f.,
~~1:-~~~lf/111'..:-tl'f~... ~:
'90
'20
'35
'50
Sequestered
'00
Fossil 0%
Year
ll Unsequestered Fossil
D Renewabtes
II Sequestered Fossil
Ill Biomass
ONucfear
GIE,.,tics
i:l
EryergyUse Reduction
i:l
VI
Mitigated World Carbon Emissions

Beyond the Reference Case
Cumulative Glgatonnes (GtC) 20002100
Projected and Mitigated World Carbon Emissions,

19902100
25~--------------------------------------------~
ttl
I
O<i
r:;
350
20+-----
300
15
250
10
c:J
200
150
100
50
0
'90
'20
'50
'35
'00
Year
a Vented Emissions
ONucfear
DE,.,IIcs
a Engineered Sequestration ra Terrastrtal Sequestration

a Renewabjes
11 Biomass
a Fuel Mix
o Energy Use Reduction
:!g
:;.~
....
.'liD:
~"C
J5
.,~
"
a:
.;;;
z"
..e.
.!2
"'
i~
7il~
.I
.E.,
1!1 ..
iii
=~
CO:>
.n <IIi
li~
.~
0
.ll
~g
Cl)
Figure!B-7. Results for Baseline (Using Reference Case Teehnologies) for Very High Emissions Constraint
(1
Ul
00
0
1-.l
~
World Primary Energy Demand, 1990.2100

Cumulative Exajoules (EJ) 20002100
1,400
c::::
~
Cl Exotics 0%
1,200
[-
1,000
~
w
8
g
800
800
400
200
Unsequestered
Fossil 52%
ONuclear9%
-~i:~~~
1
,.,
.r.~.~~
.9'\-;;!,:X .J~. ,;:..,.~~~:i?.:::J...d;i(
'20
'90
~
0
'<
Year
a Unsequestered Fossil
Ill Renewables
OQ
'00
'50
'35
Sequestered Fossil
II Biomass
CNuclear
a Exotics
FossiiO%
c EnergyUse Reducdon
\:I
i:l

Cumulative Glgatonnes (GtC) 2000.2100

19902100
f)
250
200
150
~
100
50
'35
'50
po
Year
Engineered Sequeslration Terreslrlal Sequeslration
1!1 Renewables
Biomass
D Energy Use Reduction
a Fuel Mix
~i
..
,jja:
e..,
.,'"'!!
...,
3"
!1:
.,"
a:
..a
-g
z
~
D
iii
.!!
2
'iii
a!
, 5
!g
:! ..
'Bo!!l
~N
....
~!i
..
t!f
~
t-.:1
!jlO
Figure B-8. Results for Baseline(Using Reference Case Technologies) for High Emissions Constraint
Vl
00

1,400
!;:.
:a
!==
1,200
1,000
12 Renewables
Energy Use
Reduction 7%_
!7'-l
111 Exotics 0%
IQ
11%
800
600
c Nuclear 7%
400
if
C"
200,._
1:~
- '90
'20
Unsequestered
Fossll82%
'35
'50
'00
Year
Ill Unaequeatered Fossil
lEI Renewables
c Energy Use Reduction
mSequestered
CNuclear
mExoUcs
Sequestered Fossil
mBiomaaa
t:t!
I
.....

Cumulative Glgatonn.as (GtC) 20002100

19902100
25~----------------------------------------------~
i:!
~
oq
~=;
140
-..l
20+------------------------------------------d
15
100
!;:.
:!!
120
80
10
:.;,.o
60
40
20
'20
'35
'50
'00
Year
I! Vented Em Iss Ions

CNuclear
112ExoUcs
1!1 Engineered Sequlistiallon 11 Terreslrlalsacfuestrauon

Ill Aenewableo
C1 Fuel Mix
a Biomass
1!1 Energy Ua a AaducUon
., !i
~~
sa:
J!
iii
'8
!,.
.r
~ .
II
iil.
't!!
11
s
N
Figure B-9. Results for Baseline (Using Reference Case Technologies) for Medium Emissions Constraint
Vl
00
.oo

Cumulative Exajoules (EJ) 2000-2100
1,400
c
1,200
r.n
()
11%
1,000
~
w
c::
Energy use
mRenewables Reduction 5%13 Exotics 0%
""
~
()
BOO
::r
600
cNuc1ear7%
400
200
Ill-Jill
-~~
'20
'90
::r
111 Biomass 11%
so
'35
mSequesterea
'00
Unsequestered
Fosall66%
Year
a Unsequeslsred Fossil
CNuclear
I!IExoUcs
Sequestered Fossil
D Biomass
ED Renewables
t:l
i:!
$
S::,l
to
I
i:!

Beyond the Reference case
Cumulative Glgatonnes (GtC) 2000-2100

1990.2100
~~-----------------------------------------.
()'
90
00
so
~+-----------------------------------------~
70
10
60
""'
50
1!1
40
30
20
10
'20
'35
'50
'00
Year
13 Vented Emissions
CNuclear
CIIExoUcs
Engineered Sequestration Ill Terrestrial Sequestration

Cl Renewables
11 Biomass
13 Fuel MIX
3l
:;.~
E!''C
CD CD
tlja:
til
CD
:a
!c
CD
a:
IiiCD
1l
:>
~
e0
iil
Sl"
iii
a[
e!
g:~
.s ..
l!'f}
Wc1J
ca,g
:sg
~ ~
.. :>
t-ci
..,f.!
0
til
tv
20
J
Vl
w
w
00
Figure B-10. Results for Baseline (Using Reference Case Technologies) for low Emissions Constraint
World Primary Energy Demand,19902100

1,400
1,200
!Jl
C!IExcllcsO%
()
1,000
!;:.
800
Unsequesterecl
Fossll36%
=s
"'
600
400
Ill Renewables
10%
200
It-
.,.E\.,}~ ~
...
'20
'90
'35
'00 .
'50
Year
IJ Unsequestered Fossil
t:1 Renewables
C Energy Use Reduction
tl:l
I
B Sequestered Fossil
t:IBiomass
CNuclear
CIEliOUcs
t::J

Cumulative Glgatonnas (GtC) 20002100

19902100
25
a
~
~
ali:'
00
1=)
400
\0
20
350
300
15
Cll
250
10
Cll
200
150
100
50
'20
'90
'50
'35
'00
Year
ll Vented Emissions
ONuclear
IIIEliOtiCS
Engineered Sequestration Terrestrial Sequestration

1:1 Renewable&
Biomass
Cl Fuel Mix'
5I
:;.~
!:',
..
Ill
Lfia:
:a"
;..
c
!e.
..
lii
u
z"
ill
5!
iii
.r
, 8
'a.i
!i
:gm
~J
"' "
~-~
.5i
Ill
l!l
Ill
rl
I'-)
po
(")
~
0
.......
Ul
00
~
Figure B-11. Results for Closing the Loop on carbon for Very High Emissions Constraint
World Primary Energy Oemand,1990-2100

1,400
1,200
c:::
!:n
0
ll Exotics 0%
i"
1,000
(')
c:r
BOO
600
Ill Renewables
9%
400
Uneequestered
Fossil 54%
200
)~llll~~jf:~!E'~~~
cNuclear4%
~~~~:~;;~~\%f~~1if.~
'20
'90
'35
'50
Sequesterea Fossil
m Biomass
'00
Year
1::1 Aenewabtes
~
~
t;:,
CNuciear
a Exotics
i:l
':i>
Energy Use Reduction
i:!
25
(b

Cumulative Glgstonnes (GtC) 2000-2100

1990-2100
trJ
I
OQ
r;
"t::
iS"
;:
300
20
250
15
200
!:.
~.
10
"
150
100
5
50
0
'20
'90
'35
'50
'00
Year
13 Vented Emissions
CNuciear
Ill Exotics
11 Englneerea Sequestration B Terrestrial SequestraUon

CJ Rellewables
a SlomaSB
II Fuel Mix
C Energy Use ReducUon
~g
>-U
!!'"'
~'i
wo:
1:1
c::
a:
"'
..
t;
g
z
iii
~
'iii
i
i~
:1
& ~
.li,l
- 5
t ~
t!f
fl
510
Vl
00
Vl
Figure B-12. Results for Closing the Loop on Carbon for High Emissions Constraint

1,400
p
~
1,200
Ill Exotics Oo/o
~-
1,000
()
:::r
BOO
Ill Renewables 9%
600
f~
400
cNuclear4%
200
'i'l~l!l;-A~li~1~
-'90t"~~~~~ll~~-:.:fir~'20
~ ... ~
t ...... b; --
Fossil 59%
}~. --~.
111 Biomass 10%

'50
'35
'00
~t::::l
Year
C1 Unsequestered Fossil
B Sequestered Fossil
El Aenewables
11!1 Biomass
CNuclear
13 EMOUCS
~
~
CJ Energy Use Reduction

199Q-2100
t!.l
MHigated World Carbon Emissions

25
..,r:;
S"
;::
250
20
200
15
150
10
100
5
50
.0
'20
'90
'35
'50
'00
Year
B Vented Emlssons
CNuclear
13 EMO!ICS
1!1 Engineered SequestraUon aTerrestrtal SequestreUon

Cl AeneWables
fl Biomass
c Energy Use Aeducuon
C Fuel MIX
0
CD
~~
E!'"
!-g
wa:
,....,
.
..
:!
:0
i:
CD
c
a:
;;;
u
z"
tl
~
0
iii
)(
;;J
Q;
.t
"'l3
I!!""
:lg
-~ ~
.D .,
fl)
";:i"
li
~!
Jj
s
t-.l
20
VI
00
0'1
Figure B-13. Results for Closing the Loop on Carbon for Medium Emissions Constraint
World PrlmaryEnergyDemand, 19902100

Cumulative Exa]oules (EJ) 20002100 .
1,400
1,200
c::
~
Ill Exotics 0%
()
"
1,000
!;:.
~
IU
BOO
a Renewables S%
~
~
600
400
cNuclear4%
200
w~~.-
:~.' !t
.;)ii~
'90
'20
'50
'35
'00
Unsequestered
Fosall65%
1:1 Sequesterec
Vear
Ill Unsequestered Fossil
Renewables
Sequestered Foasll
Ell Biomass
DNuclear
CEl<Dtics
l
\:::1
i:l
';b
;::?
tl:1
25
i:l...


19902100
r;
200
;:s
180
20
160
140
15
120
!;:.
10
100
80
60
40
20
0
'20
'90
'50
'35
'00.
Vaar
II Vented Emissions
DNuclear
a Exotica
B Engineered SequeatraUon II Terrestrial SsqueatraUon

Ill Renewable&
D Biomass
Cl Fuel !x
5l 15
~!
~I!
!I
~
.
a
;!:
li
'g
ill
::s"
a:
Figure B-14. Results for Closing the Loop on Carbon for Low Emissions Constraint
t:I:1
tO
0
,_.
Ul
00
-...l
ili
.d
!i
~i
li&
cl!
s
tv
po

Cumulative ExaJoules (EJ) 2000-2100
1,400
1,200
c::
~
Q
~-
mExotlcs O%
1,000
600
Unseques tared
Fossll36%
600
11 Renewable&
16%
400
200
80
li!m~f,;t~~
'90
'20
'35
~
'00
'50
Year
Ill Sequestered Fossil
Q Renewables
13 Biomass
to
t
~
ONuclear
cs Exotics
111 Biomass 15%
~
~
i:l
~

Projected and Mitigated World Carbon Emlaslons,

199Q-2100
25
t:1
tl
;:;
300
20
250
15
CJ
200
10
150
100
5
50
0
'20
'90
'35
'50
'00
Year
Cll Vented Emissions
CNucleer
Ill Exotics
a Engineered Sequestration
c Renewables
II Fuel Mix '
Ill Ternsstrlal Sequestration

Ill Biomass
0 Energy Use Reduction
;)li!"
i
~,
"
olja:
&l
1"
.
l;i
-g
z
i!i
)(
::il
'al
.t
a:
'D
15
.(I
oliJ
il
~~
rJ
f
N
510
Vl
00
00
Figure.B-15. Results for NewEnergyBackbonefor Very High Emissions Constraint

1,400
1,200
c::
~
Cl Exotics 0%
(")
!r
1,000
s"'
800
600
Cll
400
Unsequestered
Fossil 54%
200
. /4,~,~~~N
:.~. ~,}ifI
i
~~-~
'90
'20
'35
'50
'00
Year
13 Unsequeslered Fossil
Cl Renewables
Sequeslered Fossil
Ill Biomass
11 Biomass 9%
Ill Sequeslered
Fossll2%
CNuclear
CIEJCOtics
t7
i:l
C Energy Use Reduc1lon
to
I
~
~
~()
l:i

Beyond the Reft'rence Case

1990.2100
25
J~
~
200
iS"
;:s
180
20
160
140
15
120
10
100
80
60
40
0
'90
'20
'50
'35
'00
Year
20
0
I !"''"'
~::tilL
II! c
:::;) 0
,..~
1:1 Vented Emissions

CNuclear
a E)(Otlcs
1!!1 Engineered SequealraUon II Terrestrial Sequestration

C1 Renewablea
a Biomass
11:1 Fuel Mix '
.eo..,
,Da:
""
;!
~.
a:a
..;;;
-g
z
tl
5l!"
"1:1
if
:!! ..
iii
!i
~~
.d
:sg
M.t
~l
~;:
~0
Ill
a=
t-.l
po
n
~
Vl
00
\0
Figure B-16. Results for New Energy Backbonefor High Emissions Constraint
World Primary Energy Demand, 1990.2100

Cumulative Exafoules (EJ) 2000-2100
1,400
~
~
1,200
13 Exotics 0%
Ef
1,000
a Renewables
15%
800
600
400
::r
200
- '90!'~. . . .
'20
c Nuclear 8%
~~A~~~
'35
'50
Unsequestered
Fossil 61%
'00
Year
Unsequestered Fossil
Sequestered Fossil
ED Biomass
11:1 Renewables
~0
CNuclear
&:I Exotica
a
~
a~
Cl Energy Usa Reduction

Cumulative Glgatonnes (GtC) 2000.2100
ProJected and Mitigated World Carbon Emissions,

1990-2100
tx:j
25
00
r:;
'"tl
S"
;:s
140
20
120
100
15
"
80
10
eo
40
20
0
'90
'20
'50
'35
'00
Year
13 Vented Emissions
CNuclear
13 EICOUCS
1!1 Engineered Sequestration Terreslrfal Sequeslr&Uon

1:1 Renewables
Biomass
1:1 Fuel Mix '
Sl c:Q
::;)
i?g
.. 'D
{fj~
I.
c:
:a.
~
ill
"
:E
~
a:
@!~
.d
II
~~
li
t1
s
N
'
Vl
\0
0
Figure B-17. Results for New Energy Backbone for Medium Emissions Constraint
World Primary Energy Damand,1990-2100

Cumulative Exajoules {EJ) 2000-2100
1,400
(')
1,200
!!!Exotics 0%
[
I
1,000
c::
!"n
S
m Renewablas
16%
800
600
400
200
cNuclaar8%
1111 Unsaquaatered
'90
'20
'35
'50
Fossll83%
'00
Year
c Renewables
c:t Biomass
CNuclear
c Exotics
':l.>
~
~


1990-2100
.
I
\:I
c Energy Use Reducllon
t=
25
120
20
100
15
80
10
eo
40
5
20
0
'90
'20
'35
'50
'00
Year
ll Vented Emissions
CNuclear
cEmtics
1!1 Engineered Sequestration 1111 Terrestrial SequestraUon

13 Renewables
t:l Biomass
II Fuel Mix
c Energy Usa Reducllon
Ill IS
::I'll
e.a
....
,na:
I
c
..
:.
!I
'ai
If
, li
!i
.5
G)
Sf
11
~i
t'l
~
~
N
~
Vl
UJ
\0
Figure B-18. Results for New Energy Backbone for Low Emissions Constraint

cumulative Exajoules (EJ) 200021 00
1,400
c::
~
Q
'
1:1 Exotics 7%
1,200
s"'
1,000
800
Energy Use
Reduction 1
Unsequestered
Fossll37%
600
400
200
ft
:r
:~~111111
3!~t.~,rir-"11t~r-Jr....:..
!C'
"--'
'20
'35
'90
'50
'00
Year
D Unsequeslared Fossil
Ill Renewables
1:1 Energy Use Reduction
Sequestered Fossil
111 Biomass
!:I Nuclear
c Exotics
tl
111 Biomass 16%
i:l
'::t.
~
i:l
t:C


1990-2100
400
350
300
250
200
150
100
so
'50
'35
'00
Year
1!1 Engineered Sequestration il Terrestrial Sequestration

Cl Renewable's
Cl Fuel Mix
II Biomass
1:1 Energy Use ReducUon
lll c
~i
S!
!lja:
. . I..
~'D
a:
..
l;;
iii
!!!
111
~
,; a
iii~
II 1m
t!f
!f
JXl
(")
,8
Ul
10
Figure B-19. Results for Beyond the Standard Suite for Very High Emissions Constraint

Cumulative Exa}oules (EJ) 20002100
1,400
1,200
c
f.n
Q.
s
Exotics 6%
1,000
(j
!;,
::r
800
jJ
(';
600
a Renewable&
400
10%
200
11 Unsequestered
Fossil 53%
,,~~~
'l~~!:'H*'"', ..
>:,...
~ )',Al
'20
'90
'35
'50
II Sequestered Fossil
l1l Biomass
'00
Year
D Unsequestered Fossil
c Renewables
tJNuclear
!:I Exotics
!;;:,
a
';t.
~
t!.l
00
19902100
25

lXI
;:;
250
20
200
15
150
!;.
10
100
5
50
0
'90
'20
'35
'50
'00
Year
I! Vented Emlaalona
CNuctear
Ill Exotica
II Engineered Sequealratlon II Terrealrlal Sequeatradon

1:1 Renewable a
II Biomass
El Fuel Mlx
~~
it
&ja::
c:
..
:.
'll
:1
Ql
a:
"
, IS
c:
II II
Mj .-f
s::
~
N
90
g
0
.......
Vl
w
\0
w
Figure 8"20. Results for Beyond the Standard Suite for High Emissions Constraint

1,400
1,000
!>.
c::
~
Q
1!1 Exollcs 5%
1,200
8'
Energy Use
Reduction 11%
sao
600
Ill Renewable& 9%
400
2001~~~'it>"~. .
.~~. ~
'~oj!i4
I .
'20
Unsequestered
'50
'35
Fossll61%
Year
1:1 Unsequestered Fossil

Ill Renewables
Sequestered Fossil
Ill Biomass
'00
~t:l
CNuclear
I!IEXDUCS
i:!
'$
t;,')
l::t:l
~-


.
199()..2100
~r;
~
180
160
140
120
100
eo
eo
40
20
'50
'35
'00
Year
1!1 Engineered Sequestration 11 Terrestrial Sequestration
Cl Renewable&
II Biomass
!:I Fuel Mix
c Energy Uae Reduction
."
~!
., .
,na:
t...
c
a:
.:a
1!
Iii
~
m
::!"
,. 15
e.,
m~
.5
Ct
M!
iil~
~i
~ 6-
ell
rl
Vl
{.;.)
1.0
.j::o.
Figure B-21. Results for Beyond the Standard Suite for Medium Emissions Constraint
JO

1,400
c::
c Exotics 5%
1,200
Q.
8
1,000
"'ff
800
13 Renewables 9%
600
400
~"
200
. .
ONuclear4%
~~
.. h~~~
~0
~0
'35
'50
Unsequeslered
Fossll65%
ra Sequeslerec
'00
Year
IJ Unsequestered Fossil
11.1
C Nuclear
Ill E>CDUcs
\:I
i3
'$
~
~
....


19902100
tl;:j
Sequestered Fossil
13 Biomass
Renewables
25
140
20
120
100
15
80
10
80
40
20
0
'35
'20
~0
'50
'00
Year
II Vented Emissions
CNuclear
IIIE><DIIcs
11 Engineered Sequestration 111 Terrestrial Sequeslration

Cl Renewables
II Biomass
a Fuel Mix
II!
c:
:::l 0
e!
~~
,;!
1.
a:
c:
:a
-g
z:
iii
)(
:i:
1il
a!
'tl
~i
.5
GJ
tfil
lj
{!
11
$
N
go
VI
(jJ
1.0
VI
Figur~
B-22. Results for Beyond the Standard Suitefor Low Emissions Constraint
May28,2004
When comparing BSS to the NEB scenario, the results show that energy use reduction is generally lower
in the BSS than the NEB. In BSS, the "exotic" technologies come on line later than the advanced nuclear
and renewable technologies that are included in the NEB, and in general, the exotics are assumed to have
a somewhat higher cost than the advanced technologies in NEB. It is therefore relatively more costly to
eliminate emissions from energy production in BSS and more economically-efficient to reduce energy
use. Therefore, more carbon emissions reductions are projected to occur from energy end use reductions
in NEB than in BSS.
Another observation is that when the cumulative NEB and BSS energy patterns are compared, the "exotic"
energy technologies in BSS tend to replace nuclear and renewable energy instead of biomass-based
energy. This occurs because, when exotics come on line, they primarily participate in the electricity
sector and not the transportation sector (given the assumptions in these scenarios). In these particular
CCTP scenarios, biomass makes a relatively larger share of its contribution toward the transportation
sector than do renewables and nuclear. Hence, when exotics come on line and begin to compete in the
electricity sector in the BSS scenario, they tend to take .the place of renewable and nuclear supply
technologies.
8.3.5. Economic Analysis of the Scenarios

This section examines the cost of reducing C02 emissions under the baseline and three advanced
technology scenarios for each of the four carbon-constrained emission cases. Estimating the costs
associated with particular emissions constraints, or the economic benefit of the advanced technologies, is
difficult because many of these technologies have yet to be developed, tested, and commercialized.
Additional uncertainties are associated with the extent to which R&D investment would be needed for the
technologies to succeed, and with the prospect that R&D will eventually result in either technical or
commercial success. The costs presented here are based on the long-term cost curves associated with the
technologies built into the MiniCAM model and on simplifying assumptions (see Table B-1) about how
the cost curves might shift as a result of technology advancement. Although the absolute values of the
costs are stieculative, the general trends and comparisons among scenarios provide insights useful for .
pl.anning purposes.
Table 3-2 presents the annual costs (in real2004 dollars) of achieving the different levels of emission
reductions in selected years, along with the present value of the sum of discounted annual cost over the
entire 100-year time period. (Note: costs before 2035 are minimal because, based on the assumed
emissions constraint trajectories, most of the C02 emissions reductions needed to meet the con_!!trilints
occur after 2035. 10) The cumulative C02 emission reductions for the different emissions constraint cases
are approximately equal to: 800GtC for the very high emission constraint, 500GtC for the high emissions
constraint, 300GtC for the medium emissions constraint, and 200GtC for the low emissions constraint. 11
10
11
In the advanced technology scenarios, emissions begin their decline from the Reference Case before 2035, b~t
these reductions are not assumed to incur any cost because they are a result of improved technology performance
that is independent of the emissions constraints. The costs presented here only assume costs are incurred once
emissions are actually constrained by the imposed emissions trajectory.
The exact emissions reductions vary slightly among the advanced technology scenarios. They are sometimes
slightly more than the values cited here for the reasons described in the previous footnote.
B-31
CEQ 015396
May28,2004
The costs are shown for both the baseline scenarios and the three advanced technology scenarios. 12 The
present values of the costs are shown for two discount rates - 5% and 2%. Because these highest annual
mitigation costs occur toward the end of the century, the discount rate chosen for the present value
calculation strongly affects the resulting present value.
As intuition would predict, both the annual costs and the present value of the cumulative costs are highest .
in the baseline scenario with the very high emissions constraint. The present value ranges from $8 trillion
to $52 trillion, depending on the discount rate (5% versus 2% ). The annual costs and the present value of
the cumulative costs decreases as emissions become less constrained. For instance, in the medium
emissions constraint scenario, the present v.alue of the costs ranges from about $400 million to
$4.1 trillion under the baseline technology assumptions.
Under each emission reduction scenario, the cost of meeting the emissions constraints is significantly
lowered in the advanced technology scenarios compared to the baseline scenarios. Table B-3 shows the
percentage reduction in costs achieved by the advanced technology scenarios, compared to the baselines.
For example, the cost savings achieved by Closing the Loop on Carbon is 83% (at 5% discount rate)
while the savings by Beyond the Standard Suite is 62%. Based on the assumptions chosen in these
scenarios, the cost of the emissions reductions is lowest in Closing the Loop on Carbon, followed by
A New Energy Backbone, and then by Beyond the Standard Suite.
12
Note: 'i he cost reductions do not consider the cost associated with performing any R&D that might be necessary
to achieve the improved technology performance.
B-32
CEQ 015397
c::
Ct.l
Table 3-2. Costs of Meeting the Emissions Constraints, by Scenario (billion 2004$)
~
YEAR
2035
2050
2065
2080
2095
Total Costs 2000-2100 (Present

Value)
5% Discount
2% Discount Rate
Rate
\H
Very High Emissions Constraint

Baseline
A New Energy Backbone
Beyond the Standard ~.tite
High Emissions Constraint
Baseline
Beyond the Standard Suite
Medium Emissions Reduction
Baseline
Low Emissions Constraint (200 GtC)
Baseline
Beyond the St~T"_d.__Suite
$560
$110
$170
$200
$1,700
$260
$510
$610
$2,900. $4,600
$840
$480
$1,100 $1,800
$1,300 $2,000
$5,800
$930
$2,100
$2,200
$8,300
$1,400
$2,800
$3,200
$52,000
$8,800
$19,000
$21,000
(')
:r
i5
0
a"
~
a~
$43
$0
$0
$0
$170
$0
$0
$7
$510
$16
$68
$110
$1,400
$150
$380
$450
$2,400
$220
$700
$760
$1,500
$79
$240
$300
$13,000
$810
$2,400
$2,900
$4
$0
$0
$0
$23
$0
$0
$0
$100
$0
$0
$0
$470
$5
$47
$77
$980
$27
$160
$200
$400
$4
$31
$44
$4,100
$53
$360
$500
$0
$0
$3
$0
$0
$0
$23
$0
$0
$0
$200
$0
$0
$2
$470
$0
$15
$30
$150
$0
$2
$5
$1,700
$0
$33
$70
$~
$0
OQ
<=;
t-.)
po
g
0
......
w
Ul
\0
00
c:
~
Table 3-3. Percentage Reduction in Costs for Meeting Emissions Constraints, Compared to Baseline
YEAR
er
I
Total Costs 2000-2100 (Present Value)
()
2050
2065
2080
2095
5% Discount Rate
2% Discount Rate
Very High Emissions

Reduction

85%
70%
64%
83%
62%
56%
82%
60%
56%
84%
64%
62%
83%
66%
62%
83%
64%
60%
100%
100%
96%
97%
87%
78%
89%
72%
67%
91%
71%
69%
95%
84%
80%
94%
81%
77%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
99%
90%
83%
97%
83%
80%
99%
92%
89%
99%
91%
88%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
99%
100%
97%
94%
100%
99%
97%
100%
98%
96%
f
I
I
tJ
~
';:j;.
~
~
Medium Emissions Reduction

t:tl

I
a""d
High Emissions Reduction

~
!=j
"'1:1
IS'
::s
Low Emissions Reduction

s::
t-.:1
90
ti:I
tO
VI
\0
\0
RE Science Piece.txt
From: Cooney, Phil
sent: Tuesday, June 01, 2004 1:04 PM
To: Hannegan, Bryan J.; 'Stephen.Eule@hq.doe.gov'
subject: RE: science Piece
Steve, I thought that after we talked last week, you were going to make revisions
and circulate a new draft over here for WH staffing. sorry if I was operating from
a different assumption -- do you have a new draft based on our discussions? Phil
-----original Message----From: Hannegan, Bryan J.
sent: Tuesday, June 01, 2004 12:46 PM
To: 'stephen.Eule@hq.doe.gov'
cc: Cooney, Phil
subject: Re: Science Piece
If that's the case, then I am overtaken by events. Will check with Phil on status
and get back to you.
Bryan Hanne~an
Associate DHector for Energy and Transportation council on Environmental Quality
-----original Message----From: Eule, stephen <Stephen .. Eule@hq. doe. gov>
To: Hannegan, Bryan J. <Bryan_J._Hannegan@ceq.eop.gov>
cc: Cooney, Phil <Phil_cooney@ceq.eop.gov>
sent: Tue Jun 01 12:42:41 2004
when would you'like to talk? Phil I believe has sent the piece forward to the WH
with some changes he recommended. I'm on 586-2731. Steve
-----original Message----From: Hannegan, Bryan J. [mailto:Bryan_J._Hannegan@ceq.eop.gov]
sent: Monday, May 31, 2004 3:29 PM
To: Eule, stephen
cc: conover, David; Marlay, Robert
Steve, back in now from a much needed vacation. Let's discuss on Tuesday, thanks,
Bryan
-----original Message----.
From: Eule, stephen [mailto:stephen.Eule@hq.doe.gov].
sent: Tuesday, May 25, 2004 12:13 PM
To: Hannegan, Bryan J.

cc: conover, David; Marlay, Robert
subject: FW: science Piece
Bryan: I don't know how far along you are in your review of the .secretary's science
piece, and I don't mean to confuse matters, but allow me to make a few added
suggestions that we have developed since the piece was sent to you for review in the
hopes that we can save time and avoid having to go back to you with further changes.
Given the reviewer's focus on Kyoto vs. the President's short-term approach, maybe
it would be best to not even beg the question and strike all references to the Kyoto
Page 1
oo35a4
CEQ 015404
Protocol. I propose:
RE Science Piece.txt
Striking the reference to Kyoto in the 2nd paragraph and combining the 2nd and 3rd
paragraphs like so:
"Early in his term, President Bush directed his Administration to develop a policy
on climate change that capitalizes on innovation and markets, maintains economic
growth, and encourages global participation. out of this .review emerged a
comprehensive strategy that rests on three pillars-science, technology, and
international cooperation. To give this policy substance, in February 2002, the
President announced the creation of a cabinet-level committee on climate ChanQe
science and Technology Integration. The committee's work on climate change sc1ence
is led by the Department of Commerce. Its work on climate change technologies is led
by the Department of Energy (1)."
striking the reference to Kyoto in the last paragraph, thusly:
"In sum, the Bush Administration has developed a comprehensive strategy on climate
change that is informed by science, emphasizes innovation and technological
solutions, and promotes international collaboration to support the UNFCCC goal.
while the scientific and technology challenges are considerable, the Bush
Administration remains committed to leading the way on climate change at home and
around the world."
These changes also would free up some needed space.
Also, the reviewer and editor suggested that the secretary include some sort of
graph showing different emissions pathways (i.e., Kyoto vs. Administration
approach). Instead, we are planning to put in a figure showing the potential
contributions of new technologies to emissions reductions under scenarios labeled
generically 1, 2, and 3. (Bob Marlay should have something ready br, Thursda).
Therefore, I propose rep,lacing paragraph 20 (that now starts with 'These in1tiatives
provide a glimpse. . . ') with the following to tee up the figure:
"These initiatives and other technologies in the CCTP portfolio (10), leveraged by
collaboration with others, could revolutionize energy systems and put us on a path
to meeting our treat~ obligations and ensuring access to secure, clean enerQY Fig.
1 offers a glimpse of emissions reductions new technologies might make poss1ble in
energy end use, energy supply, carbon sequestration, and other greenhouse gases on a
100-year scale and across a range of uncertainties (8)."
For the figure caption, I propose the following:
"Potential ranges of emissions reductions to 2100 for three technology scenarios,
relative to a reference case similar to those of the IPCC Third Assessment Report
Page 2
CEQ 015405
RE science Piece.txt
(5). The scenarios are characterized by, among other things, viable carbon
sequestration (Scenario 1), dramatically expanded nuclear and renewable energy
(Scenario 2), and novel and advanced technologies (scenario 3) (8)."
The attached file (v4) incorporates these changes, so you may wish to work from it.
A~ain, I think we have a 9reat opportunity to provide a dose of realism and
h1ghlight al the stuff we re doing on climate change in a way that a scientific
audience would appreciate. Cheers, Steve
--~--original Message----From: Eule, Stephen

sent: Thursday, May 20, 2004 11:22 AM
To: 'Hannegan, Br~an J.'
cc: conover, Davia
Bryan: My reading of the reviewer's comments is that (like many people) he gets so
hung up on the short-term voluntary approach vis-a-vis Kyoto that he misses the
larger strategic picture (e.~., the comments from both the editor and the reviewer
about "relevant calculations for comparisons w/ KP). The changes incorporate
general themes from the draft CCTP strategic plan, point to the vast sums being
spend on EE andRE, and place much less emphasis on the'short-term stuff. A more
measured tone is adopted, as well. The reaaers of science will, I suspect, have a
greater appreciation for the strategic approach the revised piece plays up.
Moreover, the timing of the draft CCTP strategic plan is propitious, and we can
generate some early buzz for it. cheers, steve
-----original Message----From: Conover, David

To: 'Hannegan, Bryan J.
cc: Eule, stephen
Steve, do you still have the reviewer's letter?
-----original Message----From: Hannegan, Bryan J. [mailto:Bryan_J._Hannegan@ceq.eop.gov]
To: conover, David; Cooney, Phil
David -- am I right in the understanding that this was submitted to science, and a
reviewer responded with comments, and this rewrite is now in response to those
comments? can we see a copy of the 1etter from the reviewer? Thanks, Bryan
,,
-----original Message-----
Page 3
CEQ 015406
RE science Piece.txt
From: conover, David [mailto:David.conover@hq.doe.gov]
To: Hannegan, Bryan J.; Cooney, Phil
subject: FW: science Piece
what do you think?
-----original Message----From:
Eule, stephen
sent:
Wednesday, May 19, 2004 7:46 PM
To:
Conover, David
cc:
Marlay, Robert; DeVito, vincent; Dobriansky, Larisa
subject:
science Piece
David: Attached is a second draft of the revised Science piece that I think should
go out for review. I've included many comments from Bob Marlay who tightened some
things up and placed greater emphasis on certain things than frankly needed greater
emphasis (to keep the word count to a minimum, I had to be judicious with the
changes.) Bob and I propose to include an abbreviated version of CCTP Strategic Plan
Figure 3-20. To keep the questions to a minimum, we propose just doing a range for
each category (end-use, supply 1 etc.) that encompasses all 3 scenarios instead of
doing a bar for each scenario 1n each category. By providinQ a broad range, we can
at least let people know we are thinking seriously about th1s without giving too
much away and having to explain what the 3 scenarios are all about.
I don't know how you want to approach CEQ on this, but Bob and I think we have a
decent piece product that will gin up a lot of interest in the CCTP plan and maybe
serve as an antidote to some of the nonsense with that global warming movie. we have
a good policy-it's time we started acting like it. obviously, the sooner we can get
approval, the better. Let me know how I can help. Also, I will draft a letter form
51 to science responding o the reviewer's comments. Cheers, steve
<<51 Bush Approach to climate change v2 12-5-04.doc>>

Stephen D. Eule
Director, office of climate Change Policy Department of Energy
(202) 586-2731
stephen.eule@hq.doe.gov
Page 4
CEQ 015407
Page 1 of 4
Message
From: Hannegan, Bryan J.

Sent: Thursday, June 03,2004 1:36PM
To: 'Eule, Stephen'
Cc: Cooney, Phil
Subject: RE: Science Piece
Importance: High
Steve sorry to be so long in responding. I've reviewed the latest version and am comfortable putting it into WH
staffing with the changes as indicated in the attached document. Please feel free to call me to discuss any of
them, thanks. Bryan Hannagan, CEQ
-----Original Message----From: Cooney, Phil

Sent: Tuesday, June 01, 2004 2:10 PM
To: 'Eule, Stephen'; Hannegan, Bryan J.
sorry -- Bryan, please take a look at this and let me know if you are comfortable now with putting this into
WH staffing. thanks Phil
-----Original Message----From: Eule, Stephen [mailto:Stephen.Eule@hq.doe.gov]

Sent: Tuesday, June 01, 2004 1:24PM
To: Cooney, Phil; Hannegan, Bryan J.
I sent you a revised version on 4/25 with the changes we discussed. Here it is. Steve
-----Original Message----(b) (6)

From: Cooney, Phil [majJto:Phii_Coone~
.
To: Hannegan, Bryan J.; Eule, Stephen
Steve, I thought that after we talked last week, you were going to make revisions and circulate a new draft
over here for WH staffing. Sorry if I was operating from a different assumption -- do you have a new draft
based on our discussions? Phil
-----Original Message----From: Hannegan, Bryan J.
To: 'Stephen.Eule@hq.doe.gov'
Cc: Cooney, Phil
Subject: Re: Science Piece
If that's the case, then I am overtaken by events. Will check with Phil on status and get back to you.
Bryan Hanilegan
file:/tG:\FOIA - Climate\2004\Deliberative\6.04\RE Science Piece.htm
0035'(0
4/1112007
CEQ 015412
Message
Page 2 of4
Associate Director for Energy and Transportation
Council on Environmental Quality
-----Original Message----From: Eule, Stephen <Stephen.Eule@hq.doe.gov>
(b) (6)
To: Hannegan, Bryan J. <Bryan_~
(b)
(6)
CC: Cooney, Phil < P h i i _ C o o n e y - S::nt: Tue Jun 01 12:42:41 2004
When would you like to talk? Phil I believe has sent the piece forward to the WH with some changes he
recommended. I'm on 586-2731. Steve
From: Hannegan, Bryan J. [mailto:Bryan_J._Jiannega._
Sent: Monday, May 31,2004 3:29PM
To: Eule, Stephen
Cc: Conover, David; Marlay, Robert
Steve, back in now from a much needed vacation. Let's discuss on Tuesday, thanks, Bryan
-----Original Message----From: Eule, Stephen [mailto:Steph~n,Etde@hq.doe.gov]
Sent: Tuesday, May 25,2004 12:13 PM
To: Harinegari, Bryan J.
Cc: Conover, David; Marlay, Robert
Subject: FW: Science Piece
Bryan: I don't know how far along you are in your review of the Secretary's Science piece, and I don't mean to
confuse matters, but allow me to make a few added suggestions that we have developed since the piece was
sent to you for review in the hopes that we can save time and avoid having to go back to you with further
changes.
Given the reviewer's focus on Kyoto vs. the President's short-term approach, maybe it would be best to not
even beg the question and strike all references to the Kyoto Protocol. I propose:
Striking the reference to Kyoto in the 2nd paragraph and combining the 2nd and 3rd paragraphs like so:
"Early in his term, President Bush directed his Administration to develop a policy on climate change that
capitalizes on innovation and markets, maintains economic growth, and encourages global participation. Out
of this review emerged a comprehensive strategy that rests on three pillars-science, technology, and
international cooperation. To give this policy substance, in February 2002, the President announced the
creation of a Cabinet-level Committee on Climate Change Science and Technology Integration. The
Committee's work on climate change science is Jed by the Department of Commerce. Its work on climate
change technologies is Jed by the Department of Energy ( 1). "
Striking the reference to Kyoto in the last paragraph, thusly:
"In sum, the Bush Administration has developed a comprehensive strategy on climate change that is informed
by science, emphasizes innovation and technological solutions, and promote!> international collaboration to
support the UNFCCC goal. While the scientific and technology challenges are considerable, the Bush
Administration remains committed to leading the way on climate change at home and around the world."
file://G:\FOIA - Climate\2004\Deliberative\6.04\RE Science Piece.htm
4/11/2007
CEQ 015413
Message
Page 3 of4
These changes also would free up some needed space.

Also, the reviewer and editor suggested that the Secretary include some sort of graph showing different
emissions pathways (i.e., Kyoto vs. Administration approach). Instead, we are planning to pu~ in a figure
showing the potential contributions of new technologies to emissions reductions under scenarios labeled
generically 1, 2, and 3. (Bob Marlay should have something ready by Thursday). Therefore, I propose
replaCing paragraph 20 (that now starts with "These initiatives provide a glimpse... ") with the following to
tee up the figure:

"These initiatives and other technologies in the CCTP portfolio (10), leveraged by collaboration with others,
could revolutionize energy systems and put us on a path to meeting our treaty obligations and ensuring access
to secure, clean energy. Fig. l offers a glimpse of emissions reductions new technologies might make possible
in energy end use, energy supply, carbon sequestration, and other greenhouse gases on a 100-year scale and
across a range of uncertainties (8)."
For the figure caption, I propose the following:
"Potential ranges of emissions reductions to 2100 for three technology scenarios, relative to a reference case
similar to those of the IPCC Third Assessment Report (5). The scenarios are characterized by, among other
things, viable carbon sequestration (Scenario 1), dramatically expanded nuclear and renewable energy
(Scenario 2), and novel and advanced technologies (Scenario 3) (8)."
The attached file (v4) incorporates these changes, so you may wish to work from it. Again, I think we have a
great opportunity to provide a dose of realism and highlight al the stuff we're doing on climate change in a
way that a scientific audience would appreciate. Cheers, Steve
-----Original Message----From: Eule, Stephen
Sent: Thursday, May 20, 2004 II :22 AM
To: 'Hannegan, Bryan J.'
Cc: Conover, David
Bryan: My reading of the reviewer's comments is that (like many people) he gets so hung up on the short-term
voluntary approach vis-a-vis Kyoto that he misses the larger strategic picture (e.g., the comments from both
the editor and the reviewer about "relevant calculations" for comparisons w/ KP). The changes incorporate
general themes from the draft CCTP strategic plan, point to the vast sums being spend on EE and RE, and
place much less emphasis on the short-term stuff. A more measured tone is adopted, as well. The readers of
Science will, I suspect, have a greater appreciation for the strategic approach the revised piece plays up.
Moreover, the timing of the draft CCTP str,ategic plan is propitious, and we can generate some early buzz for
it. Cheers, Steve
-----Original Message----From: Conover, David
Sent: Thursday, May 20,2004 9:53AM
To: 'Hannegan, Bryan J.'
Cc: Eule, Stephen
Steve, do you still have the reviewer's letter?
-----Original Message----From: Hannegan, Bryan J. [mailto;BmuU
Sent: Thursday, May 20, 2004 9:49AM
To: Conover, David; Cooney, Phil
(b) (6)
411112007
CEQ 015414
Page 4 of4
Message

David -- am I right in the understanding that this was submitted to Science, and a reviewer responded with
comments, and this rewrite is now in response to those comments? Can we see a copy of the letter from the
reviewer? Thanks, Bryan
-----Original Message----From: Conover, David [mailto:David.Conover@hq.doe.gov)
Sent: Thursday, May 20,2004 9:12AM
To: Hannegan,.Bryan J.; Cooney, Phil
Subject: FW: Science Piece
What do you think?
-----Original Message----From: Eule, Stephen
Sent: Wednesday, May 19,2004 7:46PM
To: Conover, David
Cc: Marlay, Robert; DeVito, Vincent; Dobriansky, Larisa
Subject:
Science Piece
David: Attached is a second draft of the revised Science piece that I think should go out for review. I've
included many comments from Bob Marlay who tightened some things up and placed greater emphasis on
certain things than frankly needed greater emphasis (to keep the word count to a minimum, I had to be.
judicious with the changes.) Bob and I propose to include an abbreviated version of CCTP Strategic Plan
Figure 3-20. To keep the questions to a minimum, we propose just doing a range for each category (end-use,
supply, etc.) that encompasses all 3 scenarios instead of doing a bar for each scenario in each category. By
providing a broad range, we can at least let people know we are thinking seriously about this without giving
too much away and having to explain what the 3 scenarios are all about.
I don't know how you want to approach CEQ on this, but Bob and I think we have a decent piece product that
will gin up a lot of interest in the CCTP plan and maybe serve as an antidote to some of the nonsense with that
global warming movie. We have a good policy-it's time we started acting like it. Obviously, the sooner we can
get approval, the better. Let me know how I can help. Also, I will dmft a letter form Sl to Science responding
o the reviewer's comments. Cheers, Steve
S 1 Bush Approach to Climate Change v2 12-5-04.doc
Stephen D. Eule
Director, Office of Climate Change Policy
Department of Energy
(202) 586-2731
stephen.eule@hq.doe.gov
4/1112007
CEQ 015415
O~l.fl8~0it TUE 15: 51 FAX
@1001
SS/RM NO.
WHITE HOUSE STAFFING MEMORANDUM
"'
. Date: 6-4-04 7:00 PM
ACTION I CONCURRENCE I COMMENi DUE BY:
6..8.04 "NOON
. Subject: SECRETARY ABRAHAM ARTICLE ON CLIMATE cHANGE POLICY
. ACTION
FYI
MARBURGER
121'
Cl
D
"MCCLELLAN
[]
rt'
[J
ACTION
FYI
tf
.!1
[J
VICE PRESIDENT
CARD
BART~,
MIERS
BENNETT
[]
D..
MONTGOMERY
BOLTEN
POWELL
CONNAUGHTON
(t(
C.
0
RICE
FRIEDMAN
.~
[J
ROVJ!
Cl
SPELLINGS
GERSON
TOWNSEND
GONZALES
CLERK
l:fAGIN
.0
HOBBS
KAVANAUGH
GAMBATESA
IJ.
tY
~
~
IJ
[]
D
Cl
[]
Cl
rT.
[]
Cl
D
Cl
Cl.
[J.
it'
MANKIW
[]
. REM.A.RKSf
PLEASE FORWARD COMMENTS DIRECTLY TO ~RYAN HANNE~AN, X50801 1 FAX 53744, BY

NOON, TUESDAY, JUNE B. 2004, WITH A COPY TO THE STAFF SECRETARY. THANK YOU.
RESPONSE:
CA~-b
ct\ -~:
JAM
-~~
. IJ 2.
.
*
.
Brett Kavanaugh
Assistant to the Presidont
and Staff Secretary
Ext.62702
FAX Ext. 62215
CEQ 015467
O~~ns;p~.
TUE 15:51 FAX
~gJoo2
....
THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION'S APPROACH TO CLIMATE CHANGE

.
Spen~ Abraham
As a s.igna.toty to the United N9.tions F.ram.ewoik Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCq, the
United States sb.ues with many countties its ultimate objective: sta.bili2~ of greeo.h~use gas
concentrations in the atmosphere at a. level that prevents ~us io.tetfeieilce w:itb. the climate
systelll. Meeting the UNFCCC goal will require a ce:o.tury-lo.ni{ierspecB and inte.tnational
colabo.ta.tion-no nation ca1.1 go it alone.
? .._ ~ /
C~'T'M.fA'"T
President Bush's policy on dirna.te change hamesses the power of ma:rkets a:D.d technological
innovation. ~t.ains economic gtowth, and enc;ourages global participation. While clitnate change
is a coJ:Oplex and long-tenn c:ba11enge. the Administration recog:nb:es that there .are cost-eff~1ive
steps we om take now.
Near-Term Policies and Measures

.
In 2002. President Bush set a ja:tiona.l goal to :teduce the greenhouse gas i:nt:ensit:y (1) of the U.S.
econ9W-y 18% rem ?QO'illa a.L. by 2012. This goal sets America on a path to slow the growth in
greel'lhouse gas emissions, and---as the science justifies and the technology allows--to stop and
:r:everse that growth all nclea to meet the UNFCCC goal Our approac;h focuses on :teduc:ing
etnissions while sust:tining the economic growth needed to finance .investtD.ent in ne\v, cl.ean energy
~ologies. The Administra.tion estilnates that this commitment will achieve about 100 MMTCe of
reduced emissions in 2012, with :tn.Ot:e that 500 MM'!Ce in cumulative sail'iilgs ovet the decade (2).
To this enQ, the AdtJ?inistra.tion has developed an uray of policy measw:es, financial incentives,
Vb1VIrkt1>L
7
"? ~d Federid p:rograms. For eJWnple, out Climate VISION !), Climate Leaders , and
>
~~~T.ra.nspo:l:t Partnership (5) o un
rograms wo:tk w.itb. :1.0 ustry t~:re ttc:e en:nsStOns.
'
\I~~'L.f The Depa7:tment of Agricultw:e is using its conservation p.toguuns to p.rov.ide an incentive for
VJ-"".
actions that increase au:bon sequestration (0). We also a.re pw:suing many enetgy $Upply
technologies with compamtively low or zero C02 emissions prolles, such as solar, wind.
geothermal, bioenetgy, and combined heat and powa. The President has proposed over $4 billion in
tax credits as in~tives fot these ana othet energy-efficient teChnologies ovex the next five y~ (.2).
Last year, the Bush Administration increased. fuel economy standuds for.new light ttucks and sport
utility ~ebicles by 1.5 miles per gallon over the next three model yeatS, leading to the avoidance of 31
MMTCe of emissions.
While l1Cting to slow the pace of greenho'QSe gas emissioos in the near tenn, the United States is
laying a strong scientific and technologic:al foundation to :ted~e uncet:rainties, clarify risks and
benefits, and de:vcl.op realistic :mitigation options ~; 1s t1> wctjtd:i.'!d in the future to :z:neet the
UNFCCC goal
.
Advancing Clix:n.ate Change Science
Jn 2001, President Bush commissioned the National Rcseucb. Council (NRq to examine the sfutc
of our knowledge and undctStanding of clttnare change sdec:ce. The NRC's report (7) makes clear
that there are still majo:s: gaps in ow: ability to xneasu:r:e the impllCtS of gn:eohouse gas fo:tcing on the
ma.gnimde, timing, and regional distribution of climatic change and ~ariatioXJ. Major advances in
undetsta.J).ding and lilodcling the facto:t$ that influep.ce a.tm.osphetic concen'tl:ations of g:teenhousc::
CEQ 015468
0~/.08/0~ TUE 15:51 FAX
141003
gases and aero"sols, as well as the feedbacks that gove;:n climate scnsiriv.ity~ are needed to predict
futute climate change with gr~ter confidence.
...
Last su.mtner, the Climate change Science Prog:talll (CCSP) .tcleased a new st:tategic
that
add.Iess~ these gaps (8). The plan is organized around five goals: (1) impto
owledge of
climate histbty attd variabilitY~ (li) impr~ out ability to quantify cllinate o
(iii) reducip.g
unce.ttainty in climate p.rojectioos; (.iv) imptovi.ng ~understanding of the sens.t ":ty attd
adaptability of ecosystems and human systeJns to cli.tna.te .change; and (v) ~'Ploxing options to
~.risks. Annually, ovet $2 billion is spen
on clit:nate clw:J.ge science by the Fedetd
Govemment
A review of tlie CCSP plm by NR.G shows the Ac:b:ninistta.tion is on the right tmck. While concem
was expt:essed about .fu~e funding to ex:ecute the plan, the NRC concluded that it c'a.t(i.c:ulates a
guiding visionr.is appropti.ately ambitious. aild is broad in scop~' (9).
NRC's report also" identified the real need for a. b:road global observing system to support
meas~ents of ditna.te variables. Last June, the United States hosted m(1.re than 30 na.tions at the
:inaugural Ea.rth. Observation Sununit, out of which came a coiD.D:litm.c:o.t to establish an
inteto.a:tioJJal, integrated Earth observing system. The dam collected by the sy$tem will be :used to
d-eate better climate models, improve ow: knowledge of the beha:vior of C02 and aerosols in the
atmosph~ and develop strategies for carbon sequestration.
Accel~ting
Climate Change TechnoloJi:Y Development
The Bush Administratio~ also is mov.ing ahea.d on advanced technology options that have the
potential to substantia.lly reduce, avoid, oJ: sequester :future greenhouse gas emissions. About 80% .of
cw:rent greeiilio\lSe gas emissions are energy-t~ted, and while projections vary coo.sidetably, a.
tiipJin~ro energy dem.ati.d by 2100 :is not unttnaginable (10). Tb.erefo:I:C, to pl=Ovide the energy
-necessaty" for continued economic gtowth while we .reduce gteenhouse gas ero.issions, we will b2.ve
to develop and deploy cost-effective t:ran:sfomu~.tional technologies that al.tet fundatnentally the wa.y
we ptoduce and use' energy.
By cent:u:r1,s end, a s.ignificant at:nount of the wotkfs et;~ergy may ~ve to come from low- or zeroemission technologies to a.ttaii::t the UNF~CC goal. The pace and scope of needed change will he
driven partially by future trends"in greenhouse gas emissions that. like clima.te sensitivity, are subject
to great "Wlc:ert2inty. The complex relationships :among population growth. ecortomic development,
energy demand, mix, a.ndinte:nsity7 resource availability, technology" and other variables make it
~cult toetredic~cu.ra!)fut:ute gteen.housega.s Cmissi~ns on a 100-year titneScale.
The Climate Change TechOology P.rogram (CCTP) was created to ~o~te and prioritize the
Fede.ral govcnunent>s more than $2 billion annual :investment in climate-.related technology research
and dev~ment. Using various analytical tools, CCTP is assessing different technology options and
tbeU: potential contribu~ons to tedudng greenho'USe gas emissions. Given the tremendous capital
fu.vestment ill existing wo.cl.d energy systems, the desired ttansfon:na..tion of out global energy sy~tetn
:J::Da.y take decades o.r to.ote to .implement fully. A robust tesearch and development effort can make
advanced technologies available sooner rather than later and a.ccelera.te ~odexnization of capital
stock at lower cost and with greater tle.."'tibility.
2
CEQ 015469
06/08/04' TUE t5:52 FAX
lg)oo4
CCTP's strategic vision has six complementary goals: (i) tedudng emissions :&om energy use and .
(ii) t:educing emissions ftom eru;rgy supply; (ili) capturing and sequestering co~ (iv)
reducl.og emissions of o1;her greenhouse gases; (v) measuring and monitoring emissi.om; and(vi).
bolstering the contc.butiori.s ofba.sic science (11).
~ttuc:tu:te;
'Ten Fedetal agencies support a porttolio of activities wit:b.Ui tbis ftatnewatk. Annu.any: mo.re than
$700 nilllion is being spent to ad-vance energy efficiency technologies (plus $500 xnilli6n fo.r
accelerated deployment), an4 more than $200 c::Wlio:o. supports t:ellewable energy. Many activities
build on emti.ng wo:r:k, but the Bush Administ:ration also has expanded a11.d realigned som~ aCtivities
andlaunc:hednew initiatives in key tec:hnOlogy'a:cea.s to support the CCTP~s goils.
In his 2003 State of the Union address, President Bush made a commitment to the develo~t of a
hydrogen eCOlloxny, pledging $1.7 b.illi.on.
five years for his F:reedomCAR and Hy&:ogeo. Fuel
Initiative to develop hydrogen-powered vcbicles. The ~sition to hydrogen as a major enetgy .
cattieJ: in the neJtt 50 yeus could tr~fonn th.e na.tions energy system. acating opportwrl.ties to
inc:tease energy seCI.lti.ty by tnaking bette.t: use of diverse domestic energy solirc:es for hydrogen
,productioll. and xeduce emissions. of air pollutants and C02 (12). Where hydrogen is produced ftotn
fossil fuels, carbon capture and sequeso:a.tion is a consid.e.mti.on we ue addressing
aver
To help coo.i:di11ate and leverage ongoing woi:k: ovetsea.s. the Unit.e4 States led the effo'rt to form the
. Intematiorial Pa:rb:l.el:ship fot the Hydtogen Economy (IPHE)- lP~ will addt:ess the tech.o.Qlo~
:6na.ncla.l, ana institutional ba:r:riers to hydrog!=n rand develop intemationally-rccognized standa.tds to
speed market penetxation of the new technologi.etrThe Administta.tion also is. pursuing next generation nuclear .energy as a 11:ero-emissions energy
supply choice. The ~ctati.on IV'Intemational Forum, with ~0 pa.rtrierii. is wotldng on reaa:o.t
desigo.s that ue safe, economical, seCI.l:r:e, and able to produce new products, such as hydrogen. She
pro~ technologies ha"''c bceb. ~elected c:a.ndidates f01: future designs ruld could be .tea.dy a.s.
early as 2015. In 2003, Pl:esident Bush announced that theUoited States would join the ITER
p:t:Ojcct to develop fusion a.s an energy sou:rce. Although the technical hw:dles are substantial, the
promise of fusion is simply too gr~t to ignote. _
as
Ca.t:bon capture and sequestration is a central element o CCTP,s strategy because for tP.e
fox:eseeable future, fossil fuels will continue to be the world's most reliable and lowest-cost fonnof
energy. It is unrealistic to expect countties--patticu.latly developing counttics-:-:-with.la:rge fossil
reserves to fo.tgo tb.eii: use. A realistic approach .is to find ways to ca.ptw:e and sto.J;e the C02
produced when these fuels axe used. .
. ..
The ~epartment of Energy is cw:rently working on 65 caxbon sequestration projecrs around the
countr:y. In the last two years. we b.a:~e increased. the budget for tb.C?se acdvities 23% to $49 million.
The multilate:ral Catbon Sequesttation Leadexship Forum, a Ptesidential Wtia.tive inaugurated io.
June 2003 with 16 pa.:rtn.erS, will set a. framewol:k. for international collabo.tation o:o. sequcstra.tion
tcchnok>gies.
The Fo.tUm1s pa.ttnel:S ue eligible to paJ:tid.pate in Futw:eGen, a 10-yea.t:, $1 billion effart to design,
build, and opeJ:at.e the world's :fi.tst emissions-free coal-fi:ted power plant. '1'1$ p;r:ojeet, which cuts
ac::t:Oss many CCTP sttategk gOals, will employ the la.test technologies to generate electti.city, prod~
3
CEQ 015470
06/08194 TUE 15: 52 FAX
141005
hydrogen, and sequester CO:z. from coal Through this research, clean coal can retnain pru:c of a
diverse, secure energy portfolio 'Q.\'ell into the future.
These initiatives and othe:J: technologies in the CCI'P portfolio (1 J) could :revolu.tionize ~
systems IUld put us on a path to ensuring access to cleall, affordable energy supplies while
dtalna.t.ica11. reducing gi:eeQ}louse ~ emissions. Fig. 1 off~ a gl.Unpse of the tange of emissions
reductioo..s ~ew tecbllologies might make possible in en~ end use; enetgy supply, citt:bon
sequestration. and othet greenhouse gases on a 100-year scale and ac:;;:r:oss a .t:aDge of u.ncettainties.
Soine have c.hatactei:ized the wo.tk being perfo:aned under CCSP and CCTP as a. dcl.a.yi:ng merle. To
the contrarjr, s.cientllic and technological progress is a vital prerequisite to sound policy. btoad
consensus, and better, mo.te cost-effective solutions. Without the advances developed through these
programs, our futux'e technology and policy options will :rctnain limited.
The Bush .i\dministt:a.ti.on has devcloped a comp.tehensN-e strategy on cfuna.te change that is
irifoaned by science, emph~es innovation and technologial solutions, and promotes int.e.mational
collaboration to support the UNFCCC goal While the scienrific and tedmology cbal1eoges ue . .
coilside:r::a.ble, thE!"ftasii :lnrm:h:ris"ti.on remains committed to leading the wa.y oo. cli:ma.te change a.t
home .a.o.d around the world.
"'t1c&. <PH's ~
.
.
.
The a.utbor 1s the U.S. Secretary of Energy.
References and Notes

1. Measured a.s the i:atio of greenhouse gases (cru:bon equivalent). emitted per .teal gross domestic
ptod\ld:.
2; U.S. Climate Change S1n11cgy: ANew.Approach (The: White House, Washington, D.C., February 14,
2002). Available at: hg;p:L/www.whitehouse..g;gy/new~;/releases/2002/02Zclimatechangc.him.L
3. See, http; 1/ww.climatevilrion.goy.
4. See, http: /1"-'-ww.epa.gn~-/ climateleaderli5. See. http://www.ez;ta.g<)v tsm.'lrt'Way.
6. See, http;//~ .u~da.g~v /newslrelsases/zoo3i06/fs-0194.htm.

7. National Reseuch Council, Climate ChangeScience: An Anafysis ofSom1 Kg Qpeslions, Commitree on
the Science of CJ.i.mate Chnnge (N'a.tiona.l Acadetny Ptess, W-ashillgton, DC 2001), pp. 20-21.
8.. CCSP, Vision for the Pro.!!!'am and Highlights ofthe Scientific Stralegi~ Plan (CCSP. Washington, D.C.,
July 2003). Available at: www.climatesdc.-n.ee.goy.

~
9. National Research Council, bitpkmenti1lg Climate and Global Change '&setmh:A Revi8JtJ ofthe Final
U.S. Clitnate Change Scicnft Program Strategi~ Plan (NatiOnal Aca.demies.Prc~s. Washington, D.C~
2004), P 1,
.
. 4
CEQ 015471
06(08/~4. TUE 15:53 FAX
tal 006
..
10.Intergovunmencil Panel on ClhDa.te Cha:Dge, ''An overriew of the sc:ena.ti91itcaltme," Bmism".as

Seenario.r (Cambridge U:ci'li'e.t:Sity Press, UJlite~ K:ingd01'D, 2000).
11.
CCIP, U.S. Climate Change Technology 'Pro!J'fJ11J Draft Stratcc Plan (Cq.t>, Washingto~ D.C.,
fo.rth.c;oDling). Available at www.climate:chnolggy.grur.
12. Natiooil. Research Council, The Hydrogm BG01101J!J: 'Oppqrtunitil.r, Cost.r, Barrz"ers, a1Jd R&D Needs
(.:N'ational Acadenrles, Was~ D.C., Febtl.W:f 4, 2004).
13. CCTP, Rt:~rmh and Current .AttivitiM (CCTP, Washington, D.C., November .i003). Availible at
mvw.climat~technology,gm::.
s
CEQ 015472
06(n'8/.!J4 -TUE 15:53 FAX

.:..
~007
..
Fig.1.
Potential ra.:nges of greenhouse gas emissiOns :re~uctions to 2100 by categoxy of activity fox three
technology sc~os cmu:acte:cized 'Oy: 'lria.ble eaxbon sequestration (Scenario t); drm-tatically
expanded nuclear and :renewable energy (Scenario 2)? and novel and advanced technologies (Scenario
3) (11).
6
CEQ 015473

June 14, 2004 .
Executive Summary
I. Introduction
The United States recognizes that global climate change is a long-term challenge. Solutions will likely
require fundamental changes in the way the world produces and uses energy, as well as in many other
GHG-emitting aspects of industry, agriculture, land use and other ac~ivities associated with modem
civilization. New and revolutionary technologies could potentially facilitate such changes over the course
of the 21 51 century, by reducing, avoiding, capturing or sequestering GHG emissions, while also
continuing to provide the energy-related and other services needed to sustain economic growth.
The United States is committed to leading the development of these new technologies. This executive
summary and accompanying report, in draft form for public review and comment, present the U.S.
Government's plan for guiding its future investments in research, development, demonstration, and
deployment (R&D) of these technologies.
The Climate Change Challenge

Growing concern over GHG emissions and their increasing concentrations in the atmosphere led to the
adoption in 1992 by more than 170 countries, including the United States, of the United Nations
Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). The UNFCCC's central goal is the
" ... stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations in Earth's atmosphere at a level that would prevent
dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system." This goal forms the context for this
work.
The "stabilization" ofGHG concentrations at any atmospheric concentration means that net emissions of
GHGs would need to slow in growth, begin a long-term decline, and ultimately approach levels that are
low or near zero. Because further scientific research is required to determine the level that would prevent
dangerous anthropogenic interference with the cli~ate system, this Plan is not based on any specific
stabilized GHG concentration level.
Because of this fundamental scientific uncertainty, the timing and pace of actions that may be needed to
attain the UNFCCC goal are also uncertain. However, the primary sources ofGHG emissions will likely
need to undergo a transformation toward low or near-zero emission technologies.
The scope and magnitude of such a transformation would be significant. Based on various assumptions
about long-term future economic developmen ,
ical trends, many studies
0 EJ and 2000 EJ/y arb the end of the 21 51 century.
project energy demand to grow to levels betwe
much as 35 GtC/year.
By the end of century, unconstrained C02 emissions coul
11
Mvltif\e..r so--- c.~lc ~ ~~
For the purposes of illustration, if the world were to pursue a goal of stabilizing C02 concentrations in the
atmosphere, at any one of a wide range of plausible concentration levels, net emissions of C02 from all
world sources would need to be reduced to within a range of0.5 to 1.5 times that of today, despite a twoor three-fold (or more) increase in energy production and use. Meeting this range of emissions could _
require an overall reduction in annual C02 emissions of between 20 and 30 GtC/year by the year 2100.
Other than C02, several other gases have warming or cooling effects on the atmosphere. Among the nonC02 gases, the more significant are methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N 20), certain fluorine-containing
CEQ 015502

Executive Summary
June 14,2004
halogenated substances (e.g., HFCs, PFCs); and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6). A comprehensive strategy for
technology development aimed at addressing concerns about climate change needs to address both C02
and non-C02 components of the challenge.
The Role of Technology

Most energy supply today is derived from the combustion of fossil fuels. Given the extent of energyrelated activity and the fossil fuel-based infrastructure, any approach to addressing climate change by
significantly reducing, avoiding, capturing or sequestering GHGs on a global scale would be a significant
long-term challenge.
Advances in the science of climate change can be expected to reduce uncertainties about causes and
effects of climate change and clarity the potential benefits and risks of various courses of action.
Similarly, advances in technology can be expected to bring forth an array of future options that can meet
the needs of society while also reducing emissions. As risks and benefits become more clearly known,
and as ways and means for action become more effective and less costly, the world's ability to address
climate change will improve. The role of advanced technology, therefore, is to complement the expanded
understanding of climate change science, and provide the means for enabling and facilitating such
progress.
Adding to the need to develop such technologies is the emerging demand for energy in developing
countries. Much of the developing world is now building its future infrastructure. Once built,
infrastructure is slow to change. For more than a century, the world energy system has grown
dramatically, incorporating an ever-expanding suite of new energy sources. Yet throughout this period,
the amount of energy supplied by more traditional energy forms, such as wood and coal, have not
declined significantly.
Early adoption of advanced technologies can avoid decades of emissions from older technologies.
Investments in R&D across a diversified portfolio of technologies can increase the likelihood that an
energy system with the desired characteristics will evolve successfully, sooner, and at lower cost.
U.S. Leadership and Presidential Commitment

The United States has formulated and is now implementing a comprehensive strategy on climate change,
taking a global, century-long perspective. It is science-based, encourages innovation and scientific and
technological breakthroughs, harnesses the power of markets, and encourages global participation. It
embraces the idea that sustained economic growth is central to the solution. Its longer-term elements are
augmented by an array of policy measures, financial incentives, voluntary and Federal programs aimed at
slowing the growth of U.S. GHG emissions and reducing GHG-intensity per unit of economic output in
the near-term. 1
011 June 11,2001, President Bush launched his National Climate Change Technology Initiative.2
Backed by unprecedented Federal R&D in this area, the Presidential initiative aims at stimulating
1
White House Fact Sheet on Climate Change: www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/09/20030930-4.html.

White House Rose Garden speech: www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/200l/06/20010611-2.html.
2
CEQ 015503

Executive Summary
June 14, 2004
American innovation, strengthening associated research and education, and positioning the U.S. as a
world leader in pursuit of energy technologies that can meet this global challenge.
In January 2002, the President established a Cabinet-level Committee on Climate Change Science and
Technology Integration (CCCSTI). The President charged CCCSTI with developing innovative
approaches, in accord with a number of basic principles: (1) be consistent with the long-term goal of
stabilizing greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere; (2) be measured, as more is learned from
science, and build on it; (3) be flexible to adjust to new information and take advantage of new
technology; (4) ensure continued economic growth and prosperity; (5) pursue market-based incentives
and spur technological innovation;. and (6) base efforts on global participation, including developing
countries. The CCCSTI makes recommendations to the President on matters concerning climate change
science and technology plans, investments and progress; provides Federal coordination across multiagency R&D funding issues; and works closely with the Office of Management and Budget on
implementing its recommendations.
Under the auspices ofthe CCCSTI, two multi-agency programs were established to coordinate Federal
activities in this area, known respectively as the U.S. Climate Change Science Program (CCSP), led by
the Department of Commerce, and the U.S. Climate Change Technology Program (CCTP), led by the
Department of Energy.

The Climate Change Technology Program (CCTP) coordinates climate change mitigation technology
research and development activities across the Federal R&D agencies. The CCTP is chartered by the
President to: "(1) evaluate the current state of U.S. climate change technology R&D across all participating agencies and make recommendations for improvement; (2) provide guidance on strengthening
basic research at universities and national laboratories; (3) develop opportunities to enhance private- .
public partnerships in applied R&D and expedite innovative and cost-effective approaches to reduce
GHG emissions; (4) make recommendations for funding demonstration projects for cutting-edge technologies; (5) develop improved technologies for measuring and monitoring gross and net GHG emissions;
and (6) enhance coordination across Federal agencies, and among the Federal Government, universities,
and the private sector.''3
About This Plan

The Climate Change Technology Program (CCTP) Draft Strategic Plan is a proposed plan for Federal
leadership in a U.S. technology R&D program. It sets forth for public review and comment, in an open
and transparent process, a draft plan for a long-tenn, sustained Federal investment in a portfolio of
technology research and development activities related to climate change.
White House, Climate Change Policy Review -Initial Report, June 11, 200 I,
www. whitehouse.gov/news/releases/200 1/06/climatechange.pdf.
3
CEQ 015504

Executive Summary
June 14,2004
The CCTP Draft Strategic Plan lays out a long-tenn vision and goals, and approaches to attain them. It is
organized into ten chapters. Chapter 2lays out the six goals of the CCTP and seven approaches to
achieving those goals. The goals are:
I.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Reduce emissions from energy end use and infrastructure

Reduce emissions from energy supply
Capture and sequester carbon dioxide (C02)
Reduce emissions ofnon-C02 greenhouse gases
Enhance capabilities to measure and monitor greenhouse gas emissions
Fortify basic science contributions to related technology development.
Chapter 3 explores various scenarios of the future, developed using a long-term energy-economic model,
which illustrate the potential role of technology in both reducing emissions and lowering the costs of
emissions reductions. Chapters 4 through 9 provide details on the technology development plans for
achieving each ofthe six goals. Conclusions and next steps are presented in Chapter 10.
Request for Public Comment

The United States, in partnership with others, is now embarked on a near- and long-tenn global challenge,
guided by science, and facilitated and enabled by new and advanced technology development. To expand
the current set of technological options, improve their performance, and reduce their costs, the President
directed his Cabinet to pursue a National Climate Change Technology Initiative, for which the U.S.
Climate Change Technology Program is now its multi-agency implementing arm. The CCTP Draft
Strategic Plan, presented here, seeks public input on its overall direction and completeness, recognizing
that not all potentially important technologies can be pursued simultaneously.
Public comments are invited during the planned period of public dialogue and comment, through
November 30, 2004. CCTP's ability to effectiveiy address comments would be facilitated if commenters
could use a standard template, found at: http://www.climatetechnology.gov. Alternatively, comments
may be submitted by email to CCTP@hg.doe.gov, or in writing by mailing to:
Director
1000 Independence Avenue, S.W.
U.S. Department of Energy
Washington, DC 20585
CEQ 015505

Executive Summary
June 14, 2004
II. Mission, Goals and Approaches

The CCTP Draft Strategic Plan sets forth: (i) a
vision for the role of advanced technology in
addressing climate change; (ii) a mission for
participating Federal R&D agencies in leading
programs of associated research and technology
development; (iii) a set of goals; and (iv) a
number of approaches,. based on principles laid
out by the President, that guide CCTP portfolio
planning and execution.
Box2-1
CCTPVision
The CCTP vision is to attain on a global scale, in
partnership with others, a technological capability that
can simultaneously provide abundant, clean, secure
and affordable energy supplies and more efficient
end-use services that will be needed to encourage
and sustain economic growth, while substantially
reducing emissions of greenhouse gases and the
risks of potential climate change.
Box2-2
CCTP Goals
Under the CCTP Draft Strategic Plan, the CCTP
agencies will pursue research appropriate to their
specific agency missions and develop climate
change technologies that could enable and
facilitate attainment of the six CCTP goals
below:
CCTP Mission
The CCTP mission is to stimulate and strengthen the
scientific and technological enterprise of the United
States, through improved coordination of multiagency Federal climate change technology programs
and investments and, in partnership with others,
. provide global leadership to accelerate the
development of new and advanced technologies that
would attain its vision.
Goall: Reduce Emissions from Energy End-Use and Infrastructure

One of the major sources of carbon-dioxide (C0 2) emissions is the use of energy in transportation,
residential and commercial buildings, and industrial processes. Improving energy efficiency and reducing
GHG-emissions intensity in these economic sectors through a variety of technical advances and process
changes presents a large opportunity to decrease overall GHG emissions. The types of technological
advancements applicable to this goal include:
Efficiency, Infrastructure and Equipment. Development and increased use of highly efficient motor
vehicles, transportation systems, equipment, building envelopes, and industrial combustion and
process technology can significantly reduce C02 emissions, avoid other kinds of environmental
impacts, and reduce the life-cycle costs of delivering the desired products and services.
Transition Technologies. So-called "transition" technologies, such as high-efficiency natural-gas-fired
power plants, are not completely free of GHG emissions, but are capable of achieving significant
reductions of GHG emissions in the near- and mid-term by significantly improving or displacing
higher GHG-emitting technologies in use today. Ideally, transition technologies would also be
compatible with and advanced future GHG-free technologies.
CEQ 015506

Executiv'e Summary
June 14, 2004
Enabling Technologies. Enabling technologies contribute indirectly to the reduction of GHG

emissions by making possible the development and use of other important technologies. A
modernized electricity grid, for example, is an essential step enabling the deployment of more
a?vanced end-use and distributed energy resources needed for reducing GHG emissions. Another
example is storage technologies for electricity or other energy carriers.
Alternatives to Industrial Processes, Feedstocks, and Materials. The economic activities within any
future economy, including manufacturing, mining, agriculture, construction, and services, will
require feedstocks and other material inputs to production. Replacing current feedstocks with lower
or carbon-neutral ones, reducing the average energy intensity of material inputs, and developing
alternatives to current industrial processes and products present opportunities for C02 and other
GHG emissions reductions.
Goal2: Reduce Emissions from Energy Supply
Current global energy supplies are dominated by fossil fuels- coal, petroleum products, and natural gas,
which produce C02 when burned. A transition to a low-carbon future would likely require the
availability of multiple energy supply technology options characterized by low or near-net-zero C02
emissions. Many such energy supply technologies are available today or are under development. When
combined with improved energy carriers, they offer prospects for both reducing GHG emissions and
improving overall economic efficiency. For example:
Electricity. Electricity will likely be an important energy carrier in all future economies. Reducing
GHG emissions from electricity supply could be achieved through further improvements in the
efficiency of fossil-based electricity generation technologies, deployment of renewable
technologies, increased use of nuclear energy, and development of fusion or other novel power
sources.
Hydrogen and Low-Carbon Fuels. Future economies will likely have continuing needs for portable,
storable energy carriers for heat, power, and transportation. An emerging energy carrier is
hydrogen, which can be produced in a variety ofways, including carbon-free or-low-carbon
methods using nuclear, wind, hydroelectric, solar energy, biomass, or fossil fuels combined with
carbon capture and sequestration. Hydrogen and other carriers, such as methanol, ethanol, and
other biofuels, could serve both as a means for energy storage and as energy carriers in
transportation and other applications.
Goal3: Capture and Sequester Carbon Dioxide,(C02)
Fossil fuels will likely remain a mainstay of global energy production well into the 21 51 century.
Transforming fossil-fuel-based combustion systems into low- or carbon-free energy processes would
enable the continued use of the w~rld's plentiful coal resources. Such atransformation would require
further development and application of technologies to capture C02 and store it in safe and acceptable
means, which would remove it pennanently from the atmosphere. There are also large opportunities to
remove C02 from the atmosphere and sequester it. Two focus areas are:
CEQ 015507
U.S. Climate Change Technqlogy Program Draft Strategic Plan

Executive Summary
June 14, 2004
COz Capture and Storage. Advanced techniques are under development that could capture gaseous
C02 from such sources as coal-burning power plants, oil refineries, hydrogen production facilities,
and various high-emitting industrial processes. Carbon capture would be linked to geologic storage
- permanent disposal in geologic formations, such as depleted oil and gas reservoirs; deep coal
seams; saline aquifers; or other deep injection reservoirs. Carbon capture can also be linked to
ocean storage.
..
CO:z Sequestration. Land-based, biologically assisted means for removing C02 from the atmosphere
and sequestering it in forests, soils, or other organic materials have proven to be low-cost means for
long-term carbon storage. Ocean sequestration may also play a role as a carbon "sink", as science
advances the understanding of the potential effects.
Goal 4: Reduce Emissions of Other Greenhouse Gases
Greenhouse gases other than carbon dioxide, including methane (CRt), nitrous oxide (N 20), sulfur
hexafluoride (SF6) and others are more potent as radiant energy absorbers than C02 (per unit weight). In
addition, the atmospheric concentration of troposphere ozone, another greenhouse gas, has been increased
by human activities. Reducing emissions of these other greenhouse gases is an important climate change
goal and key component of an overall climate change technology strategy. There are many categories of
technologies relevant to the attainment of this goal. Highlights include:
Methane Collection and Utilization. Improvements in methods and technologies to collect methane
and detect leaks from various sources, such as landfills, coal mines, natural gas pipelines, and oil
and gas exploration operations, can prove cost-effective, because the collected methane is a fuel
that can be used directly or sold at natural gas market prices.
Reducing N:zO and Methane Emissions from Agriculture. Improved agricultural management
practices and technologies-- including use of fertilizers for crop production, dealing with livestock
waste and management practices in rice production -- are a key component of the strategy to reduce
other greenhouse gases.
Reducing use of High Global-Warming-Potential (GWP) Gases. Hydrofluorocarbons and
perfluorocarbons have substituted for ozone-depleting chlorofluorocarbons in number of industries,
including refrigeration, air conditioning, foam blowing, solvent cleaning, fire suppression and
aerosol propellants. These gases have !1 potential radiative forcing effect. Methods to reduce
leakage and use of these chemicals are being explored, as well as the development of alt~rnatives to
achieve the same purposes.
Goal 5: Enhance Capabilities to Measure and Monitor GHG Emissions
Improved technologies for measuring, estimating, and monitoring GHG emissions and the flows of GHGs
across various media and boundaries will help characterize emission levels and progress in reducing
emissions. With continuing progress in GHG measuring and monitoring systems, future strategies to
reduce, avoid, capture, or sequester C02 and other GHG emissions can be better supported, enabled, aQd
evaluated. Key areas of technology R&D related to this goal are grouped into four areas, including:
CEQ 015508

Executive Summary
June 14, 2004
Anthropogenic Emissions. Measurement and monitoring technologies can enhance and provide direct
and indirect emissions measurements for point and mobile sources using data transmission and
archiving, along with inventory-based reporting systems and local-scale atmospheric measurements
or indicators.
Sequestration. Advances in measurement and monitoring technologies for geologic sequestration can
assess the integrity of subsurface reservoirs, transportation and pipeline systems, and potential
leakage from geologic storage. Measurement and monitoring systems for terrestrial sequestration
are also needed to integrate carbon sequestration measurements of different components of the .
landscape (e.g., soils and ecosystems) across a range of spatial scales.
Other Greenhouse Gases. Monitoring the emissions of methane, nitrous oxide, black carbon aerosols,
hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and SF6 is important because of their high greenhouse
warming potential and, for some, their long atmospheric lifetimes. Advanced technologies can
make an important contribution to direct and indirect measurement and monitoring approaches for
both point and diffused sources of these emissions.
Integrated Measuring and Monitoring System Architecture. An effective measurement and
monitoring capability is one that can collect, analyze and integrate data across spatial and temporal
scales, and at many different levels of resolution. This may require technologies such as sensors
and continuous emission monitors, protocols for data gathering and analysis, development of
emissions accounting methods, and coordination of related basic science and research in
collaboration with the Climate Change Science Program.
Goal 6: Fortify the Basic Scientific Contributions to Climate-Related Technology Development
Basic scientific research is fundamental to applied technology research and development. The dual
challenges-addressing global climate change, and providing the energy supply needed to meet future
demand and sustain economic growth-will likely require discoveries and innovations well beyond what
today's science and technology can offer. Two ways to meet this goal include:
Strategic Research. The CCTP portfolio includes a broad set of ongoing applied technology R&D
programs, and more are poised to start in the future. These ongoing and future research activities
need to be supported by basic scientific research that could lead to fundamental discoveries or
scientific understanding, which could then be applied to solving specific problems.
Exploratory Research. Innovative concepts are often too risky or multi-disciplinary for one program
mission to support. Sometimes they do not fit neatly within the constructs of other mission-specific
program goals. Basic, exploratory research of innovative and novel concepts is one way to uncover
such "breakthrough technology" and strengthen and broaden the R&D portfolio.
c
Approaches
The CCTP envisions employing the following seven approaches to achieve the above-stated goals. The
CCTP Draft Strategic Plan provides details primarily on the first approach- strengthening climate
change technology R&D. However, the other approaches are interwoven in the strategies presented in the
CEQ 015509.

Executive Summary
June 14,2004
technical programs outlined in Chapters 4 through 9, and fonn the organizing framework for next steps
(Section 10.5).
Approach 1: Strengthen Climate Change Technology R&D

The Federal Government is engaged in a wide range of ongoing research activities that directly or
indirectly contribute to meeting the President's climate change goals. Federal expenditures in this area
amount to more than $2.2 billion per year in related technology RD&D, and another $0.8 billion in
deployment. Key aspects of these investments are summarized in the technology sections of the CCTP
Strategic Plan, and in more detail on 80 specific technologies, as available in the publication, Technology
Options for the Near- and Long-Term, acc~ssible at http://www.climatetechnology.gov.
Approach 2: Strengthen Basic Research at Universities and National Laboratories

A base ofsupporting fundamental research must underlie the applied R&D for technology development.
The CCTP framework will strengthen basic research in the national laboratories and academia by
focusing efforts on key areas needed to develop insights or breakthroughs relevant to climate-related
technology R&D.
Approach 3: Enhance Opportunities for Partnerships

Federal research is but one element of the development and adoption of climate change technologies.
Engagement in this process by private entities, including busihess, industry, agriculture, construction and
other sectors of the U.S. economy, as well as by non-Federal governmental entities, is essential in order to
focus scarce R&D investments wisely and expedite innovative and cost-effective approaches to reduce
.greenhouse gas emissions.
Approach 4: Increase International Cooperation

Given the global nature of the challenge, and in recognition of the contributions being made by others .
abroad, the CCTP seeks to engage other nations-government to government-in large-scale coop~rative
technology research initiatives. Since 2000, bilateral climate change technology agreements have been
executed with 13 governments, including a number in the developing world.
Approach 5: Support Cutting-Edge Technology Demonstrations

Demonstrations of cutting-edge climate change technologies are an important aspect of the goal of
advancing climate change technologies. They can help bridge between the R&D phase of a technology
development project and the commercialization phase, where substantial investment is required.
Approach 6: Ensure a Viable Technical Workforce of the Future

Addressing the climate change challenge cannot be done without a new generation of young people, technically trained and dedicated to the search for innovative and cost-effective ways to bring the
concepts for advanced and innovative technologies to reality. The CCTP mission and goals provide a
CEQ 015510

Executive Summary
June 14, 2004
unique opportunity to strengthen Federal investments across all participating agencies in science, math,
and engineering education and to attract new, young talent to focus their careers on this global endeavor.
Approach 7: Provide, as Appro.priate, Supporting Technology Policy

The CCTP Draft Strategic Plan is a roadmap for prioritized Federal investments in technology R&D
needed to reduce the risk of climate change. The Plan is an integral part of a comprehensive U.S. strategy
on climate change that rests on three pillars- science, technology, and international cooperation -and is
complemented by an array of other policy measures, financial incentives, and voluntary programs aimed
at slowing the growth of GHG emissions in the near-term.
Ill. The CCTP Strategic Planning Process

As a framework for guiding Federal R&D investments in advanced technology needed to reduce the risk
of climate change, the CCTP Draft Strategic Plan presents an opportunity for dialogue and further input
to the continuing planning process. A continuing evaluation of the CCTP R&D portfolio is planned, so
that resources may be channeled to the most productive and promising areas. It is expected that the
CCTP Strategic Plan, once final, would be periodically updated, at least once every four years.
Portfolio Analysis
Under the CCTP, six interagency working groups reviewed and evaluated the Federal climate change
technology R&D portfolio and conducted portfolio analyses. Each CCTP working group assessed the
elements of the portfolio with respect to strategic goals and examined the adequacy of the overall
portfo Iio with respect to strategy, potential contributions, and likelihood of success. Each working group
focused on a particular CCTP goal, and with respect to that goal, examined the various major components
of the portfolio. The working groups gathered input from R&D planning processes ongoing within
individual agencies. They organized and held technical workshops, inviting experts from universities,
industry, national laboratories, non-governmental organizations, and others to examine and critique
ongoing work. In addition, the CCTP held a crosscutting integration workshop of technical experts to
explore and compare the opportunities and limits of various technologies collectively.
The working groups' tasks included the development, for each class of technology, of a long-term vision;
a characterization ofthe role of technology in reducing emissions ofGHGs; as well as an image of the
desired end-state of the technology and its potential contribution to reducing GHG emissions. The
working groups identified key technologies and developed profiles, describing: current and priority R&D
areas; collaborative activities with industry and international stakeholders; technology transfer and
commercialization activities; and supporting basic research needs for technological progress.
Criteria for Prioritizing CCTP Portfolio Investments

The six CCTP strategic goals drive the technology portfolio planning and prioritization process." Within
constraints of available resources, CCTP strives to support a balanced and diversified portfolio, with
sufficient and well-focused investments needed to maintain adequate technical progress on each of the six
CCTP strt.tegic goals.
10
CEQ 015511

Executive Summary
June 14,2004
Once broad thrusts are chosen, the CCTP planning process considers the merits of individual competing
investments based on their expected benefits versus costs, such as maximizing potential climate change
related benefits per dollar ofFedeni.l investment (Criteria #1) within a set of screens for appropriateness
(Criteria #2). Because expected benefits of many of the longer-term, higher-risk climate-change
technologies are likely to occur far in the future, the CCTP planning process must adequately resolve how
to "discount" future benefits, as well as how to balance near- and long-term components ofthe portfolio.
In addition, due to the magnitude of this global challenge, the limited resources, and the risk of portfolio
dilution (by spreading resources across too many areas), the CCTP process focuses on technologies with
potentials for large-scale application (Criteria #3). Technologies that are expected to have limited impact
on overall GHG emissions are to be given priority only if they can deliver earlier in the century and/or be
particularly cost compelling. The timing of investments is also an important part of the CCTP decision .
process. The CCTP planning process gives weight to considerations of logical sequencing (Criteria #4)
of research, where the value in knowing whether a technological advance is or is not successful has a
cascading effect on the sequencing of other investments.
Given that the risks associated with certain technologies are high and that limiting future options could be
costly, the CCTP planning process strives to achieve robustness under varying futures. The collection of
individual R&D investments should constitute a diversified portfolio (Criteria #5). Finally, CCTP
portfolio planning must be also attentive to a number of other system wide and non-technical
considerations (Criteria #6). Each technology must be integrated within a larger technical system and
infrastructure, not just as a component.
The CCTP portfolio today reflects the current status and ongoing realignment and expansion of Federal
technology development efforts aimed at addressing climate change-related concerns and pursuing
priority opportunities for reducing, avoiding, capturing or sequestering GHG emissions. Both the CCTP
Draft Strategic Plan and its portfolio ofRDD&D investments are continuing to evolve.
IV.
Exploring Alternative Futures:

Energy, Emissions and Advanced Technology
The long-term nature of the greenhouse gas (GHG) management challenge requires a century-long, global
perspective. Any attempt to foresee trends or gauge the impacts of actions that far in the future inevitably
must factor in a high degree of uncertainty. Further, the uncertainties inherent in climate science itself
make it difficult to determine the level at which atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations would be.
considered harmful. And the costs of emission reductions will depend on future technological innovation
and on various factors that could either promote or constrain the use of certain technologies in the future.
Many of these uncertainties can be examined using scenario analysis, aided by models that account, in a
methodical and consistent way, for the complex relationships among economic and demographic factors,
energy supply and demand, technology change, and emissions growth. Scenario analysis can help
estimate the cost of emission reductions under various future conditions, as well as help illuminate the
complex interactions among the factors that underlie them, based on the assumptions incorporated into
the analysis. It can help characterize the elements of proposed strategies as either robust across many
alternative futures or highly sensitive to future circumstances.
11
CEQ 015512

Executive Summary
June 14, 2004
Much work has been published in the field of GHG emissions, their projections, and alternative scenarios
for their mitigation. The CCTP reviewed the published literature on scenario analyses related to future
energy patterns and GHG emissions, held workshops, and consulted a wide range of experts. The CCTP
built on this work and conducted its own scenario analysis to explore the potential roles of particular
technology pathways of interest. The goal of the scenario analysis presented in this chapter is not to
predict future emissions or the optimal pathway for climate change technology development, but to
inform climate change R&D planning decisions under conditions of uncertainty.
Projected Growth in GHG Emissions

Energy production and consumption activities currently account for over 80 percent of anthropogenic
emissions ofGHGs in the United States. Analysis of future ofGHG emissions cannot be done without
analyzing future energy demand and patterns of supply.
Severallong~term modeling efforts have made energy demand projections to 2100. Based on a review of
these scenarios, the CCTP developed a Reference Case, a "point of reference" from which alternative
energy futures can be assessed. The CCTP Reference Case assumes a moderate growth rate of 2 percent
for economic development and a population growth rate that reaches 9 billion by 2100. This case also
incorporates rates of technological improvement over the 21st century that are consistent with historical
rates of improvement.4 In addition, costs of energy technologies, such as solar, wind, biomass, and
nuclear, are assumed to decline over time as the technologies improve and mature. However, fossil fuels
are assumed to continue to be a cost-competitive, abundant source of energy in this case. Because the
Reference Case includes no specific actions to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, carbon capture and
sequestration technology is not included in this case.5
In the CCTP Reference Case, by 2100 total energy tlemand is projected to increase more than three-fold,
from about 400 EJ today to 1200 EJ by the end of the century. Fossil fuels are projected to provide most
of the primary energy supply within the global energy system. However, as a result of technology
improvement and growth in demand for energy, the Reference Case also shows significant global
expansion in the use of renewable energy (solar, wind, geothermal; and hydroelectric energy), nuclear
energy, and energy derived from biomass (biomass used for production of electricity, gaseous, and liquid
fuels).
For example, the average improvement in end-use energy intensity is -1 percent/year compounded. Thus, by 2050, the enduse energy intensity of the economy is assumed to be 37 percent lower than in 2004.
The CCTP scenarios were modeled using the Mini-CAM model; which was developed by Pacific Northwest National
Laboratory under sponsorship of DOE and other organizations. This model was one ofthe six models used in the IPCC
exercise, and it has been peer reviewed. The Mini-CAM results for the CCTP Reference Case fall mid-range amongst results
from other available models (see Appendix B). This particular model and the particular reference scenario should be viewed
as tools for exploring potential ways various technology futures might evolve and the implications the evolution would have
for climate change technology R&D. The results from this model, or any other, should be interpreted as illustrative of
alternative futures, not a definitive representation of an expected future.
12
CEQ 015513
U.S. Climate Change Technology Prog~:am Draft Strategic Plan
Executive Summary
June 14, 2004

1,400
1,200
1,000
800
600
400
200
'90
'20
'50
'35
'00
Year
mCoal
~Oil
~Gas
Exotics
Biomass
,;:; Nuclear
Renewables
World Primary Energy Demand, 1990-2100: CCTP Reference Case
Alternative Advanced Technology Futures

For the purpose of developing a robust set of well-grounded advanced technology scenarios, CCTP
reviewed about 50 scenarios developed by other organizations, including Shell International,6 the Natiol'!al
Academy ofSciences, 7 the United Kingdom, 89 Canada's Energy Technology Futures, 10 the World
Business Council for Sustainable Development, 11 and the International Energy Agency (IEA). 12 In
addition, and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) developed long-term greenhouse
Shell, 200 l ~ Energy Needs, Choices and Possibilities - Scenarios to 2050. Shell International Ltd-Global
Business Environment Unit.
7
NAS. 1999. Our Common Journey: A Transition toward Sustainability. U.S. National Academy of
Sciences/National Research Council, Washington: National Academy Press. 1999.
8
Fuelling the Future- a report by the Energy Futures Task Force. Foresight Programme- Office of Science and
Technology. United Kingdom Department of Trade and Industry, 2000,
9
Energy for Tomorrow: Powering the 2 I" Century. Foresight Programme. Office of Science and Technology.
United Kingdom Department ofTrade and Industry, 2001.
HI Canada 2050, Four Long Term Scenarios for Canada's Energy Future. Energy Technology Futures. Natural
'
Resources Canada, 2000.
11
Energy 2050- Risky Business. World Business Council for Sustainable Development, Scenario Unit. ConchesSwitzerland, 1999.
12
Longer Term Energy and Environment Scenarios. International Energy Agency Standing Group On Long-Term
Co-Operation (IEA/SLD. Paris, France, 20Q2.
13
CEQ 015514

June 14, 2004
Executive Summary
gas emission scenarios in mid-1990s and updated them in 2000 (SRES 2000). 13 More recently, the
IPCC's Working Group Report on Mitigation 14 incorporated a set of"Post-SRES" mitigation scenarios,
many using the same underlying models that were used for the SRES scenarios.
In carrying out these scenario analyses, a number of assumptions were made regarding the roles and
attributes of various types oftechnology. The CCTP review revealed that, for the most part, scenarios
that achieved significant reductions in future C02 emissions had underlying technology assumptions that
could be characterized as falling into one of three broad categories, although there were many variations
within each category. The categories are:
1. Advanced fossil energy technologies that include carbon capture and storage, the introduction of
hydrogen as an energy carrier, and high efficiency energy conversion. This category was called
2. Carbon-free energy sources (e.g., renewables and nuclear) that gradually displace the current fossilbased energy system, which is based on traditional fossil energy sources. This category was called
' New Energy Backbone.
3. Advanced technologies that significantly change the energy paradigm of the future, including the
introduction of novel approaches. This category was called Beyond the Standard Suite.
For the purposes of illuminating the potential role for technology R&D, the CCTP developed an
"advanced technology scenario" within each ofthe three categories. These alternative advanced
technology scenarios thus add to the body of previous scenario work reviewed by the CCTP and illustrate
particular technology combinations of interest, as described in the next section. These scenarios are not
intended to be predictions of the future or optimal pathways for climate change technology development,
but instead, are meant to inform decision makers about a range of possible pathways, as they consider
R&D investments, programs and policies related to technology development.
CCTP Advanced Technology Scenarios

A number of promising technologies could play a major role in helping to attain the dual goals of
sustaining global economic growth and making significant progress toward reduced GHG emissions and
stabilized GHG concentrations. These include, among others, expanded use of highly energy-efficient
energy supply and end-use technologies; renewable energy; nuclear energy; carbon capture and storage;
alternative energy carriers, such as hydrogen and bio-fuels; fusion energy and other advanced concepts;
and technologies aimed at reducing emissions of other greenhouse gases.
The three CCTP advanced technology scenarios represent hypothetical groupings of these advanced
technologies. Each scenario includes a broad and diverse combination of technologies that leads to
significant GHG emissions reductions. Each places different degrees of emphasis, however, on different
sets of technologies.
13
14
SRES (Special Report on Emission Scenarios), 2000: A Special Report on Emissions Scenarios for Working
Group III of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge, United Kingdom.
Climate Change 2001: Mitigation: A Report of Working Group III of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change (IPCC), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom.
14
CEQ 015515

Executive Summary
June 14, 2004
Several core technology advancements are common to all three of the CCTP advanced technology
scenarios. All three of the advanced technology scenarios include significant gains in end-use energyefficiency, beyond the gains assumed in the Reference Case. The cost of implementing efficiency
measures is assumed to fall as a result of technological. In addition, all three scenarios include aggressive
deployment of low-cost terrestrial sequestration. All three scenarios allow the full realization of the
resource potential of conventional oil and gas. Further, all three scenarios incorporate advanced
technologies to reduce emissions of non-C02 GHGs from many emission sources across all sectors
. (energy, industry, agriculture and waste). Advanced technologies for these other GHGs have the potential
51
to deliver substantial emission reductions, beginning early in the 21 century. For the most part, these
core technologies are well established or in advanced stages of development and can have benefits in the
near- to mid-term.
Aside from these common assumptions, the advanced technology scenarios diverge. Each assumes a
unique set of highly-advanced, cost-effective technologies become available in the future, in addition to
this core set of technological advancements. The three CCTP advanced technology scenarios are:
1. Closing the Loop on Carbon (CLC) is an advanced technology future in which the viability of
engineered C02 capture and storage enables the continued use of fossil fuels, which in tum is
substantially complemented by other energy sources and derivative energy carriers, including
hydrogen.
2. A New Energy Backbone (NEB) is an advanced technology future in which nuclear and renewable
energy sources advance considerably and become less costly, reducing the role of fossil fuels and
replacing them as the backbone of the energy system.
3. Beyond tire Standard Suite (BSS) is an advanced technology future in which novel or so-called
"exotic" technologies become major players in the energy system, complementing the standard suite
of energy technologies.
The CCTP Scenario Analysis Approach

Each CCTP advanced technology scenario starts with the same set of assumptions about population
growth and economic growth (built on the same assumptions used in the CCTP Reference Case), and then
makes a projection of the mix of energy technologies that witt evolve over time to support that economic
and population growth. But each advanced technology scenario is based on different assumptions about
the relative costs of the various energy technologies. Each of the three advanced technology scenarios
assumes accelerated technology performance (e.g., improved efficiency) and reduced technology costs for
a specific selected technology or set of technologies, as compared to the performance of these same
technologies in the Reference Case. 15 The model iterates among the various technology options available
in the particular scenario and chooses a mix of technologies based on their relative costs.
15
The presumption is that this technological advance occurs through R&D, but there is no explicit pathway in the
model linking R&D to technology performance. The performance improvements explored in this exercise were
meant to be illustrative of future possibilities, not predictive.
15
CEQ 015516

Executive Summary
June 14, 2004
Each of the thfee advanced technology scenarios was modeled for four C02 emissions constraints (low,
medium, high, and very high) for a total of twelve advanced technology cases. In addition, four
"baseline" scenarios were modeled to simulate achieving the four levels of C02 emissions constraints
based on the Reference Case assumptions about technology (i.e., with less aggressive advancement in
technology performance compared to the advanced technology scenarios).
Scenarios Results - Energy Supply and End-Use

Under the varying levels of the imposed GHG emissions constraints, all three CCTP advanced technology
scenarios meet the energy demand requirements necessary to maintain world economic growth, and
significantly reduce GHG emissions along a variety of smooth pathways. However, each scenario meets
the constraints using its unique mix of technologies.
In the Closing the Loop on Carbon (CLC) scenario, engineered capture and storage and other advanced
fossil-based energy conversion technologies play large roles, primarily because this scenario assumes that
sequestration is successful, has been technically proven, is available for widespread application, and is
relatively cost-effective compared to other options. In CLC, the non- fossil technologies are projected to
continue to compete in the energy market and, in fact, exhibit strong and continued growth, but in this
case the technical advances in the fossil-based systems are assumed to be particularly successful, resulting
in their extra market share. In the New Energy Backbone scenarios, nuclear and renewable energy play
large roles, because this setofscenarios assume nuclear and renewables show a high level of technical
progress and become relatively cost-effective compared to other technologies. In this case, sequestration
is projected to continue playing a role, but not as large as that projected in Closing the Loop on Carbon.
In Beyond the Standard Suite, more of the very advanced forms of energy supply and distribution become
important, because it is assumed that they make technological progress to the point that they can compete
for market share, particularly in the latter part of the 21st century.
Total energy demand is lower in all three of the advanced technology scenarios than in the Reference
Case. This results primarily from the accelerated adoption of high efficiency end-use technologies, as .
well as price-induced energy efficiency. In the advanced technology cases, fossil fuel combustion
without sequestration (at the bott0m of the charts in Figure 3-15) peaks toward the middle of the century
. and then declines, as markets move toward more carbon-neutral technologies (i.e., sequestered fossil
technologies) and carbon-free technologies (i.e., nuclear, biomass, and renewable energy).
The reduction ofnon-C02 gases could play an important role in reducing overall GHG emissions. The
projections show a decrease between 2000 and 2100 jn methane emissions of 10 to 50 percent, depending
on the scenario (this is in addition to significant reductions in methane emissions intensity represented in
the Reference Case). Similarly, emissions ofN 20 emissions are projected to decline as much as 35
percent between 2000 and 2100 in the very high emissions constraint case. Successful R&D efforts may
also essentially eliminate the use of high GWP chemicals from a number of industrial appliclltions.
As an advanced technology, engineered C0 2 capture and storage (shown as "engineered sequestration'' in
the figures) appears to offer the prospect of large C02 reductions. Should it prove to be successful and
acceptable, its cumulative contributions to emission reductions could be very significant. Similarly, if the
performance of renewable energy and nuclear power improve over time, a future similar to New Energy
16
CEQ 015517

Executive Summary
June 14, 2004
Backbone could emerge.. Non-traditional and more futuristic technologies could also become significant
contributors to reduced emissions, especially in the longer-term (such as in Beyond the $tandard Suite).
Scenario Results - Economic Benefits and Reduced Costs
The modeling tool used by CCTP for this analysis estimated costs for meeting the hypothetically-imposed
emissions constraints over the course of the 21st Century. The estimated costs can be compared for cases
with and without the use of advanced technology to suggest the extent to which advanced technology
might reduce the costs, should the technologies advance through R&D and successful deployment.
To explore these opportunities and provide a common basis for comparative analysis, costs were estimated for a series of baseline scenarios using the Reference Case technology assumptions. In these .
baselines, the total global cost in the year 2095 of meeting the imposed emissions reduction constraints
ranged from $0.5 trillion to $5.8 trillion per year (in constant 2004 $),which would be equal to 0.2 to 2.0
percent, respectively, of the projected world economic output in that year. The cost estimates show that,
as expected, higher emission constraints correspond to higher costs. Using a 2 percent discount rate, the
present value (PV) of the annual costs over the 100-year period ranged from $1.7 trillion to $52 trillion.
Using a 5 percent discount rate, the PV range was $0.15 trillion to $8.3 trillion.
The costs for meeting the hypothetical emissions constraints in the CCTP advanced technology scenarios
were significantly lower. The present values were projected to be 60 to 99 percent lower in the advanced
technology scenarios than the Reference Case baselines, under the same range of hypothetically-imposed
emissions constraints, across all the advanced technology scenarios.
Should the assumed level of technical progress be realized, the suite of advanced technologies represented
in Closing the Loop on Carbon appeared to present opportunities for some of the largest potential cost
reductions, with present values ranging from 83 to 99 percent below the Reference Case technology
baselines.
Should the assumed technical progress be made, the suite of advanced technologies represented in the
New Energy Backbone also appears to present significant opportunities to reduce costs. The present value
of the costs of achieving the emission reductions in this scenario were 64 to 92 percent below the
Reference Case technology baselines.
Finally, due in part to the more futuristic nature of its suite of technologies and, in part, to the more
moderate contributions to energy supply assumed from its highly advanced technologies, Beyond the
Standard Suite shows somewhat lower cost reductions than the other two advanced technology scenarios.
The PV for the cost of Beyond the Standard Suite is 60 to 89 percent lower than the Reference Case
baselines.
It is possible that none of the envisioned advanced technologies would ever achieve the degree of
technical success that is embodied in the three scenarios, in which case, the costs savings indicated in the
analysis would not materialize and costs of meeting various carbon constraints would be higher. It is also
possible, however, that to some degree, all of the advanced technologies could achieve the technical
success envisioned. In this case, more aggressive competition among the technologies and their
combinations would likely occur, potentially leading to greater cost savings. The potential economic
benefits afforded by accelerating the advancement of these technologies appear large.
17
CEQ 015518

Executive Summary
June 14,2004

1,400
1,200
OEnergyUse Reduction
1,000
)o
800
..:
....
.
BE>Dtics
Biomass
Renewables
Q,
'5
0
if
w
CNudear
600
a Sequestered Fossil
400
1!1 Unsequeslered Fossil
200
'90
'20
'00
'50
'35
1.400
..,~
2.
Ul
.:
1,200
[lEnergyUse Reduction
BE>Dtics
1,000
Biomass
800
8 Renewables
Q,
"New
Energy
Backbone"
Jl:0
0
[]Nuclear
600
asaquestored Fossil
400
I!JUnsequeslered Fossil
ii'
.:1
200
'90
'20
'50
'35
'00
Year
1,400
1,200
"Beyond
the
Standard
Suite"
!:.
;; 1,000
w
.
.."'
DEnergyUse Reduction
BE>Dtics
.:
)o
800
Biomass
600
CNudear
400
1J Unsequestared Fossil
:a
:;
.
0
ii'
Ranewables
200
'90
'20
'35
'50
18
CEQ 015519

Executive Summary
Ill.
June 14,2004
Conclusions and Next Steps
The CCTP aims to accelerate the development of advanced technologies that can enable and fa~ilitate
progress toward the attainment ofthe UNFCCC goal of stabilizing concentrations ofGHGs in the Earth's
atmosphere, and do so at substantially reduced costs. In pursuing this aim, CCTP's first steps were to:
(1) organize an R&D planning process around a comprehensive set of strategic goals for technology
development; (2) explore the potential of a wide range of technologies to reduce GHG emissions over the
long-term; (3) assess the adequacy of the current portfolio to make progress against each goal; (4) identify
pr~orities for current emphasis and future research; (5) apply criteria for investment; and (6) make
recommendations within the annual planning and budgeting processes of the participating R&D agencies.
Insights for Portfolio Planning

The CCTP planning and coordination processes are informed by inputs from many sources, including the
scenario work discussed above. From these collective inputs, insights for portfolio planning are drawn, as
summarized below:
1. The CCTP analysis suggests that the world's energy system and associated infrastructure could
be gradually transformed over the course of the 21 51 century in many and varied ways, under a
range of GHG emissions constraints and technology assumptions. The costs of such
transformations, however, vary widely. Some pathways are attended by estimated costs
exceeding trillions of constant 2004 dollars per year by close of the 21 51 century. Advanced
technology options, if successfully developed, could cost substantially less.
2. The CCTP analysis suggests that continued use offossil fuels, even in some carbon-constrained
scenarios, could remain the largest source of energy supply throughout the 21 51 century. Coal
could continue to supply a large portion ofthe world's energy needs if C02 capture and storage
were to become a viable technology option.
3. The CCTP analysis suggests that all four of the emissions-related CCTP strategic goals- i.e.,
energy efficiency and reduced energy end-use, low-emissions energy supply, carbon sequestration, and reduced emissions of non-C02 gases - could be important to reaching the overall
UNFCCC goal. Given the uncertainties associated with technology development, it appears
prudent to pursue all four ofthese mutually reinforcing goals in parallel.
4. The CCTP analysis suggests that overall costs can be minimized if advanced technologies
develop successfully and greatly improve their performance. In some cases, the technology
advancement was projected to reduce GHG emissions-reduction cost by over 90 percent,
compared to scenarios with only moderate technological advancement.
5. The CCTP analysis suggests that certain elements of the CCTP technology portfolio contribtiie
significantly to progress toward CCTP strategic goals under a range of varying assumptions and
planning scenarios. These robust elements include:
19
CEQ 015520

Executive Summary
.
June 14, 2004
Terrestrial and product-based sequestration of C0 2;

Reductions of emissions of non-C0 2 other GHGs, including methane and nitrous oxide;
Energy efficiency and other reductions in energy use;
Increasing efficiency in electricity supply, even if from unsequestered fossil fuels;
Renewable and nuclear energy, at levels expected in the Reference Case baselines;
Transition to low GHG-emission transportation technologies, fuels and systems;
Advent of new, competitive energy carriers, including hydrogen and alternative fuels;
Infrastructure improvements in the electric power grid, improving efficiency and enabling
widespread innovation in energy-related advanced technology, products and service;
Enhanced means and methods for measuring and monitoring GHGs; and
Supporting basic and strategic research, aimed at facilitating technical progress in the applied
R&D areas.
6. The CCTP analysis suggests that some elements of the CCTP technology portfolio are important,
if not central, to progress under certain planning circumstances, but not necessarily under all
circumstances.. These conditional elements include:
Capture and engineered sequestration of C02 from fossil fuel-based energy systems. When
successful, such technologies played a transforming role. When combined with other highefficiency coal-based technologies, such systems significantly lowered costs of reducing C02
emissions;
Accelerated development of advanced fonns of renewable energy, beyond the Reference
Case;
Accelerated development of advanced fonns of nuclear energy, beyond the Reference Case;
Accelerated development of advanced energy supply, including fusion energy, advanced biotechnology-based technologies, very large solar energy applications, and others; and
Novel approaches, not elsewhere covered, and system-wide enabling technologies.
7. The CCTP analysis suggests that, should additional resources be made available through the
reprioritization of the portfolio and reductions in spending in other areas, significant opportunities
might exist for additional or accelerated progress in technology development. These opportunity
elements include:
Accelerated advances in energy efficiency;

Accelerated and broadened programs in engineered and geologic sequestration;
Accelerated development of technologies and strategies for reducing emissions ofother
greenhouse gases, aimed at the first-half of the 21st century;
Accelerated development of renewable fonns of energy, including ~ind;
Exploration of other long-tenn, large solar technologies, including related enabling
technologies;
Accelerated advances in biotechnology-based energy supply and C(h sequestration options;
Accelerated development of new an~ advanced nuclear fission concepts, meeting
Generation IV criteria, with a demonstration;
Pursuit of certain enabling technologies in power transmission; and
20
CEQ 015521

Executive Summary
June 14, 2004
Innovative and novel approaches, not elsewhere covered, with potentially high-payoffs, such
as ultra-low electrical resistance transmission wires, or "bio-X" applications (i.e., genetically
engineered molecular machines) for hydrogen and C02 sequestration.
8. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, the CCTP analysis suggests that the timing regarding the
commercial readiness of the advanced technology options is an important CCTP planning
consideration. Allowing for capital stock turnover and other inertia inherent in a global energy
system, low or near net-zero GHG-emitting technologies would need to be available and moving
rapidly into the marketplace decades before the "peaks" occurred in the various emissions
trajectories needed to meet hypothesized emissions constraints. Allowing for appropriate leadtime periods, some technologies would need to be commercially ready for widespread implementation, should the need arise, as early as 2020, and likely no later than 2040. Given the
expected path for R&D, such considerations suggest that the technologies would need to be
proven technically viable before this time, and that initial demonstrations would need to take
place between 2010 and 2030.
Application of Prioritizing Criteria

The CCTP's portfolio review, planning and prioritization process, which resulted in certain
recommendations, was not an exhaustive bottom-up review of individual projects, but one better
characterized as a strategic review with selected emphasis on key opportunities (Presidential initiatives)
and realignments of certain areas needing attention. The process is not easily reduced to quantitative
analysis, due in part to the large number of variables and uncertainties associated with the nature of the
climate change challenge, and in part to CCTP's unusually long planning horizon. Nevertheless,
prioritization criteria were applied, augmented by inputs from many quarters, and tempered by
experienced judgment of agency leaders and senior technical management.
Once broad thrusts and areas of strategic emphasis were identified, the process was supplemented by
screening and analysis on a project-by-project basis, performed within the line-management organizations
of the R&D agencies, applying CCTP and other program mission criteria. The process is ongoing.
In all cases, Criterion # 1 - maximizing return on investment -- was foremost in consideration. In general,
benefits are defined as potential contributions to CCTP strategic goals, integrated over time, as explored
under a range of varying assumptions and uncertainties. Costs are defined primarily as the extent of
investment required of the Federal government to meet certain R&D program goals, where private sector
technology development costs were also considered. Each technical concept weighed was required to
have a plausible path to commercialization. In this process, relative comparisons among competing
technology options provided insights. Areas that fared well in the prioritization process included
efficiency, certain solar and wind, hydrogen, production and end-use technology, sequestration, highefficiency coal (FutureGen), nuclear (Generation IV), and fusion (ITER).
Criterion #2 was used, in part, to screen out of the existing portfolio certain activities that did not fit well
with proper and distinct roles of the public and private sectors. Areas that did not appear to have
significant return, or were inappropriate as currently structured, fared poorly in the overall prioritization
scheme. In the intense competition for scare resources, these areas were de-emphasized. Examples
include ce.tain industrial programs and niche areas for solar.
21
CEQ 015522

June 14, 2004
Executive Summary
Criterion #3 formed the basis for the formation or continuation of a number of key technology initiatives
that promised large-scale, potentially transforming impact. As highlighted in various sections of Chapters 4 through 9, these include FreedomCAR, the International Partnership for the Hydrogen Economy,
the Hydrogen Fuel Initiative, FutureGen, the Carbon Sequestration Leadership Forum, nuclear fission's
Ge?eration IV, and fusion's ITER.
Criterion #4- phasing and timing-- was applied to identify and add weight to certain kinds of technology
investment areas where the potential for early contributions were important, such as in efficiency,
terrestrial sequestration and other GHGs, or to explore key technologies where the outcomes of early
feasibility assessments could be decisive to later work, such in C02 capture and geologic storage. Criteria
#5 recognized the need for having strong R&D programs in all goal areas, and within each goal area
across multiple technology paths to various alternative futures. This is evidenced by support for advanced
technologies in all three of the scenarios, in addition to support for technologies that play important roles
in the Reference Case and Baseline scenarios. Finally, Criterion #6 was applied to activities that explored
the institutional, legal, safety or other non-tt?chnical areas important to a technology's acceptance and
implementation. These areas included work at the Department of Transportation on hydrogen codes and
standards and the Department of Energy's on regional carbon sequestration partnerships.
Portfolio Priorities and Future Research

Emerging from this planning and prioritization process, the current CCTP portfolio constitutes an array of
research activities that are reasonably well aligned with CCTP strategic goals. CCTP acknowledges that
its portfolio is at an early stage of development and evolving, as it continues to review, assess and search
for further refinements.
Energy End Use

Reducing emissions from energy end-use and related infrastructure is a key component to the success of
any CCTP technology strategy. According to the CCTP analysis, contributions from improved energy
efficiency must not only keep pace with historical trends of approximately one percent improvement per
year, in order to meet expectations in the Reference Case, but achieve even more in all of the advanced
technology scenarios.
The CCTP portfolio investment in this strategic area is substantial. Across all agencies, the total investment in RD&D in future energy efficiency technologies i~ more than $720 million/year. Owing to the
readiness of many of the technologies in the near-term, this area of the CCTP portfol.io also has a large
component of deployment activities --more thari $500 million/year. As outlined in Chapter 4, there are
many opportunities for advanced technology to reduce C02 emissions from energy efficiency and reduced
end-use energy consumption. In general, the existing CCTP portfolio is diverse, supporting an array of
potentially productive avenues for reduced emissions in all sectors of the economy. Research efforts are
directed at lowering energy consumption and emissions in residential and commercial buildings.
Lowering energy use in industrial facilities and processes through advanced technology is also supported.
One of the more significant thrusts is toward new transportation technologies. Analyses suggest that this
sector may have the highest growth in global C02 emissions over the next 25 years. The CCTP portfolio
22
CEQ 015523

June 14, 2004
Executive Summary
emphasizes transportation research and technology development, including the introduction and expanded
use of low-carbon fuels and other energy carriers, such as hydrogen. Research initiatives are directed
toward advanced light and heavy vehicles, organized primarily under the Freedom CAR and the 21 51
Century Truck Partnership, involving DOT, DOE, and DoD. These programs include research on fuel
cell vehicles using hydrogen (in cooperation with the Hydrogen Fuels Initiative).
Energy Supply
Despite large and relatively cost-effective contributions expected in. the CCTP technology strategy from
energy efficiency gains and other forms of reduced energy use, and despite the large and continuing role
played by use of unsequestered conventional fossil fuels, large quantities of low or near net-zero GHG
emitting energy supplies would also be required under the range of hypothesized GHG emission
constraints and advanced technology planning assumptions. Accordingly, the CCTP portfolio places a
high priority on the development of such energy supply technologies. Across all agencies, the CCTP
portfolio invests $1.2 billion in RD&D in this area. Recent changes in the CCTP portfolio demonstrate
increasing emphasis on low-emissions fossil-based power and fuels; hydrogen; renewable energy and
fuels; nuclear fission; fusion energy.
Selected highlights include: (l) FutureGEN, aimed at demonstrating the viability of a near-zeroemissions, high efficiency, coal-based electricity generation plant that has the ability to co-produce lowcost hydrogen; (2) the Hydrogen Fuel Initiative, which complements the FreedomCAR initiative, focuses
on research to produce, store, and deliver hydrogen; (3) the International Partnership for the Hydrogen
Economy (IPHE); which now involves more than a dozen countries; (4) increasing emphasis on wind
energy and photovoltalcs; (5) the next-generation fission energy systems (Generation IV Nuclear Energy
Systems Initiative), that can offer advances in sustainability, proliferation resistance, physical protection,
safety, and economics; (6) the Nuclear Power 2010 program, designed to pave the way for an industry
decision by 2005 to order at least one new nuclear power plant for deployment in the 20 I 0 timeframe;
(7) the Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative (AFCI), focused on developing advanced nuclear fuel cycle
technologies; and (8) an international magnetic fusion experiment (ITER), which involves the United
States, Europe, Japan, China, Russia, and the Republic of Korea.
Carbon Capture and Sequestration

The CCTP analysis suggests that sequestration of C02 can play a potentially transforming role in at least
one of the envisioned advanced technology scenarios, and a significant role in the other two. As portions
of this element of CCTP strategy is relatively new, many questions remain. The development of
technical, economic, and environmental acceptability of sequestration, in its varied forms needs to be
explored and resolved. Early resolution_of geologic and ocean approaches as options are important, as
they would have implications for various other R&D investment strategies. The CCTP portfolio shows
increasing emphasis in this area. Across all agencies, the total R&D investment requested for FY 2005 is
more than $85 million, and includes research on carbon capture; geologic storage; terrestrial
sequestration; and ocean sequestration.
Selected highlights include: ( 1) the Carbon Sequestration Leadership Forum, established in February
2003, which coordinates data gathering, R&D and joint projects to advance the development and
deployment of carbon sequestration technologies worldwide; and (2) the Regional Carbon Sequestration
Partnerships, which includes seven regional partnerships of state agencies, universities, and private
23
CEQ 015524

Executive Summary
June 14, 2004
companies to form the core of a nationwide network designed to determine the best approaches for
capturing and permanently storing GHGs.
Other Greenhouse Gases

The CCTP analysis suggests that there are a number of potentially fruitful areas for technologies to
mitigate growth in emissions of non-C02 GHGs. Analysis suggests, further, that emission-reduction
contributions from other GHGs can be significant. The strategy for addressing non-C02 GHGs has two
main elements. First, it focuses on the key emission sources of these GHGs and identifies specific
mitigation options and research needs by gas, sector, and source. Given the diversity of emission sources,
a generalized technology approach is not practical. Second, the strategy emphasizes both the expedited
development and deployment of near-term and close-to-market technologies and expanded R&D into
longer-term opportunities leading to large-scale emission reductions. By stressing both near- and longterm options, the strategy offers maximum climate protection in the near-term and a roadmap to achieve
dramatic gains in later years.
The CCTP portfolio, across all agencies, is currently funded at about $15 million/yr for deployment
activities in this area. Research aimed at reducing emissions of these GHGs is focusing on: (I) methane
emissions from energy and waste; (2) methane and nitrous oxide emissions from agriculture; (3) emissions from high global warming potential gases; (4) nitrous oxide emissions from combustion and
industrial sources; and (5) emissions of tropospheric ozone precursors and black carbon.
Measurement and Monitoring

A wide assortment ofGHG sensors, measurement.platforms, monitoring and inventorying systems, and
inference methods will likely be needed to meet basic GHG emissions l!leasurement requirements of the
future. Measurement systems must be developed that can establish baselines and measure carbon storage
and GHG fluxes at various scales, from individual projects to large geographic areas. Improved measurement and monitoring technologies and capabilities can also inform the state of climate science and help to
identify and guide future opportunities for technology development.
In the CCTP portfolio, aU agencies, combined, invest about $10 million/yr in this area. Apart from these
investments, there are additional investments, unaccounted for here, embedded within the various
technology research projects, such as in the regional sequestration demonstrations.
Basic Science Support

A diverse range of energy sources will be required to meet the climate change challenge, and similarly a
broad range of basic science research is needed to enable these diverse energy technologies. Science is on
the threshold of a variety of discoveries in biology, nanoscience, computational modeling and simulation,
physical processes, and environmental sciences that offer opportunities, many yet unimagined, for
innovations in both technologies and instrumentation. In addition, the rapidly developing global infrastructure for computing, communications, and information is expected to accelerate the scientific pro~ess
and reduce the time and cost of bringing new discoveries to the market place. Such. new discoveries may
hold the ultimate key to greenhouse gas emissions reduction.
24
CEQ 015525

Executive Summary
June 14,2004
In this area of the CCTP portfolio, three strategic thrusts are being pursued. One is to identify and more
closely link basic research in the fundamental sciences to the technical challenges in the applied R&D
associated with the CCTP strategic goals. A second is to undertake an improved R&D planning processes
that will better integrate the basic science research efforts .with the applied programs related to climate
change technology. The third is to carry out, subject to the availability of funds, an exploratory research
program on innovative con~epts and enabling technologies, which have great potential for breakthroughs
in new or unknown areas important to the climate change challenge.
Next Steps
While much has been accomplished, more remains to be done. The CCTP portfolio has undergone
review, realignment and expansion, punctuated by important new technology initiatives. The portfolio,
however, is still evolving. The CCTP Draft Strategic Plan, itself, is preliminary in nature and will benefit
from an extended period of public dialogue and interaction.
The following represent next steps." They are organized around the broad approaches, outlined by the
President.
Strengthen Climate Change Technology R&D
Continue to review, realign and expand, where appropriate, Federal support for climate change
technology research, development, demonstration, and deployment.
Assess the adequacy of the current portfolio to support programs toward CCTP strategic goal
attainment.
In key technology areas, perform long-term assessments of potentials, including limiting factors.
Assess ideas for future research directions, prioritize their importance, and make decisions about
funding high-priority areas.
Subject to availability of funds, establish an exploratory research program to pursue novel or

innovative concepts, not elsewhere covered, which have potential for high-impact.
Strengthen decision support tools, including modeling and scenario analysis. Work with CCSP and
others to develop a roadmap for a 5-l 0 year plan for strengthening these tools and their application
to CCTP R&D planning and other mitigation-related purposes.
Strengthen Basic Research at Universities and National

Laboratories
Estaolish within each of the participating Federal R&D agencies a process for improving the
integration with, and application of, basic research to overcoming fundamental barriers impeding
technical progress on climate change technology development.
25
CEQ 015526

Executive Summary
June 14, 2004
Develop means for expanding participation in climate change technology R&D, including relevant
basic research, at universities and other non-Federal research institutions.
Enhance Opportunities for Partnerships
Encourage fonnation of public-private partnerships as a common mode of conducting CCTP R&D

portfolio planning, program execution, and related technology demonstration, transfer, and commercialization activities.
Increase International Cooperation
Continue to expand international participation in key climate change technology activities.
Assist in the coordination of U.S. support of the IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report, Working Group
III on Mitigation, as means for.stimulating international efforts to develop advanced technologies.
Work with others to support the continued effort to negotiate and execute bilateral agreements that
encourage international cooperation on climate change science and technology research.
Develop additional means to enhance the effective use of existing international organizations to
explore and shape expanded R&D on climate change technology development.
Develop globally integrated approaches to fostering capacity building in developing countries, and
support these for technology transfer and promotion of U.S. exports or licensing of advanced
climate change technology.
Support Cutting-Edge Demonstrations
Encourage, through annual Federal R&D budget guidance, as part of routine planning and budget
fonnulation, the identification of high priority technologies suitable for demonstration.
Ensure a Viable Technology Workforce of the Future
Explore possibilities for establishing CCTP-sponsored educational curricula in K-12 programs

related to climate change and advanced technology options.
Explore possibilities of expanding internships related to climate change technology development in

Federal agencies, national and other laboratories, and other Federal Research and Development
Centers.
Explore the possibility of establishing graduate fellowships for promising candidates who seek a
career in climate change related technology research and development.
26
CEQ 015527

June 14, 2004
Executive Summary
Provide, as Appropriate, Supporting Technology Policy
Working with others, including energy and climate change policy officials, evaluate, through
dialogue and analysis, the pros and cons of various technology policy options for stimulating
private investment in CCTP-related research activities.
Working with others, including energy and climate change policy officials, evaluate various
technology policy options for stimulating private investment in certain qualifying climate change
related equipment, and/or related measures that would accelerate experimentation with and
adoption of advanced climate change technology.
Closing
With this Draft Strategic Plan, CCTP completes a series of important first steps in the continuing process
to strengthen Federal R&D in support of accelerating development of climate change technologies. As
part of the Plan's development, CCTP explored the nature of the challenge, gathered input from many
sources, brought to bear certain analytical tools, and drew insights to help identify potential roles for
technology and recommend priorities. The Plan provides an organizing framework for thinking about
future R&D investments and, perhaps, a basis for engaging with others in pursuit of technology-based
solutions at many levels. Finally, it portrays a Jong-tenn vision of what might be possible with sustained
innovation and R&D leadership. With this Plan, the CCTP hopes to inspire action by others desiring to
address this issue substantively and invites public participation in its continued evolution.
27
CEQ 015528
THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION'S APPROACH TO CLIMATE CHANGE

Spencer Abraham
As a signatory to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change {UNFCCq, the
United States shares with many countries its ultimate objective: stabilization of greenhouse gas
concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that prevents dangerous interference with the climate
system. Meeting the UNFCCC goal will require a cent:w;y-long perspective and international
collaboration-no nation can go it alone.
,President BushJi,.policy on climate change,!JSSS the ugwsr o( markets and t~hoologic;M.innoy~tiqn.
m.rUntains economic growth, and encourages global participation..While acting to slow the pace of
greenhouse gas emissions in the near term, the United States is laying a strong scientific and
technological foundation to reduce uncertainties, clarify risks and benefits, andpevelop realistic
mitigation options that may be required in the future to meet the UNFCCC goal.
Near-Term Policies and Measuref!

In 2002. President Bush set a national goal tq reduce the g,reenhouse gas intensity (Q of the U.S.
ecqnomy 18% from 2002 levels b.y ?Ql?. Thjs goal sern America on a path to slow the growth in
greenhouse ~s emissions, and -as the science justifies and the technology allows - to sto.p and
reyerse that growth as needed to ms:et the UNFCCC g,oal. Our ap,proac;h foc;uses on reducing
emissions whi]s; ~u~tajning the economic growth needed to finance investment in new. clean energy
technolqgies. Ths: Administration estimates that this c;ommitment will achieve about 100 lvfMICe of
reduced emissions in 2012, with more that 500 MMTCe in cumulative savingli over the decade (2.).
To this end. the Administration has develooed an arraY qf policy measures. financial incentives.
yol\l!ltaQ' and federal programs. For example our Climate VISION f)), Climate Leadm (:l). and
SmanWay Transport Partnership (.5) voluntary programs work with indusny to reducs; s;rnissions.
The Dc:partroeQt of Agricull:l.lr!; is using its c;onservation pro~Wms to provide an inc;entive for
actions that jncrease Carbonseqpestration (<2). We Wso are pursuing many <;netgy SyPply
Deleted: Early in his ronn,
-~
Deleted: di=lod his Administnlion ro

develop a
Deleted: rhar capi!llize! on innovation
and
Deleted: Our of Ibis review emctged a
compreh0115ivc srrarogy rhat rests on three
pillars-$:itncc, rochnology, and
intemationa! cooperation. To give this
policy substance, in Fehnwy 2002, the
P~sident IIUiounced the creolion of a
Cabinet-level Cmnmillcc on Climate
Changl: Science and Technology
lntcgution. The Committee's work on
climate change sdmce is led by the
Dcp.nmcnr of Commerce. Its work on
climate change technologies is led by the
Department of Enetgl' (I). 1
Meeting the UNFCCC goal wiD require a

cenllllf'long perspective and international
coUabonlion-no nation can go it alone.
~Deleted: in so doing
technologies with comparatively low or zero CO~ emissions profiles. such as solar. wind,
gCoths:tmal bioenergy, and C01Ilbined heat Md powsr. 'The President has proposed oyer $4 billion in
tax credits as incentives for these wd oths;r ener.gy-efficient technologies over the next five years (2.).
Last year. the Bush Administration increased fuel ec;onomy standards for new li~ht trucks and sport
utility yehicles by 1.5 miles per gallon over the next three model years. leading to the avoidance; of 31
MMTCe ofemissiqns.
Advancing Climate Change Science
J.n 2QQ1. Crs;sjden,t Bvsh. c;qmmisioned ths; ,National Research Council.(NRq /-O examine the state
of our lroowlc;c!ge and undmtanding of climate change science. The NRC' report ~ makes clear
that there are still major gaps iri. our ability to measure the impacts of greenhouse gas forcing on the
magnitude, timing, and regional distribution of climatic change and variation. Major advances in
understanding and modeling the factors that influence atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse
gases and aerosols, as well as the feedbacks that govern climate sensitivity~ are needed to predict
future climate change with greater confidence.
Deleted: A major uncertainty facing

policymakcn is that the gieenhouse gas
concenuolion level implied by the
UNFCCC goal is unknown.
Deleted: A
Deleted: report conunissioncd by
P~sident Bush
Deleted:2
Deleted: to prescribed level of
greenhouse gases
CEQ 015566
Last summer, the Climate Change Science Program (CCSP) released a new strategic plan that
addresses these gaps (!). The plan is organized around five goals: 6) improving our knowledge of
climate history and variability; (ti) improving our ability to quantify climate forcings; (ill) reducing
uncertainty in climate projections; (iv) improving our understanding of the sensitivity and
adaptability of ecosystems and hwnan systems to climate change; and (v) exploring options to
manage risks. Annually, over $2 billion is spent annually on climate change science by the Federal
Government.
_j
A review of the CCSP plan by NRC shows the Administration is on the right track. While concern
was expressed about future funding to execute the plan, the NRC concluded that it "articulates a
guiding vision, is appropriately ambitious, and is broad in scope" (50.
NRC's;eport also idertifiecl, the ~need for a broad ~observing system to support
measurements of climate variables. Last June, the United States hosted more than 30 nations at the
inaugural Earth Observation Summit, out of which came a commitment to establish an
international, integrated Earth observing system. The data collected by the system will be used to
create better climate models, improve our knowledge of the behavior of C02 and aerosols in the
atmosphere, and develop strategies for carbon sequestration.
~ Deleted: 2001
Deleted: cast ~gbt ~n
Accelerating Climate Change Technology Development

,for the longer term, the Bush Administration is moving ahead on technology options that have the
potential to substantially reduce. ayoid. or se<;juesteJO~eenhouse gas emissions. About 80% of
current greenhouse gas emissions are energy-related, and while projections vary considerably, a
tripling of energy demand by 2100 is not unimaginable (JJ)J. Therefore, !2 provis\e the_en~rgy
necessazy for continued economic growth while we reduce greenhouse gas emission, we will have
to develop and cost-effectivc:ly deploy transformational technologies thatfundamentally~the
way we produce and use energy.
By century's end, a significant amount of the world's energy may have to come from low- or zeroemission technologies to attain the UNFCCC goal. The pace and scope of needed change will be
driven partially by future trends in greenhouse gas emissions that, like climate sensitivity, are subject
to great uncertainty. The complex relationships among population growth, economic development,
energy demand, mix, and intensity, resource availability, technology, and other variables make it
difficult tQ accurately predict future greenhouse g<JS emissions,on a tOO-year timescale.
The Climate Change Technology Program (CCTP) was created to coordinate and prioritize the
Federal government's more than $2 billion annual investment in climate-related technology research
and development. Using various analytical tools, CCTP is assessing different technology options and
their potential contributions to reducing,greenhouse gas.,emjs~iqns.,Given the tremendous capital
investment in existing world energy systems, lbe dt;sire.d. tr!lnsfqqnap()n. pf ()!;M; g!Qb.'IJ e.~tti ~ytem
may take decades or more to implement fully. A robust research and development effort can make
advanced technologies available sooner rather than later and accelerate modernization of capital
stock at lower cost and with greater flexibility.
CCTP's strategic vision has six complementary goals: (t) reducing emissions from energy use and
infrastrUCture; (ii) reducing emissions from energy supply; (ill) capturing and sequestering C02; (iv)
.
Deleted: As CCSP wnsdes with the
I!Wlf unanswmod questions on clim:11e
science
Deleted: mooningfuUy
Deleblcl: $
--
Deleblcl: guided by emetging scientific

knowledge about global climate change
---J
Deleted: liter
Deleted: , :uid in an economicllly-----
rotiooal way,
~eb;d:~ predictions o!._:::::3

Deleted: ~thway~--------
Deleted; Sl2bilizing.
--
Deleted: concmtntions at various levels

Deleted: The pwpose bote is not to
predicr future emissions ot detetmine
optimal technology ~thways, but to
e"Jllote the potential role of diff.,.nt
technologies and infonn pllnning decisions
in a realm of uncert>.inty.
Deleted: actions to meet the UNFCCC
gall
CEQ 015567
reducing emissions of other greenhouse gases; (v) measuring and monitoring emissions; and (vi)
bolstering the contributions of basic science (1.1).
____________
L~~-~6
Ten Federal agencies support a portfolio of activities within this framework. Annually, more than
$700 million is being spent to advance energy efficiency technologies (plus $500 million for
accelerated deployment), and more than $200 million supports renewable energy. Many activities
build on existing work, but the Bush Administration also .has expanded and realigned some activities
and launched new initiatives in key technology areas to support the CCI'P's goals.
For example, .ip his 2003 State of the Union address, President Bush made a commitment to .ths
develQPment o( a pydrogen f!<;QURillY.o pledging $1.7 billion over five years for~ FreedomCAR and
Hydrogen Fuel Initiative to develop hydrogen-powered vehicles. The transition to hydrogen as a
major energy carrier in the next 50 years could transform the nation's energy system, creating
opportunities to increase energy security by making better use of diverse domestic energy sources
for hydrogen production and reduce emissions of air pollutants and col (1.1) .
To help coordinate and leverage ongoing work overseas, the United States led the effort to form the
International Partnership for the Hydrogen Economy (IPHE). IPHE will address the technological,
fifiancial, and institutional barriers to hydrogen and develop internationally-recognized standards to
speed market penetration of the new technologies.
The Administration also is pursuing next generation nuclear energy as a zero-emissions energy
supply choice. The Generation IV International Forum, with 10 partners, is working on reactor
designs that are safe, economical, secure, and able to produce new products, such as hydrogen. Six
promising technologies have been selected.as candidates for future designs and could be ready as
early as 2015. J.n 2003, President Bush announced that the United States would join the ITER
project to develop fusion as an energy source. Although the technical hurdles are substantial, the
promise of fusion is simply too great to ignore.
--
Deleted: hydzogen can reduce emissions

from eui:tgy supply. I
Deleted: a
Deleted: fUture
Deleted: the
Deleted: 1
Deleted: WheR hydrogen i produced
from fossil Cuds, carbon capture and
sequestration is an obvious consideration
we are addtessing.1
~eted:Andi
Carbon capture and sequestration is a central element of CCTP's strategy because for the
foreseeable future, fossil fuels will continue to be the world's most reliable and lowest-cost form of
energy. It is unrealistic to expect countries-particularly developing countries-with large fossil
reserves to forgo their use. A realistic approach is to find ways to capture and store the C0 2
produced when these fuels are used.
The Department of Energy is currently working on 65 carbon sequestration projects around the
country. In the last two years, we have increased the budget for these activities 23% to $49 million.
The multilateral Carbon Sequestration Leadership Forum, a Presidential initiative inaugurated in
June 2003 with 16 partners, will set a framework for international collaboration on sequestration
technologies.
The Forum's partners are eligible to participate in FutureGen,.,a 10-year, $1 billion effort to design,
build, and operate the world's first emissions-free coal-fired power plant. This project will employ
the latest technologies to generate electricity, produce hydrogen, and sequester C02 from coal.
Through this research, clean coal can remain part of a diverse, secure energy portfolio well into the
future.
Deleted: an initiative tlut supports many

CCI'P strategic goals. Futur<Gcn is
. CEQ 015568
These initiatives and other technologies in the CcrP portfolio (1A could revolutionize energy
systems and put us on a path to ensuring access to _clean. i!(fordab!e energy sUJ}plies while;
dramatically reducing greenhouse g~li, emissions. Fig. 1 offers a glinipse of the range of emissions
reductions new technologies might make possible in energy end use, energy supply, carbon
sequestration, and other greenhouse gases on a 100-year scale and across a range of uncertainties.
Some have characterized the work being performed under CCSP and CcrP as a delaying tactic. To
the contrary, scientific and technological progress is a vital prerequisite to sound policy, broad
consensus, and better, more cost-effective solutions. Without the advances developed through these
!.programs, our future technology and policy option\ will remain limited~
In sum, the Bush Administration has developed a comprehensive strategy on climate change that is
informed by science, emphasizes innovation and technological solutions, and promotes international
collaboration to support the UNFCCC goal. While the scientific and technology challenges are
considerable, the Bush Administration remains committed to leading the way on climate change at
home and around the world.
The author is the U.S. Secretary of Energy.
References and Notes

I. Measured as the ratio of greenhouse gases (carbon equivalent) emitted per real gross domestic
~
'k_U.S. Climate Change Strategy: A New Approach (The White House, Washington, D.C., February 14,
2002). Available at: bnp: //www .whitehouse.gov/news/releases /2002/02/c!imatechapge.htm!.
3. See. http://ww.clirnatevision.gov.
4. See. http:/ /www.epa.goy/climateleaders.
5. See, http://www.epa.g,ov/srnartway.
6. See. http://www.usda.gov /news/releases/2003/06/fs-0194.htro.
L_National Research Council, Climate Change Science: An Ana!Jiis ofSome IVy Questions, Committee on
the Science of Climate Change (National Academy Press, Washington, DC 2001), pp. 20-21.
lL_CCSP, Visio11 for the Program and Highlights ofthe Scientific Strategic Plan (CCSP, Washington, D.C.,
July 2003). Available at: www-climatescience.gov.
LNational Research Council, Implementing Climate and G/Qbal Change Rmarrh:A Review ofthe Final
U.S. Climate Change Science Program Strategi( Plan (National Academies Press, Washington, D.C.,
2004), p. t.
Deleted: a
Deleted: , levenged by coU.bontion
with others,
Deleted: secure,
Deleted: and
=- J
Deleted:.
[._Del_.:.eted_:_lobal
____
Deleted: choices
Deleted: 'I
Deleted: Ncu-Term PoUdes to
Aagmca1 LoagTenn V~&loa'l
A fourullttion !'or l~enn lm!Sfor:mation

is being laid and progess is being made. In
addition, l'tesident BliSh recognized that
there ore cost..offcctive steps we can uke
now. In 2002, be set a national goal to
reduce lhc greenhouse gas intensity (9) of
the US. economy 18o/o &om2002levels by
2012. This approach focuses on reducing
emissions growth, wbile swtaining the!
economic growth needed to 6nance
investment in new, dean energy
technologies. The Adrninismtion estimates
that this commitment wiD achieve about
100 MMTCe of reduced emissions in 2012,
with more that 500 MMTCc in cumubtive
savings over the decade (I).'J
To this end, the Administntion bas

developed an am~y of policy measures,
financial incentives, volunl2t)' and Federal
p"'!!"'f'lS- For example, the Cll1112te
VISION (10), Climate Leaders (II), and
Smart\Vay Tnnspott Partnership
(I l)voluntaJy programs \1(0tk with indusay
to reduce emissions. The Department of
Agriculture is using its conseiY1ltion
programs to provide an incentive !'or
actions that increase carbon scquestntion
(I J). We also ore pwsuing many energy
supply technologies with comparatively
low or zero CO, emissions profiles, such as
solar, wind, &"'thmnal, biocnergy, and
combined he2t and power. The President
bas propo.sed over $4 billidn in tax credits
as incentives for these and other energy
efficient technologies over the nezt 6ve
years (I); Asld in 2003, the Administntion
released its new fuel economy s120dards
for light ttucks.'I
Fonnlltled: Bullets and Numbering

Fonnat.ted: Bullets and Numbering
Fonnat.ted: Bullets and Numbering
.!Q,..,Intergovemmental Panel on Climate Change, "An overview of the scenario literature," Bmislio11S
Sanan'os (Cambridge University Press, United Kingdom, 2000).

CEQ 015569
ll:..CCI'P, U.S. Climate Change Technohgy Progam Draft Stratefic Plan (CCI'P, Washington, D.C.,
forthcoming): Available at: www.climatetechnology.gpv.
12. National Research Council, The Hydrogm Econo1l{1: Opportunities, Costs, Baniers, and R&D Needs
(National Academies, Washington, D.C., February 4, 2004).
( Formatted: Bullets and Numbering
.U...CCI'P, Research and CNTTent Activities (CCTP, Washington, D.C., November 2003). Available at:
www.climatetechnology.gQy.
~atted: Bullets and Numbering
Deleted: <#>Measu<ed as the ratio of

(carbon equivalent)
aniaed per ml gross domestic produc:l.,
~gases
<#>See, hup://ww clunatt'J:tittn I:S",
'I
<#>~.
bnp//www tPM'P\'/dml.1(!'1c:adcc>,
'II
<#>See. hrqn!lwww cpa wu/wam''DJ'ttl
Deleted: <#>See.
bt!Jl;{/"ww u!!daltOI'lllcw~{rl'la~I2!Kl\
(Cl6/(s.OJ'Ji.hnn.1
CEQ 015570
Fig.l.
Potential ranges of greenhouse gas emissions reductions to 2100 by caf!lgQQ' of activity for three
teclmology scenario$J..viable carbon sequestration (Scenario 1), dramatically expanded nuclear and
renewable energy (Scenario 2), and novel and advanced teclmologies (Scenario 3) ~
Deleted: , relative to a reference case

-----
--"'']'
similar to those o the li'CC Third
Asscssnu:nt Repon (j). The scenarios ru:o
clw:octetized by, among other things,
lllll'l--111lltlf111'111"'1'UUII-Jr.:UIII"""'IIIIIIOIIIIIII.~
------------------ ......1
.
Deleted: 8
CEQ 015571
\.5&'7-B-
'1-9
'
Letter to the Editor

Atlanta J oumal-Constitution
Re: Aug. 5 editorial "Just a Hot Flash in the Pan?"
Draft 8/5 - 1 p.m. (Mould)
To the Editor:
Your Aug. 5 editorial praising President Bush's new initiative to control emissions of
methane, one of the most potent greenhouse gases, incorrectly accuses the Administration
of doing little else to address global climate change. In fact, President Bush committed
America to meeting the challenge oflong-term global climate change by reducing
greenhouse gas intensity 18 percent by 2012
The editorial also incorrectly states that the President promised in 2000 to sign the Kyoto
Protocol. In fact, the President has always opposed Kyoto because it exempts large
greenhouse-gas emitters like China and India from any controls, and because it would
unfairly harm the U.S. economy while doing little, if anything, to help the environment.
The U.S. Senate also recognized its faults, rejecting it 95-0 in 1997.
The best way to meet the greenhouse-gas reduction targets of Kyoto or any other treaty is
through new technologies that transform the way the world produces and uses energy.
The Bush Administration leads the world in efforts to develop these technologies. In
addition to the eight-nation "Methan~ to Markets" program discussed in the editorial,
these initiatives include:
The International Partnership for the Hydrogen Economy, involving 14 countries

and the European Union, to develop hydrogen energy systems, and the
FreedomCAR effort to commercialize hydrogen-:-fueled vehicles;
The Carbon Sequestration Leadership Forum, involving 13 countries and the

European Commission, to find ways to remove greenhouse emissions from coal;
The FutureGen project to develop a coal-fired power plant that emits no pollution
or greenhouse gases;
Research into nuclear fusion and the Generation IV initiative in which nine.
nations are exploring safer and more economical ways to produce nuclear power,
which produces no greenh~use emissions.
The Climate Change Science Program, a research effort to better understand the
complexities of climate change and the ways greenhouse gases can affect it;
The Earth Observation Summit, a 30-nation partnership to study the global effects
of greenhouse emissions and gauge the most effective ways to control them;
CEQ 015678
The Administration invests more than $5 billion a year on climate-related science and
technology, more than the rest of the world combined, and many of these initiatives
include major nations that are exempt from Kyoto.
In addition, higher efficiency standards the Administration has established for appliances
. and other equipment is reducing greenhouse emissions growth while saving consumers
billions of dollars in energy costs.
The Administration also has imposed the first increase in fuel efficiency standards for
light trucks and SUVs since 1996- the largest such increase in 20 years- and is workip.g
with U.S. industry and the agriculture sector to control greenhouse emissions growth. A
number of other important provision's, such as tax credits promoting renewable fuels, are
part of comprehensive energy legislation that still awaits final action in Congress.
Spencer Abraham
U.S. Secretary of Energy
CEQ 015679
Page 1 of2
From: Holbrook, William F.

Sent: Friday, August 06, 2004 4:36 PM
To: 'Waldron, Michael'
Subject: Letter
Not very many comments Thanks!
- Bill
Letter to the Editor
Atlanta Journal-Constitution
Re: Aug. 5 editorial "Just a Hot Flash in the Pan?"
Draft 8/5 - 1 p.m. (Mould)
To the Editor:
Your Aug. 5 editorial praising President Bush's new initiative to control emissions of methane, one of
the most potent greenhouse gases, incorrectly accuses the Administration of doing little else to address
global climate change. In fact, President Bush committed America to meeting the challenge of longterm global climate change by reducing greenhouse gas intensity 18 percent by 2012
The editorial also incorrectly states that the President promised in 2000 to sign the Kyoto Protocol. In
fact, the President has always opposed Kyoto because it exempts large greenhouse-gas emitters like
China and India from any controls, and because it would unfairly harm the U.S. economy while doing
little, if anything, to help the environment. The U.S. Senate also recognized its faults, rejecting it 95-0 in
1997.
The best way to meet the greenhouse-gas reduction targets of Kyoto or any other treaty is through new
technologies that transform the way the world produces and uses energy. The Bush Administration
leads the world in efforts to develop these technologies. In addition to the eight-nation ''Methane to
Markets" program discussed in the editorial, these initiatives include:
The International Partnership for the Hydrogen Economy, involving 14 countries and the
European Union, to develop hydrogen energy systems, and the FreedomCAR effort to
commercialize hydrogen-fueled vehicles;
The Carbon Sequestration Leadership Forum, involving 13 countries and the European
Commission, to find ways to remove greenhouse emissions from coal;
The FutureGen project to develop a coal-fired power plant that emits no pollution or greenhouse
gases;
Research into nuclear fusion and the Generation IV initiative in which nine nations are exploring
safer and more economical ways to produce nuclear power, which produces no greenhouse
emissions.
rQ..!.'...1-'!:,~r.\
" :;.-'::""~
'' ...,
,,l"'t..~
file://G:\FOIA- Climate\2004\Deliberative\8.04\Letter.htm
em
41121
015684
Page2 of2
The Climate Change Science Program, a research effort to better understand the complexities of
climate change and the ways greenhouse gases can affect it;
The Earth Observation Summit, a 30-nation partnership to study the global effects of greenhouse
emissions and gauge the most effective ways to control them;
The Administration invests more than $5 billion a year on climate-related science and technology, more
than the rest of the world combined, and many of these initiatives include major nations that are exempt
from Kyoto.
In addition, higher efficiency standards the Administration has established for appliances and other
equipment is reducing greenhouse eniissions growth while saving consumers billions of dollars in
energy costs.
The Administration also has imposed the first increase in fuel efficiency standards for light trucks and
SUVs since 1996- the largest such increase in 20 years- and is working with U.S. industry and the
agriculture sector to control greenhouse emissions growth. A number of other important provisions,
such as 'tax credits promoting renewable fuels, are part of comprehensive energy legislation that still
awaits final action in Congress.
Spencer Abraham
U.S. Secretary of Energy
:file://G:\FOIA - Climate\2004\Deliberative\8.04\Letter.htm
41121~
015685
Page I of l
Hannegan, Bryan J.
From:
Lee, Amanda I.
Sent:
Wednesday, September 01, 2004 11:08 AM
To:
david.conover@hq.doe.gov
Cc:
Hannegan, Bryan J.
Subject: 1605b
Hi David,
Here are some preliminary thoughts to the informal draft of 1605(b). Please call me (395-5129} if you have any
questions or clarifications. Thanks,
Amanda
Greenhol!se Effects/1605(b)
Techmcal Guidelines
9/3/2004
CEQ 015789
Preliminary Draft
1605(b)
08/23/2004
Transferable credits (pp. 25-26)
Entity vs. project level reporting/registration
Please remove any examples that are less than at the facility level (e.g., "regulated
stationary source," p. 73, general guidelines rule text).
Small emitters
DOE should commit to evaluate the effect of allowing small emitters to register
reductions not at entity level.
De minimis threshold
Black soot
Certification requirement
Given that some federal data collection (e.g., ASM) don't require certifications whereas
data collected under regulatory programs often do, it's not clear at what level the
certification should happen. What is the certification requirement for other greenhouse
gas programs?
Updating ofTechnical Guidelines
Technical Guidelines must be updated to reflect the current draft of the General
Guidelines. Technical Guidelines quote passages of the General Guidelines that are no
longer there (e.g., "regulations applicable to corporations"-Chapter 1, Part B), and use
examples where the General Guidelines clearly contradicts the Technical Guidelines
(e.g., indirect emissions claimed by manufacturers of energy efficient products, pp 54-55,
General Guidelines).
Focus on emission reduction. data
We should focus on data associated with emission reduction. No other data should be
reported through 1605(b) (e.g., wildlife habit impact-GO, p. 97).
GENERAL GUIDELINES
- Mobile vs. transportation: Glossary uses "transportation" sources where as the
preamble and the rule text uses "mobile" sources. Please be consistent.
- Certification: We encourage DOE to identifyau the certification requirements.
- Empirical evidence of a method's validity and acctiracy: What is such evidence?
What is the basis that a theoretical/modeling evidence isn't sufficient?
- Physical vs. economic output metrics: We suggest that DOE treat physical and
economic output metrics more evenly.
CEQ 015790
"Financial control:" We suggest deleting "with a view to gaining economic

benefits from its activities." This isn't appropriate for non-profits, households,
government agencies, etc.
Action-specific emission reductions (p. 97): how does this fit in with the entitywise approach?
p. 22: ClarifY discussion on "avoided emission."
p. 22, "emissions from manufactured products:" Calculating emission reductions
would be easier for manufacturers to carry out, but the manufacturer would have
to make assumptions about use. Can DOE provide any guidance on this?
p. 23: Clarify "transfers of greenhouse gases to other entities."
p. 41: Does DOE discuss the steps to avoid double-counting elsewhere in the
guidelines? If no, DOE may want to specifY some steps.
p. 55: delete sentence on production efficiency. Appears inconsistent since DOE
is allowing reporting of all emission reductions regardless of the reason for it.
p. 56, slh paragraph: what is the difference between "average for its base period"
and "benchmark value?"
p. 60, E012866: will DOE submit a RIA?
p. 61, PRA: DOE must submit an ICR to go with the rule package.
p. 68-73: the definitions appear to be more general than the definitions used in
the "Glossary." Please make these two sections consistent.
p. 75: Please provide an example of"facilities/vehicles not directly controlled or
managed by the entity."
p. 80: How can a certifier attest to emissions/sequestrations not included in other
entities' 1605(b) reports?
p. 88: "It must include the annual changes in the total emissions of the entity or,
alternatively, the total emissions of each of the subentities identified in its entity
statement." Isn't an entity required to sum emissions from subentities
eventually?
p. 88, (2): Please clarifY that this exclusion is outside of de minimis.

p. 89, (3): Please provide an example of exclusion that is not de minimis.
p. 90, (c)(l)(i): Can a farmer report sequestration associated with a particular
type oftree?
p. 108, (d): does DOE need a data quality statement?
..
GLOSSARY
- Direct measurement: What is "suffi(fient period sampling?" If an entity is forced
to use continuous emission monitoring, the cost of reporting will be very
expensive. Are the costs justified by the data quality of CEM over periodic
sampling?
- Ecosystem carbon components: the description seems very prescriptive.
- Financial control: delete "with a view to gaining economic benefits from its
activities." This concept would not apply to government entities, households, etc.
CEQ 015791
Large emitters: what is the level of economic activity associated with 10,000
tons?
Natural emissions: isn't this contradictory to the defmition of"emissions'' since
emission is defmed as anthropogenic.
Stationary sources: this definition may need to get more specific.
Transportation sources: the definition includes on-highway, off-highway and
nonroad sources except fann equipment. What is the basis for excluding fann
equipment since EPA promulgated a rule on nonroad equipment that includes
farm equipment?
TG, Chapter 1, Part A

- p. 2: Are the proposed method not discussed in detail widely available?
p. 4: Include the concept of transparency in "verifiability."
p. 9: "empirical evidence of validity and accuracy"-see above
p. 11: how narrowly or broadly should a small emitter define an activity?
p. 12, 3rd paragraph: insert "and any other greenhouse gases or particles" after
(SF6).
TG, Chapter 1, Part B
- Quotes from the General Guidelines: These must be updated to reflect the current
draft of the General Guidelines (e.g., p. 3-"regulations applicable to
corporations")
p. 2, 151 paragraph, last line: delete extra "other"
p. 3, I 51 paragraph, GG quote: need to be consistent with GG
p. 4, 2nd paragraph, substitute "owned and operated" with the concept of financial
control
p. 5, 2nd paragraph: need to be consistent with GG
p. 6, footnote 2: consistency with GG-GG excludes fanning equipment
p. 8, 3rd paragraph: delete the paragraph
p. 8, 4th paragraph: consistency with GO-farming equipment
p. 8, middle of page, bullets: consistency with GO-farming equipment
p. 9, 2nd paragraph: delete "While equipment with ... produce trance amounts."
p. 15: delete extra bullet
p. 16, 2nd paragraph: check for consistency with GG.
p. 22, 2nd paragraph: delete "Office of Mobile Sources;" insert "Office of .t
Transportation and Air Quality"
TG, Chapter I, Part C
.
- p. 4, "how mass balance works," 3rd paragraph: units would be helpful.
- p. 5, Section l.C.2.2: This section doesn't address periodic monitoring which
may be more applicable to smaller electric utilities.
TG, Chapter 1, Part D
CEQ 015792
Note: there are several EPA rules that have been promulgated (Tier 2, Highway
Diesel, Nonroad, etc) that will affect this section. This section will need to be
modified accordingly.
C02 emission data: certification data should be available at EPA/OTAQ.
p.3: please consult with EPA on the N20 discussion.
p. 20: Tier 2 engines are currently in production. Please consult with
EPA/OTAQ.
p. 26: what is the basis for designating fuels "biogenic" vs. "anthropogenic?"
TG, Chapter 1, PartE

- p. 7 (there may be other pages as well): please clarify the source of concern for
periodic monitoring: periodic monitoring itself or haphazard use of periodic
monitoring.
pp. 8-9, bullets: please clarify. They are confusing ..
pp. 26-27, formulae: may need to be edited. For example, the space between
"Clinker Produced:" and "Tons of Clinker produced" seems to wide, and why is
this clarification needed?
p. 36, 2nd paragraph: suggest deleting.
p. 37, table: what goes in the empty cells?
p. 59, 151 paragraph: please use commas or semi-colons consistently.
p. 60, znd paragraph: what is the basis for specifying the calibrating procedure
(bi-annual)?
pp. 63-64: what is the basis for distinguishing biogenic and anthropogenic
emissions?
pp. 73-97: please use double-spacing consistently.
p. 78, 2nd paragraph: please use the same font size.
p. 78, 3rd paragraph: "pH" instead of"PH"
p. 81, bullets: please use a consistent format.
p. 81, 2nd paragraph: subscript for "Lo?"
p. 83, 2nd paragraph: is there a reason for not treating the formula in the same
manner (e.g., bold, extra spacing)?
p. 88, table: what goes in the empty cell?
p. 97: are there rating for methods under "engineered sequestration?"
TG, Chapter 1, Part F
- p. 24: please insert rating for the methods (e.g., A, B, C, D).
- p. 28: please insert rating for the methods.
TG, Chapter 1, Part G
- p. 10: suggest merging 2nd and 3rd paragraphs.
- p. 17-: labeling the equations is a good idea, but isn't done consistently
throughout the TG. Please use a consistent format.
- p. 22, 151 paragraph, 2nd line: suggest delete "annual"
TG, Chapter I, Part H
CEQ 015793
. '.
TG, Chapter 1, Part I

TG, Chapter 2
- Please make sure consistency with GG
What is the basis for 2.5% for acquisitions/divestitures and
outsourcinglinsourcing? Does DOE anticipate any conflict with 3% de minimis
requirement?
p. 9, 2nd paragraph: insert period after "reductions" and before "Electricity"
p. 16, 2nd paragraph: delete "whenever feasible"
p. 22: examples appear to be inappropriate. Please delete or use alternative
examples.
p. 25, 2nd paragraph: replace "when aggregating across heterogenous entities"
with "to aggregate subentities"
p. 25, 3rd paragraph: replace "Typically, there is greater variability in economic
measures relative to physical measures and physical measures values more
accurately trace actual trends in emissions intensity" with "Historically physical
measures values have demonstrated closer correspondence with emissions
intensity."
p. 27, 2nd paragraph: replace "performance" with"output"
p. 28, 2"d paragraph: providing few years of trend data doesn't seem consistent
with using one base year.
p. 36, 3rd paragraph: delete extra period.
p. 45: where's Appendix X?
p. 55, 2nd paragraph: replace "iv" with "Step 4"
p. 55, 3rd paragraph: replace "v" with "Step 5"; replace "iii" and "iv" with "3"
and "4"
CEQ 015794
l &~0_]- OS
Page 1 of 1
'
Hannagan, Bryan J.
From:
Cooney, Phil
Sent:
Friday, December 10,2004 4:22PM
To:
Graham, John; Peacock, Marcus; McGrath, Charles D.; Shirzad, Faryar; Silverberg, Kristen;
Miers, Harriet; Hobbs, David W.; Hennessey, Keith
Cc:
Connaughton, James; Hannagan, Bryan J.; Hutto, Chase: O'Donovan, Kevin M..
Subject:
DELIBERATIVE: CLOSE HOLD- do not forward: LATEST DRAFT VERSION OF DOE

GUIDELINES ON VOLUNTARY GHG REDUCTIONS
Importance: High
Attachments: revised credit language.doc
Group,
Per direction yesterday from Harriet, we have worked out an approach that is acceptable to the principal we
discussed. Jim will be checking in with Kyle soon on this language (attached). Please call Jim or me with any
questions you may have. Thanks. Phil
12/30/2004
CEQ 016203
DRAFT- DELIBERATIVE- NOT .FOR DISTRIBUTION

DRAFT 1605(b) GENERAl, GUIDELINES
J'lHH~OSEQ.LAN.GUAGE
, ~ted: EXISTING ---~
re; "CREDiTS"
General Guidelines, at o. 24-25

. {Deleted:
DOE has carefully considered all of these comments and has decided that.}~hile.,its
., (
proposed revised General Guidelines and draft Technical Guidelines,apprupriatcly mee.t the
Dele:te~~---------'
objectives the President sought to accomplish on this pointJurther treatmen~ ()f'.:tr~ll:Sfe.rabl~

credits" is called for in the Guidelines. ln.lli!Ili\,llm:, the G\.li(~lin.s provide mnre uetuil on
beli~ves
that its substantial revisions to the l605(b) General Guidelines, accompanied by the
detailed Technical Guidelines fully carry out the President's oQjectives for improvements to the
program.
As stated by the Chairman of the Council on Environmental Quality in his opening
remarks at the Washington workshop on the Notice of Inquiry in this proceeding, the revised
l605(b) Guidelines can "create a building block of recognition that ... will be acknowledged
and recognized with respect to any future climate policy" (Transcript 3-4, November 18, 2002).
r
l
[icl~t;;i;-;;;,;;j;t;~;;;;;;;,-l
one ur more kind> ort..... ro<"ble credit<
i
By establishing a more credible database of emission inventories and net, entity-wide emission
reductions. the reductions that may be reported or registercd.,uniler.the proposed revised General
Guidelines and draft Technical Guidelines would appropriately cany out the policy objectives~
!(lllli by the President's statement. JWrr.!f!ort~uu..w note that underboth current la\v and the .
,Prcsiden(~ncll.:J:, th~
decisions to make and report emission reductions remain voluntary.
r"'""' ctory rrogra"' rc~>ina '"

should such a prosram
ww.
gr<A..~Ilmuso gn,..,
1
'
be <:naclcd inlo
Wl1ilo lhcrc can be
no assurJnce that 11 futun:: t:limart J'OiiC)'
\~ill give value to CHnilsion reductions
reponed or rosistcmlllllder lho

j,'Uidliru:<,lho P<'"ibilily or such.,.....
may be suffi<:icnt to create 1 private
market that c:n:~bl!S3i their 'r.tnltfut among
\~~~l!d private pvcicl. 1~:!:._......-!
!
!
Deleted: conl<mpbllo~
Deleted:~
We no!e thllf
we have ccn1in~d tu ~e
11le rcnn ..ccduction" t11thc:r than ..ercdit..
10 JtS<:Ol>c what may be recis""ed ot

reported under lhc n:vi"d Gloid<linco. In 1
this particular rontcl't.t.th\! word "erc:dd' 1,
may Jonply lhatlbt:n: I ready c~i"
I'
legal oblig:.thm agamst which lhe <:Jedit
1
I m:~y be appliod, ~ucll as an cmisswns cup
I tlf Mn~btury contn)! progrnrn, wlu:rt:as )
/i;";;~~~;.._'<lby the
DRAFT-DELIBERATIVE- NOT FOR DISTRIBUTlON
CEQ 016204
DRAFT- DELIBERATIVE- NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION
(b) Registration of emission reductions. E!A will review each accepted report to
determine if emission reductions were calculated using the reporting entity's base period
emissions (no earlier than 2002) or the average annual emissions of its base: period (a period of
up to four sequential years ending no earlier than 2002). and to confirm that the report complies
with the other provisions of this part. EIA will also review its records to verify that the entity has
submitted accepted annual reports for each year between the establishment of its base period and
the year covered by the current report. DOE will notify the entity that reductions meeting these
DRAFT- DELIBERATIVE- NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION
CEQ 016205
RE Fwd Beginnings of CCCSTI

Sent: Thursday, J~, 2006 11:46 AM
(b) (6)
To: Ahsha.Tribbl~
Subject: RE: [Fwd: Beg1nmngs of CCCSTI?]
we should meet informally outside of the blue box to answer this question and not
take it to the blue box unless there are issues that require decision.
From: Ahsha.Tribble [mailto:Ahsha.Tribbl~
sent: Thursday, January 19, 2006 8:17 AM
subject: RE: [Fwd: Beginnings of cccsTI?]
I hope I did not overstep by forwarding that message but I thought you might want
to express your views prior to the Blue Box.
.
If I may ask, would you be able to give me a brief synopsis of your views (via phone
or email) that I can pass along to our Deputy secretary so he can be in the loop?
Thx
sent with snaP.perMail
www.snapperma1l.com
..... original Message ...... .
on wed, 18 Jan 2006 21:01:42 -0500 "Hannegan, Bryan J."
<Bryan_J._Hannega (b) (6)
wrote:
>wi 11 di scus.s w1 th Connaughton tomorrow, have already sent note to Garman expressing
my views. mighty efficient here tonight at ceq.
>
>-------------->From: Ahsha Tribble
(b) (6)
[mailto:Ahsha.Tribblellllllllll
>Sent: wednesday, January 18, 2006 9:01 PM
>To: Hannegan, Bryan J.
>Subject: Re: [Fwo: Beginnings of cccsTI?]
>
>Will do.
Thanks.
>
>Hannegan, Bryan J. wrote:
>
>Yes, use my name as the point-of-contact for CEQ. I guess I'm taking over Phil's
custodianship of all things wise and climate-wonderful.
.
>
>Will discuss with Garman directly - agree this is not yet ready for Blue Box.
>
>-------------->From: Ahsha Tribble
(b) (6)
[mailto:Ahsha.Tribblelllllllll]
>Sent: wednesday, January 18, 2006 8:56 PM
>To: Hannegan, Bryan J.
>Subject: [Fwd: Beginnings of CCCSTI?]
>
>FYI ... The EO discussion will be raised again.

PGC ~or CEQ, is that okay?
Before I volunteer your name as the
>
>Also, I am inclined to think this needs to be vetted more before it is.discussed at

the Blue Box. I can see a lot of benefits to an EO, but I recall there were several
arguments against an EO (for CCSPand CCTP) when we thought that would help us get
around the FACA issue.
>
>Just my two cents ... Please.let me know if I can use your name as the POC.
>
>Thanks!,
Page 1
004193
CEQ 017493
RE Fwd Beginnings of CCCSTI

>
>-------- original Message

>Subject:
Beginnings of CCCSTI?
:47:02 -0500
>Date: wedi 18 Jan 2006
>From: Mar ay, Robert
rlay@hq.doe.gov>
(b) (6)
>To:
James.R.
(b) (6)
>CC:
Ahsha.Tribb (b) (6)
Allandra washington <Allandra.washingtonllllllllll,
rmoss.@usgcrp.gov, "
, A
l.cobb@hq.doe.gov>, "Eule, Stephen"
<Stephen.Eule@hq.doe.gov>
>
>
>
>Jim: Steve Eule, Al cobb and I at DOE are researching with DOE's General counsel
the foundations for the Bush reorganization of climate change, back in June of 2001.
In particular, I was wondering if you recall any memo, papers, or even emails of
some stature that might point to the chartering of the CCCSTI (i.e., cabinet-level
committee on climate change science and Technology Integration), the formation of
the Climate change science Program, the transfer of USGCRP functions, and later the
~radual evolution of the National climate change Technology Initiative (June 2001)
1nto the climate change Technology Program (January 2003). we believe this to be
relevant to the process by which the President will establish a cabinet-level
"committee on climate chan9e Technology", and the secretary of Energy will establish
the CCTP, as required by T1tle XVI of the Energy Policy Act of 2005.
>
>We don't want to set up any new committees, but as we consider implementing EPACT,
we need to know the precedents for the existing structure, which we hope to build
on. After some initial discussions with GC, it is being contemplated that it may
now be time for an Executive Order, which if needed could be used to codify the
current structure, implement EPACT and, if needed, clean up loose ends.
Do you
have any documentation or recollections, or even suggestions on who to contact in
the Administration in CEQ, OMB or NEC? oave Garman has indicated that he would
like a discussion on this at the next IWG, on Monday, January 30. Bob
>
I
Page 2
CEQ 017494
file:/IIGIJFOIA%20-%20Climate/2006/deliberative!RE%20Fwd%20Beginnings%20of%20CCCSTI.htm

Sent: Thursday, January 19,2006 7:03PM
To: Garman, David
Subject: RE: [Fwd: Beginnings of CCCSTI?]

Spoke with Jim today on this and he recommends that we put our (DOE, Commerce, CEQ) senior
policy staff on a fast track to resolve these issues rather than have a full-blown discussion at the Blue
Box without benefit of preparation. I'm happy to provide documents and be involved in such a
discussion next week.
"-'-
From: Garman, David [mailto:David.Garman@hq.doe.gov]
Sent: Wednesday, January 18, 2006 11:32 PM

Subject: RE: [Fwd: Beginnings of CCCSTI?]

As you know, we are confronting a deadline in EPAct for creating such an entity. The heart of the
question is, in my mind, can we make an argument that what we have already done meets the
statutory requirement? There are some minor differences between what the statute calls for and what
has been created. I believe our folks are looking for ammo to make the argument that we have
satisfied the requirement, rather than trying to do something new, here. At least, that is my hope.
From: Hannegan, Bryan J. [mailto:Bryan_J._Hannegan@ceq.eop.gov]
Sent: Wednesday, January 18, 2006 8:59 PM

To: Garman, David
Subject: FW: [Fwd: Beginnings of CCCSTI?]

David - this needs a fair amount of vetting at the senior official level before this is ready for Blue Box
consideration. I personally think we need to review the past and current arguments for an EO before
presenting the Principals with options for decision. Given our frustration at our recent energy process
(or lack thereof), I hope you see the wisdom of taking some time to get things right. Let's talk about
this further. Bryan
-------- Original Message -------Subject:Beginnings of CCCSTI?

Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2006 18:47:02-0500
From:Marlay, Robert <Robert.Marlay@hg.doe.gov>
T
CC
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
Allandra Washington.:::::..!~~~~~~
rmoss@usgcrn.gov,. "Cobb, AI" <Al.Cobb@hg.doe.gov>, "Eule, Stephen
doe.gov>
Jim: Steve Eule, AI Cobb and I at DOE are researching with DOE's General Counsel the foundations
for the Bush reorganization of climate change, back in June of 2001. In particular, I was wondering if
you recall any memo, papers, or even emails of some stature that might point to the chartering of the
CCCSTI (i.e., Cabinet-level Committee on Climate Change Science and Technology Integration), the
004192
file:II/Gj/FOIA %20-%20Climate/2006/deliberative/RE%20Fwd%20Beginnings%20of%20CCCSTI.htm (I of 2)411212007 I :37:30 PM
CEQ 017498
file:I//GifFOIA%20-%20Ciimate/2006/deliberative!RE%20Fwd%20Beginnings%20of%20CCCSTI.htm
formation of the Climate Change Science Program, the transfer of USGCRP functions, and later the
gradual evolution of the National Climate Change Technology Initiative (June 2001) into the Climate
Change Technology Program (January 2003). We believe this to be relevant to the process by which
the President will establish a Cabinet-level "Committee on Climate Change Technology", and the
Secretary of Energy will establish the CCTP, as required by Title XVI of the Energy Policy Act of 2005.
We don't want to set up any new committees, but as we consider implementing EPACT, we need to
know the precedents for the existing structure, which we hope to build on. After some initial
discussions with GC, it is being contemplated that it may now be time for an Executive Order, which if
needed could be used to codify the current structure, implement EPACT and, if needed, clean up loose
ends. Do you have any documentation or recollections, or even suggestions on who to contact in the
Administration in CEQ, OMB or NEC? Dave Garman has indicated that he would like a discussion on
this at the next IWG, on Monday, Januaiy 30. Bob
file:/1/GIIFOIA %20-%20Climate/2006/deliberative/RE%20Fwd%20Beginnings%20of%20CCCSTI.htm (2 of 2)411212007 I :37:30 PM
CEQ 017499
Close Hold, Do Not Quote or Cite

VOLUNTARY REPORTING OF GHGS: SELECTED ISSUES
I. Creating a 2-Tiered 1605(b) Program. Many entities encourage DOE to retain the
existing I605(b) guidelines, while adding the enhanced program with more restrictive
guidelines and transferable credits. Allows for continued reporting, although no
crediting unless reporting within the revised guidelines.
2. Reporting Corporate-wide (U.S.) Emissions. The 5-Agency letter encourages
corporate-wide reporting. Many groups want program participants seeking
transferable credits to report their entity-wide emissions (in addition to reductions at
the entity or project level). Helps address inter-firm leakage issues.
3. Reporting Corporate-wide Reductions in Emissions Intensity. Entities could
obtain emission reductions credits if their output is increasing more rapidly than
emissions hut would prevent entities from obtaining credits if emission reductions
occur only because of reduced production (e.g., reduced sales, divestiture or shifts in
production to non-U.S. plants). Not all firms can easily calculate intensity nor
calculate corporate wide-emissions.
emissions~ lJ
4. Treatment of Past Reductions. Many entities want recognition for

reductions already achieved. Our position has been to that we need to develop the
.; ~
new guidelines prior to examining previously reported reductions. Additionally;
-:
many firms have no interest in transferable credits but instead want baselines to bej ~
protected against future climate policy.
\
5. Legal Authority and Transferable Credits. Our current view is that DOE has the
authority to certify that certain emission reductions have met the minimum
requirements of DOE's more rigorous guidelines. It also appears possible for DOE to
change its records to recognize the transfer of "responsibility" for specific emission
reductions from one entity to another, at the request of the entities involved.
6. Accounting for Direct v. Indirect Emissions Reductions. Many favor including
electricity use in estimates of total corporate emissions and emission reductions. One
concern is that users of electricity may be double counting the reductions achieved by
~Some ~dvocat~ in~luding other type~ of indirect emissions, such as the
ss1ons associated With: employee comrnutmg, the useofproducts produced by
~
anufacturers, or the production of materials used by the manufacturers.
.
E
f\Oo
...-
7. Treatment of U.S. versus non-U.S. Emissions and Emission Reductions. Some

advocate reporting corporate-wide global emissions; others favor reporting U.S. only
emissions. Some want to earn credits by funding emission reduction projects outside
the U.S. (these reductions may be difficult to verify and would not reduce U.S.
emissions intensity, but they could be important contributors to global efforts to
reduce emissions). Interactions with the Kyoto mechanisms, verification and
possible double-counting are also likely to make it difficult to resolve this issue.
00:1935
CEQ 017618
,
Close Hold, Do Not Quote or Cite
8. Crediting Reductions from the Manufacture of Energy Efficient Products used
in Buildings and Transportation. It is possible to encourage emission reductions
in these sectors by enabling manufacturers of energy efficient appliances, products,
buildings and vehicles to earn credits based on the efficiency of the products they
produce. One difficulty is how to take into account the effects of current and future
energy efficiency (fuel economy) standards. Another difficulty is double-counting.
9. Credit for Regulated Activ.ities. Stakeholders are divided on how to treat emissions
reductions that occur as a co-effect of existing regulations.
10. Subsidized Activities. Emissions reductions can result from activities that are
directly or indirectly subsidized for non-GHG purposes (for example, renewable
energy tax credits, R&D, farmland conservation programs). Stakeholders are divided
about how to treat these issues.
//
JY"/
or'~ .:,.>
~
? .
\wr ..
~2:
~/)./~' ,
~- r-~
~
11. Verification and Confidentiality. The 4- Agency recommendations support

independent verification. Determining the type of verification process to be used, the
extent to which records will have to be maintained and and how to qualify
11
independent'" verifiers will be a contentious issues as will be protecting confidential
data).
CEQ 017619
Draft - do not cite or quote

VOLUNTARY GREENHOUSE GAS REPORTING WORKSHOPS
Draft Agenda
(FOR WASHINGTON D.C., CHICAGO, SAN FRANCISCO, AND HOUSTON WORKSHOPS]
DAYl
8:30-9:15
Welcome and Opening Remarks [for Washington, D.C. workshop]. DOE

Under Secretary Robert Card; CEQ Chairman James Connaughton; USDA
Deputy Secretary Jim Mosely; DOC Deputy Secretary Sam Bodman (invited);
EPA Deputy Administrator, Linda Fisher (invited).
9:15-9:30
Workshop Objective and Background. President's charge; July 2002

recommendations; related Federal efforts; process for completion.
9:30-10:00
Agenda and Workshop Program
10:00-12:30
Session I. Emission Reporting: Improving Accuracy, Reliability, and

Verifiability. Plenary Session. Discuss options to improve emissions reporting
accuracy, reliability, and verifiability. Topics:
1) Organizational and geographic boundaries
a. Corporate boundaries
b. Institutional/government boundaries
c. Entity-wide v. sub-entity or project-level emissions
d. U.S. v. non-U.S. emissions
2) Operational boundaries and related issues
a. Treatment of direct and indirect emissions
b. Gases and sources covered
c. Conversion rates
d. Exceptions (e.g., exclusion ofvery small emissions)
3) Measurement and accounting methods
a. Initial reporting year(s)
b. Emissions measurement/estimation methods;
c. Confidentiality issues
d. Consideration of State and international reporting programs
e. Comparability across sectors
12:30-1:30
Lunch
1:30-3:45 - Session IIa. Emission Reductions: Characterizing and Measuring. Plenary

Session. Discuss options for defining and measuring creditable reductions.
Topics:
1) Characteristics of Creditable Reductions
a. Output adjustments (C02 and/or non-COz sources)
b. Corporate (or entity)-wide and sub-corporate measures
1
CEQ 017620
Draft - do not cite or quote

c. Comparability within and across sectors
d. Causation (responsibility; motivation)
e. Offsets (outside corporate boundaries)
f. U.S. v. non-U.S. reductions
g. Dural;>ility
2) Calculation methods
a. Emissions intensity measures (entity-wide or sub-entity)
b. Projects (measured and/or estimated effects)
c. Absolute emissions (adjusted or unadjusted)
d. Multiyear reporting/averaging
e. hritial reporting years
f. Confidentiality issues
g. Consideration of State and international programs
3) Relationship to other voluntary programs (Business Challenges; Climate
I--eaders; previous reports under existing 1605(b) program)
4:00-5:30
Session lib. Emission Reductions. Breakout Sessions. Discuss topics from

Session IIa. Final groups to be determined but could include: 1) Electric utilities
and other electricity generators; 2) Large industries and other large emitters; 3)
Independent renewable energy producers; 4) Agriculture and forestry sequesters
and 5) Small emitters (residential/commercial buildings; transportation).
5:30
Adjourn
DAY2
8:30-8:45
Opening Comments and Agenda for Day 2
8:45-10:45
Session lie. Emission Reductions: Reports from Breakout Sessions and

Discussion. Plenary session.
10:45-11:00
Break
11:00-12:30
Session III. Verifying Emissions and Reductions. Plenary Session. Options for
verifying emissions and emissio11;s reductions reports. Topics:
1) Types and frequency of verification

2) Approving/certifying verifiers
3) Confidentiality issues
12:30-1:30
Lunch
2
CEQ 017621
Draft- do not cite or quote
1:30-3:30
Session IV. Managing the 1605(b) Registry. Plenary Session. Topics:

1)
2)
3)
4)
Certifying real reductions

Tracking and transferring reductions
Confidentiality issues
Maintenance of prior year reports
3:30-4:00
Wrap up and Next Steps
4:00
Workshop Adjourns
3
CEQ 017622

CREW: Council On Environmental Quality: Climate Change: 9/7/2011 - Combined WIFs From DOE Consult Redacted 08-31-11 (PART 2)

Încărcat de

Informații document

Titlu original

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

CREW: Council On Environmental Quality: Climate Change: 9/7/2011 - Combined WIFs From DOE Consult Redacted 08-31-11 (PART 2)

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

U.S.

Climate Change Technology Program Draft Strategic Plan

CCTP Portfolio Planning and Investment Criteria

4. Sequencing R&D Investments In a Logical, Developmental Order. Investments must be logically

U.S. Climate Change Technology Program Draft Strategic Plan

3 Exploring Alternative Futures:

U.S. Climate Change Technology Program Draft Strategic Plo.n

Sources of GHG Emissions Today

2002 Emissions (GtC-Equivalent)

Stationary Combustion -Natural Gas

Stationary Combustion - Petroleum Products

Mobile Combustion- Petroleum Products

Other Energy Use

Sub-Total Energy Use

C02 Sequestration from Land Use and Forests

May 28, 2004 .

U.S. Climate Change Technology Program Draft Strategic Plan

Figure 3-1. U.S. C02 Emissions, by

U.S. Climate Change Technology Program Draft Strategic Plan

Figure 3-3. U.S. Emissions of Other Greenhouse Gases, by Source, 2002

Climate Change Technology Program Draft Strategic Plan

Projected Growth in GHG. Emissions

3.2.1 Projected Growth in Energy Demand

Carbon Dioxide Emissions (GtC)

U.N. Development Program, World Energy Assessment, 2000.

U.S. Climate Change Technology Program Draft Strategic Plan

U.S. Climate Change Technology Program Draft Strategic Plan

World Primary Energy Demand, 199Q-2100

3.2.2 Projected Growth in C02 Emissions

U.S. Climate Change Technology Program Draft Strategic Plan

World Carbon Dioxide Emissions bu Fossil Fuel

Figure 3-5. Projections of World C02 Emissions, 1990-2025 (EIA International

U.S. Climate Change Technology Program Draft Strategic Plan

u.s. Carbon Dioxide Emissions bY sector and fuel

Projections of U.S. C02 Emissions, 1990e2025

World C02 Emissions,1990-2100

Reference Emissions us. 90% Interval

Figure 37. The Range of Reference Cases in the IPCC Analysis

U.S. Climate Change Technology Program Draft Strategic Plan

World Carbon Emissions from Fossil Fuels,

3.2.3 Projected Growth in Emissions of Other Greenhouse Gases

U.S. Climate Change Technology Program Draft Strategic Plan

U.S. Climate Change Technology Program Draft Strategic Plan

Radiative Forcing of Greenhouse Gases .

Figure 3-10. Radiative Forcing of Greenhouse Gases in the Reference Case

Stabilizing Concentrations - Implications for Emissions

it may be considered in future ccrp scenarios analyses.

. U.S. Climate Change Technology Program Draft Strategic Plan

World Carbon lntenslty19!J0.2100

-Very High Conslralnt

-Rata ranee Cas a

Figure 3-11. World C02 Emissions for the

Figure 3-12. World C02 Intensity for the,_

U.S. Climate Change Technology Program Draft Strategic Plan

Table 3-3. Emission Constraint Trajectories Examined in the CCTP Analysis

Cumulative C01 Emissions, 2000-2100 (GtC)

Cumulative C01 Emissions Reduced front

Percentage Reduction in C01 Intensity

World Other GHG Emleslons 1990-2100

Figure 3-13. World Non-COa GHG

Figure 3-14. World Non-COa GHG Emissions

U.S. Climate Change Technology Program Draft Strategic Plan

Alternative Advanced Technology Futures

~ . '-~~~-:; -: ~\~ ....