Connect with us

Published

on

A standard drilling rig that Chevron will be drilling its first onshore test well for the 14,000-acre Bayou Bend CCUS project is photographed on Thursday, Feb. 22, 2024 in Winnie area. It is expected to have the capacity to store more than 1 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide in underground geologic structures.

Yi-Chin Lee | Houston Chronicle | Hearst Newspapers | Getty Images

A paper mill in a small Mississippi town could help demonstrate whether capturing carbon dioxide emissions and storing it deep underground is a viable path to fight climate change.

The proposed project at International Paper‘s mill in Vicksburg was chosen by the Department of Energy in February to receive up to $88 million in taxpayer funding. If successful, the system would capture and permanently store 120,000 tons of carbon dioxide annually, the equivalent of 27,000 gas-powered cars, according to the companies behind the project.

Amazon, a partner in the project, sources containerboard from the mill for its boxes and packaging. SLB, the oilfield services giant formerly known as Schlumberger, is designing and engineering the carbon capture system in collaboration with RTI International, a nonprofit that developed the technology.

The Vicksburg paper mill project is just one example of how $12 billion in funding from the 2021 bipartisan infrastructure law is supporting the development of carbon capture technology across the United States, as part of the Biden administration’s efforts to achieve net-zero emissions by 2050.

Carbon capture and storage technology today is expensive, logistically complex and faces controversy over its role in the energy transition and safety concerns in communities where pipeline infrastructure would be expanded.

The Paris-based International Energy Agency has described carbon capture and storage as “critical” to achieve global net-zero emissions, while also warning the oil and gas industry against using the technology as a way to maintain the status quo on fossil fuels. Some climate activists accuse the industry of simply investing in carbon capture as way to extend the use of oil and gas.

The technology typically uses chemical absorption to capture carbon dioxide emitted from the chimney of an industrial plant. The emissions are condensed into a fluid for transport, normally through a pipeline, and are stored thousands of feet below ground in depleted oil wells or geological formations such as saltwater reservoirs.

The challenges to implementing the technology are immense. The world needs to capture more than 1 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide annually by 2030, more than 20 times the 45 million metric tons captured in 2022, according to the IEA. By 2050, the amount of carbon that’s captured needs to reach 6 billion tons — more than 130 times the 2022 level, according to the agency.

But the track record of carbon capture and storage so far has been one of “underperformance,” with only 5% of announced projects having reached a final investment decision, according to the IEA. The industry needs to demonstrate that the technology can operate economically at scale after struggling to ramp up deployment for years, the agency says.

The Vicksburg papermill project is still in an early development stage. SLB is confident that it will prove technologically viable, said Fred Majkut, senior vice president of carbon solutions at the company. The goal is to demonstrate that carbon capture and storage is also economically viable, Majkut said.

“The economic viability of carbon capture and sequestration is a challenge today because the cost of building most plants in order to capture carbon dioxide are very significant,” the executive said. It can cost hundreds of millions of dollars to retrofit an industrial plant, he said.

For International Paper, the Vicksburg project is a potential way to produce lower carbon products for consumers who are climate conscious and a potential opportunity to benefit financially through the sale of carbon credits.

“There are examples in the marketplace where customers have the opportunity to express their preferences economically, whether that’s clicking a button to say they want to abate the carbon emissions for a trip in an Uber or an airplane,” said Adam Miklos, director of low carbon innovation at International Paper.

“Ultimately, it has the potential to reduce our emissions and, if successful, present an opportunity to sell carbon and renewable credits,” Miklos said.

Decarbonizing heavy industry

The Mississippi mill is a snapshot of how the oil and gas industry is trying to demonstrate that carbon capture and storage is a viable tool in the race to slash emissions, after using similar technology for decades to extract oil.

The industry has used carbon storage techniques since the 1970s in a process called enhanced oil recovery, in which carbon dioxide is injected underground to create pressure that pushes more crude toward production wells.

Chevron, Exxon, Baker Hughes and SLB, among others, are now repurposing that expertise, betting that carbon capture and storage will serve a large market of heavy industries such as cement and steel that have few good options right now to slash their emissions.

Total spending on carbon capture and storage projects is expected to reach $241 billion worldwide by 2030 if all announced projects materialize, according Rystad Energy. The United States and the United Kingdom are the leaders, with investments expected to reach $85 billion and $45 billion, respectively, by the end of the decade, according to Rystad.

In the U.S., investment in carbon management technologies more than doubled to $1.2 billion in 2023, the first full year after the passage of the Inflation Reduction Act, according to the Clean Investment Monitor. The law supports the industry with tax credits of up to $85 per ton of emissions captured and stored.

Cement plants, for example, produce emissions not only by burning fossil fuels, but also due to the materials used in the manufacturing process. About two-thirds of the industry’s carbon dioxide emissions come from chemical reactions that occur when breaking down limestone.

Cement is one of the most widely-used products globally, second only to drinking water, and is responsible for about 7% of the world’s carbon dioxide emissions alone, according to the United Nations. Cement and steel together represent about 14% of global emissions, according to the U.N.

“Right now, these types of industries have no way to effectively decarbonize to net zero without carbon capture,” Majkut said. “If they want to produce cement, there will be CO2 emissions simply because of the materials that are being used.”

With carbon storage already a mature commercial business, SLB is trying to tackle the capture side, which presents one of the major hurdles to scaling up the technology due to its high cost, according to Majkut. The solvent that would be used to catch carbon dioxide molecules at the Mississippi mill promises to lower the energy requirements of the capture process and make it more cost effective, he said.

“We’re quite comfortable that in the next 12 to 24 months, we will be coming to market with actually that chemistry as part of our core offering and develop what we call process design packages,” Majkut said.

SLB CEO Olivier Le Peuch has said carbon capture and storage will play a leading role in the company’s annual revenue targets of $3 billion by 2030 and $10 billion by 2040 for its new energy portfolio.

SLB this month announced a nearly $400 million investment in Aker Carbon Capture, a pure-play carbon capture company based in Norway, in an effort to accelerate deployment of the technology at commercial scale.

Competitor Baker Hughes is developing direct air capture technology after acquiring a company called Mosaic Materials in 2022. Baker Hughes has not disclosed the value of the deal.

The technology aims to catch low concentration carbon dioxide emissions, which are harder to capture, directly from the atmosphere as well as from industrial plants. Baker Hughes anticipates the technology will most likely come to market by the end of 2026.

Baker Hughes is targeting up to $7 billion in orders by 2030 for its new energy portfolio, which includes carbon capture and storage technology. The company is forecasting a total market for its new energy business of between $60 billion and $70 billion by the end of the decade.

“By 2030, I do believe we’re going to start to see these technologies start to become reasonably competitive,” said Alessandro Bresciani, senior vice president of climate technologies at Baker Hughes.

Chevron, Exxon building Gulf Coast hubs

The Gulf Coast of the United States, home to enormous oil and gas and other industrial plants, is emerging as a center of carbon capture and storage investments in the U.S.

Jeff Gustavson, vice president of lower carbon energies at Chevron, said the region has the potential to quickly increase use of the technology because of favorable geology for storage located close to high concentration emissions that are easier to capture at a lower cost. Some 100 million tons of carbon dioxide are emitted annually from Houston through to Port Arthur, Texas, Gustavson said.

Chevron and Exxon are targeting $10 billion and more than $20 billion, respectively, of spending on emissions-reducing technologies that include carbon capture and storage in major projects under development along the Gulf Coast.

Exxon over the past two years has entered agreements to capture carbon emissions from ammonia and fertilizer producer CF Industries and steelmaker Nucor, both in Louisiana, and industrial gas producer Linde in Beaumont, Texas. The country’s largest oil company is targeting a start-up date for a carbon capture and storage system at CF Industries in the first half of 2025.

Dan Ammann, president of low carbon solutions at Exxon, said those three contracts combined promise to remove 5 million tons of emissions annually — the equivalent of converting 2 million gas-powered cars to electric vehicles.

Exxon completed its acquisition of the carbon-dioxide pipeline operator Denbury for $5 billion in late 2023. The deal gave Exxon more than 900 miles of pipeline stretching through Mississippi, Louisiana and Texas that are located near at least 10 storage sites in the region.

“It gives us sort of instantaneous scale, instantaneous reach, across this huge source of emissions along the Gulf Coast,” Ammann said of the Denbury acquisition. “It gives us the ability to develop storage all along that pipeline as well.”

Exxon says it now owns the largest carbon dioxide pipeline network in the U.S. As the infrastructure comes together, Exxon is seeing “a very high level of interest from a lot of different emitters along the Gulf Coast,” Ammann said.

Chevron is the operator and lead investor in a flagship project called Bayou Bend, which has a 140,000 acre position of permanent carbon dioxide storage space near Port Arthur and Beaumont, Texas. The project is a joint venture with minority shareholders Talos Energy and Carbonvert.

Negotiations are currently underway with potential customers, Gustavson said, declining to disclose names. The area is home to large petrochemical, refinery, liquid natural gas and industrial gas operations with significant carbon dioxide footprints, he said.

“Bayou Bend could be one of the largest CO2 storage projects in the world. You’re talking several million tons a year of storage,” Gustavson said. The project has the potential for even more storage capacity depending on how much technical progress is made, the executive said.

While the IEA has described carbon capture and storage as “essential” to slash emissions in sectors like heavy industry, agency director Fatih Birol issued a sharply worded statement in November calling on the oil and gas industry to let go of the “illusion that implausibly large amounts of carbon capture are the solution” to climate change.

Birol’s comments came on the back of an IEA report that called on the industry to invest more in clean energy and accept the “uncomfortable truth” that a successful energy transition will result in the scaling back of fossil fuel production. That sparked a backlash from OPEC, which accused the IEA of vilifying the oil and gas industry.

“We’re not saying carbon capture can be implemented everywhere,” SLB’s Majkut said. “As a matter of fact, the primary way to decarbonize should be energy efficiency, scale up of renewables, and effectively carbon capture shall be used on applications that you can’t easily electrify, that you can’t easily decarbonize otherwise.”

Pipeline opposition

Increasing carbon capture and storage to meet net-zero emissions goals in the U.S. will require a massive expansion of pipeline infrastructure. The Department of Energy estimates that the network of carbon dioxide pipelines needs to grow from about 5,200 miles currently to between 30,000 and 90,000 miles.

“The key is the right geology close by to concentrated emissions,” Gustavson said. “That’s where we see this scaling fastest first, but over time, we will need to build more CO2 infrastructure to be able to transport CO2 much longer distances to access the same storage.”

But the permitting process is challenging because pipelines often cross state lines, requiring lengthy approval from multiple jurisdictions and creating bottlenecks, Majkut said.

Pipeline expansion has faced opposition in communities where residents are worried about the safety of transporting carbon dioxide. In 2020, a pipeline owned by Denbury ruptured just outside the village of Satartia, Mississippi, leading to the release of more than 31,000 barrels of carbon dioxide. More than 40 people were hospitalized and 200 individuals were evacuated from the area. Denbury was fined nearly $2.9 million by the U.S. Transportation Department.

Denbury said in a 2022 report that it had upgraded equipment and procedures in the wake of the pipeline leak to “substantially reduce the risk of similar events in the future, as well as mitigate and diminish the consequences in the event they do occur.”

The Energy Department says carbon dioxide pipelines have a better safety record than natural gas pipelines and other large infrastructure such as electric transmission. There have been no deaths from carbon dioxide pipelines over the past two decades and one injury in addition to the hospitalizations from the Satartia incident, according to the Transportation Department.

There are still a lot of uncertainties surrounding carbon capture and storage, said Miklos, the executive at International Paper. But the Vicksburg project is an opportunity to carefully examine the technical and economic viability and the impact on climate over a multiyear period, he said.

“The primary questions are around the ability to do this in a way that is cost effective,” he said.

Continue Reading

Environment

Wheel-E Podcast: Rad’s sunset, Onewheel minibike, flatbet e-trike, and more

Published

on

By

Wheel-E Podcast: Rad's sunset, Onewheel minibike, flatbet e-trike, and more

This week on Electrek’s Wheel-E podcast, we discuss the most popular news stories from the world of electric bikes and other nontraditional electric vehicles. This time, that includes the potential end of Rad Power Bikes, Tern’s new belt-drive Vektron, a semi-solid-state e-bike battery coming soon on a production e-bike, ALSO drops price on its entry-level model, a tilting flat-bed electric trike/truck, and more.

The Wheel-E podcast returns every two weeks on Electrek’s YouTube channel, Facebook, Linkedin, and Twitter.

As a reminder, we’ll have an accompanying post, like this one, on the site with an embedded link to the live stream. Head to the YouTube channel to get your questions and comments in.

After the show ends, the video will be archived on YouTube and the audio on all your favorite podcast apps:

Advertisement – scroll for more content

Apple Podcasts

Spotify

Overcast

Pocket Casts

Castro

RSS

We also have a Patreon if you want to help us to avoid more ads and invest more in our content. We have some awesome gifts for our Patreons and more coming.

Here are a few of the articles that we will discuss during the Wheel-E podcast today:

Here’s the live stream for today’s episode starting at 9:00 a.m. ET (or the video after 10:00 a.m. ET):

FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.

Continue Reading

Environment

Electricity is about to become the new base currency and China figured it out

Published

on

By

Electricity is about to become the new base currency and China figured it out

For most of human history, currency was a direct claim on tangible, productive output. Before the abstraction of government fiat or cryptocurrency, value was stored in things that required real work and resources, bushels of grain, livestock, gold, assets with their own direct productive output: horses, and tragically, slaves.

These were the foundational assets of economies, representing a direct link between labor, resources, and stored value.

As we accelerate into an all-electric, all-digital age, this fundamental link is re-emerging, but with a new unit of account. The 21st-century economy, defined by automated industry, robotic, electric transport, and now power-hungry artificial intelligence, runs on a single, non-negotiable input: electricity. In this new paradigm, the real base currency, the ultimate representation of productive capacity, is the kilowatt-hour (kWh).

The kWh is the new economic base layer.

Advertisement – scroll for more content

Last week, I was in Bijiashan Park at night overlooking Shenzhen, arguably the most technologically advanced city on earth, built over the previous few decades, partly on cheap electricity, cheap labor, and manufacturing innovations.

I could see the giant high-voltage power lines coming over Yinhu Mountain to power the constant light show that is Shenzhen at night. I couldn’t help but think about how cheap electricity and a strong grid have been critical to China’s exceptional economic rise.

As you stroll around the city, you see power everywhere. There are charging stations at every corner, including insane 1 MW charging posts, electric cars and trucks, trucks that carry batteries to electric scooter shops, which are also literally everywhere.

Everything moves on electric power. Industries are powered by electricity, and now, with the advent of AI, virtually everything is increasingly processed by LLMs, which are ultimately powered by electricity through power-hungry data centers.

In a world where everything runs on electricity, electricity itself becomes the currency of civilization.

It is measurable, divisible, storable, and universal – all qualities that a currency needs, but unlike fiat and crypto, it’s actually directly linked to productive output. No politics. No inflation. Just physics.

This concept is not merely academic; it appears to be the quiet, guiding principle in China. While others debate the merits of decentralized digital tokens, China is executing a multi-pronged strategy that treats electricity as the foundational strategic asset it has become.

First, China is building the “mint” for this new currency at an incredible, world-changing scale, and it has retained absolute state control over its distribution. Its deployment of new electricity generation, particularly from renewables, is staggering. The country met its 2030 target of 1,200 gigawatts of renewable capacity five years early, in 2025.

In 2024 alone, renewable energy accounted for a record 56% of the nation’s total installed capacity, with clean generation meeting 84% of all new demand.

Here’s a comparison of electricity generation between China and the US:

If this chart doesn’t scare the West. I don’t know what will. The trend is not reversing any time soon. In fact, it appears to be accelerating as China is doubling down on solar and nuclear.

State-owned monoliths manage this entire system, primarily the State Grid Corporation of China (SGCC), the world’s largest utility. For better or worse, this centralized control allows the state to execute massive national strategies impossible in a liberalized market, such as building an Ultra-High-Voltage (UHV) grid to transmit power from remote solar and wind farms in the west to the power-hungry industrial hubs on its coast.

Second, China wields its control over the grid as a precision tool of industrial policy. China’s average electricity rate of $0.084/kWh is cheaper than most of the rest of the world, but its power lies not in the base price but in its strategic application. The government deploys a “Differential Electricity Pricing” policy: a “stick” that penalizes low-tech, high-consumption industries with higher rates, and a “carrot” that provides preferential pricing to incentivize strategic sectors.

The most potent example is in the AI sector. China is now offering massive electricity subsidies, cutting power bills by up to half, for data centers run by giants like Alibaba and Tencent. The condition for this cheap power is that these companies must use locally-made, Chinese AI chips, such as those from Huawei.

China is spending its “electricity currency” to directly fund the growth of its domestic AI chip industry and sever its dependence on foreign technology. This same logic applies to its global dominance in green tech, where state-subsidized firms like BYD benefit from a state-controlled industrial ecosystem built on reliable, managed power.

Third, and possibly the most explicit exemplification of China viewing electricity as the base currency is its moves against cryptocurrency.

In 2021, the government banned all cryptocurrency transactions and mining. While the official reasons cited financial stability, the move might have had a deeper, strategic intention.

From the state’s perspective, it was a tool for capital flight, allowing wealth to bypass government controls. But in a world where electricity rules, cryptocurrencies are, in effect, a competing “currency” that burns the foundational asset (electricity) to create a decentralized store of value.

By banning crypto, China simultaneously reclaimed its monopoly on economic control and shut down a massive, “wasteful” leak of its most precious resource. It freed up that generating capacity to be strategically allocated to its preferred industries, like AI and manufacturing.

China’s actions, viewed together, are a clear and coherent strategy. By massively investing in and securing total state control over its domestic electricity supply (the “mint”), using its price as a tool to fuel strategic industries, and banning decentralized competitors that consume the same resource, China is making a clear bet. It has been recognized that in an age where all productivity is powered by the grid, the ultimate source of national power is not gold, fiat, or crypto, but the state-controlled kilowatt-hour.

The Blockchain and Crypto: Ledger vs. Furnace

This perspective brings a critical nuance to the role of blockchain technology. In an economy where electricity is the base currency, the blockchain makes perfect sense, but only as a ledger, not as a store of value.

A distributed ledger is the ideal technological layer to act as the accounting system for this new economy. It can track the generation, transmission, and consumption of every kilowatt-hour with perfect transparency. It can automate complex industrial contracts and manage the grid’s load balancing without a central intermediary. In this sense, blockchain is the “banking software” for the electricity standard.

However, “Proof of Work” cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin face a fatal contradiction within this paradigm. They aim to serve as a store of value by burning the base currency (electricity) to secure the network. If the kilowatt-hour is the 21st-century equivalent of gold, then Bitcoin mining is akin to melting down gold bars to print a paper receipt. It destroys the productive asset to create a derivative token.

Bitcoin is quickly losing credibility as a classical safe store of value. It trades like a security, at least over the last year, and its value is only whatever the next moron is willing to pay, with no valuable asset behind it.

China’s strategy reflects this precise understanding. While they ruthlessly banned Bitcoin mining (the “furnace” that wastes the asset), they have simultaneously championed the Blockchain-based Service Network (BSN) and the Digital Yuan. They have embraced the ledger to track and control their energy economy, while rejecting the supposed asset that destroys it.

This is a trap that crypto fans often fall into. They recognize the value of the blockchain, which is real, but they mistakenly broadly assign the same value to cryptocurrency, which is simply an application of the blockchain.

Electrek’s Take

What I’m trying to explore in this op-ed is the idea that if the present is electric and the future is even more electric, then it makes sense for electricity to be the foundation of the economy.

If electricity is the backbone of global trade and the metric of productivity, the kWh ultimately becomes the real currency of a truly electrified world.

And I think China has figured this out, as evidenced by its new electricity generation surpassing the rest of the world combined and by its ban on cryptocurrency.

They are going to let the rest of the world hold the crypto bag while they have more electricity generation than anyone to power their industries, which are already taking over the world.

I think the rest of the world should learn from this. Instead of pouring capital into meme coins and made-up stores of value, we should invest in electricity generation and storage.

FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.

Continue Reading

Environment

Oil prices and energy stocks fall sharply on Trump’s new Ukraine peace plan

Published

on

By

Oil prices and energy stocks fall sharply on Trump’s new Ukraine peace plan

This aerial picture shows the oil tanker Boracay anchored off the Atlantic Coast off Saint-Nazaire, western France on October 1st, 2025. French authorities said Wednesday they were investigating the oil tanker Boracay anchored off the Atlantic Coast and suspected of being part of Russia’s clandestine “shadow fleet”.

Damien Meyer | Afp | Getty Images

Oil prices extended declines and energy stocks fell sharply on Friday morning as U.S. President Donald Trump pushed for a peace deal to end the long-running Russia-Ukraine war.

International benchmark Brent crude futures with January expiry slipped 2% to $62.09 per barrel at 11:02 a.m. London time (6:02 a.m. ET), after dipping 0.2% in the previous session. The contract is down more 16% so far this year.

U.S. West Texas Intermediate futures with January expiry were last seen 2.4% lower at $57.61, after closing Thursday off 0.5%.

Europe’s Stoxx Oil and Gas index, meanwhile, led losses during morning deals, down more than 2.7%. Britain’s Shell and BP were both trading around 1.6% lower, while Germany’s Siemens Energy fell more than 8%.

U.S. oil giants Exxon Mobil and Chevron were 0.4% and 0.2% lower, respectively, during premarket trade.

The bearish market sentiment comes as investors pore over the details of the Trump administration’s push to secure a peace deal between Russia and Ukraine.

The U.S., under a widely leaked plan, has reportedly proposed that Ukraine cede land including Crimea, Luhansk and Donetsk, and pledge never to join the NATO military alliance.

The plan also says Kyiv will receive “reliable” security guarantees, while the size of the Ukrainian Armed Forces will be limited to 600,000 personnel, according to The Associated Press, which obtained a copy of the draft proposal. CNBC has not been able to independently verify the report.

Analysts were doubtful that the peace plan, which is thought to be favorable toward Russia, would be backed by Ukraine.

Guntram Wolff, senior fellow at Bruegel, a Brussels-based think tank, was among those skeptical about whether the proposed peace plan could lead to a deal.

“I think it’s always good to talk each other so in that sense it’s a good development but I have to say when I saw the details of this supposed peace plan, I really don’t think it can fly,” Wolff told CNBC’s “Europe Early Edition” on Friday.

“Because at the core, what it says is that Ukraine should give up significant parts of its military personnel, meaning the military personnel would decrease by something like a third from 900,000 to 600,000,” he added.

A general view of a PJSC Lukoil Oil Company storage tank at an oil terminal located on the Chaussee de Vilvorde on October 30, 2025 in Brussels, Belgium.

Thierry Monasse | Getty Images News | Getty Images

Alongside the peace plan noise, energy market participants closely monitored the potential impact of U.S. sanctions against Russian oil producers Rosneft and Lukoil, with the measures taking effect from Friday, a stronger U.S. dollar and expectations for the Federal Reserve’s upcoming interest rate decision.

Continue Reading

Trending