Sign In or Create an Account.

By continuing, you agree to the Terms of Service and acknowledge our Privacy Policy

Sparks

Investors Are Spending More to Capture Carbon Than to Capture Wind

It’s boom times in carbon management.

A Climeworks facility.
Heatmap Illustration/Getty Images

There’s a lot of money in carbon management. Like, a lot. Investment in the full suite of technologies designed to capture, store, and transport carbon has skyrocketed this year, according to data from Rhodium Group and Massachusetts Institute of Technology’s Clean Investment Monitor.

Overall investment in clean energy technology — which includes manufacturing of batteries, vehicles, and solar panels, clean energy generation, and retail products like heat pumps — was $284 billion in the last year, with $76 billion in the second quarter of this year alone, a record figure.

The fastest growth came from “emerging climate technologies,” which includes carbon management, which had $3 billion in investment in the second quarter — more than the $1.7 billion invested in wind generation. Compare that to the same time last year, when wind investment stood at $2.6 billion and carbon management investment was just under half a billion dollars. (Solar generation, meanwhile, had $9.3 billion in investment in the second quarter of this year, while storage saw $5.4 billion poured in.)

What changed?

Basically, wind — and its tax incentives — are hardly new to the U.S. economy, and while the Inflation Reduction Act expanded and extended those tax incentives, it was building on an existing policy. And in that post-IRA period up to today (almost exactly two years from the day the law was signed), wind, which requires long construction periods and substantial upfront spending, has been hampered by high interest rates. That’s true for solar, too, although to a lesser extent, explained Trevor Houser, a parter at the Rhodium Group, as wind projects take more time to build and so rely more on borrowed money.

With carbon management, on the other hand, the IRA was a complete gamechanger, hugely boosting the 45Q tax credit for carbon sequestered underground to as much as $85 per metric ton for capturing emissions where they happen, and then to as high $180 per metric ton for direct air capture.

“The majority of the growth that we’re seeing right now is due to that incentive,” Houser told me, as the tax credits have opened up the field to something beyond just using carbon for literal oil drilling.

Jack Andreasen, who runs carbon management policy at Breakthrough Energy, told me basically the same thing. “The boom in carbon management is driven nearly entirely by the support made available in the [Bipartisan Infrastructure Law] and IRA,” he said.

That scale of investment will be necessary to build out any reasonably sized carbon management sector, Andreasen told me. Building out new industrial and generation facilities equipped with carbon capture will be extremely capital-intensive, as will retrofitting existing facilities.

“That is the brilliance and importance of the federal funding — there is money for new builds and for retrofits. And both of these will be key in our net-zero future,” Andreasen said.

But while carbon management does have a fair amount of bipartisan political support, as with any large project, the necessary infrastructure — industrial facilities and especially pipelines — can attract local opposition. The nearly 700-mile-long planned Summit pipeline, which is supposed to link dozens of ethanol plants to a carbon sequestration site in North Dakota, has been strenuously opposed by environmental groups and landowners in Iowa, uniting progressives with a group of Republican lawmakers against the state’s powerbrokers and much of its agribusinesses interests.

“Carbon management does face similar siting and permitting barriers, particularly around pipelines,” to renewables like wind, Houser told me. And while that could potentially slow down development, “it’s starting from a lower base — you can get pretty rapid growth if you’re starting from zero.”

Blue

You’re out of free articles.

Subscribe today to experience Heatmap’s expert analysis 
of climate change, clean energy, and sustainability.
To continue reading
Create a free account or sign in to unlock more free articles.
or
Please enter an email address
By continuing, you agree to the Terms of Service and acknowledge our Privacy Policy
Sparks

This Natural Gas Plant Is a Poster Child for America’s Grid Weirdness

Elgin Energy Center is back from the dead.

A gas plant.
Heatmap Illustration/Getty Images

At least one natural gas plant in America’s biggest energy market that was scheduled to shut down is staying open. Elgin Energy Center, an approximately 500 megawatt plant in Illinois approximately 40 miles northwest of downtown Chicago was scheduled to shut down next June, according to filings with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and officials from PJM Interconnection, the country’s largest regional transmission organization, which governs the relevant portion of the U.S. grid. Elgin’s parent company “no longer intends to deactivate and retire all four units ... at the Elgin Energy Center,” according to a letter dated September 4 and posted to PJM’s website Wednesday.

The Illinois plant is something of a poster child for PJM’s past few years. In 2022, it was one of many natural gas plants to shut down during Winter Storm Elliott as the natural gas distribution seized up. Its then-parent company, Lincoln Power — owned by Cogentrix, the Carlyle Group’s vehicle for its power business — filed for bankruptcy the following year, after PJM assessed almost $40 million in penalties for failing to operate during the storm. In June, a bankruptcy court approved the acquisition of the Elgin plant, along with one other, by Middle River Power, a generation business backed by Avenue Capital, a $12 billion investment firm, in a deal that was closed in December.

Keep reading...Show less
Green
Sparks

Trump’s Odd Attack on German Energy Policy

What’s a “normal energy plant”?

Donald Trump.
Heatmap Illustration/Getty Images

In the closing minutes of the first presidential debate tonight, Donald Trump’s attacks on Kamala Harris took an odd, highly specific, and highly Teutonic turn. It might not have made sense to many viewers, but it fit into the overall debate’s unusually substantive focus on energy policy.

“You believe in things that the American people don’t believe in,” he said, addressing Harris. “You believe in things like, we’re not gonna frack. We’re not gonna take fossil fuel. We’re not gonna do — things that are going to make this country strong, whether you like it or not.”

Keep reading...Show less
Yellow
Sparks

What Would Trump Do About Climate Change? Something About the Mayor of Moscow’s Wife.

Hunter Biden also made an appearance in Trump’s answer to the debate’s one climate question.

Donald Trump.
Heatmap Illustration/Getty Images

Well, it happened — over an hour into the debate, but it happened: the presidential candidates were asked directly about climate change. ABC News anchor Linsey Davis put the question to Vice President Kamala Harris and former President Donald Trump, and their respective answers were both surprising and totally not.

Harris responded to the question by laying out the successes of Biden’s energy policy and in particular, the Inflation Reduction Act (though she didn’tmention it by name). “I am proud that as vice president, over the last four years, we have invested a trillion dollars in a clean energy economy,” Harris noted.

Keep reading...Show less
Red