GM expands Super Cruise network to 750,000 hands-free miles, largest in North America
Honda Marine execs outline future path

DOE to award up to $100M for pilot-scale testing of advanced CO2 removal technologies; funding for projects to produce carbon-negative hydrogen from biomass

The US Department of Energy's (DOE) Office of Fossil Energy and Carbon Management (FECM) announced up to $100 million to help develop a commercially viable carbon dioxide removal industry in the United States. The funding will support pilot projects and testing facilities to demonstrate and scale carbon dioxide removal technologies that reduce CO2 emissions by removing it directly from the atmosphere and then storing the CO2 in geological, biobased, and ocean reservoirs or converting it into value-added products.

This includes pilot projects that focus on producing carbon-negative hydrogen from biomass. Those interested in hydrogen pilot applications should consult AOI-1: Small Biomass Carbon Removal and Storage (BiCRS) Pilots in FOA DE-FOA-0003082.

This funding opportunity announcement aims to support Carbon Negative Shot objectives across carbon dioxide removal pathways through integrated pilot-scale testing of advanced technologies and detailed monitoring, reporting, and verification protocols. The Carbon Negative Shot sets a goal of reducing the cost of removing CO2 from the atmosphere to less than $100 per net metric ton of CO2-equivalent by 2032.

Projects selected under this FOA will focus on three areas of interest:

  1. Small Biomass Carbon Removal and Storage Pilots — will support integrated pilot-scale testing of biomass carbon removal—including carbon-negative hydrogen production—and storage or conversion with appropriate monitoring, reporting, and verification.

  2. Small Mineralization Pilots — will support integrated pilot-scale testing of enhanced mineralization technologies with appropriate monitoring, reporting, and verification.

  3. Multi-Pathways Carbon Dioxide Removal Testbed Facilities — will support testbed facilities suitable for evaluating, developing, and integrating multiple carbon dioxide removal pathways across different ecosystems, climates, and communities.

Projects selected under this opportunity will be required to develop and implement strategies to ensure strong community and worker benefits, and report on such activities and outcomes.

Funding for hydrogen-related pilot projects supports the goals of the national clean hydrogen strategy and aligns with the priorities of the Hydrogen Interagency Task Force, which is coordinating a whole-of-government approach to advancing clean hydrogen. These government-wide efforts include tax incentives in the Inflation Reduction Act; deployment of the Regional Clean Hydrogen Hubs; and ongoing research, development, and demonstration activities to drive down the cost of clean hydrogen and achieve the Hydrogen Shot goal of $1 per kilogram within a decade.



We already have energy crops growing they are cornstalks more than 100 million acres.


Bio-carbon cost $20 a ton direct capture cost $200 a ton, I wonder which is better.
You to get carbon monoxide from gasification of corn stalks you get carbon dioxide and hydrogen combine it with renewable wind and solar hydrogen use the oxygen to fire power plants so there's less NOx it's a win-win.



Just so.

And they are a mile off from $100/ton at the moment.

So what the 'plan' is is to get support to drive costs down from astronomical to where they are simply totally uncompetive and grossly unaffordable.

Its a cover story, so that 'we are working on a solution' can be waved about when massive emissions are pointed to.

Roger Pham

Good point, SJC. Leave it to the plants to remove CO2 from the air very cheaply. What we can do is re-use the waste biomass to turn into fuel, while adding H2 to the waste biomass during the process to double the fuel yield of the biomass.

Biomethane is already cost competitive with diesel fuel and gasoline.
However, it seems that the fuel industry would rather keep selling us petroleum rather than making renewable biomethane. So, it seems that some sort of incentive is necessary to break the inertia so that the industry will move toward the direction of renewable fuels from waste biomass.


Just in this geothermally assisted notion to remove and sequester CO2:

Since I have been pretty absolute in not regarding non-biological DAC as being even potentially viable, it behoves me to try to do my best to clear my preconceptions before taking a look at it.

Clearing the mind is less work for some of us than others, as there is not so much there! ;-)

But with the best will in the world, looking at the cost section in the linked technical paper, it seems that although some cost savings from supplementing with low grade geothermal energy are envisages, the main thing they are on about is various subsidies to counter a stonking base price of $5-600/ton Co2!

That is pretty nuts.

Anyone got a different take on this?


Here is an article from The Guardian on different scenarios for decarbonisation in the UK, and more specifically on their potential to be delayed and cause supply interuptions:

Note that the option of relying on battery storage alone results in by far the biggest likelihood of supply interuptions.

I'd just point out that although I am a proponent of considerable use of hydrogen and repurposed NG pipelines in the mix, I reckon the chances of supply interuption is likely to be able to be significantly reduced by the potential inclusion of CO2 storage in the electric supply mix.

That if all goes well can store energy for overnight, not just the 4 hours or so which is the practical economic limit for batteries, or at any rate batteries as we know them.


The carbon negative idea is interesting one, by the time you extract everything you can from cornstalks you end up with lignin that is glue for plywood, every time you make plywood and build a house you sequester some more carbon so it all works out.

The comments to this entry are closed.