In 2021, Gov. Jared Polis (D-CO) outlined a roadmap to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in Colorado 50% by 2030 and achieve 100% renewable energy in the state by 2040. As these deadlines approach, nuclear energy, carbon capture technology, and hydrogen are being proposed by some as ways to offset carbon emissions from fossil fuel production, theoretically making the deadlines easier for the state to hit.
But Colorado environmental advocacy groups are raising concerns that the emerging technologies may not be as climate-friendly as advertised.
The Colorado Coalition for a Livable Climate — a coalition of 43 member groups and other allies that promote climate change awareness and solutions — released a statement last week that asked for a more rigorous evaluation of emerging technologies.
“Colorado has been a leader in adopting solutions that positively impact its state’s climate. However, there is a growing concern that the pursuit and/or adoption of certain emerging technologies that many consider false solutions may further delay action to reduce emissions by redirecting resources and investment away from viable solutions that already exist, such as wind, solar, conservation, and stable energy storage,” the coalition’s statement read.
Carbon Management
Carbon capture is a term for technology that can render carbon dioxide released by fossil fuel production into a form that makes it unable to affect the atmosphere. Last year, Joe Biden’s Inflation Reduction Act created billions in tax credits for carbon capture and sequestration technology.
Last month, Polis and U.S. Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) celebrated in-person the opening of the largest operating direct air capture plant in the U.S. in Brighton, CO. A bill under consideration now by the Colorado Legislature is designed to create a carbon management roadmap and to ensure carbon capture technologies are eligible for state funding.
There is certainly going to be a place in the clean energy transition for carbon capture. However, carbon capture technology is still flawed and a long way from having an impact on carbon emissions due to its scalability issues and its overall effectiveness. Carbon capture and its related technologies are often expensive, energy-intensive, and not effective enough to counter the speed and volume of fossil fuel emissions.
“In a perfect scenario — where carbon capture technology develops enough to be implemented at a large scale and to operate at 90% effectiveness — it would only result in a reduction of 14-18% of total carbon emissions,” according to a 2017 study in Nature.
“Pursuing carbon capture and sequestration could act as an excuse to continue burning fossil fuels,” said Valley Lopez, the coordinator for promoting climate solutions at 350 Colorado, one of the groups in the Coalition. “And burning fossil fuels is something we have to stop if we’re going to have any shot of meeting our climate goals. We already have energy solutions like wind, solar, and storage, so we should be very careful about the resources we invest in emerging technologies like carbon capture, hydrogen, and small modular nuclear reactors.”
Carbon capture could come in a slightly different form: conventional carbon dioxide removal. This entails removing carbon through natural methods such as coastal ecosystem restoration, reforestation, agroforestry, and soil carbon sequestration. The 2023 U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report found that “… there is substantial mitigation and adaptation potential from options in agriculture, forestry, and other land use that could be up-scaled in the near term across most regions (high confidence). Conservation, improved management, and restoration of forests and other ecosystems offer the largest share of economic mitigation potential.”
Hydrogen
There might be two hydrogen projects constructed in Colorado if a $1.25 billion grant proposal is approved by the U.S. Department of Energy. One of the projects would be built by Xcel Energy.
There is also a bill currently in the Colorado Senate Finance Committee looking to advance the use of hydrogen in Colorado.
Hydrogen is a type of energy source that produces only water when consumed in a fuel cell. However, there are two ways hydrogen can be produced. The first way produces “green” hydrogen, which is generated by splitting off hydrogen from oxygen within a water molecule (“Green” hydrogen is what the bill referenced above is pushing.). “Green” hydrogen is expensive and difficult to make; less than .02% of the hydrogen produced globally is “green” hydrogen.
“Blue” hydrogen is made by splitting the methane molecule and using carbon capture during that process to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. According to a 2021 peer-reviewed study in the Journal for Energy Science and Engineering, “blue” hydrogen produces more emissions per unit of energy than burning diesel, coal, or natural gas.
In Colorado’s Hydrogen Roadmap, published in 2021, when the phrases “clean” hydrogen or “low-carbon” hydrogen are mentioned they are mostly referring to “blue” hydrogen.
In its statement, the Coalition recommended excluding “blue” hydrogen from the definition of “clean” hydrogen and any future energy roadmaps.
Nuclear
Earlier this year the U.S. Department of Energy released a report that included an analysis of five closed-down or soon-to-be-decommissioned coal-fired power plants that could be converted to small modular nuclear power plants.
In this year’s Colorado legislative session, two bills relating to nuclear were killed — one hoping to include nuclear energy in statutory definitions of “clean energy” and another to explore using small modular nuclear reactors as a source of carbon-free energy.
Small modular nuclear reactors are essentially nuclear reactors scaled-down, designed to be built in one location in large numbers, and then shipped to separate sites where they can be operated. This is an unproven technology that has caused environmental advocates and energy experts to raise doubts about its efficacy. These small reactors pose significant risks that are similar to full-size nuclear plants, according to the Union of Concerned Scientists.
Nuclear energy production necessitates an astonishing amount of water, raises safety risks, and requires uranium. In the United States, uranium mining has a tragic history of exploiting and devastating Indigenous communities.
The coalition called for a more rigorous evaluation of these emerging technologies before moving forward with them. Kevin Cross, convener at the Colorado Coalition for a Livable Climate echoed that the technologies must be analyzed for their environmental and social impact.
“The passage of the Inflation Reduction Act last year was a real game-changer for U.S. climate policy,” Cross said. “Unfortunately, that act incentivized a number of ‘emerging technologies’ that are unlikely to contribute much toward addressing the climate crisis and are likely, in some cases, to result in negative side effects. It is our hope that this statement will contribute to serious conversations among lawmakers and the general public about which unconventional solutions to the climate crisis make sense and which do not.”
This year, the Polis administration is working on a greenhouse gas emissions reduction roadmap 2.0 and is hosting rounds of public meetings around the state in order to gather public feedback and ensure that feedback is reflected in the state’s plan. To see the calendar of public meetings, click here. All in-person meetings will include dinner and offer Spanish interpretation.
