Advanced search    Help

Clear all search criteria

Only 2/3! You are seeing results from the Public Collection, not the complete Full Collection. Sign in to search everything (see eligibility).

• Earthquakes: Risk, Monitoring, Notification, and Research [Updated January 16, 2008]

  Show summary     Open resource [pdf]     (open full abstract)

  "Given the potentially huge costs associated with a severe earthquake, an ongoing issue for Congress is whether the federally supported programs aimed at reducing U.S. vulnerability to earthquakes are an adequate response to the earthquake hazard. Under the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program (NEHRP), four federal agencies have responsibility for long-term earthquake risk reduction: the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), the National Science Foundation (NSF), the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), and the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). They variously assess U.S. earthquake hazards, send notifications of seismic events, develop measures to reduce earthquake hazards, and conduct research to help reduce overall U.S. vulnerability to earthquakes. Congress established NEHRP in 1977, and its early focus was on research that would lead to an improved understanding of why earthquakes occur and to an ability to predict their occurrence precisely. Congress most recently reauthorized NEHRP in 2004 (P.L. 108-360), and designated NIST as the lead agency, to create better synergy among the agencies and improve the program. Understanding has improved about why and where earthquakes occur; however, reliably predicting the precise date and time an earthquake will occur is not yet possible. Research may eventually lead to an ability to predict earthquakes, but the focus of NEHRP now has shifted towards improving the nation's ability to prepare for earthquakes and to minimize losses when an earthquake occurs."

  Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

  Folger, Peter (Peter Franklin)

  2008-01-16
• Underground Carbon Dioxide Storage: Freuently Asked Questions [October 24, 2007]

  Show summary     Open resource [pdf]     (open full abstract)

  From the Summary: "This report answers frequently asked questions about the geologic storage of carbon dioxide (CO2). The questions are broadly representative of typical inquiries regarding the process and mechanics of storing CO2 underground, how much might be stored, and what might happen to CO2 once it is injected underground. Geologic storage is one step in a process termed 'carbon capture and storage', or CCS. Following capture and transportation, CO2 would be injected into geologic formations that have suitable volume, or pore space, to retain large quantities of the captured gas. Currently, the most promising reservoirs for storing CO2 are oil and gas fields, deep saline reservoirs, and unmineable coal seams. Preventing CO2 from escaping would require careful reservoir characterization. Knowledge gained from over 30 years of injecting CO2 underground to enhance oil recovery would be applied to storing CO2 for CCS purposes. Given the complexity of most geologic reservoirs, and the potentially huge volumes of CO2 that may be injected, risk of some CO2 leakage over time may never completely be eliminated. A variety of techniques are available for monitoring leaks from a reservoir; however, the long-term (hundreds to thousands of years) fate of CO2 stored underground is not thoroughly understood."

  Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

  Folger, Peter (Peter Franklin)

  2007-10-24
• Direct Carbon Sequestration: Capturing and Storing CO2 [Updated September 13, 2007]

  Show summary     Open resource [pdf]     (open full abstract)

  From the Summary: "Direct sequestration is capturing carbon at its source and storing it before its release to the atmosphere. Carbon capture and storage -- also known as CCS -- is attracting interest as a measure for mitigating global climate change, because potentially large amounts of carbon dioxide (CO2) emitted from fossil fuel use in the United States could be eligible for sequestration. Electricity-generating plants may be the most likely initial candidates for direct sequestration because they are predominantly large, single-point sources, and they contribute approximately one-third of U.S. CO2 emissions from fossil fuels. Congressional interest is growing in direct sequestration as part of legislative strategies addressing climate change. In the 110th Congress, the House and Senate have each passed bills that contain provisions expanding the current Department of Energy (DOE) carbon capture research and development program and creating new programs to accelerate R&D [research and development] for CO2 storage. The bills would require at least seven large-volume underground sequestration tests. DOE is planning to spend almost $100 million on carbon sequestration R&D in FY2007. The House- and Senate-passed bills would sharply increase that amount, doubling or tripling R&D spending on carbon sequestration within two years compared to FY2007 levels. […] DOE's carbon sequestration research program will be facilitating field tests for carbon sequestration, with seven regional partners, across the United States. DOE is also undertaking a 10-year, $1.5 billion project -- known as FutureGen -- to build a power plant that integrates carbon sequestration and hydrogen production while producing 275 megawatts of electricity, enough to power about 150,000 average U.S. homes. DOE estimates direct sequestration costs of between $100 and $300 per metric ton (2,200 pounds) of carbon emissions avoided using current technologies. Power plants with CCS would require more fuel, and costs per kilowatt-hour would likely rise compared to plants without CCS."

  Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

  Folger, Peter (Peter Franklin)

  2007-09-13
• Carbon Cycle: Implications for Climate Change and Congress [June 25, 2007]

  Show summary     Open resource [pdf]     (open full abstract)

  "Congress is considering several legislative strategies that would reduce U.S. emissions of greenhouse gases -- primarily carbon dioxide (CO2 ) -- or increase uptake and storage of CO2 from the atmosphere, or both. Both approaches are viewed by many as critical to forestalling global climate changed caused, in part, by the buildup of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere from human activities. Others point out that the human contribution of carbon to the atmosphere is a small fraction of the total quantity of carbon that cycles back and forth each year between the atmosphere and two huge carbon reservoirs: (1) the global oceans, and (2) the land surface of the entire planet. The exchange, or flux, of carbon between the atmosphere, oceans, and land surface is called the global carbon cycle. […] This report explores the answer to that question and attempts to put the human contribution of carbon to the atmosphere in to the larger context of the global carbon cycle. The report focuses almost entirely on CO2, although methane (CH4 ), black carbon, and organic carbon pollution are also part of the carbon cycle and have roles in human-induced climate change. Carbon dioxide, alone, is responsible for over half of the change in Earth's radiation balance, and methane for about an additional 20%."

  Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

  Folger, Peter (Peter Franklin)

  2007-06-25
• Energy Savings Act of 2007 (S. 1321): Summary of Major Provisions [May 17, 2007]

  Show summary     Open resource [pdf]     (open full abstract)

  "The Energy Savings Act (S. 1321) puts forth a broad range of proposals on biofuels, energy efficiency, and carbon storage. The Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources approved the bill by a vote of 20 to 3, on May 7, 2007. Title I, the Biofuels for Energy Security and Transportation Act, is taken primarily from S. 987, with a few other provisions added in markup by the Committee. That title would increase the renewable fuel standard, set some standards for greenhouse gas emissions reductions, and provide support for fuel infrastructure, feedstocks, and biorefineries. Title II, the Energy Efficiency Promotion Act, is drawn primarily from S. 1115. That title would set some new standards for energy efficient equipment, establish goals for fuel savings, strengthen federal energy efficiency requirements, and authorize several new programs for vehicles and grants. Title III, the Carbon Capture and Storage Research, Development, and Demonstration Act, is taken primarily from S. 962 and S. 731. That title would call for large-scale testing of carbon dioxide (CO2) storage in geological formations, establish competitive funding awards, direct that a national storage capacity assessment be conducted, and require that the Department of Energy (DOE) demonstrate the use of large-scale capture technologies at industrial facilities."

  Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

  Sissine, Fred J.; Yacobucci, Brent D.; Folger, Peter (Peter Franklin)

  2007-05-17
• Carbon Dioxide (CO2) Pipelines for Carbon Sequestration: Emerging Policy Issues [Updated April 19, 2007]

  Show summary     Open resource [pdf]     (open full abstract)

  "Congress is examining potential approaches to reducing man-made contributions to global warming from U.S. sources. One approach is carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) - capturing CO2 at its source (e.g., a power plant) and storing it indefinitely (e.g., underground) to avoid its release to the atmosphere. A common requirement among the various techniques for CCS is a dedicated pipeline network for transporting CO2 from capture sites to storage sites. In the 110th Congress, a number of bills include aspects of CCS, but do not discuss in any detail proposals for pipeline infrastructure to transport captured CO2 from sources to storage sites. Many bills that mention some form of CCS focus on incentives for enhancing CO2 capture and/or on characterizing geologic reservoirs. Some bills, such as S. 962 and H.R. 931, include sections on promoting the development of technologies needed to separate and capture CO2 at its source, often as part of research and development provisions. Other bills, such as H.R. 1267 and S. 731, call for enhancing or expanding the national capability to assess potential U.S. capacity for safe and long-term CO2 storage in geologic reservoirs. In addition to these issues, Congress may examine how CO2 pipelines fit into the nation's overall strategies for energy supply and environmental protection. If policy makers encourage continued consumption of fossil fuels under CCS, then the need to foster the other energy options may be diminished - and vice versa. Thus, decisions about CO2 pipeline infrastructure could have consequences for a broader array of energy and environmental policies."

  Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

  Parfomak, Paul W.; Folger, Peter (Peter Franklin)

  2007-04-19
• Global Climate Change and Wildlife [February 6, 2007]

  Show summary     Open resource [pdf]     (open full abstract)

  "Recently projected climate changes could have widespread effects on wildlife species. These effects may include extinctions, changes in species' ranges, mismatches in their phenology (timing of pollination, flowering, etc.), and population declines. Other species could flourish in response to projected climate change. Effects of climate change on wildlife have been reported for some species and populations in localized areas. Many studies also show that climate change acts in concert with other variables to effect changes in species. If climate change is widespread, there is uncertainty on how wildlife will adapt. Some suggest that evolution and migration will enable species to adapt, whereas others contend that adaptation will be minimal because of limited habitat and that changes in climate may occur more rapidly than adaptation can respond to."

  Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

  Sheikh, Pervaze A.; Corn, M. Lynne (Mary Lynne), 1946-; Leggett, Jane A. . . .

  2007-02-06