Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35926127›Full record

ArticleEnvironmental science & technology2022

Fossil-Fuel Options for Power Sector Net-Zero Emissions with Sequestration Tax Credits.

Jeffrey J Anderson, David C Rode, Haibo Zhai, Paul S Fischbeck

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Environmental science & technology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Jeffrey J AndersonDepartment of Engineering & Public Policy, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15213, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-0517-8583
David C RodeCarnegie Mellon Electricity Industry Center, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15213, United States.ORCID 0000-0003-1028-8506
Haibo ZhaiDepartment of Engineering & Public Policy, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15213, United States.ORCID 0000-0001-8585-9559
Paul S FischbeckDepartment of Engineering & Public Policy, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15213, United States.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Three of the main challenges in achieving rapid decarbonization of the electric power sector in the near term are getting to net-zero while maintaining grid reliability and minimizing cost. In this policy analysis, we evaluate the performance of a variety of generation strategies using this "triple objective" including nuclear, renewables with different energy storage options, and carbon-emitting generation with carbon capture and storage (CCS) and direct air capture and storage (DACS) technologies. Given the current U.S. tax credits for carbon sequestration under Section 45Q of the Internal Revenue Code, we find that two options: (1) cofiring bioenergy in existing coal-fired assets equipped with CCS, and (2) coupling existing natural gas combined-cycle plants equipped with CCS and DACS, robustly dominate other generation strategies across many assumptions and uncertainties. As a result, capacity-expansion modelers, planners, and policymakers should consider such combinations of carbon-constrained fossil-fuel and negative emissions technologies, together with modifications of the current national incentives, when designing the pathways to a carbon-free economy.

Indexed as

Carbon DioxidePower PlantsCarbon SequestrationNatural GasReproducibility of ResultsCarbon DioxideNatural Gas45Qcarbon capture and storageclimate policydecarbonizationdirect air capturetax credits

Identifiers

PMID35926127
PMCPMC9387094

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.