CARBON CONVERSION

LANDSCAPE ANALYSIS

December 2014
PRINCIPAL AUTHORS

Alisa Ferguson
Consultant, Prize Development

Christopher Frangione
Vice President, Prize Development

CONTRIBUTING AUTHORS

Eileen Bartholomew
Senior Vice President, Prizes

Sara Jennings
Associate, Prize Development

David Schroeder
Consultant, Prize Development

Stephanie Shapiro
Associate, Prize Development

XPRIZE Foundation
800 Corporate Pointe, Suite 350
Culver City, CA 90230
T (310) 741-4880
F (310) 741-4974
www.xprize.org

CARBON CONVERSION LANDSCAPE ANALYSIS 2

 PRIZE DEVELOPMENT FUNDED BY

XPRIZE would like to thank Tri-State Generation and

Transmission Association, Inc. and Canadas Oil Sands
Innovation Alliance
for their partnership and support.

CARBON CONVERSION LANDSCAPE ANALYSIS 3

TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABOUT THIS REPORT ........................................................................................................5
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ......................................................................................................5
PRIZE DESIGN PROCESS ...................................................................................................6
PROJECT BACKGROUND AND MARKET SITUATION ANALYSIS ..........................................8
GRAND CHALLENGE ........................................................................................................................................................... 8
ENERGY AND GLOBAL DEVELOPMENT........................................................................................................................... 8
THE SCALE OF CO2 EMISSIONS .................................................................................................................................... 10
REIMAGINING CO2 EMISSIONS.................................................................................................................................... 12

ROOT CAUSE ANALYSIS AND MARKET FAILURES ............................................................16

CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................20
APPENDIX: INTERVIEWEES..............................................................................................21

CARBON CONVERSION LANDSCAPE ANALYSIS 4

ABOUT THIS REPORT

This report is a landscape analysis of carbon conversion technologies that was created as part of a
formal prize design process for a Carbon XPRIZE. This report summarizes the primary and secondary
research and analysis conducted during the prize design with the goal of informing the development
of a prize competition that would incentivize innovations around converting CO2 into valuable
products.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Energy drives the global economy. As developing countries continue to grow, they will also continue
to seek sources of affordable, abundant energy. And projections show that countries around the
globe will continue to get a majority of this energy from fossil fuels. According to the International
Energy Agency (IEA), despite increased deployment of alternatives, fossil fuels will continue to
dominate the global power sector, declining only slightly from 68 percent in 2011 to 57 percent in
2035.1

However, fossil fuels also account for a majority (57 percent) of carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions. In
order to address CO2 emissions and the potential effects of climate change, which are difficult to
predict but potentially dramatic, the world must continue to accelerate deployment of new energy
technologies. No single technology solution will be able to manage the CO2. Rather, the world will
require a portfolio of carbon mitigation solutions and low-carbon and zero-carbon energy sources.

Today, CO2 emissions from power plants and other industrial facilities are viewed primarily as a
problema waste product and a liability. While CO2 is currently re-used for enhanced oil recovery
(EOR) and some niche applications, it has the potential to be an even greater asset for the industrial
sector and consumers around the world. We know that CO2 can be a valuable asseta building
block for a wide variety of products we use every day. However, a number of key market failures
have slowed development of innovative technologies for converting CO2 into valuable products.

Its time to reimagine CO2 emissions!

1
International Energy Agency. (November 12, 2013). World Energy Outlook 2013 factsheet. Retrieved
from www.worldenergyoutlook.org/media/weowebsite/factsheets/WEO2013_Factsheets.pdf

CARBON CONVERSION LANDSCAPE ANALYSIS 5

PRIZE DESIGN PROCESS

XPRIZE IS AN INNOVATION ENGINE.

A facilitator of exponential change. A catalyst for the benefit of humanity.

We provide the thought leadership and expertise to identify the Grand Challenges of our timethe
national or global crises, market failures, and opportunities where solutions are thought to be either
out of reach or just plain impossible. We then design and operate incentivized prize competitions to
solve these problems.

XPRIZE acts as a convening platform, bringing together passionate partners to accelerate a positive
future based upon our vision of a preferred state. These partners include sponsors, entrepreneurs,
philanthropists, industry, government, academia, and innovators who help us make the impossible
possible.

We dont dictate the solution. We ask the right questions. And we provide the platform, global
visibility, credibility, and opportunity for our partners to take risks that ultimately lead to radical
breakthroughs. Together, we create the future. The result? Averted crises. Revitalized markets. Better
technologies. New industries. And empowered people.

XPRIZE accomplishes this by creating large-scale, market-driven, incentivized prize competitions that
focus global innovators on goals that are audacious but achievable. We leverage the intellectual
and financial capital necessary to stimulate research and development, yielding measurable results
and efficiency that ensure our supporters consistently back winning solutions.

The design of an XPRIZE competition is guided by the following principles:

XPRIZEs result in innovations that make a lasting impact. Although a technological

breakthrough may meet this criterion, so do prizes that inspire teams to use existing
technologies, knowledge, and/or systems in more effective ways.

XPRIZEs legitimize a field of interest, making it possible for teams to attract support for their
efforts.

XPRIZEs generate popular interest through the prize life cycle:

o Enrollment: The world is introduced to the players. Prizes ideally encourage the
participation of a wide range of participantsfrom leading thinkers in relevant fields
to maverick inventors and entrepreneurs. These rare individuals are often as difficult
to identify as the proverbial needle in a haystack. XPRIZEs attract these needles
to solve seemingly impossible problems.

CARBON CONVERSION LANDSCAPE ANALYSIS 6

 o Competition: The world watches as teams work to win the XPRIZE.

o Post-Win: Retrospectively, competitions are regarded as landmark events that

revolutionized an industry or opened up new markets.

XPRIZE competitions incorporate elements of both technological innovation and successful

real-world deployment. An innovation that is too costly or too inconvenient to deploy widely
will not win.

XPRIZE competitions engage multidisciplinary innovators who would otherwise be unlikely to

tackle the problems that the prize is designed to address.

XPRIZE competitions promote collaboration in the quest to find a solution.

In developing prizes for more than 15 years, XPRIZE has become expert in prize design. The XPRIZE
prize design process is anchored in an open collaboration model, which is designed to enable many
external constituencies to contribute to the process. Input from innovators, industry leaders, academia,
government, non-governmental organizations, and the general public is routinely and formally
sought.

The ideas that emerge from this collaboration are vetted through XPRIZEs formal prize design
process to ensure the design of the best competition possible. XPRIZE develops competitions in areas
where market failures have limited progress or exhausted resources.

During the prize design process, XPRIZE identifies and analyzes the underlying market failures that a
prize can address, focusing on the technological, market, behavioral, and policy sectors that could
be impacted and changed by a prize. XPRIZE engages with technology experts, industry advisors,
and creative thought leaders to identify and prioritize prize concepts and technical parameters that
can best solve market failures. For the leading prize concept(s), XPRIZE then creates a set of initial
prize concepts.

Once XPRIZE and its sponsors agree to move forward with a single prize concept, that concept is
truly crafted into an XPRIZE competition. XPRIZE defines the value proposition and stakeholders, and
develops detailed plans for the launch, operation, and awarding of the prize. Additionally, XPRIZE
finalizes competition guidelines and establishes success criteria for the competition, including
detailed team and sponsor business, marketing, and promotional strategies. XPRIZE also lays out a
detailed operations strategy that defines the operational, sponsorship, marketing, educational, and
financial resource requirements for all competition partners, sponsors, and stakeholders.

CARBON CONVERSION LANDSCAPE ANALYSIS 7

PROJECT BACKGROUND AND MARKET SITUATION ANALYSIS

GRAND CHALLENGE

Energy drives the global economy. As developing countries continue to grow, demand for energy
will also increase. Today and for decades to come, the most affordable and abundant energy will
continue to come from fossil fuels, which are the largest contributor to global CO2 emissions. In order
to address CO2 emissions and the potential effects of climate change, which are difficult to predict
but potentially dramatic, the world must continue to accelerate deployment of new energy
technologies.

Reducing the world's CO2 emissions cannot be addressed by any single technology. Rather, the
world will require a portfolio of carbon mitigation solutions and low-carbon and zero-carbon energy
sources to make any significant impact on reducing CO2 emissions.

ENERGY AND GLOBAL DEVELOPMENT

Energy drives the global economy, and demand for energyespecially from developing countries
will only continue to increase. More than a decade ago, research from the Lawrence Livermore
National Laboratory found a correlation between the United Nations Human Development Index
(HDI)2 and annual per capita electricity consumption. In a study of 60 populous countries
comprising 90 percent of the worlds population, the study found that HDI reaches a maximum value
when electricity consumption is about 4,000 kilowatt hours (kWh) per person annually. As Figure 1
below illustrates, this amount of energy is well below consumption levels for most developed
countries and well above the level for developing countries.3

2
The Human Development Index is a summary measure of average achievement in key dimensions of human
development: a long and healthy life, being knowledgeable and have a decent standard of living. Retrieved
from http://hdr.undp.org/en/content/human-development-index-hdi
3
Pasternak, Alan D. (October 2000). Global energy futures and human development: a framework for
analysis. Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. Retrieved from https://e-reports-
ext.llnl.gov/pdf/239193.pdf

CARBON CONVERSION LANDSCAPE ANALYSIS 8

FIGURE 1. Correlation Between Annual Per Capita Electricity Use and Human
Development

As developing countries continue to growin terms of both economic and human developmentthey
will also continue to seek sources of affordable, abundant energy. For the most part, they will find
this energy in the form of fossil fuels. According to the International Energy Agency (IEA), despite
increased investment in alternatives, fossil fuels will continue to dominate the global power sector,
declining only slightly from 68 percent in 2011 to 57 percent in 2035.4

Without accelerated deployment of carbon mitigation technologies in addition to low-carbon and

zero-carbon energy sources, the already massive volume of carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions will
grow even higher in the coming decades.

4
International Energy Agency. (November 12, 2013). World Energy Outlook 2013 factsheet. Retrieved
from www.worldenergyoutlook.org/media/weowebsite/factsheets/WEO2013_Factsheets.pdf

CARBON CONVERSION LANDSCAPE ANALYSIS 9

THE SCALE OF CO2 EMISSIONS

CO2 emissions from fossil fuels comprise the majority (57 percent) of global greenhouse gas (GHG)
emissions.5 Figure 2 below illustrates the breakdown of CO2 emissions by GHG type.6

FIGURE 2. Global Greenhouse Gas Emissions by Type of Gas

According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), CO2 emissions from fossil fuels
have increased by more than 16 times since 1900. Figure 3 illustrates the trajectory of global CO2
emissions from fossil fuels between 1900 and 2008.

5
International Energy Agency. (n.d.). Climate change. Retrieved from www.iea.org/topics/climatechange
6
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (n.d.). Global greenhouse gas emissions data. Retrieved from
www.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/global.html

CARBON CONVERSION LANDSCAPE ANALYSIS 10

FIGURE 3. Global Carbon Dioxide Emissions from Fossil Fuels, 19002008

The absolute volume of CO2 emissions from fossil fuels is massive. For example:

In 2010, global CO2 emissions from fossil fuels, cement manufacture, and gas flaring totaled
33.6 billion metric tons.7
In 2010, Chinas CO2 emissions from coal were 6.6 billion metric tons; in 2011, those
emissions had risen almost 10 percent, to 7.2 billion metric tons.8
In 2012, U.S. coal power plants emitted 1.5 billion metric tons of CO2; U.S. natural gas
power plants emitted approximately 500 million metric tons of CO2.9

In order to address CO2 emissions and the potential effects of climate change, which are difficult to
predict but potentially dramatic, the world must continue to accelerate deployment of new energy
technologies. However, no single technology solution will be capable of addressing CO2 emissions.

7
Boden, Tom, Bob Andres, and Gregg Marland. (July 30, 2013). Global CO2 emissions form fossil-fuel
burning, cement manufacture, and gas flaring: 17512010. Oak Ridge National Laboratory. Retrieved from
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/ftp/ndp030/global.1751_2010.ems
8
U.S. Energy Information Administration. (n.d.). International energy statistics. Retrieved from
www.eia.gov/cfapps/ipdbproject/iedindex3.cfm?tid=90&pid=1&aid=8&cid=r1,r3,r7,&syid=2010&eyid=2
011&unit=MMTCD
9
U.S. Energy Information Administration. (August 23, 2013). FAQ: How much of U.S. carbon dioxide
emissions are associated with electricity generation? Retrieved from
www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=77&t=11

CARBON CONVERSION LANDSCAPE ANALYSIS 11

Rather, the world will require a portfolio of carbon mitigation solutions and low-carbon and zero-
carbon energy sources.

REIMAGINING CO2 EMISSIONS

Today, CO2 emissions from power plants and other industrial facilities are viewed primarily as a
problema waste product and a liability.

While CO2 is currently re-used for enhanced oil recovery (EOR) and some niche applications, it has
the potential to be an even greater asset for the industrial sector and consumers around the world.
But carbon is also a fundamental building block of the earth, and has the potential to be converted
into a wide variety of high-value materials and products.

CO2 conversion from a flue gas stream may involve either: (1) a two-step process where CO2 is
captured and separated into a pure stream and then converted into a product; or (2) an integrated
process where flue gas containing CO2 is converted directly into a product. Generally, CO2
conversion processes are divided into three very different categories:

Biological processes where a biological organism rapidly absorbs CO2 and uses sunlight to
produce a product
Chemical processes where a catalyst works to break carbonoxygen bonds and then
combines carbon with other elements to produce a product
Mineralization processes where CO2 reacts with other elements and is sequestered as a
solid carbonate that can be incorporated into products

Within each of these categories are technologies and companies at various stages of development.
However, unlike carbon capture alone, which is already near deployment, on the whole CO2
conversion technologies are relatively nascent. While there are a handful of companies currently
operating large demonstration facilities, most CO2 conversion technologies would fall within a
Technology Readiness Level (TRL) of approximately 14, ranging from fundamental research and
proof of concept to small bench scale or laboratory pilot stage.

Figure 4 illustrates an approximate pathway to commercialization for CO2 conversion technologies.

Approximate scales are given in kilograms or metric tons of CO2 consumed per day and kilowatt or
megawatt equivalent. Each step along this spectrum represents a10X increase in scale from the
previous step. Estimates of the cost of each step are also included, although costs may vary
dramatically depending on the process, necessary inputs, and products produced. Finally, a timeline
at the bottom of the figure shows an estimated minimum amount of time required for development.

CARBON CONVERSION LANDSCAPE ANALYSIS 12

Each step is likely to require at least 23 years for technology development and raising the capital
necessary to support designing and building the pilot or demonstration scale plant.

FIGURE 4. Pathway to Commercialization for CO2 Conversion

Another lens through which to view the commercialization of CO2 conversion technologies is the
source of CO2. Many researchers are currently testing their technologies using a natural or simulated
stream of CO2 that is 100 percent pure. However, in the real world, there is strong interest in
technologies that can convert CO2 from industrial flue gas streams. These flue gas streams have
varying properties and concentrations of CO2, and in the case of flue gas from coal power plants,
significant contaminants, all of which may present different technical challenges. For example:

CO2 conversion technologies that must first capture and separate CO2 from a flue gas
stream may find the higher concentration of CO2 typical to a coal power plant flue gas
(~12%) less challenging than the lower concentration of CO2 typical to a natural gas power
plant flue gas (~35%).
CO2 conversion technologies that process flue gas directly using a catalyst may find
contaminants (particularly sulfur dioxide [SO2]) in coal flue gas more challenging than a
natural gas flue gas that is mostly free of contaminants.

CARBON CONVERSION LANDSCAPE ANALYSIS 13

 Many mineralization technologies may be agnostic to the source of CO2 and any
contaminants.

Alternatively, researchers are also developing approaches that utilize air capture, where CO2 is
captured and separated from the air rather than a flue gas stream. These approaches must address
the challenge of the very small concentration of CO2 in the air (~.04%) but have the potential to
offset industrial emissions while being deployed almost anywhere (rather than only adjacent to
industrial facilities or power plants). In addition, because air capture technologies would provide a
100 percent pure CO2 stream for conversion, they could represent a less challenging pathway for
CO2 conversion.

Figure 5 below illustrates an approximate pathway for CO2 conversion of different sources of CO2.
However, as noted above, the pathway may vary dramatically depending on the technology, and
not all technologies must or will require each step.

FIGURE 5. Risk Roadmap for CO2 Conversion

CO2 conversion technologies can have two primary benefits:

CO2 conversion projects can provide economic benefits by creating high-value products.
Today, carbon capture technologies, which separate and compress CO2 from power plants
and other industrial sources to ready the CO2 for long-term storage, remain very costly. The
U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) has estimated that first-generation carbon capture and

CARBON CONVERSION LANDSCAPE ANALYSIS 14

 storage (CCS) technologies may increase wholesale electricity rates by 7080 percent.10
Pairing a CO2 conversion project that makes products that can provide a return with a
traditional CCS project that has high costs has the potential to reduce net costs of CCS for
utilities, manufacturers, and consumers alike. In addition, CO2 conversion has the potential to
create entirely new materials and products, driving innovation and industries that are yet to
be imagined and providing economic opportunity around the globe.

CO2 conversion projects can provide environmental benefits when they can achieve a
net CO2 emissions reduction. The carbon profile of CO2 conversion projects can be
understood in two ways: (1) direct emissions from the CO2 conversion process and (2)
lifecycle emissions, which also takes into account the entire life of the product from
gathering the raw materials to production of the final product. For example, lifecycle
emissions may take into account the type of product, upstream mining, processing,
transportation related to inputs, and potentially many other factors. CO2 conversion
processes that are very energy intensive may only have a net emissions reduction if they use
zero-emission energy sources. A full accounting of the environmental benefits, including a
lifecycle analysis, will be critical to the commercial deployment pathways for any CO2
conversion technologies in the future.

10
U.S. House Energy & Commerce Committee. (February 11, 2014). DOE official: initial CSS technologies
estimated to increase wholesale electricity costs up to 70 to 80 percent. Retrieved from
http://energycommerce.house.gov/press-release/doe-official-initial-ccs-technologies-estimated-increase-
wholesale-electricity-costs-

CARBON CONVERSION LANDSCAPE ANALYSIS 15

ROOT CAUSE ANALYSIS AND MARKET FAILURES

If CO2 conversion has the potential to be a key solution, why have these technologies not already
been developed? There are seven critical market failures that have slowed development of CO2
conversion technologies.

1. Investment in reducing emissions from power plants and other industrial sources has focused
primarily on CCS rather than CO2 conversion.

Investment in research and development to reduce emissions from power plants and other industrial
facilities that use fossil fuels has overwhelmingly focused on the efficiency of new power plants and
on CCS. For example, since 2005, DOE has invested $7.6 billion11 in CCS and only $100 million12
in projects related to the "beneficial reuse" of CO2 (primarily involving conversion of CO2 into
various products). Investment by governments around the world is similarly divided.

Undoubtedly, CCS is a critical part of the portfolio for addressing global CO2 emissions, and large
investment in these technologies is warranted. In fact, overall investment in CCS has succeeded in
advancing some technologies to a stage where there are now 12 commercial-scale CCS projects
worldwide, with approximately 50 additional CCS projects in various stages of development around
the world.13 However, there may be many regions where subsurface storage is not the optimal
solution. And no matter how advanced, CCS technologies will always fundamentally treat CO2 as a
waste product that requires disposal rather than as an asset with value. CO2 conversion has the
potential to be a complementary solution with additional investment and technology development.

2. CO2 conversion processes compete with very mature, high-volume manufacturing.

Many of the products that could be made using CO2 are already being made in high-volume
manufacturing processes that have had many decades to be optimized. Hydrocarbon products like
ethylene, propylene, butadiene, gasoline, and diesel are made from petroleum using distillation and
thermal or catalytic cracking processes that were commercialized at large scale prior to 1950.
Others products like methanol are currently made using reforming processes that were developed
even earlier (before 1930).

11
This figure was calculated from U.S. Department of Energy budgets, FY2005FY2014.
12
U.S. Department of Energy. (n.d.). Innovative concepts for beneficial reuse of carbon dioxide. Retrieved
from http://energy.gov/fe/innovative-concepts-beneficial-reuse-carbon-dioxide-0
13
Center for Climate and Energy Solutions. (n.d.). Carbon capture and storage. Retrieved from
www.c2es.org/technology/factsheet/CCS

CARBON CONVERSION LANDSCAPE ANALYSIS 16

Competing against mature processes is challenging for several reasons. First, decades of
engineering improvements have pushed mature processes to their most efficient point. Second, the
fully depreciated capital equipment of an existing mature process also provides a cost advantage.
Finally, customers for these products are also more comfortable buying from suppliers that use the
mature processes they view as reliable.

3. The universe of CO2 conversion technologies is highly diverse, and it is difficult to compare
performance and benefits across different types of processes and products.

Carbon is a fundamental building block for more materials and products than any other element.
Fuels, roads, clothing, packaging, medicines, and even food are made largely of carbon. While not
limitless, the universe of potential products that can be made from CO2 crosses a variety of energy
verticals, industrial processes, and consumer products.

Figure 6 below illustrates just some of the known products that can be made from CO2. Researchers
and companies today are also working on advanced materials and products that may go well
beyond this list. Given this diversity, it is challenging for an industrial customer seeking a technology
solution for reducing CO2 emissions to evaluate the potential economic and environmental value of
so many different approaches and products.

CARBON CONVERSION LANDSCAPE ANALYSIS 17

FIGURE 6. Selection of Products That Can Be Made from CO

4. The economic benefits of CO2 conversion have not been quantified.

Most CO2 conversion technologies are still in an early stage of development, and there is no widely
accepted methodology for evaluating their potential future economic benefits. Moreover, the
potential economic value varies greatly depending on process, inputs, product values, andin many
casesgeographic location.

5. The environmental benefits of CO2 conversion are not well understood.

Most CO2 conversion technologies are still in an early stage of development and often use
innovative approaches, materials, and inputs that have not yet been robustly analyzed from an
environmental perspective. In most cases, the direct net emissions of a process (the amount of CO2
converted minus the CO2 added through energy and other inputs) can be easily measured.
However, there is no widely accepted methodology for conducting a lifecycle analysis of these
technologies and the products they make.

CARBON CONVERSION LANDSCAPE ANALYSIS 18

Some processes (specifically chemical processes that typically convert CO2 into hydrocarbon fuels
or chemicals) are understood to be very energy intensive, even if they are able to achieve very high
efficiencies. As a result, it is likely that these processes will only result in a net reduction in CO2
emissions if they use zero-emission energy inputs. Biological processes are also very energy
intensive, but they get most of their energy from direct sunlight and typically require vast quantities of
land for production. Mineralization processes require much less energy to convert CO2, but many
experts believe that a lifecycle analysis would show significant emissions from upstream processes
(e.g., mining and transportation) related to necessary process inputs. Ultimately, a full accounting of
the environmental benefits of CO2 conversion, including a lifecycle analysis, will be critical to the
commercial deployment pathways for any CO2 conversion technologies in the future.

6. The energy industry is risk averse and hesitant to demonstrate or deploy first-of-its-kind
technology.

While a majority of CO2 emissions come from fossil fuel power plants and other industrial facilities,
these entities are not well positioned to take on technology risk or financial risk. In particular,
regulated utilities must make investments and contract for electricity rates according to strict and
complex rules and regulations that are not designed to allow them to recover costs for investment in
first-of-its-kind technology. In some cases, environmental regulations themselves inadvertently
discourage deployment of new technologies when those technologies would trigger costly and
timely permitting reviews and updates. These realities create significant barriers to demonstrating
new technologies in real-world environments; without adequate demonstration to prove the
technologies can work, they will never be deployed in the marketplace.

7. Lack of regulation of CO2 from power plants and other industrial sources in most countries
around the world has resulted in stunted demand for technologies to reduce CO2 emissions.

Regulation of CO2 emissions from power plants and other industrial sources remains early stage in
most countries, with many of the largest emitters, including China, having little or no requirements
today. The absence of a regulatory requirement that puts a price on CO2 as an environmental
externality results in fossil fuels still being the lowest-cost energy source, and there is little demand for
deploying CO2 reduction technologies at commercial scale. The lack of an economic incentive to
manage CO2 adds to this reduced demand. As a result, these technologies have remained at a
nascent stage of development and are often viewed as unproven or too costly.

CARBON CONVERSION LANDSCAPE ANALYSIS 19

CONCLUSION

XPRIZE believes that the space for technologies to address CO2 emissions is ripe for disruption. A
prize competition would help drive investment into nascent CO2 conversion technologies and create
an ecosystem of innovators and stakeholders to accelerate technology development. A prize would
also engage industry and demonstrate how these technologies can serve as solutions in the real
world, while at the same time reimagining how the world should view CO2.

CARBON CONVERSION LANDSCAPE ANALYSIS 20

APPENDIX: INTERVIEWEES

The following is a list of experts who graciously provided guidance and input on the topics covered
in this report and on the subsequent prize design. However, please note that the conclusions and
content within this report are those of XPRIZE and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the
individuals listed.

NAME ORGANIZATION

Dale Lutz 3M
Laura Nereng 3M
Andrew Gumbiner Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy (ARPA-E)
Varun Mehra Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy (ARPA-E)
Stewart Erickson AG Gas
Sean Black Akermin
Barry Blackwell Akermin
Rob Hamaliuk Alberta Environment and Sustainable Resource Development
Kate Rich Alberta Environment and Sustainable Resource Development
Jacques Beaudry-Losique Algenol Biofuels
Matt Usher American Electric Power
Mark Edelman American Green Gasoline
Miron Landau Ben-Gurion University of the Negev
Tom Carter Blue Planet
Larry Baxter Brigham Young University
Aniruddha Sharma Carbon Clean Solutions
Paul Zakkour Carbon Counts
Geoffrey Holmes Carbon Engineering
Richard Adamson Carbon Management Canada
Paul Wuebben Carbon Recycling International
Robert Niven CarbonCure Technologies
Mike Fowler Clean Air Task Force
Kurt Waltzer Clean Air Task Force

CARBON CONVERSION LANDSCAPE ANALYSIS 21

NAME ORGANIZATION

Robert Tang Clean Energy and Fuel Company

Shannon Angielski Coal Utilization Research Council
Carl Bauer C.O. Bauer Consulting
Jim Lalonde Codexis
Nicholas McKenna ConocoPhillips Canada
Bob Mitchell ConocoPhillips Canada
Jim Seaba ConocoPhillips Canada
Ed Rode Det Norske Veritas (DNV)
Narasi Sridhar Det Norske Veritas (DNV)
Michael Reid Duke Energy
Roger Green Eco Global Fuels
Robert Vagnoni Eco Technol
Abhoyjit Bhown Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI)
Tomas Carbonell Environmental Defense Fund (EDF)
Tim O'Connor Environmental Defense Fund (EDF)
Sharif Hendawi Future Environmental Technologies
Viva Cundliffe GC Green Carbon
Peter Eisenberger Global Thermostat
Mark Muir GreenFire Energy
David Keith Harvard University
Simon Bennett International Energy Agency (IEA)
Sissi Liu Joule
Menno Wierema Joule
Jan van Dokkum Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers
Christer Jansson Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL)
Kyle Teamey Liquid Light
Colin Hayes McBee Strategic Consulting
Darin Damiani National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL)
George Peridas Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC)
Jacob Karni New CO2 Fuels
Mark Herrema Newlight Technologies
Paul Khanna Nexen Energy
Peter Shepard Novomer

CARBON CONVERSION LANDSCAPE ANALYSIS 22

NAME ORGANIZATION

Brian Sefton Oakbio

Brittany Applestein Syz Oberon Fuels
Peter Howard Pond Biofuels
Mike Easley Powder River Energy Corporation
Matt Peak Prize Capital
Lee Stein Prize Capital
Dan Miller Roda Group
Marty Reed Roda Group
Louis Albanese Saudi Aramco Energy Ventures
Cory Steffek Saudi Aramco Energy Ventures
Dominick Mendola Scripps Institution of Oceanography, University of California,
San Diego (UCSD)
Ron Kent Sempra Energy Utilities
Scott Gardner Skyonic
Joe Jones Skyonic
Steve Wilson Southern Company
Adam Brandt Stanford University
Kali Taylor Student Energy
Stephen Kaufman Suncor Energy
Eric Beynon Sustainable Growth Company
Lee Boughey Tri-State Generation and Transmission
Mark Wilson Tri-State Generation and Transmission
James Liao University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA)
Steve Suib University of Connecticut
Alessandra Quadrelli University of Lyon
G. K. Surya Prakash University of Southern California (USC)
Rob Hurless University of Wyoming
John Litynski U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)
David Addison Virgin Earth Challenge
David Miller World Wildlife Fund (WWF)-Canada

CARBON CONVERSION LANDSCAPE ANALYSIS 23