We last looked at carbon capture technology last summer in Project Tundra's clean coal; or, does Petra Nova project's tech really reduce carbon emissions? Amy Sisk reported in September in the Bismarck Tribune, DOE awards $10M to advance Project Tundra carbon capture research.
This weekend, a number of items about carbon capture have come across our feed and last week, a friend sent us several documents about a carbon capture forum apparently aimed toward Minnesota state lawmakers. While we wait for opportunities to purchase household paper products, we thought a CCS digest might be of interest to our readers.
In Minnesota clean energy legislation has one more obstacle this year with coronavirus, Mike Hughlett reports at the Strib:
For instance, the Senate bill includes carbon capture, a technology that enables fossil-fuel power plants to capture and store carbon dioxide created from electricity generation. The technology is still in its infancy, but Minnkota Power is studying a $1.3 billion facility next to a large coal plant in North Dakota.
Grand Forks-based Minnkota is a wholesale electric co-op that's prominent in northwestern Minnesota. Minneapolis-based Xcel Energy, the state's largest electric utility, has said it's open to carbon capture technology in the future if it proves cost-effective.
But environmental groups see carbon capture as way to perpetuate fossil fuel industries.
The Minnesota Environmental Partnership, a coalition of environmental and conservation groups, has called the Senate proposal "false advertising" because it allows projects to qualify even if they capture only 80% of the greenhouse gases they produce. The house bill has no carbon capture provisions.
The senate bill is SF1456, while the House bill--with no carbon capture provisions--is HF1405.
In February, the op-ed section of the paper carried An assessment of the Minnesota Senate bill on clean energy, by a number of environmental groups, followed by Senator Ozmek's Counterpoint: Critics of Minnesota Senate clean-energy bill are wrong.
In early March, James Gignac, lead Midwest energy analyst for the Union of Concerned Scientists, wrote in The Minnesota Senate Must Do Better on Clean Energy Legislation: Here’s How:
Last May, the Minnesota House of Representatives passed an omnibus jobs and energy bill that would increase deployment of solar and wind power, as well as energy storage, in a smart and cost-effective manner. The House also recently introduced a budget proposal on energy and climate that features investments in solar projects, energy efficiency, and clean transportation.
The Minnesota Senate, however, is a different story. It is considering a much weaker bill that fails to advance the state’s climate and clean energy leadership and, in some ways, would represent a step back. The biggest omission is that the Senate bill lacks science-based targets to put the state on a path to 100 percent clean energy. Instead, it would create more opportunities for utilities to rely on fossil fuel generation while weakening Minnesota’s preference for renewable energy by allowing less-desirable resources to qualify for the preference. . . .
. . . Second, carbon capture and storage (CCS) projects should be required to meet technically and economically feasible carbon capture levels of 90 percent or more to be eligible. Third, while UCS is a strong advocate for energy storage as a cost-effective solution to integrate high levels of wind and solar, it is not an energy source, but rather shifts energy from one time period to another. UCS released a policy brief a few months ago that shows that complementary, equitable energy storage policies are needed to deploy energy storage and reduce emissions. Fourth, like storage, hydrogen is an energy carrier, not an energy source. Only energy storage that reduces reliance on and emissions from fossil fuels by storing renewable energy, and only hydrogen produced from a renewable or carbon-free energy sources, should be considered carbon-free.
The night before, a couple of businesses, non-profits and a union hosted this event, pushing carbon capture and sequestration:
Minnesota Carbon Capture Forum uploaded by Sally Jo Sorensen on Scribd
We're still looking at some of the speakers' backgrounds, the businesses for which they work, and the financing for their innovations.
Excerpts from Fresh Energy's Michael Nobles remarks at the forum were published in Fresh Energy supports carbon capture as a tool for a net carbon-neutral economy. We found this interesting:
Subsidize and invest in discovering what role carbon capture will play in taking the economy to 100 percent carbon-free electricity, as well as 100 percent of all energy. An example of this is the 45Q Federal Tax Credit for carbon capture projects. In 2018, to advance various related industries of carbon engineering and carbon management, Congress put a sliding scale price on capturing carbon dioxide. The biggest incentive was for pulling it out of the sky and either burying it underground or making it into useful products—$50 per ton of carbon dioxide. This tax credit is called 45Q and had bipartisan support. It is a necessary response from our federal government to put yet another tool in the climate solutions toolbox—using public funds to jumpstart 50-80 different projects in carbon management over the coming years.
At DeSmogBlog, Steve Horn reviewed a Delayed Senate Energy Bill [that] Promotes LNG Exports, 'Clean Coal' and Geoengineering, Including this passage:
The legislation contains another provision calling for $1.472 billion in subsidies for a “large scale” carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) project for a coal-fired power plant. Originally dubbed the Fossil Energy Utilization, Enhancement, and Leadership Act, the bill received lobbying support from the Coal Utilization Research Council. The group’s members include coal giant Peabody Energy; utility giants Edison Electric Institute, Southern Company, and Duke Energy; the American Coal Council, and others.
Carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) is an expensive endeavor linking power plants to the capture and burial of carbon emissions underground, known in industry lingo as sequestration. Despite numerous attempts at development and billions of dollars poured into research, most CCS projects have failed. One of them, owned by Coal Utilization Research Council member Southern Company, went out of business in 2017 after receiving more than $700 million in federal subsidies. Existing CCS projects, which are energy-intensive, primarily use captured carbon dioxide to pump more oil out of old wells. A 2018 Reuters poll of the top 10 U.S. utilities found little interest in investing in CCS projects, even with federal incentives.
We'll be looking more at what all this means as the pandemic continues and our friends In the Minnesota House keep a lean schedule.
Related posts:
- Lignite Energy Council sets up MN political fund
- Great River Energy's choice: Star Tribune looks at Coal Creek power plant financial pain
- UCS: MN's electricity sector transitioning but electric coops remain tied to coal-fired plants
- CURE & allies' report: Rural electric coops’ loyalty to coal holds rural America back.
- Did thousands of people coming to Capitol to demand climate action change Bakk's heart?
- MN Senate Majority Leader Gazelka embraces the gospel of Minnesotans for Global Warming
- ND state/lignite industry partnership continues funding for Coalition for Secure Energy Future
- In Minnesota, coal still has its defenders — funded by North Dakota (Energy News Network)
- Horse hockey: who's pushing the puck for new Coalition for a Secure Energy Future TV ad?
- MPCA schedules 4 Clean Power Plan community listening sessions around state in February
Photo: Retrofitting Minnkota Power Cooperative's Milton R. Young Station with new carbon capture technology is the aim of Project Tundra. Photo via Kent Brick's article in North Dakota Living, Project Tundra: carbon capture in co-op power generation.
If you appreciate our posts and original analysis, you can mail contributions (payable to Sally Jo Sorensen, 600 Maple Street, Summit SD 57266) or use the paypal button in the upper right hand corner of this post. Those wishing to make a small ongoing monthly contribution should click on the paypal subscription button.
Or you can contribute via this link to paypal; use email [email protected] as recipient.
Comments