We last posted about the mammoth ethanol CO2 capture pipeline system proposed to snake through the upper Midwest to North Dakota in Not a lot of easements for Midwest carbon pipeline, but plenty of political connections.
Two stories capture our interest this morning, one new, one from earlier in the week.
The first is a Leah Douglas article for Reuters, published in Willmar's West Central Tribune, Ethanol industry banks on carbon capture to solve emissions problem. Douglas reports:
U.S. ethanol producers are betting heavily on carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology to lower their greenhouse gas emissions and secure a place for the corn-based fuel in a climate-friendly future, according to industry groups and executives.
But the plan is risky: The nascent CCS industry has been plagued by high costs and underperformance, crucial federal incentives for carbon capture are stalled in Congress, and public opposition to the pipeline infrastructure needed to transport captured gas is mounting.
“There will definitely be challenges,” said Dr. Isaac Emery, a sustainability consultant for the biofuel industry, referring to the implementation of CCS. “It’s not that it’s easy, (but) it is easier than doing it any other way.”
Oil refiners are required to blend some 15 billion gallons of ethanol into the nation’s gasoline pool each year, a policy meant to help corn farmers, reduce import dependence, and lower emissions. But the Biden administration is reviewing that policy to ensure it fits into its longer-term economic and environmental agenda.
President Joe Biden has vowed to reach net-zero greenhouse gas emissions economy-wide by 2050, putting pressure on industries to clean up. For ethanol, that has meant heightened scrutiny of its emissions profile, and looming competition in the transport market from electric vehicles. . . .
The United States has 12 active CCS projects, according to the Global CCS Institute. But the technology has so far failed to meet expectations.
The Department of Energy, for example, spent more than $1 billion on nine CCS projects between 2010 and 2017, but just two are operational today, according to a December report from a government agency watchdog.
There have been several high-profile failures of CCS projects in recent years too, like the 2020 suspension of the $1 billion Petra Nova project in Texas, which missed its carbon capture goals by 17%.
Meanwhile, Midwest landowners are opposing the proposed pipelines the industry needs to transport captured carbon, fearful of damage to their land and safety risks.
Read the rest at the West Central Tribune. At Agweek, Jeff Beach reports in Carbon pipeline panelist says to 'rethink' easement compensation:
Landowners faced with the prospect of a carbon capture pipeline running through their property should be asking for something more than a one-time payment and a few years of compensation for crop yield loss.
That was the opinion of one panelist in a discussion of carbon pipeline projects at the Agweek Farm Show on Tuesday, March 8, in Rochester. The Agweek Farm Show continues Wednesday, March 9, at Graham Arena at the Olmsted County Fairgrounds in Rochester.
"Maybe it's time for a different kind of negotiation," said Peg Furshong, who owns property near the path of a proposed pipeline in Renville County.
The company behind that project, Summit Carbon Solutions, is seeking voluntary easements for property access but also has cited the need for eminent domain to force landowners to comply, saying that the project provides a public service.
Furshong said a true public service would be ongoing payments from a pipeline company to support local governments, schools and hospitals.
"They can afford a different pay structure," Furshong said of Summit, which has a $4.5 billion project planned to capture carbon from 31 ethanol plants in five states and store it underground in North Dakota.
Furshong was joined on the panel by Jess Mazour of the Sierra Club in Iowa, and Dan Wahl, who farms land in northwest Iowa that Summit has targeted for its pipeline. . . .
Read the remainder of the article at AgWeek
Furshong is Operations & Program Director for CURE, a grassroots environmental group based in Montevideo. Earlier this month, we posted CO2 pipelines: who wins & who loses? commentary by CURE's executive director Duane Ninneman.
Related posts
- Not a lot of easements for Midwest carbon pipeline, but plenty of political connections
- 2 ethanol CO2 headlines that make us go hmmm
- CO2 pipelines: who wins & who loses?
- Coming soon from a cornfield near you: mammoth carbon capture pipeline system
- Mother Jones: USDA Secretary Vilsack’s son works for a controversial ethanol pipeline project
- Iowa county boards scorn construction of CO2 pipelines, use of eminent domain to build them
- Digest of news about carbon dioxide pipelines
Screengrab: Map of the proposed Summit CO2 pipeline, which could capture CO2 from ethanol plants, such Granite Falls Energy LLC in Granite Falls, Minnesota, which would help reduce the ethanol plants' overall carbon footprint. West Central Tribune, via Summit CO2 project.
If you appreciate Bluestem Prairie, 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.
Or you can contribute via this link to paypal; use email [email protected] as recipient.
I'm on Venmo for those who prefer to use this service: @Sally-Sorensen-6
Comments