Bluestem Prairie has long been skeptical about Project Tundra, a means to capture and sequester carbon emissions from coal-fired electrical generation in North Dakota's Milton R. Young plant.
Witness the 2019 post, Project Tundra's clean coal; or, does Petra Nova project's tech really reduce carbon emissions? and 2020's DeSmogBlog on Project Tundra: expensive greenwashing for fossil fuel.
Now Fargo Forum columnist Mike McFeely asks in Time yet to say 'we told you so' on Project Tundra?:
. . . You remember Project Tundra? Touted for years as a cutting-edge plan that would serve to reduce carbon emissions from the 50-year-old plant near Center, North Dakota, thereby meeting climate change goals while, not coincidentally, assuring the jobs of the plant workers and miners for decades. . . .
The project has thus far sucked up $74 million in state, federal and private money. The state has provided $250 million in loans while Minnkota is also in negotiations with the federal government for a $350 million grant, according to reporting by The Bismarck Tribune. Costs continue to rise. Project Tundra was originally slated to cost $1 billion. New estimates have the final tab nearer to $2 billion, and climbing.
Four years ago, in this very column space, your humble correspondent wrote that there's no evidence a carbon-capture project of this size could work. He said taxpayers should seriously question dumping hundreds of millions of dollars into Project Tundra. He was, of course, met with nasty rebuttals.
But today it appears Project Tundra is no closer to being viable and, in fact, more questions have been added. The Energy and Policy Institute think tank said the power plant would emit more greenhouse gases than it would store if completed. . . .
Read the entire column at the Forum (or the other Forum News chain papers that have published the piece). Ir's worth the price of a subscription.
Bluestem thinks McFeely's on to something.
Photo: The Milton R Young Power Plant near Center, North Dakota. Michael Standaert / North Dakota News Cooperative
Related posts
- Project Tundra's clean coal; or, does Petra Nova project's tech really reduce carbon emissions?
- Climate action digest: North Dakota dollars continue to fight Minnesota clean energy future
- DeSmogBlog on Project Tundra: expensive greenwashing for fossil fuel
- Fact check: is the Coalition for a Secure Energy Future "hard hat labor" lobbying group? Well, no
- Is putting a smile on Tom Bakk's face the best thing ND lignite research fund has ever done?
- ND state/lignite industry partnership continues funding for Coalition for Secure Energy Future
- North Dakota's coal marketing campaign to give lignite sales pitch at MN electric co-op offices
- Horse hockey: who's pushing the puck for new Coalition for a Secure Energy Future TV ad?
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