Pipeline Fighters Hub: Summit Carbon Solutions numbers don’t add up in South Dakota

A helpful analysis of ethanol CCS from Pipeline Fighters Hub, republished with permission in the hopes it will provide helpful background for voters' decisions on the Referred Law 21 on our ballot.

Summit’s Numbers Don’t Add Up in South Dakota
by Emma Schmit

With Referred Law 21 on the ballot this November, South Dakota voters face a critical decision about the future of carbon pipelines in the state. The referendum, which would repeal a recent law that limits the rights landowners and local communities have over CO2 pipelines, comes as Summit Carbon Solutions continues trying to find a path for their unwanted, hazardous pipeline through South Dakota. The Summit pipeline is a proposed 2,500-mile pipeline crisscrossing North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Minnesota, and Iowa. If approved, the pipeline would transport carbon dioxide captured from 57 ethanol plants across the Midwest (including 15 facilities in South Dakota) to be stored underground in North Dakota.

This ill-conceived proposal is a result of the fossil fuel industry co-opting climate change mitigation policy. Faced with growing consumer demand for sustainability and environmental responsibility, the oil and gas sector has managed to redirect the conversation away from reducing emissions to avoid climate disaster. Instead, they’ve convinced the federal government that burying the problem—literally—is the viable solution. By pushing carbon capture and storage, the industry claims that hiding CO2 emissions underground is just as good as eliminating them – nevermind the countless risks that come part in parcel with the technology – technology that we have seen fail time and time again. From monitoring well leaks at the country’s first commercial sequestration operation after less than a decade of operation, to well blowouts that suffocated nearby wildlife and led to six-figure fines, carbon capture and storage is proven to be unsafe, unsound, and unneeded.

In reality, any claim of CCS being a tool to mitigate climate disaster is a smokescreen designed to maintain the status quo, all the while allowing polluters to be praised for so-called climate action while continuing business as usual. It’s no surprise Summit Carbon founder, Bruce Rastetter, jumped on the bandwagon given his long history of exploiting people and the environment for personal gain.

If you ask Summit, they claim that their hazardous carbon capture scheme would capture, transport, and sequester an amount of carbon equivalent to taking 3.9 million vehicles off the road each year, “provide[ing] the largest and single most meaningful technology‐based reduction of carbon emissions in the world.”

Don Johannsen, a retired engineer and an Iowa landowner impacted by Summit’s proposed pipeline, decided to crunch the numbers to see what truth there was to Summit’s alleged environmental benefits. Here’s what he found:

For starters, the ethanol plants on Summit’s proposed pipeline route through South Dakota produce a significant amount of CO2— 4.16 million metric tonnes per year (mmty). Summit, however, cannot claim they would have a net capture rate of 4.16 mmty from South Dakota because that 4.16 mmty is offset by the loss of 0.61 mmty during the CO2 capture process and the creation of an additional 3.36 mmty of anthropogenic CO2 during the manufacturing process for ethanol. That leaves only a net value of 0.2 mmty, or 4.7%, of biogenic CO2 for sequestration.

To clarify, there are two types of carbon dioxide. There is biogenic, meaning carbon from natural sources like plants, animals, and microorganisms, which is generally considered net zero because it is part of a natural cycle where carbon is absorbed and released without increasing atmospheric CO2 levels. This is the “good” CO2, and what Summit claims they would be capturing from ethanol plants. (Since ethanol releases carbon dioxide from the fermentation of corn, a majority of the CO2 emissions are considered biogenic under the current definition.)

On the other hand, the “bad” carbon, the carbon emissions climate policies generally intend to limit, come from anthropogenic sources, meaning carbon released from human activities like burning fossil fuels which add new carbon to the atmosphere. This is the only type of carbon dioxide emissions the EPA tracks.

For the entire 2,500-mile pipeline, Summit would be paid $1.53 billion dollars per year to sequester 18 mmty of biogenic carbon, but in the process they would create 17 mmty per year of anthropogenic carbon. In total, Summit would have a net sequestration value of only 1 mmty of carbon dioxide.

For the South Dakota route segment alone, Summit would be paid $302 million to capture and store 3.56 mmty of CO2, but in the process they would create an additional 3.36 mmty of anthropogenic CO2 for a net sequestration value of only 0.2 mmty.

In total, Summit would produce 3.36 mmty of bad anthropogenic CO2 each year in order to sequester 3.56 mmty of good biogenic CO2 leaving a net value of a whopping only .2 mmty of biogenic CO2, or 4.7%, of total emissions. So, for every net metric tonne of “good” carbon Summit would inject into the ground, 0.95 tonnes of “bad” carbon dioxide would be emitted.

It’s not entirely clear where the benefits Summit claims to offer come into play in this situation. Of course, these figures were calculated using traditional math, not Summit’s math — which somehow always results in numbers that shine a favorable light on the corporation.

If we convert the net sequestration of 1 mmty (18 mmty biogenic sequestered less 17 mmty anthropogenic mmty emitted) for the entire pipeline route into Summit’s favorite measurement – vehicles – Summit’s claim of taking 3.9 million vehicles off the road each year doesn’t quite tally. According to the EPA, “a typical passenger vehicle emits about 4.6 metric tons of carbon dioxide per year.” Summit’s proposed net sequestration rate then equates to taking 214,000 vehicles off the road each year. If we consider just the Summit route in South Dakota, the net 0.2 mmty CO2 sequestered would be equal to only 42,300 vehicles. If nothing else, it’s becoming quite evident why Summit prefers to utilize their own special form of mathematics, because the legitimate figures aren’t doing them any favors.

Carbon dioxide emissions aren’t only a South Dakota issue, though. It’s a global concern. How does Summit’s proposed carbon capture project in South Dakota compare on a global scale? In 2023, global carbon emissions were 36,000 mmty. If Summit actually sequestered 0.2 mmty, that would result in a reduction 0.0005% of global carbon emissions. If that’s the best we can get from the “largest and single most meaningful technology‐based reduction of carbon emissions in the world”, we may want to reconsider our approach to climate change mitigation.

Of course, this is not the only issue with Summit’s project. Previous research compiled by Don Johannsen found that just for Summit’s proposed CO2 capture facilities in South Dakota, an additional 1.5 billion gallons of water would be required at each ethanol plant, enough to supply a city of 60,000 people. It would also place an additional burden on the electrical grid – demanding enough additional electricity to provide for a city of 47,000 people. If the total amount of water and energy required for both ethanol production and CO2 capture is considered it would require 6.6 billion gallons of water, enough to supply a city of 260,000 people, enough electricity to provide for a city of 298,000 people and enough natural gas to provide for a city of 973,000 people.

These numbers underscore just how inefficient and unnecessary the Summit carbon capture pipeline truly is. In exchange for an entirely insignificant reduction in carbon emissions, the Summit pipeline would damage tens of thousands of acres of prime cropland, place the lives of the thousands of people living near the hazardous pipeline route at risk, and further undermine and erode fundamental property rights that have served as a foundation for our nation since 1791.

It’s time to put this facade to rest. South Dakotans have the power to end this sham with a simple tick of the box. If you believe South Dakotans’ property rights, prosperity, and peace of mind are more important than the profits of an out-of-state corporation, vote no on referred law 21.

Related posts

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

Bluestem Prairie

News from Greater Minnesota and South Dakota

Oct 16, 2024

Pipeline Fighters Hub: Summit Carbon Solutions numbers don’t add up in South Dakota

Comments

Archives

Copyright

Become a Fan

Bluestem Tweets

Recent Posts

Recent Comments