By Steve Goreham
First published at RealClear Energy.
A battle is brewing in five Midwestern states over the construction of a carbon dioxide pipeline as part of a green energy transition. Opposition to the sprawling pipeline network is growing from farms and communities. But utility companies and state governments are intent on seizing land amid protests from landowners.
On June 25, the Iowa Utilities Board (IUB) for example Summit Carbon Solutions (Summit) petitioned for a permit to build a carbon dioxide (CO2) pipeline through Iowa. The IUB determined that the pipeline was for a “public use” and granted Summit the authority to seize land from Iowa landowners using an easement. Easements are typically used to seize private land for government projects that serve the public good, but not for private industry.
Summit plans to build a pipeline through Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska, North Dakota and South Dakota to transport captured CO2 to deep underground storage sites in North Dakota. The cost of the 2,500-mile pipeline project about 5.5 billion dollars.
Summit is seeking billions of dollars from the federal government. If the pipeline network goes into operation, the company would receive up to $85 per ton in tax credits under Section 45Q of the Income Tax Code. The company intends to sequester up to 18 million tons of CO2 per year, earning over $1.5 billion in annual tax credits. Summit claims to have Signed agreements with more than 2,700 landowners to build the pipeline.
Ethanol producers in five states are interested in participating in the project. The carbon dioxide captured from the 57 ethanol plants would be sold to Summit, generating revenue for the producers. Billions of dollars in federal funds could also be made available to ethanol plants that capture CO2. Additionally, the reduction in CO2 emissions could allow ethanol producers to qualify their product as Sustainable Aviation Fuel for commercial airlines.
Supporters say the project will bring environmental benefits in the fight against climate change. Summit speak The annual CO2 emissions savings would be equivalent to taking 3.9 million vehicles off our roads. But the project is fraught with questions about feasibility and cost, the environment and safety.
The feasibility and cost of CO2 capture is poor. There are 47 large carbon dioxide capture and storage (CCS) plants operating in the world today, and most are loss-makers even with heavy subsidies. Ethanol plants pursuing CCS are likely to lose money, along with the taxpayers providing the subsidies.
For example, Quest CCS project The Shell CCS plant in Alberta, Canada, captures only 35% of the CO2 emitted from the chemical process of upgrading bitumen from oil sands. The capital cost of the project is $811 million, paid entirely by $865 million CAD in funding from the governments of Canada and Alberta. Quest’s CCS operation will cost $41 million a year to operate, with only $27 million a year offset by carbon credit subsidy payments.
The environmental benefits of the Summit project would be small. The CO2 captured from ethanol plants in the Midwest would have little impact on global temperatures. Today, all of the CCS facilities operating in the world take over only 0.1 percent of industrial emissions. Even the Sierra Club protest Summit pipeline and called CCS efforts a “false climate solution.”
Carbon dioxide pipelines have huge safety concerns. There are only about 5,000 miles of CO2 pipelines. exist In the United States, compared with 84,000 miles of crude oil pipelines and three million miles of natural gas pipelines. Most CO2 pipelines transport liquefied CO2 short distances to oil fields, where it is injected underground to push oil and gas to the surface.
Carbon dioxide in pipes is a liquid under high pressure. If it leaks, it turns into a gas as it escapes. Because it is heavier than air, it stays close to the ground and can cover large areas. Carbon dioxide is harmless in small amounts, but in large amounts, it is a suffocatecan push oxygen out of people’s lungs and can cause headaches, dizziness, serious injury and death.
On February 22, 2020, a carbon dioxide pipeline broken in Sartaria, Mississippi. The rupture occurred on Saturday and spewed CO2 for about four hours. An invisible cloud of CO2 moved through the rural community, forcing more than 200 people to evacuate and sending at least 45 to the hospital. Victims were unable to breathe and suffered from seizures and tremors. No one died from the incident, but some victims continue to suffer physical problems.
Opposition to the pipeline is growing amid concerns about feasibility and safety. Supporters and opponents battle it out in state legislatures and at utility meetings. Counties in all five states have recently passed bans or restrictions on CO2 pipelines.
North Dakota regulators rejected Summit’s application last August but agreed to reconsider. Last month, Illinois pass a bill that would delay construction of the CO2 pipeline until 2026. South Dakota regulators rejected Summit’s application last September, but the legislature passed a regulatory package earlier this year that could facilitate approval of the pipeline. South Dakota voters will have the opportunity to reject that package on the November 5 ballot.
The Summit Pipeline project would not exist without massive federal subsidies for CCS. We have plenty of CO2 for soft drinks and other uses. Massive subsidies, driven by fears of man-made global warming, are the only reason to try to seize land from farmers in the Midwest.
Even if this massive pipeline were built and CO2 were captured at 57 ethanol plants, the impact on global emissions would be negligible and the impact on global temperatures would be immeasurable.
Pipeline land isn’t the only case of land being seized to promote green energy. The U.S. Department of Energy recently announced plans to use land grabs to seize large swaths of land to build transmission towers for new solar and wind power systems. Illinois and Michigan have passed laws block Local community restrictions and outright bans on the deployment of wind and solar systems. The government considers the fight against man-made climate change more important than the property rights of citizens.
Steve Goreham is a speaker on energy, environment, and public policy and the best-selling author of book Green Breakdown: The Coming Failure of Renewable Energy.
Related
