A small win for sanity
Oct 20 (Reuters) – Navigator CO2 Ventures has canceled its Heartland Greenway pipeline project aimed at capturing 15 million metric tons of carbon dioxide annually from Midwest ethanol plants and storing it permanently underground, the company said on Friday, citing “unpredictable” state regulatory processes.
The cancellation of one of the biggest projects of its kind is a setback to the development of carbon capture and storage (CCS) projects in the U.S., which are a pillar of President Joe Biden’s climate strategy. It is also a blow to the ethanol industry, which sees CCS as key to cutting emissions from producing the fuel.
https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/climate-energy/navigator-co2-ventures-cancels-carbon-capture-pipeline-project-us-midwest-2023-10-20/
It was local farmers and environmentalists combined in an unusual alliance.
“The people united to resist Navigator at every level in every corner of every state and we won,” said Jess Mazour, an Iowa organizer with the Sierra Club environmental group, which opposes carbon pipelines.
https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/climate-energy/navigator-co2-ventures-cancels-carbon-capture-pipeline-project-us-midwest-2023-10-20/
The large CCS pipeline project from Summit Carbon Solutions continued although also facing strong opposition.
Summit said in a statement that it is “well-positioned to add additional plants and communities to our project footprint.”
Summit recently said its pipeline will start operating in 2026, a delay from its initial timeline of 2024.
https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/climate-energy/navigator-co2-ventures-cancels-carbon-capture-pipeline-project-us-midwest-2023-10-20/
H/T Greg S
“…. the Sierra Club environmental group, which opposes carbon pipelines…”
No mention as to why the SC opposes carbon pipelines. Of course it’s because with the pipelines, some energy companies may survive and they don’t want that. Of course capturing CO2 is a dumb idea and not economically feasible but that’s not what the SC was concerned about.
I’ll admit the real motivations of all concerned seem very opaque to me on this one.
I imagine that most of the objectors were the usual “community” activists who always oppose everything proposed by the capitalist patriarchy. And of course the Sierra Club and other so-called environmental groups – showing their true colours, for once, by objecting to a project that would actually mitigate the allegedly demonic effects of the allegedly demonic CO2 (in this case, CO2 produced while making a product that actually serves to reduce consumption of the dreaded fossil fuels!).
Presumably, they are not only opposed to fossil fuels, but to farming with recently demonized nitrogen fertilizers. Plus, the ethanol plants also produce animal feed, and that helps to sustain meat production (the horror!), so it must be banned as well. And how can we ignore the methane produced by livestock and the rotting of the stalks and leaves of all that corn?
So anything that helps to make the planet-destroying ethanol fuel business more “sustainable” must be banned, so they can go after the unmitigated evil itself. Well done, Sierra Club! Go and celebrate by flying off to a retreat at a nice tropical resort! You’ve earned the right to emit a few thousand tonnes of CO2 while you save the planet!
Think Pavlov’s dogs. SC and similar groups have been conditioned to spring into action whenever someone says “pipeline”. /sarc
I too oppose carbon pipelines – it should be freely available to enter our deficient atmosphere, to the benefit of plants and carbon based life itself
I too was surprised at the Sierra Clubs attitude to CO2 pipelines. You have probably explained it.
I am ambivalent about this. True, carbon capture is never likely to be cost-effective, and its importance as a means of limiting CO2 emissions is an illusion. But that illusion can be important to maintain for those who are building and operating fossil fuel-fired generation. When the regulatory gatekeepers are insisting on net zero, being able to claim that someday there will be carbon sequestration helps to get the project farther down the line, even if we know that will never happen. It’s a ridiculous game, but it’s the game we’re playing now.
As for benefitting ethanol plants, I think Rud Istvan has done a good job of explaining why those plants allow the corn to be used both for industrial energy and animal feed, making them more cost-effective than I had previously believed. Although, with the cost of carbon sequestration, one wonders whether the cost advantage disappears.
I find it difficult to believe that growing food crops to convert to fuel can ever make true economic and energetic sense once the subsidies are removed. The fossil fuel inputs to grow the crop are a lot more than non-zero.
Yes, it keeps farmers on the land. If they were growing, and selling, food for people in far-flung places that would probably also benefit the environment in those places.
Some of the farmland could also revert to well managed forests. With more and more people on this planet- and housing shortages in many nations- we’ll need a lot more wood as a low carbon footprint building material- not that I think the carbon footprint thing is meaningful, but it’s a good selling point. There is now a movement to build tall buildings with wood- actual skyscrapers. Some that have been built are very nice buildings- they look much nicer than steel and cement. So, though farm crops that can be produced on an annual basis will be worth more than the value of wood that can grow per year- as the demand for quality wood increases, it will become a viable product option for land owners. It’s already a huge industry down in Dixie. A big problem will be the financing that will be needed to grow wood crops that will take decades to grow to maturity. Some of that might come from carbon credits- which is something I don’t believe in since I don’t think there is a climate problem- but if the West persists in believing this and continue with the carbon credit scam, then so be it- let the farmers benefit from it.
no farmer can survive converting to well managed forest … it takes years for the forest to start yielding income … their farm makes money every year …
I didn’t say that ALL of a farm should or could be converted, now did I. But many farmers have a lot of acreage- SOME could be converted back to forest. Others here speculated that without a market for corn ethanol, what would they do with that acreage. Well, SOME could go back to forest.
MH, I will go over it again, from personal experience on my Wisconsin dairy farm. We run about 350 head total.
Before ethanol, we grew more alfalfa (primary feed) and less corn. The dry corn was crushed and used as a feed supplement mixed with green silage that the cows did not digest very well. Wild turkeys would pick the corn out of the cow pies in the pastures.
After ethanol, we grow less alfalfa and more corn. All the corn is sold the local ethanol plant. Ethanol consumes about 42% of the US crop by ‘dry’ weight. But we buy back 27% (by dry weight) yeast protein enhanced distillers grain. An ideal ruminant feed supplement. Cows happier, farmer happier (more profitable, no crusher, no dry corn storage), net positive impact on my dairy farm production. And the wild turkeys are back to foraging insects in the alfalfa, which is good for the alfalfa.
CO2 is used (and bought by) a variety of industries.
At the water treatment plant I worked at we used about 10,000 pounds a day.
Our supplier bought the CO2 they then resold from ethanol plants in the Midwest.
Why stick it in the ground?
“One man’s trash is another man’s treasure.”
So there is a benefit to dairy farmers and corn growers. How about the rest of us?
Ethanol is not necessary for modern cars. Marginal land is used for crops with subsequent soil erosion and requiring more fertilizer which eventually contaminates the water.
I question whether ethanol production is a societal plus. Do you have any data to show that it is?
My son works for an ethanol plant in the Midwest. The distillers grain residue from fermentation is a high protein cattle feed and is efficiently used by the beef cattle feed lot next door to the plant.
The Navigator and Summit programs are in the unfortunate (for them) position of dealing with normal people who make their living from real agriculture instead of the urban elites that embrace modern mythology. Closing down the ethanol plants that provided the opportunity for pipeline grifters would be a good but unlikely next step.
Why is corn ethanol still a thing? Understand that and you should gain insight into why these renewable schemes are just that — schemes– and not solutions.
Just for one…it’s an anti-knock additive for gasoline. All anti-knock additives are a lot more expensive than gasoline. Past ones have been cancer causing agents. Despite food production claims, there has been no shortage of tortilla chips at any gas station.
not here but the price of them in Mexico and South America has risen … nobody claims we’ll run out of tortilla chips …
These countries are entirely capable of self sufficiency in corn production. If they buy US corn cuz it’s cheap while we could use it as fuel, then something is wonky… Probably something to do with growing coffee or coca bushes instead of corn.
One thing I hate about ethanol added to gasoline is that- over the years, I never bothered to properly drain the engines in my chainsaws, lawn tractors, snow blowers and other such equipment- at the end of the season and that always results in gumming up the engines. In recent years I finally add the gas treatment. And I got a nice electric chainsaw- perfect for yard work- but they’ll never be good enough for a logger. My next lawn mower will be electric- because I hate having to do the maintenance on gas engines- changing oil and filters, etc.
Both at our Wisconsin farm and our north Georgia mountain cabin, the local gas stations have one pump selling pure regular gas so that all the gas fueled equipment doesn’t gum up.
But at least you don’t have to worry about ice crystals completely blocking your fuel filter when it’s -40C and you’re 80 km back in the bush at 11 pm. Happened to me once, I had no idea what the problem was, but I was lucky there was a camp close enough to walk to.
And I freely admit that you can have the benefits of no ice in your gas tank with less than 1% of ethanol, not the 10% that we are obliged to use these days in Canada.
For years now always add Sta-Bil to the gas can for my mover and snow blower.
Never had a problem.
But it shouldn’t be mandated to add 10% to gas.
It may have some benefits in colder climes.
I remember the gas commercials for “Boron” stations. (Called “Sohio” in Ohio) The adds said they had an additive (I think it was a bit of ethanol.) to prevent “fuel line freeze up”.
I also read years ago a book that was a collection of Paul Harvey’s “And now you know the rest of story”. It was about about they kept some machinery running in Siberia.
He said they added vodka to the hydraulic fluid
No mention of how many shots/gallon. 😎
“schemes– and not solutions.”
First, prove that there is a problem requiring a solution.
Second, understand that “there are no solutions, only trade offs” (Thomas Sowell)
A percentage goes to the political class, a la 10% to the big guy.
Ethanol up to the blendwall 10% (set by LA smog in summer) does two things.
Anything more than 10% is a farm boondoggle. Most places ethanol is less than 10%.
Because it tastes good :<)
________________________________________________________
Carbon dioxide is the currency of life on Earth. We are a carbon based
life form, every carbon atom in your body was once carbon dioxide in the
atmosphere. Sequestering carbon dioxide is a policy that is entirely
without merit. Tibetan Prayer Wheels make more sense.
100% agree Steve – those vilifying CO2 ought to be denied its benefits
I regret insulting Tibetan’s and their prayer wheels. Had I been more circumspect, Charles Schultz’s Great Pumpkin would have been a better choice.
Maybe the War on CO2 is why Linus was disappointed every Halloween?
The Great Pumpkin was pissed!
I always think it is hilarious how these green energy and CCS projects always require lots of fossil fuels to start and maintain them, as if that C02 does not count somehow. Optional starting and stopping on the C02 counter.
Carbon capture and storage for climate reasons is nuts. But even ExxonMobil is selling the idea, planning to degrade natural gas to burn the H2 as fuel and stuff the CO2 underground. Not making this up. They must know it will never, ever, produce a verifiable change in the climate outcome.
https://corporate.exxonmobil.com/news/news-releases/2022/0301_exxonmobil-planning-hydrogen-production-carbon-capture-and-storage-at-baytown-complex
From 1978 to 1980 I worked at the Baytown refinery as the huge new olefins plant was being built.
What is the latest news about Mr Gate’s lunatic idea to cut down millions of trees and bury them to capture their carbon and prevent it escaping into the air?
There is something about having for money than God that make already narcissistic ego maniacs Delusional.
Bill has too much money, too little humanity
Later , we can dig them back up and use them for energy.
Oh wait.. we already do that.
I wonder who, in the past, buried all that wood so it would turn to coal, for our current usage.,
Story: An interesting problem on the international level: if CCS can be made practical and efficient on huge container ships, what do they do with the CO2?
storing it permanently underground
Wouldn’t that require constantly increasing storage? Seems like there are some inherent limits to the concept.
Seal Mammoth Cave and pump the CO2 into there.
If you need more storage, spray a little water in with the CO2!
Carbonic acid from the rain mixing with CO2 and dissolving the limestone is what formed it in the first place.
(Possible side benefit, Bourbon County Kentucky is famous for it’s bourbon because the local water is very hard but with little or no dissolved iron.)
PS If sealing Mammoth Cave foe CO2 storage sounds like a good idea to you, perhaps you should cut back on the possible side benefit.
Next up we have hydrogen pipelines, lithium brine pipelines, powerline pipelines, and fill-in-the-blank tax credit pipelines.
Beers and sparkling wines work for a time
Instead of piping CO2 to unground storage, how about piping it to farmland in the area to increase crop production? In low concentrations CO2 is not hazardous and very advantageous.
How about just letting it get into the atmosphere, where nature designed it to be?
If it is released to farmland, it will be where nature designed it to be, just a little concentrated where it will be beneficial.
Or create large areas of greenhouses, where that CO2 can really be put to good use.
Greenhouses or farmland, I think we have the same idea that it would be beneficial to plants.
unfortunately the same activists also oppose all oil and gas pipelines and drilling …
One of the problems with jillion dollar projects, public or private, is that once in operation if they fail to deliver as advertised, more dump trucks full of money are needed to maintain the mirage. The sunk costs and work force employment almost guarantee that efforts to somehow make it work will continue. Somewhere in DC, behind a door in a federal office complex is a person with the title of “Federal Inspector General of Buggy Whips and Horse Blankets”. After all, the Selective Service still exists even though no one has been subject to the draft since 1972.
Good for the people of the US Midwest.
Every time I hear “carbon capture and storage” I am reminded of this:
https://www.sciencealert.com/how-this-small-lake-in-africa-once-killed-1-700-people-overnight-and-we-still-don-t-know-why
And this:
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/lack-of-oxygen-killed-4-at-b-c-mine-report-1.582325
I saw a documentary on that once – horrible- I think about that sometimes when in swampy smelly estuary areas. Thousands of years of decaying detritus- waiting for nature to have a big “ burp”
Is hydrogen used directly as fuel for anything? All I see/hear about is fuel cells.
Hydrogen is very expensive and energy intensive to produce – commercially, it is still way off any reasonable budget allowance – if you use renewables to produce the hydrogen, it becomes 20x more impossible to fund via anyone’s GDP
Some launch vehicles use hydrogen as the propellant.
No one has ever given me a decent answer as to why CO2 has become a problem
Why do we need to reduce it?
Why do we need to capture it?
Chemistry was one of my specialist subjects at high school – nowhere ever was CO2 considered or taught to be anything other than a nice, polite, introvert of a gas, whose very presence was the essence of life – a real good guy that all life on earth should be grateful for
Fast forward 40 odd years and we now have hysterical, dystopian, so called academics and scientists, vilifying CO2 as the devil, evil incarnate that must be culled at every opportunity because they believe it is having an adverse effect on the earths 4 billion year old climate, times in our planets long history when atmospheric CO2 levels were 20x+ what they are today
We know, empirically, that plants die at CO2 levels below 200ppm, we know our current 418ppm is way below the 800-1300ppm that is required for optimal plant growth
Why is CO2 being presented as the villain, it clearly, empirically, is not?
If science has been corrupted to such childish levels, for nefarious reasons, then those peddling the deceit should receive their just dessert
You should address that reasoning to the average young Greenie, who obviously never received such information in their short-lived “education” experience.
“…citing “unpredictable” state regulatory processes.”
That was the problem in 1970 when Nixon proposed to Congress to form the “Environmental Protection Agency”, to standardize rules and regulations in the various states. Congress did.
From what I’m reading lately, California is setting the standards, not the federal EPA.
There are 2 reasons for CO2 pipeline rejection:
1) leaks are literally dangerous – this turbocharges NIMBY
2) CO2’s actual use case, in pipeline quantities, is EOR – enhanced oil recovery. Piping CO2 into a number of types fracked wells apparently unsticks oil such that significantly greater recovery occurs.
Fermentation processes (used to produce ethanol) also produce CO2. Does anyone want to capture the head on people’s beer and store it underground?
Fifteen million metric tons per year sounds like a lot, but it’s only about 0.04% of the total anthropogenic CO2 emissions of the world. Since a 1 ppm increase in atmospheric CO2 corresponds to about 8 billion metric tons, this would slow down the rate of increase by about 0.0019 ppm per year, or about 1 ppm in 533 years.
Put another way, the average adult at rest exhales about 85 grams of CO2 per hour, or about 745 kg per year. So the 15 million metric tons to be “sequestered” (which also needs to be compressed) corresponds to the exhaled breath of about 20 million people, or about 6% of the US population.
If people want to make good use of captured CO2 from ethanol plants on farmland, it should be piped into greenhouses used to grow crops or other plants in winter, since a CO2-enriched atmosphere increases plant growth rates. This is already done to grow roses or other flowers used as gifts on Valentine’s Day.
Could we use those pipelines for gas and oil?