From Energy Security and Freedom
Guest Post by Makenzie Huber of South Dakota Searchlight via ESG University.
Hundreds of people, many of them opponents of a carbon dioxide pipeline, filled the Southeast Technical College auditorium Wednesday evening for a state Public Utilities Commission hearing regarding a second attempt by Summit Carbon Solutions to gain a permit for the project.
“We know this is an incredibly important issue to you,” said Commissioner Gary Hanson at the start of the three-hour meeting. “We are here today to learn and listen, and we appreciate each of you being with us today to give us your input.”
The Iowa-based company plans a 2,500-mile, $9 billion pipeline to capture carbon dioxide from 57 ethanol plants across five states, including eastern South Dakota, and transport it to North Dakota for underground storage. The project would capitalize on federal tax credits incentivizing the prevention of heat-trapping carbon emissions.
The commission rejected Summit’s first permit application in 2023, in part due to the pipeline route’s conflicts with local ordinances mandating minimum distances between pipelines and existing features.
The project has a storage permit in North Dakota and route permits in North Dakota, Iowa and Minnesota, while Nebraska has no state permitting process for carbon pipelines. The project also faces litigation from opponents in multiple states.
The Sioux Falls meeting focused on residents in Minnehaha, Lincoln, Turner and Union counties. The commission held another meeting in Mitchell earlier in the day.
Most of Wednesday’s attendees opposed the pipeline — evident by applause often filling the room after opponents spoke. The opponents who spoke primarily reiterated concerns about safety and impacts to farmland affected by the pipeline’s planned route, which were raised during the company’s initial attempt at a permit.
Opponents also spoke against efforts to designate the pipeline as a common carrier, which would allow the use of eminent domain to push the project through. The South Dakota Supreme Court ruled last year that the pipeline has not yet proven it should be allowed to take private land for public use. The high court sent the case back to a lower court, where the company is trying to prove its case.Subscribe
Meanwhile, some state lawmakers have proposed legislation to ban carbon pipelinesfrom using eminent domain.
Betty Strom, whose property would be crossed by the pipeline, said it would be a “forever hazard across my land.”
“Summit is in it for the tax credits. They don’t care about property rights, safety, the damage to property, its value or the long-term consequences,” Strom said. “Please deny this permit again.”
Representatives from Summit explained why the route was selected and reviewed safety regulations and standards for the pipeline.
In a handout, Summit said the project would include $1.9 billion in capital expenditures in South Dakota, add 3,000 construction jobs while the pipeline is being built and support 260 jobs annually.
Project supporters said it would provide economic opportunities to South Dakota if implemented.
Al Giese, an Iowa farmer, board member for the Iowa Renewable Fuels Association and owner of a feed and trucking company doing business in South Dakota, told the commission that the “carbon sequestration train, locally and nationally, has left the station.”
“Yes, it is a South Dakota issue. It is a Midwestern issue. But we must move forward with sequestering carbon not only for the vitality of the ag sector but for all the economies in the Midwestern states,” Giese said. “There’s no other way to go about it.”
The next public hearings will be in De Smet and Watertown on Thursday, and in Aberdeen and Redfield on Friday.
Makenzie Huber is a lifelong South Dakotan who regularly reports on the intersection of politics and policy with health, education, social services and Indigenous affairs. Her work with South Dakota Searchlight earned her the title of South Dakota’s Outstanding Young Journalist in 2024, and she was a 2024 finalist for the national Livingston Awards.
South Dakota Searchlight is part of States Newsroom, the nation’s largest state-focused nonprofit news organization.
ESG University republishes their articles, features and stories online and/or in print under Creative Commons license CC BY-NC-ND 4.0.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
CCS is a silly notion from the start.
The CO2 at ethanol plants is cheap and easy to collect. Many plants have marketing groups to try to sell it – for refrigeration systems, in greenhouses, and similar. Technically, this is CCU.
There are also systems to collect CO2, inject it in wells to get more oil out. Also CCU when non-geologic sources are used. Some argue that they should get some CCS credits, because some of the CO2 stays in the oilfield.
Building a pipeline across creation to put it in a hole does seem daft.
I don’t understand how they would capture the C02 to begin with, that would take a lot of FF I bet.
It comes out of the top of the fermenter and it’s pretty easy to capture. Some bioethanol plants actually capture it and sell it. There are variants to this but, in general, yeast converts one molecule of sugar to two molecules of ethanol and two CO2s.
Don’t get me wrong and go thinking I’m supporting this attempted theft of $9 Billion from the taxpayer. It’s pretty much the same as paying people to dig ditches and fill them in.
The consequences of a CO2 leak in a populatrd area are terrifying to imagine. What kind of lunatics want to do this?
It seems like no one ever learns. CO2 can asphyxiate you; it’s concentration governs our breathing not lack of oxygen but CO2 level. We breathe out 40,000 ppm but pure CO2 will kill you. It is odorless, colorless and tasteless. What better way to kill animals?(humans included). This goes beyond stupid. We do not need any more imbeciles running things.
Maybe it’s not so stupid if the real purpose is to achieve what you reveal are its capabilities?
The Population Bomb is the manual.
Here is a thought, strip away the tax give aways and force Summit to foot the bill themselves, see how far this stupidity goes then.
The project would capitalize on federal tax credits incentivizing the prevention of heat-trapping carbon emissions.
So all the US taxpayers are going to pay the bill?
They are talking to a lot of farmers, who know how much extra CO2 increases their crop yeilds.
Can Trump remove any possibility of federal tax credits ?
That would kill the whole idea completely.
And carbon emissions do not “trap heat” so the whole premise of CCS is complete nonsense.
What the government giveth, the government can taketh away.
Take that into account when you do your risk analysis for $9 billion.
Ultimately the taxpayers/consumers pay the bill for this nonsense! CO2 capture is a fool’s errand invented by clueless politicians and radical climate activists. Just say NO to pipelines for CO2 capture/underground storage!
Well I really doubt that these US tax credits will be around for long. DOGE will see to that. President Trump is ending most of the Green agenda.
This has bigger ramifications than just CO2 capture and sequestration. Ethanol producers need to lower their CI (Carbon Intensity) for EtOH production or pay penalties in California for failing to meet the CI targets under the Low Carbon Fuels Standard. This standard is designed to lower the GHG emissions from all fuels in CA to help them meet the AB32 GHG reduction act requirements. Ethanol already has minimal GHG reduction potential but capture of CO2 from fermentation (half of the carbon in starch ends up as CO2 and the other half as EtOH). This will reduce the profitability of EtOH production.
A second issue is that ethanol producers worried about decreasing demand for gasoline will cause decreased demand for EtOH. Surplus EtOH can be converted into Sustainable Aviation Fuels (SAF) which the airlines need to use to meet their International Air Transit Authority (IATA) commitments and in Europe and the UK, government mandates to use SAF for all flights originating in those areas. Corn Ethanol to SAF has a CI essentially the same as conventional jet fuel making it pointless to produce and purchase this renewable fuel as there is no GHG emissions reduction.
Ethanol producers were counting on the Navigator and Summit CO2 pipelines to help them lower the CI of EtOH so they could meet mandates and generate more revenue. Not Anymore!
The definition of heat is the flow of thermal energy across a thermal gradient, from hot to cold.
If one traps heat, it is no longer heat. One cannot trap heat.
Sequestering carbon is good for the ag sector? On what planet?
I was going to put up an image of a Tibetan Prayer Wheel with
a $9,000,000,000 price tag slapped on it, but I’m out of time.
“…we must move forward with sequestering carbon not only for the vitality of the ag sector but for all the economies in the Midwestern states,” Giese said. “There’s no other way to go about it.” Or they could read the results of work by Drs Happer and Wijngaarden concluding that doubling CO2 in our atmosphere will cause less than a 1C increase in temperature, and then do nothing. Giese is simply a science denyer.
Besides that:
1. More rain is not a problem.
2. Warmer weather is not a problem.
3. More arable land is not a problem.
4. Longer growing seasons is not a problem.
5. CO2 greening of the earth is not a problem.
6. There isn’t any Climate Crisis.
No, Giese is simply a crony capitalist. Federal and State governments have been buying off farm State voters with massive ethanol subsidies.
Yes, there is no real evidence thqt CO2 has any effect on our global climate system. There is plenty os scientific rationale to conslude that the climate sensivity of CO2 is effectively zero. The AGW hypothesis has been falsified by science.
Seems to me that since CO2 improves crop production (the reason they pump it into greenhouses) they should punch pinholes in the pipeline for its entire length and thus fertilize farms from Iowa to South Dakota. Forget storing it. Get it to where it will do the most good!
These guys need to hold off until the endangerment finding is reviewed.(Report due this week I think). If it is abolished as it should be there is no incentive to capture CO2 and the federal subsidies will have to be withdrawn because they are predicated on the concept that CO2 is a pollutant.
How about if we quit making ethanol for blending in gasoline altogether?
Anyone is free to correct me if am wrong here, but these are the points which, as I understand them, makes ethanol production a bad idea:
1) It requires considerable water usage which puts pressure on local water supply sources.
2). It drives up the price of corn and thus food prices.
3) Ethanol has a lower energy content (30-33% less?) than gasoline which lowers fuel economy per gallon when blended with gasoline.
4) Diverts natural gas from use for heating and cooking when natural gas is used to brew ethanol.
Any regulations or laws requiring ethanol be blended with gasoline would no doubt have to be removed from the books. Don’t know if Lee Zeldin at the EPA is planning on looking at this, but I hope he does.
You are mistaken about ethanol in gasoline on three counts.
The protein and fiber that remain become a high-quality animal feed called distillers grains. In fact, nearly 40% of the nutritional value of corn used in ethanol production is retained – and returned to the feed sector in the form of distillers grains and corn oil.
quit whining
Actually, I don’t think he is just whining. There’s a pretty credible argument that the bioethanol industry actually converts starch to distiller’s grains (DDGs) which are a food source that is more palatable to cattle and chickens (as they don’t handle starch too well). So the DDGs are the actual product with concentrated nutritional value. This is pretty factual stuff. The ethanol then becomes the waste product and, as Rud points out above, it is a way cleaner oxygenate than MTBE. It’s also high octane. Of course, it has its drawbacks, primarily due to its hygroscopicity. The industry also keeps employed a lot of the populations of Iowa, Nebraska, S. Dakota et al.
Rud – what are your thoughts on using the CO2 to CaCO3 capture method?
If the CaCO₃ produced has some useful commercial purpose.. go for it.
If it is going to cost money, don’t bother with it.
Ethanol production is not all bad. The byproduct of this process is livestock feed so all of the nutritional value of the corn is not lost. The ethanol in the gas helps it burn cleaner and raises the octane. That being said, more is not better as far as the percentage in gas is concerned.
Yes, I probably should have scrolled down and seen your comment before adding mine above but yes, the industry fought hard to get allowable levels of ethanol up to 15% (E15). They succeeded, but I think it still runs around 10% as the national average. It took so long to lobby it up to 15% that I’m pretty sure that’s where it will top out.
Al Giese, an Iowa farmer, board member for the Iowa Renewable Fuels Association and owner of a feed and trucking company doing business in South Dakota, told the commission that the “carbon sequestration train, locally and nationally, has left the station.”
Reminds me of the song that goes:
Pardon me boys,
Is that the Scamanooga Choo Choo?
A senseless pipeline designed to milk useless subsidies.
Yep.
A test for current administration.
If it includes transporting across 5 states, interstate commerce, then it becomes a federal issue.
Another comment. Ethanol has serious consequences. Fuel lines can leak in lawn mowers, gaskets can be affected. At least my diesel engine in my farm tractor is safe. Older automotive engines need lubricants which unleaded gas can not provide so must have additives put in the gas tank
Ethanol and wood pellets are two non-green “green” subjects that get very little attention in conservative media. Nor do they get much attention in the left-biased mass media. Those people fearing CO2 emissions should be against ethanol and burning wood pellets.
MEANWHILE:
As of the end of 2023, there were 187 ethanol plants in the United States. This number remained the same from 2022, but the combined capacity of these plants increased by 438 million gallons per year.
One thing’s for sure: Big Corn loves ethanol. I’m not sure how much of a benefit it is to those forced to both buy and subsidize it.
From the above article:
“The Iowa-based company plans a 2,500-mile, $9 billion pipeline to capture carbon dioxide from 57 ethanol plants across five states, including eastern South Dakota, and transport it to North Dakota for underground storage.”
Any evidence—any demonstrated evidendence at all—that the underground storage of megatons of CO2 is technically feasible? Suppose there’s a leak . .. what happens, an apology of “Ooops, didn’t see tht coming”?
The Deep State has recently deleted a web file of monthly measured average global water vapor increase. The file, showing data reported by NASA/RSS from before 1988 through Dec 2023 had been available at https://data.remss.com/vapor/monthly_1deg/tpw_v07r02_198801_202312.time_series.txt Measured water vapor has been increasing more than twice as fast as possible from just planet warming and can account for all climate change attributable to humanity with no contribution from burning fossil fuels. https://watervaporandwarming.blogspot.com The attached graph had no contribution from CO2 and showed an R2 of 0.96.
I am going X and tell Musk to kill ethanol production subsidizes.
Musk can’t do that..
But he can send the suggestion to Trump, who can work on getting it done.
I just posted the request on X.
This would be a complete waste of money. There is no real evidence that CO2 has any effect on our global climate system. The AGW hypotnesis has been falsified by science. There is plenty of rationale to support the4 conslusion that the climate sensitivity of cO2 is zero. The amount of CO2 currently in our atmosphere is way below that whch is optimal for plant growth and hence for life on this planet. Hence we xhould be adding more CO2 to the atmosphere and not sequestering it. Based on science this projuct is counter productive and a big waste of money.
How about we just close the ethanol plants?
The reason the pipelines are heading for North Dakota is because of EOR: enhanced oil recovery. It turns out that the reason fracking only produces hydrocarbon gases and the near gas fluids (NGLs) is because fracking is only pulling out around 10% of the lightest hydrocarbons in a reservoir. A lot of research is going into EOR – which is to use surfactants to try and improve this recovery ratio. Bio, water, CO2 are some candidates but all have very serious short term and/or long term issues. CO2 has the massive federal incentives but the pipelines are the problem.
The tech I have been working on – I have been requested to investigate gas2gas: methane to propane because this is the only realistic short/medium term path to provide sufficient volume surfactants of any kind. A pilot project for water and propane EOR just started in ND.