Two US Companies Propose Thousands of Miles of Pipelines - for Capturing Carbon (apnews.com) 85
"Two companies seeking to build thousands of miles of pipeline across the Midwest are promising the effort will aid rather than hinder the fight against climate change," reports the Associated Press, "though some environmental groups remain skeptical.
"The pipelines would stretch from North Dakota to Illinois, potentially transforming the Corn Belt into one of the world's largest corridors for a technology called carbon capture and storage." Environmental activists and landowners have hindered other proposed pipelines in the region that pump oil, carrying carbon that was buried in the earth to engines or plants where it is burned and emitted. The new projects would essentially do the opposite by capturing carbon dioxide at ethanol refineries and transporting it to sites where it could be buried thousands of feet underground.
Both companies planning the pipelines appear eager to tout their environmental benefits. Their websites feature clear blue skies and images of green fields and describe how the projects could have the same climatic impact as removing millions of cars from the road every year. However, some conservationists and landowners are already wary of the pipelines' environmental benefits and safety, raising the chances of another pitched battle as the projects seek construction permits...
Supporters say the pipelines are a much-needed win for both agricultural businesses and the environment. The two projects are expected to run into the billions of dollars, spurring construction jobs. And they advance a technology crucial to achieving a 2050 goal of net-zero carbon dioxide emissions — in which every gram of emissions is accounted for by providing a way to eventually suck it back out of the atmosphere. "All sides win. You significantly reduce carbon emissions, but you can also maintain those industries that are the lifeblood of different regions of the country," said Brad Crabtree, who oversees carbon management policy at the Great Plains Institute, a Minnesota-based organization that works with energy companies to develop environmental sustainability.
Ethanol production creates "a steady, easily-captured stream of carbon dioxide," the article points out — and the long pipelines would transport it off to porous rock formations "where it eventually dissolves or hardens into minerals."
"The pipelines would stretch from North Dakota to Illinois, potentially transforming the Corn Belt into one of the world's largest corridors for a technology called carbon capture and storage." Environmental activists and landowners have hindered other proposed pipelines in the region that pump oil, carrying carbon that was buried in the earth to engines or plants where it is burned and emitted. The new projects would essentially do the opposite by capturing carbon dioxide at ethanol refineries and transporting it to sites where it could be buried thousands of feet underground.
Both companies planning the pipelines appear eager to tout their environmental benefits. Their websites feature clear blue skies and images of green fields and describe how the projects could have the same climatic impact as removing millions of cars from the road every year. However, some conservationists and landowners are already wary of the pipelines' environmental benefits and safety, raising the chances of another pitched battle as the projects seek construction permits...
Supporters say the pipelines are a much-needed win for both agricultural businesses and the environment. The two projects are expected to run into the billions of dollars, spurring construction jobs. And they advance a technology crucial to achieving a 2050 goal of net-zero carbon dioxide emissions — in which every gram of emissions is accounted for by providing a way to eventually suck it back out of the atmosphere. "All sides win. You significantly reduce carbon emissions, but you can also maintain those industries that are the lifeblood of different regions of the country," said Brad Crabtree, who oversees carbon management policy at the Great Plains Institute, a Minnesota-based organization that works with energy companies to develop environmental sustainability.
Ethanol production creates "a steady, easily-captured stream of carbon dioxide," the article points out — and the long pipelines would transport it off to porous rock formations "where it eventually dissolves or hardens into minerals."
hey (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Okay, but ... (Score:4, Interesting)
I would *not* want to be anywhere near those sites if the CO2 ever leaked to the surface, especially in a large event ...
Wouldn't it be better/safer to use it to make (or convert it into) something easier to store than compressed gas?
Re:Okay, but ... (Score:5, Informative)
Wouldn't it be better/safer to use it to make (or convert it into) something easier to store than compressed gas?
How, pray tell, are you going to make yeast generate something other than CO2?
CO2 is an unavoidable byproduct of fermentation.
The best solution, obviously, is to end the idiotic ethanol subsidies. But since that is politically impossible, we face two choices:
1. Vent the CO2 to the atmosphere
2. Sequester the CO2
The problem with #2 is that sequestering is expensive and requires the correct type of geological formations, such as shale.
So you pump the CO2 through a pipe to where the shale is.
But here's the thing: The CO2 is actually quite valuable to pump into oil shale. At pressure, CO2 forms a dense super-critical fluid that dissolves hydrocarbons and displaces them upward.
So the CO2 is sequestered at a profit. But environmentalists have a problem with this because it isn't "pure": New hydrocarbons are produced. Of course, those hydrocarbons would likely be produced anyway, just at a higher cost and without any offsetting sequestration. But to people who see environmentalism as a religion rather than a practical endeavor, purity is all that matters.
Re: (Score:3)
But environmentalists have a problem with this because it isn't "pure": New hydrocarbons are produced. Of course, those hydrocarbons would likely be produced anyway, just at a higher cost and without any offsetting sequestration. But to people who see environmentalism as a religion rather than a practical endeavor, purity is all that matters.
I'm a bit unsure on carbon capture - it seems like a wasteful idea, however dismissing "cost" is actually completely the wrong thing for the environment. Electricity is driving hydrocarbons out of transport entirely because it can be produces much more cheaply and environmentally. If something is being used to reduce the cost of hydrocarbon production especially if it is getting government environmental subsidies then doing more of that thing is a bad idea.
I have no problem with this, if it's an entirely
Re: (Score:2)
Fair enough. You are taking the "purity" stance that results in the same subsidies leading to more CO2 in the atmosphere. So stupid, but pure.
Look at it this way:
Process A: Spend X amount of subsidies to generate ethanol and release the CO2 byproduct into the atmosphere
Process B: Frack hydrocarbons.
Or combine them:
Process A: Spend X amount on subsidies to generate ethanol and capture the CO2.
Process B: Frack hydrocarbons while sequestering the captured CO2.
The ONLY difference between these two scenarios
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
That's only true if you aren't accidentally subsidizing the fracking a significant amount. If without the subsidized CO2 delivery, the fracking wouldn't happen because it's too expensive, then subsidizing it is increasing CO2 emissions.
This. More specifically, even if this fracking happens, but at a higher cost that slightly increases the overall cost of hydrocarbon fuelled systems then there's more money available for alternative systems which replace them with other technologies. High cost hydrocarbons are really important to getting alternatives in place.
Re: (Score:2)
We all know the purpose of $5/gallon gas is to make people willing to move to more fuel efficient vehicles or EVs, but you aren't supposed to just come out and say it. That will cost you public support.
Re: (Score:2)
We all know the purpose of $5/gallon gas is to make people willing to move to more fuel efficient vehicles or EVs, but you aren't supposed to just come out and say it. That will cost you public support.
Well kind of. I think it's definitely worth saying that hydrocarbons should pay the real costs and not be subsidised. Also that they are currently massively subsidised so people who are relying on cheap hydrocarbons should expect that they prices can e.g. double in the next ten years. When you take into account the trillions of dollars people are having to pay to make up for the damage caused we are nowhere near to that. Finally it's worth also saying that this might cause social problems in distant are
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Climate change is a big one, however there is also a serious health effect from air pollution. I don't have worldwide numbers, however it costs 8-20 billion in the UK [www.gov.uk] alone, so that probably adds up close to "trillions" worldwide just by itself. Sea level rise is estimated at 14 trillion per year by 2100 [noc.ac.uk] and is already at the hundreds of billions now. And then there are the costs of climate change which are quite difficult, but would include e.g. some large proportion, but not all of the fires in North A
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This misconception has got to change if we're going to survive. Renewables and nuclear power cannot reverse global warming. Those only stop the introduction of new CO2 into the atmosphere. So best case, all they can do is stop it from getting worse. Practically, they're only going to slow down the rate at which it's getting worse. They cannot remove CO2 from the atmosphere.
To reverse climate change, we need to reduce CO2 levels in the atm
Re:Okay, but ... (Score:5, Interesting)
Planting trees won't work because they were at equilibrium pre-industrialization
I have good news for you. Temperatures are higher and will rise for another 20-50 years depending on how fast we get to zero carbon. A higher temperature means a wetter planet with more rain. More rain and more CO2 in the atmosphere means the equilibrium has changed since pre-industrialization. The planet can support a lot more trees now. In fact in the past the planet has supported a lot more trees and animals. Where do you think the coal and oil came from? They grew when the planet was a lot warmer and richer in Co2 in the atmosphere before the Ice Age starved the atmosphere of Co2 and shifted the equilibrium. So planting tree will do the needfull without scarring the landscape with pipelines.
Re: (Score:2)
It isn't a question of support, it's a question of sequestering. Trees sequestering CO2 give a short term blip in carbon absorption and then they too become neutral as their leaves and branches fall and rot. They aren't a magical endless carbon sink, and much of their efforts get quickly undone in a forest fire.
To be clear we absolutely should be planting trees. Everywhere. They have a huge benefit beyond just short term CO2 sinking, but they are *not* a long term solution to our carbon dependent society.
Re: (Score:2)
Trees (and other biomass) can be used for long-term carbon sequestration if we take the extra steps of cutting them down, pyrolysis, and burying the carbon. This process would need to be done intelligently though or you end up burning more carbon than you sequester.
In this form it can also be used as an agricultural soil amendment. That doesn't sequester it on geological timescales, but it's good for many hundreds of years. (See also: Terra Preta carbon sequestration)
Re: (Score:1)
So planting tree will do the needfull without scarring the landscape with pipelines.
No, it will not, because the trees can't grow fast enough.
Further, as trees burn and rains fall they wash away soil which is needed for trees to grow in. So in many cases the land literally cannot support trees where it could before.
In short your analysis is sophomoric at best, more likely disingenuous, and in any case is total hogwash.
How efficient is ethonal production? (Score:3)
We start with sugars, which could just be burned. But then we use them to grow yeast, producing CO2. That CO2 is basically loss of energy.
Anyone know how (in)efficient the system is? How much CO2 is produced for each mole of ethanol?
Re: (Score:3)
The quantity of CO2 from burning coal and oil would still remain in the atmosphere, still screwing up the climate.
If we ignore natural weathering of rocks and the absorption and subsequent sequestration of CO2 by various forms of marine life then this would be true. Given that these are probably the two largest CO2 sinks, outweighing that of land based plants many times over I'd suggest that you might like to reconsider this statement.
Environmentalists are their own worst enemies on this point. They automatically assume that all carbon capture and sequestration research is just an excuse to burn more oil. Some of it may be, but we need to be investing in it regardless because it's the only way to reverse the damage from two centuries of industrialization.
Environmentalists are not some monolithic group. Some a strongly anti-nuclear, others pro. Some categorically reject the 'logic' of bio-fuels, others see it as a means by which we can car
Re: (Score:2)
Why is everyone so stuck on this? Messing around with the CO2 levels in the atmosphere is a band-aid on a brain tumor.
What we need to do is block a few percent of the sun's radiation from falling on the Earth - reduce the energy being pumped into the system, which will reduce - AND REVERSE - climate change.
I don't care if it takes 50 years to figure out how, and another 50 to implement it - I'd rather make a permanent solution than mess around with band-aids. I have no idea why it is not NASA's top priorit
Re: (Score:2)
You said it yourself, they would be produced at a higher cost. Makes sense to oppose anything that reduces the cost.
The easy fix is to just stop subsidising it as part of the same deal.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
A big problem with subsidies is that once they are in place, people come to depend on them, and industries are built up to take advantage of them.
Once that happens, they are almost impossible to remove.
So ethanol subsidies are stupid, but they are here to stay.
They will only end when we fully transition to EVs, and possibly not even then.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:1)
Fixing the electoral college system would really help. Then presidential candidates wouldn't have to offer these kinds of cash for votes programmes, and could more easily trade gains on environmental issues for losses on subsidy issues.
Re: (Score:1)
So true, the mindless renewable fuels act from 1997-8 provides only diversification of carbon producing fuels where we should be introducing hydrogen into the mix. This story seems like it could be written by the farmers propagandists, acting like their CO2 is useful but the fossil fuel CO2 is not. Its ridiculous.
Now pipelines could indeed be handy for transporting H2/NG mixes and syn fuels like those made by reducing CO2 to CH4.
Re: (Score:1)
Despite the extremely vague description of what they are talking about, I assume this is growing corn to make ethanol (capturing carbon in corn) and then sending the ethanol to places where they add it to gasoline. This is not carbon capture, this is the same old ethanol crap that has been going on for years. Now everyone has to add ethanol treatments to gas they put into small engines because ethanol and small engines don't get along well. This sounds like corn farmers and their ethanol producing friends w
Re: (Score:2)
Much more prosaic than my assumption - that they were going to use it to spike the booze....
Re:Okay, but ... (Score:5, Informative)
As for long-term storage, it's been known for a couple decades that CO2 in contact with basalt deep underground forms mineral calcite and dolomite [doe.gov], effectively locking it underground permanently. (At least until that section of the Earth's crust gets driven down underneath another plate, and into the mantle where it melts again. Which, should be pointed out, would've happened to the coal and oil anyway if we hadn't pumped it out and burned it.) It's an effective solution [nature.com] which has been tested and proven [wikipedia.org]. 95% of the CO2 was mineralized after just 2 years (the original estimate was that it would take 20-50 years to reach that percentage). The only question is how much this can be scaled up, and how much resistance it will face from the environmental movement (much of the technology is identical to fracking).
Re: Okay, but ... (Score:3)
Big explosive leaks are all but impossible at CCS sites. They're locking the CO2 in formations similar to what keeps other oil and gas underground.
The more insidious leak is the slow one. Sites like this need to be leak-free on the scale of centuries. A leak rate of, say, 0.5%/year means that in 200 years 2/3 of the captured carbon will have leaked out.
I'm an environmental scientist and I can say in atmospheric circles detecting and stopping leaks at that scale is a very real concern.
Re: (Score:2)
A leak rate of, say, 0.5%/year means that in 200 years 2/3 of the captured carbon will have leaked out.
I was thinking of a case where a large amount of CO2 leaks into a low-lying area and asphyxiates everyone/thing. I think I saw an episode of NOVA (or a show on Discovery) about a large CO2 escape from a lake (or something) that ended up killing all the people and animals in near-by surrounding areas... Perhaps I'm thinking of the Lake Nyos disaster [wikipedia.org]:
On 21 August 1986, a limnic eruption at Lake Nyos in northwestern Cameroon killed 1,746 people and 3,500 livestock.
The eruption triggered the sudden release of about 100,000–300,000 tons (1.6 million tons, according to some sources) of carbon dioxide (CO 2). The gas cloud initially rose at nearly 100 km/h (62 mph) and then, being heavier than air, descended onto nearby villages, displacing all the air and suffocating people and livestock within 25 km (16 mi) of the lake.
Re: Okay, but ... (Score:2)
Yeah, I think I saw the same thing. Terrifying, right?! I think there are a few places on earth that have that same effect of CO2 in a lake that can suddenly escape, but those poor folks were downflow of it.
For CCS sites geologists looks for a specific rock formation that is essentially an impermeable cap thousands of feet deep. Typical depths are 8k ft. A leak coming from there would (should) dissipate and dilute across many miles before reaching the surface. That makes it hard to find them with tradition
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks for the additional info! :-)
CO2 eruptions killing people/animals -- definitely "News for Nerds"
Pipeline for CO2 (Score:4, Informative)
Since the summary omits the core fact:
These pipelines will carry carbon dioxide from the ethanol refineries that generate it, to distant sequestration sites.
Simple (Score:1)
Re:Simple (Score:5, Informative)
unless there is a catalysts that will degenerate is into carbon and oxygen over time.
Catalysts don't work that way. They can only accelerate a reaction that is already thermodynamically favorable.
CO2 does not "degenerate" into carbon and oxygen, so there is no reaction to accelerate
Re: Simple (Score:2)
The pipelines we needed were for water (Score:4, Interesting)
For the cost of the Iraq war, or the war in Afghanistan, the US could have built a water grid to move floodwater from flood areas to the drought-stricken west where we grow most of our food:
https://www.buzzfeednews.com/a... [buzzfeednews.com]
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, taxing people to pay for a war is socialism. If we weren't taxed we'd have money to build those pipelines where there is demand for water.
Re: (Score:2)
You don't think those profits would've wound up in the hands of peasants, do you?
Re: (Score:2)
For the cost of the Iraq war, or the war in Afghanistan, the US could have built a water grid to move floodwater
So the best rationale you have for this project is that we have spent money on other things that are even stupider?
There are a trillion things to waste money on that are less stupid than war. They are still a waste of money.
Yeah, great, but... (Score:3)
It takes less energy to capture CO2 generated from fermentation because it is produced at a much lower temperature and is associated with much less water vapor than the exhaust from a coal or natural gas-fired power plant. This is the lowest of the low-hanging fruit, and even that is an ambitious target.
Re: (Score:2)
This is the lowest of the low-hanging fruit
Good to start somewhere. Fortunately it's not the only CCS project underway in the world.
Wait one minute here. (this is getting stupid) (Score:2)
Put the money into something bet
Re:Wait one minute here. (this is getting stupid) (Score:5, Insightful)
It's not just stupid . . . it's also absurd.
Ethanol is only produced for car fuel because of massive government subsidies.
Cut those subsidies . . . and the ethanol problem will go away.
Re: (Score:3)
If you want to end ethanol subsidies, you need to move the first presidential caucuses out of Iowa.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Why Florida you ask? Because its the Swing state which has the most to lose from Global Warming and stronger Hurricanes. Given how cold Iowa is , it probably welcomes Global Warming.
Sir, you are failing to not apply logic here, this is Florida we are talking about. All this will do is to switch oranges for corn and somehow an alligator is involved.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not oranges, it's sugar cane that we would swap for corn. Sugar cane is highly subsidized and it's grown in an area that, unlike orange groves, will never be good for development so there's no hope for a cane farmer to cash out someday.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No, it would just need 51 votes in the senate.
How many of those 51 plan to run for president someday?
The path to the presidency starts in Iowa, where corn is king.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
But this vote would go down party lines
Ethanol subsidies are not a party-line vote. There are Democratic senators from corn states like Illinois, Wisconsin, and Minnesota. There are Republican senators from states that grow no corn.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Coal is a much bigger problem than ethanol, and there are a lot more corn farmers than coal miners.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Not all ethanol is for car fuel, either. You can drink that stuff.
Re: (Score:2)
Cut those subsidies . . . and the ethanol problem will go away.
Yeah I keep forgetting how wonderful and carbon neutral the oil product lifecycle is... /sarcasm.
You're not making a problem go away. You're just removing the word "ethanol" from the CO2 spreadsheet and replacing it with the name of another product.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
I was told that putting ethanol in our gas makes it burn more efficiently. .
Who ever believed that after losing 20% mpg when switching to it is a true idiot.
Re: (Score:1)
Put it in your lawn mower and see how much easier it is to start in the spring without the water that ethanol attracts.
Re: (Score:1)
It's ethanol - otherwise known as booze. It's the same stuff as in beer or whisky. Yeast converts sugar to alcohol and CO2. As the sugar was made from atmospheric CO2 (by photosynthesis in the growing plants), releasing it is carbon neutral. Capturing it and burying it is (if done correctly) carbon-negative - the plants pull CO2 out of the atmosphere, then some of that gets buried and not returned to the atmosphere. (Some, because the ethanol itself has carbon in, which is released when it's burnt).
And as t
No, that would reduce food costs (Score:3)
Nah see if we stopped producing ethanol, we wouldn't be burning food anymore. Which would reduce food costs. Ie, we'd have more food to *eat* instead of burn. We wouldn't that.
Also, cars would last longer, meaning lower costs AND lower pollution from producing cars.
Re: (Score:2)
Ethanol attacks a few small parts in the fuel system of a car. Why would you scrap a car instead of replacing those parts?
Re: (Score:2)
Call your local dealership and ask how much it costs to replace everything in an ethanol-ruined car.
We have long had cars that run on 100% ethanol. They get the engines rebuilt every 1/4 mile.
Re: (Score:2)
Those get the engines rebuilt every 1/4 mile because they're cranking out 8000 bhp, not because of the ethanol.
Re: (Score:1)
Just use the current oil and gasoline pipelines. (Score:2)
Because they won't be needed anymore since we'll all be driving electric cars. But wait... Don't we have to use the oil pipelines to supply the electric generation plants. OOPS!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Warning to non-stupid people! (Score:2)
CCS is a pipe-dream (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This message was brought to you... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There is never going to be a shortage of oil to burn.
But there is a shortage of environment to burn. We're only starting to see the consequences of that right now.
Re: (Score:2)
by the same people who brought you clean coal & the Gulf of Mexico is really really big so nobody will notice the tonnes of oil spewing into it from a broken well under the sea, even though you can see it from space.
Out of sight out of mind. I bought a house on a nice pond with open water in the city. It has a driveway that goes right up to a 30’ steep hill into maybe 3-4’ of water at the bottom. People would just randomly roll down my driveway and roll shit into the lake like it disappears or something at the bottom. Car batteries (yes plural), bags of trash, car parts, appliances, even a goddamn cast iron ceramic enamel sink that was hella goddamn heavy. One of the car batteries I found had been ther
Let's watch and find out! (Score:2)
The science guy in me says, "Cool."
The cynic guy in me says, "I'll bet concern for native sacred lands and caribou migrations and necessity of 30 million dollars of environmental studies will evaporate."