Our nation’s industries were given a challenge from policymakers across the political aisle including the Biden administration, to reduce greenhouse gas pollution by 50%-52% by 2030 and reach net zero carbon emissions by no later than 2050. These goals, under current industry operations, are frankly out of reach.
However, certain industries are beginning to embrace innovative methods to meet these goals. In Minnesota, we are seeing the agricultural industry, specifically the ethanol industry, embrace carbon capturing as its contribution to lowering its carbon footprint.
Currently, there are two carbon capture projects proposed in Minnesota that would capture and permanently store carbon emissions from ethanol plants and other industrial partners. These projects not only help our climate, but they also support the economies of rural Minnesota by keeping the ethanol industry competitive. The industry, which purchases 40% of all the corn grown in the United States, is vital to many Minnesotan farmers.
Carbon capture isn’t a new practice. In fact, it has been practiced since 1972. It also isn’t a complex method of curbing greenhouse gas emissions. Carbon emissions are captured at the point of emission, after which the emissions are then transported to an underground storage space where it is permanently- and safely- stored underground. Over a long period of time, the carbon underground will calcify and become solid.
Not only has carbon capture been proven through decades of practice, but it has also received bi-partisan support, particularly from Democrats at multiple levels of government. The White House has pledged its support for carbon capturing by stating, “The United States can address carbon pollution from industrial processes by supporting carbon capture.” Furthermore, the Biden administration expanded the 45Q tax credit, which incentivizes the deployment of carbon capture, utilization, and storage.
[image_caption]Joe Radinovich[/image_caption]
At the highest levels of government, carbon capture has been praised as an effective and safe way to lower our carbon emissions. In our fight to lower carbon emissions, we must look towards innovative solutions such as carbon capture to help us meet our emission goals. The proposed carbon capture projects provide Minnesota the opportunity to become a nationwide leader in tackling climate change. While carbon capture may not be the only method used to curtail carbon emissions, we should look favorably upon it as a safe and necessary practice.
Joe Radinovich is a former DFL State Representative (2013-2015)
I’m happy to see someone trying to come up with solutions to “emission free” power. Too many (most here at Minnpost) are expecting a huge change in storing solar and wind power. That is hoping, not planning. As stated many times, too late to go back to clean coal (totally demonized by Lefties), you can call natural gas clean energy (Germany tried it), you can use nuclear power or come up with new technology. Hope is a poor strategy!,
Bio fuels – especially the ethanol industries- fail to meet an objective of lowering carbon. A study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences found that ethanol is likely at least 24% more carbon intensive than gasoline, largely due to the emissions generated from growing huge quantities of corn. It is long past time for the Biden admin to eliminate the ethanol blend requirement. This is a make-work industry proving to be costly to the federal budget and even more costly to the climate.
Carbon Capture Systems also fail to meet their objectives. The United States has 12 active CCS projects, according to the Global CCS Institute. But the technology has so far failed to meet expectations. The DOE, for example, spent more than $1 billion on nine CCS projects between 2010 and 2017, but just two are operational today. There have been several high-profile failures of CCS projects in recent years too, like the 2020 suspension of the $1 billion Petra Nova project in Texas, which missed its carbon capture goals by 17%.
Like bio-fuels , the 45Q tax credits are well meaning, but they are ultimately counterproductive, at least used by the energy industry. They serve only to promote carbon intensive energy production. The IRA included a 70% increase to the 45Q program tax credits. This one-size-fits-all tax credit means that lower-cost carbon capture projects (e.g. ethanol plants) will win the lottery. We need to legislate smarter to promote proven technologies and not continue to waste resources on those that we now know don’t work. Hope is indeed a poor strategy!
DOE’s own analysis of the life cycle CO2 emissions show that Ethanol is 50% less carbon intensive than Gasoline. The study you are referencing has a lot of shaky assumptions, most of which have been de-bunked. EPA, DOE, California LCFS, Oregon, Washing are all saying the same thing. Ethanol is less carbon intensive.
Robert you are wrong. There is a truckload of good scientific research dating back at least 10 years indicating that ethanol does not produce less GHG emissions than the fossil fuels it replaces.
This sentence in the commentary says it all. “These projects not only help our climate, but they also support the economies of rural Minnesota by keeping the ethanol industry competitive.” Carbon capture pipelines are just another subsidy for ethanol. We all know why Klobuchar and Smith support ethanol. It’s the only way that two pro-choice liberal Democrats can get any votes in rural Minnesota.
Does your paycheck depend in any way upon the ethanol industry, Bob?
The CA LCFS you cite as rebuttal to the Lark study itself shows that midwest ethanol to be MORE carbon intensive than diesel or gasoline. The EPA’s own internal research has also shown greenhouse gas emissions over the next three years will grow with the increase in blending requirements from the federal mandate.
The carbon intensity of corn ethanol is an ongoing debate between academics and a well funded industry mouthpiece Renewable Fuels Association (RFA) which spends millions lobbying DC and attempting to control the public discourse. RFA first tried to join the U of WI study I mentioned which is titled “ Environmental outcomes of the US Renewable Fuel Standard”, lead author Tyler Clark. This co-opting of academic studies with a ‘helpful hand’ from industry experts is standard Operating practice we’ve seen used by lobbying association elsewhere in Tobacco and Oil. Tyler declined the offer and now the RFA has shifted to the discredit tactic.
The EPA this month unveiled a proposal – lobbied for by the RFA – that would lift the volumes mandates for fuel blend over the next three years from 20.82 billion gallons in 2023 to 22.68 billion gallons in 2025 – including more than 15 billion gallons annually of convention biofuels like corn-based ethanol. That proposal would boost greenhouse gas emissions over the three-year term by between 81 million and 265.9 million metric tons as new tilling for corn, soy and other plantings releases carbon from the soil, according to the EPA’s internal analysis of the proposal, reviewed by Reuters.
Carbon Capture of Ethanol is straight forward. It is already captured today. The only missing piece is the storage. Enhanced oil recovery is a use of CO2, but as far as I know isn’t considered permanent storage. The projects you referenced were mostly coal fire power plants. Lots of mess to clean up prior to separating any CO2 from the flue gas. Been there, done that.
Completely agree Tom. Great documentation.
I am not sold on this. How to do you keep it in the ground forever? Lets find a beneficial use that sequesters the CO2.
Doesn’t one stated goal of the FUTURE act, Utilization, contradict the authors assertion it is the case that the recaptured carbon will be “transported to an underground storage space where it is **permanently** – and safely – stored underground”? One use for sequestered CO2 is to insert it in petroleum wells to increase pressure and increase yields, isn’t it? So is this really a greenwashed big oil subsidy, or is this really sequestration? Just asking the question.