FASCISM South Dakota Farmers Fight 'Carbon Capture' Land Grabs of Their Homes

Cardinal

Cardinal

Chickministrator
_______________
www.mrctv.org

South Dakota Farmers Fight 'Carbon Capture' Land Grabs of Their Homes

The fight is not isolated to SD. Thanks to the political-climate-cult corporate push in numerous states, the property theft could come to your own backyard.
www.mrctv.org www.mrctv.org

In October, last year, MRCTV reported on the courageous fight of Iowan residents to stop an ESG (Environmental-Social-Governance)-based attack on their property by Blackrock-affiliated corporation “Navigator CO2” and its “Heartland Greenway” “carbon capture pipeline.” At the time, that seemed like a lot of terminology to absorb, but, absorb the info those Iowans and we readers did, in order to understand the forces claiming “climate Armageddon” in their schemes to take more people’s liberty and property.

Now, another group of innocent Americans finds itself defending their private property from – yep – a government-corporate land-grab being conducted in neighboring South Dakota by acquisitive ESG figures who (SHOCK) have strong ties to Blackrock and even politics in the state of…Iowa.

In fact, some of the average folks standing up for their rights are facing LEGAL attacks and massive expenses brought on by the corporation, called Summit Carbon Solutions, and by the government in Brown County, SD.

Rebecca Terrell reports for The New American that Brown County farmer Jerad Bossly was out working the fields (which have been in his family for four generations) when Summit-hired surveyors engaged in what most of us likely would consider trespass. Yet, it has been Bossly and his wife whom the government portrays as the transgressors:

“He told The New American that when they arrived, he was about 12 miles away, working in a field. His wife was home, recovering from gallbladder surgery, and was taking a shower when the Summit surveyors knocked at her door. They entered the house, but finding no one there, they proceeded to an outbuilding where one of them walked in.”
Click to expand...
And Terrell provides a link to the early coverage of this issue from journalist Greg Price, which shows video footage from one of Bossly’s security cameras seeming to reveal one of the surveyors literally opening doors to enter buildings owned by the Bosslys.

Related: Imperial America: Biden Pushes Flint-Failed Obama EPA Chief Gina McCarthy As 'Climate Czar' | MRCTV

Price’s lengthy Substack report details how hard the Bossly family (the two Bossly children are 13 and 17 and work the farm, as well) endeavor to maintain their livelihood, and how much effort they put into things such as tree-planting in order to provide wind-breaks for their cattle. But these efforts – and the fundamental principle of private property – seem unimportant to Summit and Brown County.

Notes Terrell:

“Next, the Summit staff walked out onto the Bossly’s property and started setting up a tripod. By that time, Mrs. Bossly, with Jerad on the phone, confronted them and asked them to leave. Jerad said that the sheriff should be present if the company wanted access to his land. So the surveyors left.
His wife called Jerad back later that day to say a detective had just left the farm. Summit had reported Bossly for threatening to kill the surveyors. They also charged him with contempt of court for interfering with their survey activities.”
Click to expand...







Stunning. And it gets worse.

Bossly faced off in county court with the company on Wednesday.

“The judge ruled in favor of the landowner, but he warned other farmers not to interfere with surveyors, threatening sanctions if they do. Another farmer who attended the hearing told The New American that the judge also refused to hear any evidence against Summit. That farmer complained that ‘they appear to get away with their lies.’”
Click to expand...
The scope of the problem is vast, targeting numerous innocent landowners in South Dakota in a fashion similar to the landowners who fought a similar “carbon-capture pipeline” scheme in Iowa.

“Bossly is one of more than 80 landowners in South Dakota facing eminent-domain lawsuits from Summit. In April, Fifth Circuit Judge Richard Sommers granted the company’s motion to conduct surveys of all land along their planned pipeline corridor — even private property. Taxpayers who originally declined to sign easement agreements are now forced to stand by as the company maps and drills on their land.”
Click to expand...
Incredible, even with a new legal update from another hearing conducted Wednesday – information provided to Terrell by a landowner:

“The hearing was a ‘win’ but it wasn’t. The judge said right off the bat that he wasn’t going to hold Jerad in contempt for his threat. So, the judge seemed to accept that it actually happened without seeing any evidence. The judge passed the buck and refused to let our attorney, Brian Jorde, present any evidence. His reasoning was that it didn’t matter because he still was going to rule the same way regardless.
But it does matter. The judge refused to get to the heart of the issue: the fact that Summit lied about the threat and that they committed breaking and entering. Summit and its surveyors are the ones who should be charged with crimes, but they got off. A double standard in my opinion.
The judge also warned all us landowners in the room not to impede his order to allow the surveys to continue, or there will be sanctions. Why are the landowners getting lectured, and not Summit? The judge refuses to deal with the heart of the issue and passed the buck to the S.D. Supreme Court. Now we landowners are left with having to deal with Summit, which is allowed to break laws without being held to account.”
Click to expand...
The landowners are left having to fight the same way those Iowa farmers fought – in the courts – against a corporate-state combo that, curiously, also has a lot of ties to Iowa politics and to Blackrock.

Related: EPA Pushes USPS To Spend BILLIONS On Fleet Of Electric Mail Trucks | MRCTV

For example, according to its own website, Summit CEO Jimmy Powell formerly was “Executive Vice President and Chief Operating Officer for Hiland Partners, a diversified midstream energy company that was acquired by Kinder Morgan” – and, as of February of this year, Blackrock announced that it just happens to own “164,259,459 shares of Kinder Morgan Inc - Class P.”

And in what form does the shadow of Iowan politics loom? In the form of Summit “Senior Policy Advisor” Terry Branstad, who “was elected as Iowa’s Lieutenant Governor in 1978. In 1983, he was elected Governor of Iowa, a position he would hold for a total of six terms covering over 22 years, making him the longest-tenured governor in American history.”

The corporate-political forces arrayed against the farmers in SD, as well as those attacking the Iowans fighting the “Heartland Greenway” “carbon-capture pipeline” are well-exposed in an excellent investigative piece by former Congressman Steve King, for YourNews:

“Larry Fink’s BlackRock provides the investment capital driving the 1300 mile Heartland Greenway CO2 Carbon Capture Use and Sequestration (CCUS) Project.
Bruce Rastetter, CEO of Summit Carbon Solutions, is the other major player in the race for hundreds of billions of We the People’s tax dollars. His proposal is to build 2000 miles of high pressure CO2 pipeline. Summit would then pump its CO2 into deep wells near the oil fields by Bismarck, North Dakota. BlackRock’s destination for the liquid CO2 would be deep wells near the oil fields south of Springfield, IL.
Summit proposes to collect 12 million metric tons of CO2 from 32 ethanol plants in five states. BlackRock would collect 15 million metric tons from 21 ethanol plants Home. A third and shorter pipeline system is proposed by Wolf, a Canadian company. The Wolf proposal is for 280 miles of high pressure CO2 pipeline collecting 12.6 million metric tons of CO2. Their destination for deposit would be near that of BlackRock’s.”
Click to expand...
And all of it is predicated on flimsy claims of “anthropogenic climate” catastrophe, which I question here, here, and here.

Make no mistake about it. The battle lines aren’t just being drawn, they are being drawn on OUR property and OUR peaceful market interactions. The South Dakota fight and the Iowa battles are just the start.

We cannot be blind to what these international-political-corporate forces are attempting to do, which is to destroy private property, to use the already immoral weapon of “eminent domain” in a manner that follows the vile “Kelo v New London” Supreme Court decision in order to take private land to hand it to corporate interests, and to claim that those who oppose the government thievery are the bad guys.

We know that the truth runs completely contrary to their political canards.
 
Meemur

Meemur

Voice on the Prairie / FJB!
www.foodandwaterwatch.org

Carbon Capture: Billions of Federal Dollars Poured Into Failure

What the fossil fuel industry hopes you won't find out is carbon capture is already a failure of an experiment, funded with taxpayer money.
www.foodandwaterwatch.org www.foodandwaterwatch.org


Carbon Capture: Billions of Federal Dollars Poured Into Failure​

Oakley Shelton-Thomas Oakley Shelton-Thomas
Published Sep 27, 2022
Categories

Climate and Energy

carbon capture is already a failure of an experiment, funded with taxpayer money.


The Inflation Reduction Act, hailed as the most important federal climate legislation ever, places an expensive bet on carbon capture and storage/sequestration as a means of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. The law greatly expands the 45Q tax credit program that supports existing CCS investments.

This move fulfills a long-standing goal of heavily polluting industries, which have long complained that the main obstacle to building robust, effective carbon capture facilities is the federal government’s lack of support for the technology.

RELATED CONTENT​


This is completely at odds with reality. In fact, the Obama administration’s economic recovery package included substantial spending on carbon capture. Despite billions of dollars in support, the initiatives mostly produced a series of failures – projects that either failed to ever get off the ground or those that were quickly abandoned.
The remaining ‘success’ stories, meanwhile, can point to emissions reductions on paper that do not correspond to the overall pollution generated at these facilities.
All in all, this track record should inform our current understanding of the very serious problems with carbon capture.

Carbon Capture Has So Far Mostly Just Captured Taxpayer Money​

In 2009, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) offered $3.4 billion for the research and development of CCS projects (of that total nearly $1 billion went unspent).1 Out of 11 large-scale demonstration projects selected by the Department of Energy (DOE), 9 were funded by the ARRA and only 2 remain operational.2 Of the five commercial power plant projects, only one (Petra Nova) ever reached operation and Petra Nova faced serious challenges, forcing the plant to close after fewer than 4 years.3

This track record should elicit serious concern; the Inflation Reduction Act increases federal tax credits for CCS technology, putting even more public dollars on the line for a technology with a failed track record. According to the Government Accountability Office (GAO), additional CCS funding could easily be wasted without additional congressional oversight and accountability: “Absent such a mechanism, DOE may be at risk of expending significant funds on CCS demonstration projects with little likelihood of success.”4 Future CCS projects remain heavily dependent on revenue from tax credits and oil extraction rather than electricity sales.5
Food & Water Watch reviewed large-scale CCS projects affiliated with the DOE’s joint development programs supported by the ARRA and which featured prominently in the DOE’s 2010 roadmap for carbon capture. This is not a comprehensive review of all announced CCS projects or even those that received federal funding, but rather a representative review of major projects. An MIT database of carbon capture projects through September 2016 recorded 15 canceled carbon capture projects, but that list is also not exhaustive; more than 30 coal plants announced in the mid-2000s considered carbon capture.6
Nonetheless, this is intended as a representative review of major projects.
According to the DOE’s 2010 roadmap, 10 projects with start dates between 2013 and 2016 were expected to make use of CCS; as of September 2022, only 2 of these facilities remain operational.7

Carbon Capture Projects That Never Got Off The Ground​


American Electric Power “Mountaineer”
American Electric Power (AEP) attempted to capture the CO2 emissions from a 235-megawatt coal electric power generator in West Virginia and inject the CO2 into geological storage near the facility. AEP withdrew from the project at the definition stage of development, after receiving over $16 million from the DOE. AEP claimed that the project would not be viable without additional federal support or legislation limiting emissions.8 Though the DOE was willing to shoulder half the $668 million cost of the project, AEP was unable to force ratepayers to cover the other half.9 If completed, the CCS-equipped unit would have represented 18 percent of the electric capacity of the power plant.10

Basin Electric “Antelope Valley”
Basin Electric proposed capturing CO2 from a 120-megawatt stream at the company’s coal power plant in North Dakota but withdrew before receiving funds because the project was unable to find a plausible plan despite $100 million in potential DOE funding.11 In addition to the DOE grant, the project was also guaranteed a $300 million loan through the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA).12 The project was canceled fewer than 6 months after its inception, in part because internal cost estimates found that the project would be 30 percent more expensive than the DOE projected.13

FutureGen 2.0 Power Plant & FutureGen 2.0 Pipeline and Storage
FutureGen originated as a Bush administration program that would spend $1 billion of public money to build a new 275-megawatt coal plant that incorporated CCS and hydrogen production at a single site in Mattoon, IL. This original vision didn’t receive the desired funding and by 2008 the DOE restructured the program away from a state-of-the-art living laboratory approach. In 2010, the DOE announced $1 billion in public funding to support yet another, different vision for FutureGen — located at an oil-fired unit in Meredosia, IL. More than a decade after the birth of the program, FutureGen remained early in development and faced rising costs, issues with project development, challenges retrofitting the plant and struggles meeting the 90 percent CO2 capture target.14

The final iteration of the FutureGen 2.0 program in Illinois aimed to capture CO2 and other emissions from a coal plant and transport the CO2 to a storage site 30 miles away. Following years of delay, the DOE withdrew support for the project in 2015. The power plant was unable to start construction because the plant failed to find adequate engineering and did not successfully find investors. The two components of the project (pipeline and power plant) only spent $83.8 and $116.6 million respectively from the DOE.15 Despite the virtually blank check provided to it, when the project was canceled most of the public money remained unspent.16

Hydrogen Energy California
In 2007 a joint venture between Rio Tinto and BP was formed to build a new hydrogen CCS facility in Carson, California slated for operation in 2012.17 A company called SCS energy bought out and reformulated the incomplete project in late 2011.18 The revival of Hydrogen Energy California aimed to build and capture emissions from a small integrated gasification combined cycle coal plant for use in Enhanced Oil Recovery 4 miles from the power plant. After contributing $153.4 million, the DOE ended its agreement with Hydrogen Energy California, “after extensive budget and schedule overruns and repeatedly missed milestones.”19 Despite the challenges, the DOE lowered the private finance requirement for the project and made up the difference with federal funds in excess of the original agreement.20 This facility, which was never built, also qualified for $103.5 million in clean coal investment tax credits.21

Southern Company Services “Plant Barry”
Southern Company Services withdrew before reaching a funding agreement with the DOE but proposed capturing the emissions from a 160-megawatt coal-powered generation unit located in Alabama.22 Two months after the DOE announced its willingness to provide $295 million for the $665 million project, Southern Company withdrew, claiming an inability to do financial due diligence in time.23 Now, a decade after the original plans fell through, the DOE is offering yet more funding to support another attempted CCS project at the same site.24

Summit Texas Clean Energy
Summit aimed to build a new 400-megawatt integrated combined gasification coal plant in Texas, capturing emissions equivalent to a 190-megawatt power plant to use for enhanced oil recovery in the Permian Basin. The DOE contributed $117.9 million but removed further support following a DOE OIG report recommending that the DOE suspend funding for the plant.25 The DOE violated the original cost-sharing agreement with the company and contributed nearly 8 times the funding that had been agreed to even though the plant was never built.26 In 2021, the DOE sued Summit to recover $13.8 million, alleging that Summit refused to fulfill its guarantees to the agency.27 The facility also received $324 million in clean coal investment tax credits.28

Leucadia Lake Charles
The Leucadia Lake Charles project aimed to capture 4.5 million tons of CO2 from a new methanol (petrochemical input used to produce a range of products such as plastics, paints and furniture) plant in Louisiana. The project planned to use the CO2 for EOR and received $12.7 million from the DOE before the project was canceled in 2015.29 Unlike the other, operational industrial CCS projects, Leucadia aimed to selectively remove CO2 from a mixed gas stream, rather than purifying an already concentrated stream of CO2 from an industrial process.30 The project was revived in 2015 by a former employee, promising to build a CCS facility at the same site. This new iteration secured $2 billion in conditional loan guarantees from the DOE.31 By early 2022, 15 years after the original proposals, the project remained nonexistent.32

End Part 1

 
Meemur

Meemur

Voice on the Prairie / FJB!
PART 2

The Major Busts In Carbon Capture Projects​

Southern Company “Kemper”
Southern Company’s notorious power plant project in Kemper, MS featured prominently in the DOE’s 2010 roadmap for its Clean Coal Power Initiative program. The plant aimed to capture 2 million metric tons of CO2 per year, 65 percent of its total emissions.33 The project was awarded at least $680 million in federal grants and tax credits, including millions that Southern Company managed to redirect from another failed clean coal project in Orlando.34
Set to open in 2013, Kemper pushed back its opening day for years.35 By 2015 the project’s overall budget had ballooned from $1.8 billion to $6.2 billion.36 Critical parts of the plant were torn down and rebuilt due to construction challenges, such as a misunderstanding of chemical reactions that led to the replacement of 1,500 feet of pipe.37 In 2015 Southern company claimed that the project was “98 percent or so complete”38 By 2017, regulators forced Kemper to abandon its clean coal plans completely.39 Problems with the plant’s construction were raised early on by a whistleblower who ultimately sued Southern Company for retaliation, but Southern Company suppressed concerns and encouraged engineers to agree to unrealistic timelines.40
In 2021, Southern imploded the Kemper Project, which had just years earlier been celebrated as the country’s first commercial-scale carbon capture project at a coal plant.

Petra Nova
Until May 2020, Petra Nova was the only operational carbon capture and storage (CCS) power plant in the U.S. It has been put on a pedestal as the CCS power plant poster child, even though it closed after fewer than four years of operation.41 Petra Nova’s story reveals that there are serious economic challenges for CCS: The facility was unable to attain profitability despite generous government support, which could have totaled up to $360 million over the planned lifetime of the project. Although some claim the project was undermined primarily by low oil prices,42 Petra Nova faced numerous technical setbacks, resulting in financial disappointments from the beginning. It’s also far from an environmental success story, considering that this coal-fired power plant used its carbon emissions to produce climate-polluting oil and missed its own carbon-capture targets.43

Petra Nova had limited ambitions and a large price tag. When built, the W.A. Parish facility that’s home to Petra Nova had 3,700 megawatts (MW) of capacity, but the Petra Nova CCS project only captured the CO2 from a 240 MW unit at the plant.44 The CO2 was then compressed and transported from the plant through an 81-mile pipeline to be injected and used for oil recovery at the West Ranch oilfield.45 The plant itself and the cogeneration facility that powers it cost $600 million; the remaining $400 million covered the pipeline, the upgrades to the West Ranch oilfield, and administrative costs.46 (In total $4,200 per kilowatt of capacity retrofitted.47 )
Proponents have focused on the fact that while fully operational, Petra Nova managed to capture over 90 percent of carbon emissions. However, the plant was often offline due to technological problems. For example, Petra Nova experienced leaks from its heat exchangers and its flue gas blower developed a vibration problem from a build-up of limestone used to scrub SO2. The CO2 utilization plan to transport captured carbon to West Ranch oilfields also faced challenges with partial or full shut-ins of the associated pipeline and West Ranch’s inability to receive the captured CO2.48

Over three years of operation, Petra Nova’s components had 294 days’ worth of non-weather related, unplanned outages, leading to a lower overall capture rate. Petra Nova only captured 3,904,978 short tons of CO2 over a three-year period (an average of 1,301,659 short tons per year), 81 percent of its target. In fact, the carbon capture plant only operated at an estimated 69 percent of full functionality.49 Capturing this carbon costs approximately $256 per short ton ($1 billion/3,904,978), excluding the operational costs of this plant. Had NRG Energy (Petra Nova’s parent company) instead invested in wind power, a similar emissions reduction would have cost $320 million, $680 million less than Petra Nova.50

Technological problems also contributed to financial disappointments that began almost as soon as the plant opened. Falling oil prices led NRG Energy to take a $140 million Petra Nova-related hit in 2016.51 Then in late 2017, NRG Energy booked an additional $69 million loss after realizing CO2 injection would produce less oil than originally expected.52 By the end of 2019, NRG Energy had reduced the value of its investment by $317 million, leading the company to renegotiate its arrangement with the joint venture.53 After the first quarter of 2020, NRG Energy reduced Petra Nova’s value by another $18 million.54

While Petra Nova sought to reduce the costs of CCS, the project did not demonstrate substantial improvements to the economics of the technology.55 CCS is still so expensive that some future CCS projects plan to make more money from tax credits and oil extraction than they do from selling electricity.56 Additionally, there is no indication that Petra Nova helped reduce the energy needs of capture equipment. Petra Nova’s CCS system used 35 MW of electricity plus the steam from a 78 MW gas-fired generator which was built to meet the needs of the CCS facility.57 The “parasitic load” of the capture system was likely around 22 percent, a misleadingly low penalty as the natural gas plant powering the capture was more efficient than the coal plant.58

Is This What Carbon Capture Success Looks Like?​

Air Products and Chemicals
Air Products and Chemicals claims to have captured 1 million metric tons of CO2 per year from steam-methane reformers (industrial facilities that turn natural gas into hydrogen) in Texas, beginning operations in 2013. The DOE gave the project $284 million in funding. Captured CO2 is used for enhanced oil recovery.59 To meet the additional energy requirements, Air Products uses a new 21-megawatt gas turbine requiring 270MMbtu/hr of fuel to capture 128.6 short tons per hour. The lifecycle emissions (including methane leakage) of the natural gas burned to capture this CO2 are responsible for more than one-quarter of the greenhouse gas impact of the captured CO2.60

Additionally, the facility only captures process emissions, responsible for about two-thirds of the CO2 released on-site when producing hydrogen.61 While Air Products captures approximately 1 million tons of CO2 per year, according to the EPA, the site was responsible for 2.4 million metric tons of CO2 equivalent emissions in 2020.62 Air Products does not publicly disclose the quantity of captured CO2 to the EPA, but the project is only claiming to capture 60 percent (1 million metric tons) of the 1.65 million metric tons of CO2 emitted from the hydrogen production.63 This suggests a capture rate far below the typically cited and targeted 90 percent, even ignoring the uncaptured natural gas emissions elsewhere at the facility.64

Achieving higher capture rates requires substantially more energy with corresponding costs and environmental impacts.65 After accounting for methane leakage associated with hydrogen produced from fracked gas, CCS facilities that achieve high capture rates would still have significant greenhouse gas footprints.66 Natural gas-sourced hydrogen produced using CCS may only have 9 to 12 percent lower emissions than hydrogen produced without CCS.67 Burning hydrogen in place of natural gas, even when produced with CCS, actually has higher emissions than simply burning natural gas.68 Fortunately, there’s no need for natural gas-fueled hydrogen plants. Evidence suggests that truly clean hydrogen, produced using renewable electricity, could soon become cheaper than hydrogen produced from fossil fuels both with and without CCS.69

Archer Daniels Midland Decatur Ethanol CCS
Archer Daniels Midland’s Decatur project, which received $141 million from the DOE and began operation in 2017, aims to sequester 1 million tons of CO2 per year from an ethanol plant in Decatur, Illinois.70 The capture system dehydrates and compresses a stream of 99 percent pure CO2 that is a byproduct of fermenting corn ethanol.71 According to publicly available EPA data, ADM only sequesters 521,000 metric tons of CO2 annually, about half of what its permit allows and a slim fraction of the reported 4.4 million metric tons of total facility emissions.72
ADM’s CCS facility only captures the emissions that are a byproduct of the fermentation process, leaving a wide range of uncaptured emissions from ethanol production.73 And this is an even smaller portion of the overall emissions74 from a fuel that, when burned, will emit CO2.75 Based on survey averages of natural gas and electricity use by ethanol producers, Food & Water Watch estimates that ADM’s ethanol production at this facility requires 8.2 billion cubic feet of natural gas and 260 million kWh of electricity. Emissions from these sources are equal to 1.066 million metric tons per year and equal the emissions ADM plans to capture from the fermentation process.76

In 2020, ADM admitted that the technology to capture these emissions doesn’t exist and speculated that capturing stack emissions is “likely 10 years out.”77
Production of ethanol only accounts for a fraction of overall emissions, fuel and feedstock transport, agricultural emissions and land use change all contribute to the life cycle greenhouse gas footprint.78 Incorporating these emissions, ADM’s captured carbon accounts for only one-third of the life cycle emissions of the ethanol the facility produces, resulting in a fuel with a similar emissions impact to gasoline.79

Accounting for land use changes, ethanol has life cycle emissions up to 24 percent higher than fossil fuel-derived gasoline.80 Ethanol also increases the overall supply of gasoline available to burn, leading to increased consumption and leaving oil that can still be burned later.81
Managing CO2 also requires energy with corresponding, additional emissions.82 The cooling and compression of the CO2 use electricity (with uncaptured emissions) and the chemical used for dehydration is regenerated by boiling with natural gas, another source of emissions.83 Carbon capture proponents often point to this plant as proof of carbon capture’s broader feasibility.84 However, ethanol fermentation emits a very concentrated stream of CO2, making it substantially easier and cheaper to scrub than emissions from power plants or other industrial sources.85

What These 11 Case Studies Tell Us​

Carbon capture cannot be the centerpiece of any serious climate plan. Its track record makes it appear to be a handout to fossil fuel corporations, publicly financing their attempts to keep their harmful product viable. The truth is we need to move to 100% renewable energy by 2030, and no half-baked schemes are going to replace that course of action. No matter how inconvenient that is to the oil and gas industry, it’s a fact the rest of us need to keep in sight.


ENDNOTES ARE BELOW POST #11
 
Last edited:
Meemur

Meemur

Voice on the Prairie / FJB!
⇡1Lawson, Ashley J. Congressional Research Service. “Carbon Capture Versus Direct Air Capture.” November 16, 2021 at 2.
⇡2US Government Accountability Office. (GAO). “Advanced Fossil Energy: Information on DOE-Provided Funding for Research and Development Projects Started From Fiscal Years 2010 Through 2017.” GAO-18-619. September 2018 at Highlights, 10 and 11; US Government Accountability Office (GAO). “Carbon Capture and Storage: Actions Needed to Improve DOE Management of Demonstration Projects.” GAO-22-105111. December 2021 at 4.
⇡3Congressional Budget Office (CBO). “Federal Efforts to Reduce the Cost of Capturing and Storing Carbon Dioxide.” June 2012 at 4; Anchondo, Carlos and Edward Klump. “Petra Nova is closed: What it means for carbon capture.” Energywire. September 22, 2020.
⇡4US Government Accountability Office (GAO). “Carbon Capture and Storage: Actions Needed to Improve DOE Management of Demonstration Projects.” GAO-22-105111. December 2021 at 23.
⇡5Anchondo and Klump (2020).
⇡6Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT). “CCS Project database: Power Plant Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage Projects.” Accessed June 2022. Available at Carbon Capture and Sequestration Technologies @ MIT. Samuelsohn, Darren. “Billions over budget. Two years after deadline. What’s gone wrong for the ‘clean coal’ project that’s supposed to save an industry.” Politico. May 26, 2015.
⇡7US Department of Energy (DOE). “DOE/NETL Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage RD&D Roadmap.” December 2010 at 14 and 15.
⇡8US Government Accountability Office (GAO). “Carbon Capture and Storage: Actions Needed to Improve DOE Management of Demonstration Projects.” GAO-22-105111. December 2021 at 7 and 8.
⇡9Wald, Matthew L. and John M. Broder. “Utility Shelves Ambitious Plan to Limit Carbon.” New York Times. July 13, 2011.
⇡10Folger, Peter. Congressional Research Service (CRS). “Carbon Capture and Sequestration: Research, Development, and Demonstration at the U.S. Department of Energy.” February 10, 2014 at 14.
⇡11US Government Accountability Office (GAO). “Carbon Capture and Storage: Actions Needed to Improve DOE Management of Demonstration Projects.” GAO-22-105111. December 2021 at 7 and 8.
⇡12“USDA approves loan for Basin Electric’s carbon capture project.” Power. January 21, 2009.
⇡13Folger, Peter. Congressional Research Service (CRS). “Carbon Capture and Sequestration: Research, Development, and Demonstration at the U.S. Department of Energy.” February 10, 2014 at 14; Calculation: (500-387)/387= 29.19
⇡14Folger, Peter. Congressional Research Service (CRS). “Carbon Capture and Sequestration: Research, Development, and Demonstration at the U.S. Department of Energy.” February 10, 2014 at 18 to 20.
⇡15US Government Accountability Office (GAO). “Carbon Capture and Storage: Actions Needed to Improve DOE Management of Demonstration Projects.” GAO-22-105111. December 2021 at 9.
⇡16Natter, Ari. “DOE suspends $1 Billion in FutureGen Funds, Killing Carbon Capture Demonstration Project.” Bloomberg. 2015.
⇡17Izundu, Uchenna. “BP, Rio Tinto launch Hydrogen Energy.” Oil & Gas Journal. May 21, 2007.
⇡18SCS Energy. [Press Release]. “SCS Energy Closes Deal to Acquire HECA Project in Kern County.” September 28, 2011.
⇡19US Government Accountability Office (GAO). “Carbon Capture and Storage: Actions Needed to Improve DOE Management of Demonstration Projects.” GAO-22-105111. December 2021 at 7 and 10
⇡20US Government Accountability Office (GAO). “Carbon Capture and Storage: Actions Needed to Improve DOE Management of Demonstration Projects.” GAO-22-105111. December 2021 at 19 and 20.
⇡21Folger, Peter and Molly F. Sherlock. Congressional Research Service (CRS). “Clean Coal Loan Guarantees and Tax Incentives: Issues in Brief.” R43690. August 19, 2014 at 8 and 9.
⇡22US Government Accountability Office (GAO). “Carbon Capture and Storage: Actions Needed to Improve DOE Management of Demonstration Projects.” GAO-22-105111. December 2021 at 8.
⇡23Folger, Peter. Congressional Research Service (CRS). “Carbon Capture and Sequestration: Research, Development, and Demonstration at the U.S. Department of Energy.” February 10, 2014 at 14.
⇡24Noon, Chris. General Electric (GE). “Notes From The Underground: This GE-Led Team Is Looking To Write The Carbon Capture Playbook For Gas Plants.” February 15, 2022.
⇡25US Government Accountability Office (GAO). “Carbon Capture and Storage: Actions Needed to Improve DOE Management of Demonstration Projects.” GAO-22-105111. December 2021 at 7 and 9.
⇡26US Government Accountability Office (GAO). “Carbon Capture and Storage: Actions Needed to Improve DOE Management of Demonstration Projects.” GAO-22-105111. December 2021 at 19.
⇡27US Government Accountability Office (GAO). “Carbon Capture and Storage: Actions Needed to Improve DOE Management of Demonstration Projects.” GAO-22-105111. December 2021 at 10.
⇡28Folger, Peter and Molly F. Sherlock. Congressional Research Service (CRS). “Clean Coal Loan Guarantees and Tax Incentives: Issues in Brief.” R43690. August 19, 2014 at 8 and 9.
⇡29US Government Accountability Office (GAO). “Carbon Capture and Storage: Actions Needed to Improve DOE Management of Demonstration Projects.” GAO-22-105111. December 2021 at 11 and 12.
⇡30Gollakota, Sai and Scott McDonald. “Commercial-Scale CCS project in Decatur, Illinois – Construction Status and Operational Plans for Demonstration.” Energy Procedia. Vol. 63. 2014 at 5987.
⇡31Davis, Carolyn. “Lake Charles Methanol Secures DOE Backing For World’s First Carbon Capture, Petcoke Facility.” Natural Gas Intelligence. December 23, 2016.
⇡32Schmidt, Theresa. “Opponents voice concerns about Lake Charles Methanol permit.” KPLC. February 25, 2022.
⇡33US Department of Energy (DOE). “DOE/NETL Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage RD&D Roadmap.” December 2010 at 14 and 15; Samuelsohn, Darren. “Billions over budget. Two years after deadline. What’s gone wrong for the ‘clean coal’ project that’s supposed to save an industry.” Politico. May 26, 2015.
⇡34Samuelsohn, Darren. “Billions over budget. Two years after deadline. What’s gone wrong for the ‘clean coal’ project that’s supposed to save an industry.” Politico. May 26, 2015.
⇡35Samuelsohn, Darren. “Billions over budget. Two years after deadline. What’s gone wrong for the ‘clean coal’ project that’s supposed to save an industry.” Politico. May 26, 2015.
⇡36Samuelsohn, Darren. “Billions over budget. Two years after deadline. What’s gone wrong for the ‘clean coal’ project that’s supposed to save an industry.” Politico. May 26, 2015.
⇡37Samuelsohn, Darren. “Billions over budget. Two years after deadline. What’s gone wrong for the ‘clean coal’ project that’s supposed to save an industry.” Politico. May 26, 2015.
⇡38Samuelsohn, Darren. “Billions over budget. Two years after deadline. What’s gone wrong for the ‘clean coal’ project that’s supposed to save an industry.” Politico. May 26, 2015.
⇡39Swartz, Kristi E. “The Kemper project just collapsed. What it signifies for CCS.” Energywire. October 26, 2021.
⇡40Middleton, Christian. “Boondoggle In Kemper County: Powerful Ignored Red Flags Of ‘Clean Coal’ Flop.” Mississippi Free Press. December 16, 2021.
⇡41Anchondo, Carlos and Edward Klump. “Petra Nova is closed: What it means for carbon capture.” Energywire. September 22, 2020.
⇡42Lockwood, Toby. “Mothballed Petra Nova has already proved its worth.” IEA Clean Coal Centre. September 3, 2020.
⇡43Groom, Nichola. “Problems plagued U.S. CO2 capture project before shutdown: document.” Reuters. August 6, 2020.
⇡44Schwartz, John. “High-stakes test for carbon capture.” New York Times. January 3, 2017; Groom (2020).
⇡45U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). “W.A. Parish Post-Combustion CO2 Capture and Sequestration Demonstration Project.” DOE-PNPH-03311. Final Scientific/Technical Report. March 31, 2020 at 3.
⇡46DOE (2020) at 3 and 6.
⇡47Smith, Rebecca. “CO2 project: Electricity firm to tap greenhouse gas for oil drilling; NRG Energy teams with JX Nippon Oil in carbon-capture pilot.” Wall Street Journal. July 15, 2014; EIA (2017).
⇡48DOE (2020) at 3, 4, 8 to 9 and 42.
⇡49Ibid. at 4, 8 and 41.
⇡50U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA). State Electricity Profile. Texas 2016. January 25, 2018; Lazard. “Lazard’s Levelized Cost of Energy Analysis.” Version 10.0. December 2016 at 2.
⇡51SEC. NRG Energy, Inc. Form 10-K. Fiscal year ending December 31, 2017 at 165.
⇡52SEC. NRG Energy, Inc. Form 10-K. Fiscal year ending December 31, 2019 at 128.
⇡53SEC. NRG Energy, Inc. Form 10-Q. Quarter ending September 30, 2019 at 35; SEC (December 31, 2019) at 72.
⇡54NRG Energy, Inc. U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. Form 10-Q. Quarter ending March 31, 2020 at 27.
⇡55DOE (2020) at 6.
⇡56Anchondo and Klump (2020).
⇡57DOE (2020) at 6 to 8.
⇡58Patel (2017).
⇡59US Government Accountability Office (GAO). “Carbon Capture and Storage: Actions Needed to Improve DOE Management of Demonstration Projects.” GAO-22-105111. December 2021 at 11; Air Products and Chemicals. “Large-scale Carbon Capture, Use and Storage.” Available at airproducts.com/company/innovation/carbon-capture. Accessed August 2022.
⇡60Busse, Amy et al. Air Products and Chemicals, Inc. “Demonstration of Carbon Capture and Sequestration of Steam Methane Reforming Process Gas Used for Large-Scale Hydrogen Production.” DE-FE0002381. March 2018 at 10, 18 and 47;
270mmbtu/128.6 short tons CO2 = 2.099MMBTU per short ton / 1,037(btu/cubic foot) = 0.002025 million cubic feet gas per short ton captured = 2024 cubic feet
.11616 million metric tons CO2eq per billion cubic feet NG produced & burned (precleared from emissions factors from supply side report) = .11616 metric tons per 1,000 cubic feet natural gas
.11616*2.024 = .2351 metric tons * 1.10231 = .2591
⇡61Longden, Thomas et al. “‘Clean’ hydrogen? – Comparing the emissions and costs of fossil fuel versus renewable electricity-based hydrogen.” Applied Energy. Vol. 306, No. 118145. January 2022 at 4.
⇡62Busse, Amy et al. Air Products and Chemicals, Inc. “Demonstration of Carbon Capture and Sequestration of Steam Methane Reforming Process Gas Used for Large-Scale Hydrogen Production.” DE-FE0002381. March 2018 at 34; Environmental Protection Agency. 2020 Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Large Facilities: Air Products Port Arthur Facility. FLIGHT tool. Available at ghgdata.epa.gov/ghgp/main.do. Accessed June 2022.
⇡63Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2020 Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Large Facilities: Air Products Port Arthur Facility. FLIGHT tool. Available at ghgdata.epa.gov/ghgp/main.do. Accessed June 2022; Air Products and Chemicals. “Large-scale Carbon Capture, Use and Storage.” Available at airproducts.com/company/innovation/carbon-capture. Accessed August 2022.
⇡64Longden, Thomas et al. “‘Clean’ hydrogen? – Comparing the emissions and costs of fossil fuel versus renewable electricity-based hydrogen.” Applied Energy. Vol. 306, No. 118145. January 2022 at 4 and 5.
⇡65Longden, Thomas et al. “‘Clean’ hydrogen? – Comparing the emissions and costs of fossil fuel versus renewable electricity-based hydrogen.” Applied Energy. Vol. 306, No. 118145. January 2022 at 4.
⇡66Longden, Thomas et al. “‘Clean’ hydrogen? – Comparing the emissions and costs of fossil fuel versus renewable electricity-based hydrogen.” Applied Energy. Vol. 306, No. 118145. January 2022 at 1.
⇡67Howarth, Robert W. and Mark Z. Jacobson. “How green is blue hydrogen?” Energy Science & Engineering. Vol. 9, Iss. 10. October 2021 at 1676 and 1677.
⇡68Howarth, Robert W. and Mark Z. Jacobson. “How green is blue hydrogen?” Energy Science & Engineering. Vol. 9, Iss. 10. October 2021 at 1676 and 1677.
⇡69Longden, Thomas et al. “‘Clean’ hydrogen? – Comparing the emissions and costs of fossil fuel versus renewable electricity-based hydrogen.” Applied Energy. Vol. 306, No. 118145. January 2022 at 1.
⇡70US Government Accountability Office (GAO). “Carbon Capture and Storage: Actions Needed to Improve DOE Management of Demonstration Projects.” GAO-22-105111. December 2021 at 11.
⇡71US Department of Energy (DOE). “Archer Daniels Midland Company: CO2 Capture from Biofuels Production and Storage into the Mt. Simon Sandstone.” FE0001547. April 2022 at 2.
⇡72Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). “2020 GHG Summary Report: Archer Daniels Midland Co.” 2020 at 4 and 5; EPA. “Class VI Wells Permitted by EPA.” Available at Class VI Wells Permitted by EPA | US EPA. Accessed August 2022.
⇡73Gollakota, Sai and Scott McDonald. “Commercial-Scale CCS project in Decatur, Illinois – Construction Status and Operational Plans for Demonstration.” Energy Procedia. Vol. 63. 2014 at 5988 and 5989.
⇡74Edwards, Ryan W. J. and Michael A. Celia. “Infrastructure to enable deployment of carbon capture, utilization, and storage in the United States.” PNAS. Vol. 155, No. 38. 2018 at E8815 and E8816.
⇡75Dias de Oliveira, Marcelo E. et al. “Ethanol as Fuel: Energy, Carbon Dioxide Balances, and Ecological Footprint.” BioScience. Vol. 55, No. 7. July 2005 at 596.
⇡76Sherrard, Allan. “ADM starts commercial-scale CCS at Decatur ethanol plant.” BioEnergy International. April 20, 2017; Wu, May. Argonne National Laboratory. “Energy And Water Sustainability in The U.S. Biofuel Industry.” June 2019 at 11 to 13; US Energy Information Administration (EIA). “Frequently Asked Questions (FAQS): What are Ccf, Mcf, Btu, and therms? How do I convert natural gas prices in dollars per Ccf or Mcf to dollars per Btu or therm?” Accessed June 2022. Available at Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) - U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA); US Environmental Proection Agency (EPA). “Greenhouse Gas Equivalencies Calculator.” Accessed June 2022. Available at Greenhouse Gas Equivalencies Calculator | US EPA;
Note: 350 million gallons is a conservative estimate see RFA numbers at 375 million here: Ethanol Biorefinery Locations

Calculation 1. 350 million * 24,310 Btus natural gas/gallon = 8,508.5 billion BTUs per year/1,037 = 8.2 billion cubic feet natural gas * .11616 million metric tons CO2eq per billion cubic feet NG produced & burned (precleared from emissions factors from supply side report) = .953 million metric tons CO2eq annually (includes CH4 leaks)
Calculation 2. 350 million * .747 kwh = 261.45 million kWh =.113 million metric tons CO2 (EPA GHG calc)
Calculation 3. .953+.113 = 1.066 million metric tons.
⇡77Archer Daniels Midlands. “Carbon Reduction Feasibility Study.” March 30, 2020 at 10.
⇡78Scully, Mellissa J. et al. “Carbon intensity of corn ethanol in the United States: state of the science.” Environmental Research Letters. Vol. 16. March 2021 at 14.
⇡79U.S. DOE. “Alternative Fuels Data Center Fuel Properties Comparison.” January 2021 at 1; Sherrard, Allan. “ADM starts commercial-scale CCS at Decatur ethanol plant.” I April 20, 2017; Lark, Tyler J. et al. “Environmental outcomes of the US Renewable Fuel Standard.” PNAS. Vol. 119 No. 9. February 2022 at 1;
Calculation 1. 350 million gallons * (76,330btu/gallon * 0.001055058 megajoules per btu = 80.53257714Mj/gallon) 80.5 MJ/gallon(estimate) =28,186 million MJ *115.7 grams/MJ (ethanol emissions from lark) 3261166.7 million grams = 3,261 million kg = 3.261 million metric tons.
⇡80Lark, Tyler J. et al. “Environmental outcomes of the US Renewable Fuel Standard.” PNAS. Vol. 119 No. 9. February 2022 at 1.
⇡81Hill, Jason et al. “Climate consequences of low-carbon fuels: The United States Renewable Fuel Standard.” Energy Policy. Vol. 97. August 2016 at 351 and 352.
⇡82Wu, May. Argonne National Laboratory. “Energy And Water Sustainability in The U.S. Biofuel Industry.” June 2019 at 2.
⇡83Gollakota, Sai and Scott McDonald. “Commercial-Scale CCS project in Decatur, Illinois – Construction Status and Operational Plans for Demonstration.” Energy Procedia. Vol. 63. 2014 at 5988 and 5989.
⇡84Archer Daniels Midland Company. [Press Release]. “ADM Begins Operations for Second Carbon Capture and Storage Project.” April 7, 2017.
⇡85Edwards, Ryan W. J. and Michael A. Celia. “Infrastructure to enable deployment of carbon capture, utilization, and storage in the United States.” PNAS. Vol. 155, No. 38. 2018 at E8815 and E8816.
 
L

Luddite

Veteran Member
packyderms_wife said:
I don't understand this carbon capture BS.
Click to expand...
By design.

I'm old enough to remember that "global cooling" was gonna get us.

Acid rain was going to kill us all.

Sulfur dioxide was going to make our kids be born naked. ( Maybe I misremember that one)

NoX was the world's nemesis.

The power generation corporations used technology to mitigate and nearly eliminate these problems.

Now we blew right past global warming into climate change.

"It's the carbon stupid". Except I do rremember from middle school that co2 is vital for photosynthesis. Also question the constant scientific gymnastics to which we are subjected.

It was never about the environment. It has always been about control. Jmo

Eta: they claim to inject it into subterranean storage.
 
P

PrairieMoon

Veteran Member
Chance said:
Wonder if their governor can do something..she's a smart lady!
Click to expand...

Sadly, she seems to be all in for the big business in this case.

I have a good friend who has been on top of this for a while. She has been to the capitol and has spoken against this pipeline. She has told me they have asked who is behind all this and can't get a straight answer. Governor won't answer questions. Politics seem to be getting dirty, in South Dakota. :(

Eminent domain is being threatened. I've seen signs along the highways recently, in protest.
 
energy_wave

energy_wave

Has No Life - Lives on TB
This is all about creating a never ending supply chain to China. Just like solar and wind and EV's and gas appliances. They are creating laws that force Americans to buy crap from China so they always have that revenue stream and manufacturing so they can pay their senior's retirement while taking over the world.
 
P

Publius

TB Fanatic
One answer! Land Patent and no lawyer is going to help you acquire it or help you use it or in you're defense in a court of law! You're defending you're rights under the constitution organic as you are no longer part of the corporation.
Sorry I will no longer try and explain how to get the patent to the land as I have done that some 50 times or more.
 
FNFAL1958

FNFAL1958

Senior Member
It's funny these so-called greenie weenies always want to take others land but never their own. You want to decrease CO2 emissions then start in your own house before coming to mine.
 
Titan the Green

Titan the Green

WWG1WGA
packyderms_wife said:
I'm reading Meem's articles that she's posted and I still don't understand what happens to the carbon once it's captured. Are they planning to jettison it into outer space???
Click to expand...
Capture the CO2. Liquefy it. Run it through the pipeline. Drill it into the ground at the end. The end appears to be the oil fields of North Dakota. Are they using it for fracking maybe?

Just sounds dumb.
 
packyderms_wife

packyderms_wife

Neither here nor there.
Meemur said:
Basswood, Bur oak, elm, hornbeam . . . there are native trees. These are just not "pretty" trees. Most homeowners don't want to grow them.
Click to expand...

Also Hackberry, red bud, amber maple, cottonwood, sycamore, and willows.

All are meant to grow in the green belt areas and marshes. Not your lawn!
 
Meemur

Meemur

Voice on the Prairie / FJB!
I had a red bud in a sheltered area at my last house. It's still growing.

But, yeah, if I were farther into the country, I'd have a row of hornbeams.
 
Last edited:
packyderms_wife

packyderms_wife

Neither here nor there.
Meemur said:
I had a red bud in a sheltered area at my last house. It's still growing.

But, yeah, if I were further into the country, I'd have a row of hornbeams.
Click to expand...
I miss my red bud! I enjoy the hackberry trees because of the birds that come in late fall for the seeds!
 
P

PrairieMoon

Veteran Member
www.armstrongeconomics.com

The US Govt Seizing Farmland Under Eminent Domain | Armstrong Economics

https://rumble.com/v2sy028-the-south-dakota-carbon-pipeline.html
www.armstrongeconomics.com www.armstrongeconomics.com

Martin Armstrong has weighed in on this topic today.

A couple days ago I texted with my friend and asked about this. These are her words:

"We keep fighting against it! Please go to my page (FB) and see all the articles I've shard!! (I've not done this yet) My brother and I went to Leola for the rally that they had there! I met Trent Loos and Jared Bossly, the farmer who had summit enter into his house without permission while his wife was in the shower! Jared was 10 miles away planting, the company then entered his shed without permission!! This is the same farmer where they are going right through the middle of his yard to bury the pipeline! ... Iowa Governor is standing beside the landowners! Noem received $10,000 for campaigning, she side steps around the subject! Jared spoke with her, her comment, "do I have to fight everyone's battle" ... Out at Pierre, I had a pipeline lobbyist call me a radical, treehugger landowner! ... We just keep working, praying, writing letters, spreading the word! Thanks for asking!"

Very shady and reeks of government manipulation.
 
155 arty

155 arty

Veteran Member
PrairieMoon said:
www.armstrongeconomics.com

The US Govt Seizing Farmland Under Eminent Domain | Armstrong Economics

https://rumble.com/v2sy028-the-south-dakota-carbon-pipeline.html
www.armstrongeconomics.com www.armstrongeconomics.com

Martin Armstrong has weighed in on this topic today.

A couple days ago I texted with my friend and asked about this. These are her words:

"We keep fighting against it! Please go to my page (FB) and see all the articles I've shard!! (I've not done this yet) My brother and I went to Leola for the rally that they had there! I met Trent Loos and Jared Bossly, the farmer who had summit enter into his house without permission while his wife was in the shower! Jared was 10 miles away planting, the company then entered his shed without permission!! This is the same farmer where they are going right through the middle of his yard to bury the pipeline! ... Iowa Governor is standing beside the landowners! Noem received $10,000 for campaigning, she side steps around the subject! Jared spoke with her, her comment, "do I have to fight everyone's battle" ... Out at Pierre, I had a pipeline lobbyist call me a radical, treehugger landowner! ... We just keep working, praying, writing letters, spreading the word! Thanks for asking!"

Very shady and reeks of government manipulation.
Click to expand...
Time for a shot never heard from a place not seen !
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top