Lee Beck, the Clean Air Task Force’s international director for carbon capture, said the Iowa projects “embody the next generation of carbon management projects” in which private companies and investors see a viable future for the technology.The rise of carbon capture has split environmentalists. Some say it’s worth trying anything to avert climate disaster. Others argue that carbon capture is a waste of money that may make things worse by extending the life of polluting industries.
“We do have to try anything,” said Gregory Nemet, who studies how public policy can spur climate-friendly technology at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. “If we want to deal with the climate problem and make it safe, we have to get to net zero emissions by 2050, and that’s not that far away.” The liquified emissions would be shot through 2,000 miles of pipelines that would snake northward, gathering more carbon dioxide fromin five states before arriving at a storage site in Bismarck, North Dakota. The carbon dioxide would then be driven thousands of feet underground into massive, porous rock formations that would later be capped.
Summit says its plan would help ethanol plants, which are facing an uncertain future with the rise of electric cars, to stay in business by becoming purveyors of an increasingly valuable commodity: fuel with a lower carbon footprint, prized by California and other states with low-carbon fuel standards.
South Dakota landowner Rick Bonander testified against Summit Carbon Solutions' proposed carbon dioxide pipeline on March 15.The project requires approval from the Iowa Utilities Board before construction can begin, a decision that isn’t expected to be made for months.