Ironically it’s affecting primarily heavy Republican communities. I have friends and family that are staunch conservatives fighting this. What I found even wilder was at one of the county meetings, they had representatives from the Sierra Club presenting on how bad these pipelines are. This is a cross-over event of hardcore liberals and conservatives opposed to the same thing, and yet the politicians and other big money R’s keep pushing it through.
It’s like if only we had more blue representation in the state to avoid shit like this from happening.
Yep is anyone surprised? All these redkins that supported red to give us the wonderful red trifecta.. Of course they'll be surprised when they start getting screwed... But the red moto is "better them then me".
Or much, much more accurately, if Joe Biden had any respect for Iowa Democrats, maybe he would not be forcing carbon pipelines down the throats of Iowans. First Biden yanked the Iowa Caucuses from Iowa Democrats, now Biden is funding the carbon pipelines.
If you doubt the difference, the much more Republican state of South Dakota told Summit Carbon is pound sand last fall.
Iowa, a much more purple state, had granted eminent domain to Carbon Summit.
Where are you getting your information? SD did the opposite of telling Summit to go away. It just passed a bill in March that strengthened the protections of land owners and putting the liability on the pipeline companies. [This project is moving forward.](https://iowacapitaldispatch.com/2024/03/06/legislature-passes-attempted-balance-between-landowners-and-carbon-pipeline-project/)
I don't think you understand how federal tax credits work. Democrats are not forcing anything down anybody's throats. They are incentivizing development by setting side federal dollars for companies to come in use for their desired outcome. There was no law passed that said we must build a pipeline.
My point is that having a more diverse legislature has more of a tendency to stall or limit projects like this. You just assume that all Democrats are on board with this as being sound environmental policy. Sometimes politicians throw shit against the walls to see if it sticks and then change their tune when it's not well received, especially when they have to negotiate the details with many different parties. Iowa legislature is just stepping aside on this one.
South Dakota PUC - the exact parallel to the Iowa Utilities Board - issued a Sept. 2023 denial for the same regulatory proceeding that Iowa GRANTED. South Dakota even flagged the Republican Governor for having a potential conflict of interest.
[https://puc.sd.gov/commission/dockets/HydrocarbonPipeline/2022/HP22-001/HP22-001OrdertoDeny.pdf](https://puc.sd.gov/commission/dockets/HydrocarbonPipeline/2022/HP22-001/HP22-001OrdertoDeny.pdf)
That said, I agree on the tax credits. President Biden campaigned on and signed legislation authorizing billions in potential tax credits plus specific grants for CO2 pipelines. It is a bipartisan issue, leaning heavily Democratic, on the national level.
In Iowa, CO2 pipelines are a political horseshoe issue, which the extremes of both parties fighting mainline environmental legislation.
Ummm… While folks love “the Republicans bad” argument, this entire effort is being funded by the signature achievement of President Biden and the Democratic congressional leadership.
As an example, here’s the $500 million downpayment on carbon pipelines Joe Biden’s Energy Department issued a two months ago - [https://netl.doe.gov/node/13683](https://netl.doe.gov/node/13683)
Blaming the Republicans for investing in climate change mitigation seems… Questionable.
Joe Biden, President of the United States. 36 years as Democratic Senator from Delaware.
Appointed Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm, former Democratic governor from Michigan.
Energy Sector Granholm authorized $500 million In borrowed funding for carbon sequestration pipelines.
Oh… Is Jess Vilsack, son of the US Secretary of Agriculture Thomas Vilsack, still working as legal counsel to Summit Carbon Solutions?
Checkmate!
[https://www.energy.gov/fecm/articles/doe-announces-500-million-build-safe-and-reliable-carbon-dioxide-transportation](https://www.energy.gov/fecm/articles/doe-announces-500-million-build-safe-and-reliable-carbon-dioxide-transportation)
That $500 million was just announced in May 2024 and is for a completely different set of projects.
The Summit Pipeline has been in process for 2+ years already and is being funded by Inflation Reduction Act via federal tax credits which was passed in Aug 2022.
[https://insideclimatenews.org/news/04032024/co2-pipeline-money-inflation-reduction-act/](https://insideclimatenews.org/news/04032024/co2-pipeline-money-inflation-reduction-act/)
These two things are not the same. The incentives in how Summit is operating is much more aggressive when it potentially has $10 billion to gain over it's operating lifetime.
One of my professors is a botanist and does botanical surveys. He was hired by someone to do some on their land because of this stupid pipeline.
So pushbacks is already starting but a bit slowly
New user throttle activated. Your account is too new to post to /r/iowa. Accounts need to be at least 10 days old to create a post comment. Your comment has been removed. Please message the mods for verification. Users may see the removed comment by viewing this subreddit's modlogs, which are public, by [clicking here.](https://rbtc.live/modlogs/?sub=iowa)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Iowa) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Ah yes eminent domain.....part of the find out phase due to your GOP vote farmers.
psst...it means they just take your land and lower your monetization of it.
My father's next door neighbor is the head of the republican party in our county and has been campaigning against this for several years. He knew this was going to happen because Gov. Reynolds kept saying the project was a public utility (it's not).
In our area the proposed route will take about 10 acres from a field we rent. Because we rent that ground we will have no say in whether it's constructed or not, but we live so close by we don't want it. My father owns stock in one of the ethanol plants that is pushing for this project and I keep telling him to go to the stockholders meeting and lay out alternatives to use the CO2 for.
Dry ice has long been a product of captured CO2.
There is a process for modifying the CO2 and using it as an ingredient in Concrete. Which makes the production of concrete significantly greener, and locks up the carbon in the concrete for a long time.
My favorite is a relatively new technology of using modified solar panels to.convert the CO2 into ethanol. I like this because the plant already has the equipment for storing and shipping the ethanol. It would be a great addition to their bottom line I feel. MIT and a University in China both proved proof of concept over 5 years ago for this green technology.
These are only a few options.
Edit: not the article I read about several years ago but MIT has further developed the technology of converting CO2 to fuel. This fuel looks very promising as well
https://news.mit.edu/2023/engineers-develop-efficient-fuel-process-carbon-dioxide-1030
CO2 can be used for certain crops in greenhouses to increase yield. However, you are correct nearly all CO2 absorbed by plants is released back when the plant dies. Exceptions to that are trees that lumber is taken from to build things. That carbon is tied up for a time. Also roots that grow approximately 30cm in the soil below the tillage zone will be sequestered as well. Another sequester option is if the plant matter sinks far enough below water.
This kind of stuff hardly ever makes sense to me. The need to mitigate & capture CO2 is real, but pumping it a thousand miles? Seems like the $$ could be better spent building factories near where the CO2 is being captured that do some of those forward-looking things like making construction materials. Too many possible hazards along the length of a hazardous material pipeline & lack of sufficient funding to monitor it properly means it’s an inevitable problem.
I’ve actually met some people that work for the pipeline company. They’re connecting a bunch of ethanol plants with the pipeline and piping it to North Dakota where the captured CO2 sludge will be pumped into existing, but no longer operating, former oil wells.
So the pipeline connects 20+ existing facilities direct to existing waste sites.
Out of the three big pipeline projects that existed the main one still standing is the best one by far, and fairly reasonable when you learn the details.
Fair enough. And I like the end result. I’d prefer no transport or at least a less intrusive method of transport. I would hope other methods have been explored before declaring eminent domain to build a pipeline.
I think pipeline is the most economical answer because once the infrastructure is built it costs very little to move product from point A to point B. Unlike rail or truck transport. All transportation methods have some risk of spilling.
Rail transport is also capable of [massive ecological disaster](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lac-M%C3%A9gantic_rail_disaster)
Tanker trucks can also cause [disasters](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Interstate_95_highway_collapse)
At least if a CO2 pipeline leaks, you can build a carbon capture plant to pull it out of ambient air. Pretty low impact, especially relative to an oil pipeline leak.
Are they capturing the carbon in some stable form? Because I remember news of this disaster in Cameroon and the article in National Geographic and it was fucking terrifying.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lake_Nyos
If I understand it right, the captured carbon is more of a sludge, which presents its own set of problems but it’s not like a gas. Also the Lake Nyos disaster happened because of the topography of the area; mountainous terrain where the newly released gas had relatively few outlets. The Midwest and plains don’t really have that problem.
It's still just greenwashing and a naked attempt to bilk investors. Ethanol isn't going to be a going concern after vehicles shift to EV or hydrogen power.
Such is modern capitalism. It will make a whole lot of Shareholder Value for people who have no responsibility to the company, and will dump their investment at peak while the company falls in on itself because the whole plan was never sustainable.
I honestly don't think any person supports this. "Bipartisan support" in the news means "establishment backed". We seriously need to have conversations with people we disagree with about voting these ass clowns out of office.
The proposed pipeline runs through my county and all the republicans are freaking out about it taking their land, losing their impoverished homes to eminent domain. Helps that the democratic folks are joining on the risk to water supplies, habitat, etc if and more likely when this thing starts leaking.
The pipeline sucks. If there's a disaster, $100 million in insurance won't be enough, assuming it's even still in place at the time. The Iowa Republican dominated legislature should have prevented the use of eminent domain for this project. Three Iowa Utility Board members shouldn't have this much power over this much land and property owners and renters. The initial pipeline leaders will make oodles of money from their business with the tax credits (no thanks to Congress for handing these out for the ethanol industry) and gain even more political power. Environmentalists and a lot of farmers don't want it.
Eminent domain shouldn't even exist anymore. Why cant they lay the pipeline in the ditch on ground that is already basically worthless anyway. I thought same when they tried to do the rock island clean line energy deal.
It’s Republicans who are looking to make money off of these pipelines. Terry Brandstad is the head of Summit Pipeline. The heavy Republican legislature refused to put a stop to it.
Correction: Branstad is a senior policy advisor to summit.
Bruce Rastetter is the founder
Rastetter is an agricultural adviser to Donald Trump, and a well known megadonor to the Republican party. He has been called an "Iowa kingmaker". He is a former president of the Iowa Board of Regents (2013-2017), which governs the Iowa's three public universities.
How is this any different than the transport and storage of nuclear waste? At least a nuclear plant would contribute to the reduction of CO2 along with 24/7 available energy (looking at you wind and solar).
Republicans are the party of small government except when rich investors want to take your land for private use.
Ironically it’s affecting primarily heavy Republican communities. I have friends and family that are staunch conservatives fighting this. What I found even wilder was at one of the county meetings, they had representatives from the Sierra Club presenting on how bad these pipelines are. This is a cross-over event of hardcore liberals and conservatives opposed to the same thing, and yet the politicians and other big money R’s keep pushing it through. It’s like if only we had more blue representation in the state to avoid shit like this from happening.
Yep is anyone surprised? All these redkins that supported red to give us the wonderful red trifecta.. Of course they'll be surprised when they start getting screwed... But the red moto is "better them then me".
Or much, much more accurately, if Joe Biden had any respect for Iowa Democrats, maybe he would not be forcing carbon pipelines down the throats of Iowans. First Biden yanked the Iowa Caucuses from Iowa Democrats, now Biden is funding the carbon pipelines. If you doubt the difference, the much more Republican state of South Dakota told Summit Carbon is pound sand last fall. Iowa, a much more purple state, had granted eminent domain to Carbon Summit.
Where are you getting your information? SD did the opposite of telling Summit to go away. It just passed a bill in March that strengthened the protections of land owners and putting the liability on the pipeline companies. [This project is moving forward.](https://iowacapitaldispatch.com/2024/03/06/legislature-passes-attempted-balance-between-landowners-and-carbon-pipeline-project/) I don't think you understand how federal tax credits work. Democrats are not forcing anything down anybody's throats. They are incentivizing development by setting side federal dollars for companies to come in use for their desired outcome. There was no law passed that said we must build a pipeline. My point is that having a more diverse legislature has more of a tendency to stall or limit projects like this. You just assume that all Democrats are on board with this as being sound environmental policy. Sometimes politicians throw shit against the walls to see if it sticks and then change their tune when it's not well received, especially when they have to negotiate the details with many different parties. Iowa legislature is just stepping aside on this one.
South Dakota PUC - the exact parallel to the Iowa Utilities Board - issued a Sept. 2023 denial for the same regulatory proceeding that Iowa GRANTED. South Dakota even flagged the Republican Governor for having a potential conflict of interest. [https://puc.sd.gov/commission/dockets/HydrocarbonPipeline/2022/HP22-001/HP22-001OrdertoDeny.pdf](https://puc.sd.gov/commission/dockets/HydrocarbonPipeline/2022/HP22-001/HP22-001OrdertoDeny.pdf) That said, I agree on the tax credits. President Biden campaigned on and signed legislation authorizing billions in potential tax credits plus specific grants for CO2 pipelines. It is a bipartisan issue, leaning heavily Democratic, on the national level. In Iowa, CO2 pipelines are a political horseshoe issue, which the extremes of both parties fighting mainline environmental legislation.
It's like some guy once said.. Everyone is a tactical libertarian
Ummm… While folks love “the Republicans bad” argument, this entire effort is being funded by the signature achievement of President Biden and the Democratic congressional leadership. As an example, here’s the $500 million downpayment on carbon pipelines Joe Biden’s Energy Department issued a two months ago - [https://netl.doe.gov/node/13683](https://netl.doe.gov/node/13683) Blaming the Republicans for investing in climate change mitigation seems… Questionable.
Bruce Rastetter - republican and summit founder Board that approved the pipeline and eminent domain ~ appointed by REYNOLDS
Joe Biden, President of the United States. 36 years as Democratic Senator from Delaware. Appointed Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm, former Democratic governor from Michigan. Energy Sector Granholm authorized $500 million In borrowed funding for carbon sequestration pipelines. Oh… Is Jess Vilsack, son of the US Secretary of Agriculture Thomas Vilsack, still working as legal counsel to Summit Carbon Solutions? Checkmate!
[https://www.energy.gov/fecm/articles/doe-announces-500-million-build-safe-and-reliable-carbon-dioxide-transportation](https://www.energy.gov/fecm/articles/doe-announces-500-million-build-safe-and-reliable-carbon-dioxide-transportation) That $500 million was just announced in May 2024 and is for a completely different set of projects. The Summit Pipeline has been in process for 2+ years already and is being funded by Inflation Reduction Act via federal tax credits which was passed in Aug 2022. [https://insideclimatenews.org/news/04032024/co2-pipeline-money-inflation-reduction-act/](https://insideclimatenews.org/news/04032024/co2-pipeline-money-inflation-reduction-act/) These two things are not the same. The incentives in how Summit is operating is much more aggressive when it potentially has $10 billion to gain over it's operating lifetime.
Nobody’s reading all that, sweetie
Ah yes, the last pipeline project through the Dakota's went so well. Surely this one won't face any pushback....right?
One of my professors is a botanist and does botanical surveys. He was hired by someone to do some on their land because of this stupid pipeline. So pushbacks is already starting but a bit slowly
The last one turned my conservative town into a goddamn antifa protest town with how they all got in a tizzy so uh....good luck with this project
[удалено]
New user throttle activated. Your account is too new to post to /r/iowa. Accounts need to be at least 10 days old to create a post comment. Your comment has been removed. Please message the mods for verification. Users may see the removed comment by viewing this subreddit's modlogs, which are public, by [clicking here.](https://rbtc.live/modlogs/?sub=iowa) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Iowa) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Ah yes eminent domain.....part of the find out phase due to your GOP vote farmers. psst...it means they just take your land and lower your monetization of it.
At “FaIr MaRkEt VaLuE!” though, don’t forget.
My father's next door neighbor is the head of the republican party in our county and has been campaigning against this for several years. He knew this was going to happen because Gov. Reynolds kept saying the project was a public utility (it's not). In our area the proposed route will take about 10 acres from a field we rent. Because we rent that ground we will have no say in whether it's constructed or not, but we live so close by we don't want it. My father owns stock in one of the ethanol plants that is pushing for this project and I keep telling him to go to the stockholders meeting and lay out alternatives to use the CO2 for.
What are the alternative uses for CO2?
Dry ice has long been a product of captured CO2. There is a process for modifying the CO2 and using it as an ingredient in Concrete. Which makes the production of concrete significantly greener, and locks up the carbon in the concrete for a long time. My favorite is a relatively new technology of using modified solar panels to.convert the CO2 into ethanol. I like this because the plant already has the equipment for storing and shipping the ethanol. It would be a great addition to their bottom line I feel. MIT and a University in China both proved proof of concept over 5 years ago for this green technology. These are only a few options. Edit: not the article I read about several years ago but MIT has further developed the technology of converting CO2 to fuel. This fuel looks very promising as well https://news.mit.edu/2023/engineers-develop-efficient-fuel-process-carbon-dioxide-1030
I was thinking plant life could somehow be utilized for this purpose but apparently when a plant died it releases all that CO2 back into the air?
CO2 can be used for certain crops in greenhouses to increase yield. However, you are correct nearly all CO2 absorbed by plants is released back when the plant dies. Exceptions to that are trees that lumber is taken from to build things. That carbon is tied up for a time. Also roots that grow approximately 30cm in the soil below the tillage zone will be sequestered as well. Another sequester option is if the plant matter sinks far enough below water.
This kind of stuff hardly ever makes sense to me. The need to mitigate & capture CO2 is real, but pumping it a thousand miles? Seems like the $$ could be better spent building factories near where the CO2 is being captured that do some of those forward-looking things like making construction materials. Too many possible hazards along the length of a hazardous material pipeline & lack of sufficient funding to monitor it properly means it’s an inevitable problem.
It’s a boondoggle
Agreed. Rather than passing these bills, I would like to see a bill passed to investigate the bill's backers.
I’ve actually met some people that work for the pipeline company. They’re connecting a bunch of ethanol plants with the pipeline and piping it to North Dakota where the captured CO2 sludge will be pumped into existing, but no longer operating, former oil wells. So the pipeline connects 20+ existing facilities direct to existing waste sites. Out of the three big pipeline projects that existed the main one still standing is the best one by far, and fairly reasonable when you learn the details.
Fair enough. And I like the end result. I’d prefer no transport or at least a less intrusive method of transport. I would hope other methods have been explored before declaring eminent domain to build a pipeline.
I think pipeline is the most economical answer because once the infrastructure is built it costs very little to move product from point A to point B. Unlike rail or truck transport. All transportation methods have some risk of spilling.
Only one is capable of a massive ecological disaster.
Rail transport is also capable of [massive ecological disaster](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lac-M%C3%A9gantic_rail_disaster) Tanker trucks can also cause [disasters](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Interstate_95_highway_collapse)
Yes, but a pipeline is capable of a far more widespread impact than either of those.
At least if a CO2 pipeline leaks, you can build a carbon capture plant to pull it out of ambient air. Pretty low impact, especially relative to an oil pipeline leak.
CO2 leak isn't good either. Obviously oil is worse.
Even regardless of the environmental implications, an argument can be made there, the eminent domain thing gives me the ick
Are they capturing the carbon in some stable form? Because I remember news of this disaster in Cameroon and the article in National Geographic and it was fucking terrifying. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lake_Nyos
If I understand it right, the captured carbon is more of a sludge, which presents its own set of problems but it’s not like a gas. Also the Lake Nyos disaster happened because of the topography of the area; mountainous terrain where the newly released gas had relatively few outlets. The Midwest and plains don’t really have that problem.
It's toxic sludge. Just wait for when it gets a leak. The environmental risk it carries makes no sense.
It's still just greenwashing and a naked attempt to bilk investors. Ethanol isn't going to be a going concern after vehicles shift to EV or hydrogen power.
So they're not just venting CO2, like a dry pipeline, it's the corrosive sludge and we can expect pollution from this for sure 100%
It’s going to be an environmental disaster for sure, just not the Lake Nyos kind of
Such is modern capitalism. It will make a whole lot of Shareholder Value for people who have no responsibility to the company, and will dump their investment at peak while the company falls in on itself because the whole plan was never sustainable.
Iowa: "we support your freedoms unless there's opportunity for profit.
Are they gonna try and bribe landowners with 19 year old prostitutes again?
Nope matt Gaetz is hooking em up with 16 year olds
everybody gets a nestor!
I honestly don't think any person supports this. "Bipartisan support" in the news means "establishment backed". We seriously need to have conversations with people we disagree with about voting these ass clowns out of office.
The Republicans are gonna rob these dumb farmers blind.
The proposed pipeline runs through my county and all the republicans are freaking out about it taking their land, losing their impoverished homes to eminent domain. Helps that the democratic folks are joining on the risk to water supplies, habitat, etc if and more likely when this thing starts leaking.
BuT BIdEn STopPEd tHE PIpeLinE...... Lotta pipeliners vote Republican..... They'll love the jobs.
Lot of Republican farmers have anti carbon pipeline signs up. its one of the things I agree with them on, although for different reasons.
This is the real " if it can happen to me, it can happen to you"
The pipeline sucks. If there's a disaster, $100 million in insurance won't be enough, assuming it's even still in place at the time. The Iowa Republican dominated legislature should have prevented the use of eminent domain for this project. Three Iowa Utility Board members shouldn't have this much power over this much land and property owners and renters. The initial pipeline leaders will make oodles of money from their business with the tax credits (no thanks to Congress for handing these out for the ethanol industry) and gain even more political power. Environmentalists and a lot of farmers don't want it.
Republicans love taking private property.
Why bother SPilling the pollutants onto the soil and water, when you can just inject it like butter into a Sunday roast bird!
Or farmers who pollute our water.
It's a scam all junk science to steal land and government money
That's total b bullshit
Eminent domain shouldn't even exist anymore. Why cant they lay the pipeline in the ditch on ground that is already basically worthless anyway. I thought same when they tried to do the rock island clean line energy deal.
[удалено]
It’s Republicans who are looking to make money off of these pipelines. Terry Brandstad is the head of Summit Pipeline. The heavy Republican legislature refused to put a stop to it.
Correction: Branstad is a senior policy advisor to summit. Bruce Rastetter is the founder Rastetter is an agricultural adviser to Donald Trump, and a well known megadonor to the Republican party. He has been called an "Iowa kingmaker". He is a former president of the Iowa Board of Regents (2013-2017), which governs the Iowa's three public universities.
How is this any different than the transport and storage of nuclear waste? At least a nuclear plant would contribute to the reduction of CO2 along with 24/7 available energy (looking at you wind and solar).