Carbon Capture Facts: News, Sports, Jobs
TL/DR –
The article is a letter to the editor by Randi Pokladnik, an Ohio Valley resident, criticising the establishment of a Carbon Capture and Sequestration (CCS) Hub in the Ohio River Valley. She argues that the CCS technology is expensive, unsuccessful and dangerous, citing concerns over environmental and safety hazards, exaggerated job creation claims, and taxpayer burden. She also mentions that CCS requires significant amounts of water and energy, adds to the risks of existing orphan oil wells, could lead to increased seismicity, and could result in higher electricity bills and tax credits.
The Ohio River Valley’s Carbon Capture Plans: A Resident’s Perspective
Randi Pokladnik, a long-time resident of Jefferson and Harrison Counties in the Ohio River Valley, has voiced her concerns over the proposed Carbon Capture and Sequestration (CCS) Hub in the region. She suggests that, despite promises of job creation and economic development, the hub’s true outcomes could be far less positive.
Theoretical Benefits Vs. Actual Repercussions
According to Pokladnik, the Ohio River Valley region has long suffered the consequences of extractive industries, bearing the responsibility for cleanup operations from mining activities. The proposed establishment of the CCS Hub, she fears, is no different. The hub is designed to store carbon dioxide (CO2) permanently underground via a network of pipelines and Class VI injection wells. It is backed by Tenaska, a company that received $55 million from the US Department of Energy.
However, according to Pokladnik, not enough information is being shared about the technology behind the hub. The Ohio River Valley Institute has questioned the job creation claims linked to the hub, suggesting that it may only “permanently employ a total of four people”. Pokladnik noted that the hub is a relatively new concept and hasn’t seen widespread success yet. Fewer than 30 nationwide wells have received permits since federal legislation was established in 2010.
Potential for Environmental Damage
Pokladnik also raises serious questions about the environmental safety of the hub. She cites numerous peer-reviewed studies that have shown potential safety hazards and environmental concerns from the capture site to the injection wells. The process of carbon capture includes the production, transportation, and disposal of toxic chemicals, posing a threat to local communities. She also notes the potential risk of CO2 leakage from the Class VI wells negating any carbon emission reductions.
Pokladnik underlines the potential threat to groundwater, citing recent incidents in Illinois. She also voices concerns about the risk posed by orphan oil wells, especially the injection of high-pressure CO2 in Ohio’s Appalachian counties. This risk is heightened by the seismic activity in the region, which could provide leakage pathways for sequestered CO2, according to a study published in Environmental Geosciences.
Who Foots the Bill?
Pokladnik also stresses the financial burden of the CCS retrofits on power plants, which will require significant water and energy resources. These costs, she argues, will likely be passed onto taxpayers through increased electricity bills. Tax credits for capturing CO2 will also weigh heavily on taxpayers, with the Inflation Reduction Act setting rates of $85 per ton for sequestered CO2.
In Pokladnik’s view, even though the Trump administration was trying to roll back environmental regulations, the push for CCS seems to contradict these efforts. Despite decades of research, there is no evidence that CCS can “significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions” or address the root causes of the climate crisis, according to the Geoengineering Monitor.
A PhD in Environmental Studies, Pokladnik serves as a board member for Ohio Valley Environmental Advocates. She currently resides in Uhrichsville.
—
Read More US Economic News