The Fight

Sign In or Create an Account.

By continuing, you agree to the Terms of Service and acknowledge our Privacy Policy

Q&A

How Carbon Pipeline Fights Hurt Direct Air Capture

A conversation with Kajsa Hendrickson, Carbon180’s director of policy

How Carbon Pipeline Fights Hurt Direct Air Capture

This week I spoke with Kajsa Hendrickson, director of policy at Carbon180, about why they’re eager to talk about the social concerns involved in direct air capture (DAC) and how conflicts over carbon pipelines are hurting DAC projects too. We talk a lot about renewables here on The Fight but DAC is a crucial part of decarbonization and it has a host of conflicts that’ll be familiar to our readers.

The following is an abridged version of our conversation. Let’s get started…

How do the conflicts over DAC compare to fights against solar and wind farms?

“There are a lot of overlaps in the conflicts that can exist between DAC and more traditional energy systems. That is the reality. The difference is, so much of DAC is being funded by the federal government so we want to see those higher standards come into play about where communities should be engaged, what engagement should entail.”

“Plus, DAC is fundamentally a public good. The goal of it is to do something that is benefiting all of us writ large and that’s why it can’t follow traditional extractive models coming out of even some of the solar industry.”

What do you mean by solar being extractive?

“The approach to communities tends to be, cool, his project is coming in, there’s going to be some jobs, here’s how it’s going. And there might be a community benefits process there.

“What we’d like to see with DAC, whether it’s funded by DOE or not, is ideally communities get a choice as to whether or not a project comes to them. Communities get some form of prior engagement in determining whether or not they’d like to host a DAC site.”

How does the conflict over the Summit Carbon Solutions CO2 pipeline impact local support for other forms of carbon management, especially DAC?

“Infrastructure around CO2 is going to be a pain point. We at Carbon180 don’t really advocate for or support CCS. That being said, how the pipelines are being deployed, how developers engage with communities on CCS, is going to very much influence DAC. We fundamentally see DAC as serving a public good and CCS not necessary, but that doesn’t change the fact they’re likely going to have shared infrastructure and that the two of them are often going to be paired together.”

“I can’t speak to any of the particular specific details on the Summit pipeline other than that we have been hearing concerns about that, and concerns about what that means for the CO2 landscape as a whole. Just like any other burgeoning industry, negative handling of any particular project is going to look bad for the rest of them. I’d love to see developers proactively engage communities effectively, focusing on their rights, to allow CO2 storage.”

So there’s a blast radius from Summit’s controversy?

“Very much so. DAC and CCS often get conflated. Well informed organizations still refer to them interchangeably. Regardless of whether we like it or not, pipelines are going to be an extremely big expense for DAC, something that doesn’t have as much of an immediate [thing] it’s selling – it’s already facing an uphill financial battle.”

Some in the environmental justice activism space are against DAC. What would you say to an activist who is a no on DAC?

“It’s funny because I actually have several friends who work in environmental justice and I have this conversation with them.”

“What I would say is that we’re a boat in the middle of the ocean. We have holes in the middle of the boat that are the carbon coming into the air. And first thing, foremost, we’ve got to plug the holes. You don’t prioritize bailing out the water before closing the holes. That’s why decarbonization and DAC have to go hand in hand, it can’t be one or the other.”

“I understand where the criticisms come from. Is DAC a false climate solution? Is this something that’s going to allow us to continue to perpetuate fossil fuels?”

“As we are decarbonizing, by the time we get decarbonized, we won’t be able to just scale up DAC at that point. We have to scale up now so by the time we get decarbonized we’re able to get those legacy emissions.”

This article is exclusively
for Heatmap Plus subscribers.

Go deeper inside the politics, projects, and personalities
shaping the energy transition.
To continue reading
Create a free account or sign in to unlock more free articles.
or
Please enter an email address
By continuing, you agree to the Terms of Service and acknowledge our Privacy Policy
Spotlight

The Loud Fight Over Inaudible Data Center Noise

Why local governments are getting an earful about “infrasound”

Data center noise.
Heatmap Illustration/Getty Images

As the data center boom pressures counties, cities, and towns into fights over noise, the trickiest tone local officials are starting to hear complaints about is one they can’t even hear – a low-frequency rumble known as infrasound.

Infrasound is a phenomenon best described as sounds so low, they’re inaudible. These are the sorts of vibrations and pressure at the heart of earthquakes and volcanic activity. Infrasound can be anything from the waves shot out from a sonic boom or an explosion to very minute changes in air pressure around HVAC systems or refrigerators.

Keep reading...Show less
Yellow
Hotspots

An Anti-Battery Avalanche Outside Seattle

And more on the week’s top fights around project development.

The United States.
Heatmap Illustration/Getty Images

1. King County, Washington – The Moss Landing battery backlash is alive and well more than a year after the fiery disaster, fomenting an opposition stampede that threatens to delay a massive energy storage project two dozen miles east of Seattle.

  • Moss Landing looms large in Snoqualmie, a city in the Cascade Mountains where Jupiter Power is trying to build Cascade Ridge Resiliency Energy Storage, a 130-megawatt facility conveniently located on unincorporated county land right by a substation and transmission infrastructure.
  • To say residents nearby are upset would be an understatement. A giant number of protestors – reportedly 650 people, which is large for this community of about 14,000 – showed up to rally against the project this weekend, just as Jupiter Power submitted its application for the project to county regulators.
  • The opposition is led by Snoqualmie Valley for Responsible Energy, a grassroots organization that primarily has focused on the risk of thermal runaway from battery storage events and rhetoric about the Moss Landing fire. “The battery chemistry proposed for Cascadia Ridge has not been verified in any public filing. Recent incidents illustrate what is at stake,” state SVRE strategy materials posted to their website.
  • Jupiter Power has tried to combat this campaign with its own organizing coalition – dubbed “Keep the Lights On!” – that includes local union labor and some environmentalists, including volunteers for Sierra Club. This campaign has emphasized how modern engineering around battery storage is nothing like the set-up was at Moss Landing.
  • However, the concerned voices are winning out over those who want the storage project. On Wednesday night, this outcry led the Snoqualmie city council at a special meeting to vote to request via letter for the storage project to be relocated and communicate that dissent to both the local utility, Puget Sound Energy, and King County.
  • “We encourage consideration of alternate locations within the Puget Sound Energy transmission and distribution system to better address the concerns that have been raised,” read a draft version of the letter presented by councilors at the meeting.
  • Jupiter Power told me it “welcome[s] any feedback from the community” and King County said in a statement, “We understand the concerns.” PSE told me they had not “received official notification about the formal action by the City Council and we can't comment on something we have not received.”
  • This degree of on-the-ground frustration will be challenging for any higher-level decision maker in Washington State to ignore. I’d argue the entire storage sector should be watching closely.

2. Prince Williams County, Virginia – It was a big week for data center troubles. Let’s start with Data Center Alley, which started to show cracks this week as data center developer Compass announced it was pulling out of the controversial Digital Gateway mega-project.

Keep reading...Show less
Yellow
Q&A

Is the Left Making a ‘Massive Strategic Blunder’ on Data Centers?

A conversation with Holly Jean Buck, author of a buzzy story about Bernie Sanders’ proposal for a national data center moratorium.

Holly Jean Buck.
Heatmap Illustration

This week’s conversation is with Holly Jean Buck, an associate professor at the University of Buffalo and former official in the Energy Department’s Office of Fossil Energy and Carbon Management. Buck got into the thicket of the data center siting debate this past week after authoring a polemic epistemology of sorts in Jacobin arguing against a national data center ban. In the piece, she called a moratorium on AI data centers “a massive strategic blunder for the left, and we should think through the global justice implications and follow-on effects.” It argued that environmental and climate activists would be better suited not courting a left-right coalition that doesn’t seem to have shared goals in the long term.

Her article was praised by more Abundance-leaning thinkers like Matthew Yglesias and pilloried by some of the more influential people in the anti-data center organizing space, such as Ben Inskeep of Citizens Action Coalition of Indiana. So I wanted to chat with her about the discourse around her piece. She humbly obliged.

Keep reading...Show less
Yellow