Nancy Dugan lives in Altoona, Iowa and has worked as an online editor for the past 12 years.

Dr. Mark Z. Jacobson is a Professor of Civil and Environmental Engineering and also serves as Director of the Atmosphere/Energy program at Stanford University, where he has worked for 30 years. He’s spent decades studying ethanol and carbon capture and has published two books that extensively explore those subjects as part of his broader research work examining clean, renewable energy solutions: 100% Clean, Renewable Energy and Storage for Everything (2020), No Miracles Needed (2023).

Thus, Jacobson’s work places him in the eye of the storm surrounding Summit Carbon Solutions’ plan to capture and carry “9.5 million metric tonnes per annum (MMTPA) of CO2 collected from the 34 ethanol facilities, although the pipeline has the potential to carry more.”

Environmental Science & Technology, a biweekly peer-reviewed scientific journal of the American Chemical Society, published Jacobson’s most recent study on October 26. That study, called Should Transportation Be Transitioned to Ethanol with Carbon Capture and Pipelines or Electricity? A Case Study, was funded in part by the Sierra Club.

Jacobson’s study builds upon his direct testimony on behalf of the Sierra Club Iowa chapter, which was filed with the Iowa Utilities Board on July 24, 2023. According to Cedar Rapids attorney Wally Taylor, who serves as legal chair of the Sierra Club Iowa chapter, Jacobson’s testimony stands unrefuted in the record.

No Miracles Needed, Jacobson’s most recent book, was published by Cambridge University Press in February 2023. It primarily addresses three problems: air-pollution-related health damage, climate damage, and risks to energy security caused by our reliance on fossil fuels. The book is identified as a bestseller on the Cambridge bookshop website and was also named one of Cambridge’s Books of the Year 2023.

Jacobson agreed to answer five questions for Bleeding Heartland related to the proposed Summit Carbon pipeline. Those questions and his corresponding answers follow.

1. Below is a quote from Bruce Rastetter of Summit Agricultural Group, founder of Summit Carbon Solutions, at an American Carbon Alliance event held in August:

We’re in a competition with electric vehicles, and we have to lower the carbon footprint, work with the oil and gas industry to maintain the combustion engine, and the reality is, every one of our plants that’s signed up with us has engineering plans being drawn up today to grow by 25 percent. That means more corn consumption when we’re headed to $4 corn, record land values, and it’s really dependent upon that market for corn domestically, and increasing value. And ultimately jet fuel is the big market coming up for ethanol, that if you have lower carbon scores, these plants will qualify for sustainable aviation fuel, which is a 50 billion gallon market compared to 15 billion gallons on the combustion engine today.

I’ve juxtaposed the statement above with the following quote from your most recent study:

As of August 2023, the base manufacturer’s suggested retail price of the Ford F-150 4WD extended range BEV (battery-electric vehicle) was $69,995,⁴⁰ and that of the F-150 4WD, 8-cylinder FFV (flex-fuel vehicle) was $48,290.⁴⁰ Thus, the cost difference was $21,705. Even with this upfront cost difference and assuming the difference for new electric vehicles disappears after 15 years, the net fuel cost minus upfront vehicle cost savings to drivers over 30 years is still $39.5−$65.6 billion (USD 2023), still 7−12 times Summit’s investment (Table 1). The reason for the large benefit of wind plan A is that combustion fuels are extremely inefficient. A BEV travels about 3.7 times the distance as an equivalent FFV running on E85 for the same energy (Table 1). This difference, combined with the relative prices of electricity versus E85, gives enormous fuel cost savings due to BEVs. Summit’s investment in an ethanol pipeline will lock in five states to promote a very inefficient fuel for decades to come.

What would you say to Iowans who regard electric vehicles as a threat to the combustion engine and also attribute corn’s profitability in the U.S. to the ethanol sector?

Jacobson: Vehicles powered by gasoline, diesel, ethanol, and biodiesel all emit chemicals from their tailpipes that harm human health by causing cardiovascular disease, chronic bronchitis, emphysema, respiratory illness, lung cancer, stroke, asthma, and many other ailments that often lead to death or severe illness. Electric vehicles eliminate these tailpipe emissions by 100 percent.

Even if the electricity for electric vehicles is produced from 100 percent coal, the health effects of electric vehicles are far less than the health effects of combustion vehicles because the fraction of tailpipe emissions breathed in by humans is 25-30 times that of power plant emissions. In Iowa, however, over 65 percent of all electricity produced is from wind, so it is not from coal, so electric vehicles substantially reduce health effects of Iowans, saving them substantial money in insurance rates, workers’ compensation rates, taxes, medical bills and more.

What is more, even with the higher upfront cost of electric vehicles, the low electricity cost of electric vehicles compared with the cost of ethanol and gasoline saves purchasers of electric vehicles billions of dollars over 30 years. It is far more profitable to the population of Iowa as a whole to move to electric vehicles and for farmers to grow corn for food, rather than fuel, while leasing some of their property for wind or solar. Photosynthesis is only 1 percent efficient. Solar PV panels are 20 percent efficient, so solar PV replacing corn for fuel increases the energy output of land by a factor of 20.

2. Rastetter holds out sustainable aviation fuel as a “savior” of the ethanol industry in the above quote. On May 15, Summit Agricultural Group announced the creation of Summit Next Gen, “a sustainable aviation fuel production platform that will revolutionize the global aviation industry by providing a scalable supply of low-carbon jet fuel.” Summit stated that it will use Honeywell’s ethanol to jet (ETJ) technology to convert ethanol into sustainable aviation fuel (SAF), and that the facility will be located “in the U.S. Gulf Coast region.” Honeywell issued a corresponding press release that same day.

Five days before the Summit Next Gen announcement, Honeywell announced the introduction of its UOP eFining technology, which will be deployed by Chile-based HIF Global to produce eSAF at its first U.S. SAF facility. The process uses hydrogen created from electricity and water and captured CO2 to produce methanol for conversion to sustainable fuels. According to Renato Pereira, CEO of HIF USA, “Honeywell and HIF Global together will transform recycled CO2 into a useful feedstock to replace fossil fuels in the very hard to abate aviation sector.”

How do you address these technologies, which appear to justify ethanol production, as well as CO2 production as a “useful feedstock,” to lower the carbon footprint of the airline industry?

Jacobson: The term “sustainable aviation fuel” is a greenwashing term. There is no health or climate benefit of biofuels used for aviation. Such biofuels still emit gases and particles that affect health and climate and that produce contrails. It is far better to develop battery-electric aircraft for short-haul and mid-haul flights and hydrogen-fuel-cell-electric aircraft for long-haul flights. Both eliminate all gas and particle air pollutants. Electric aircraft eliminate contrails entirely as well. Hydrogen-fuel-cell-electric aircraft emit only water vapor, thereby reducing contrail thickness by about 90 percent.

3. In October 2022, the Iowa Utilities Board denied a request to conduct an environmental impact study (EIS) on the potential effects of the proposed Summit Carbon and Navigator pipelines. The ruling stated in part: “As found by the Board in the Dakota Access docket, the Board does not consider a separate EIS beyond the statutory requirements in Iowa Code chapter 479B to be necessary.”

Your recent study did much of this work for the Board and the affected states. The study cited another of your works that addressed ethanol’s effects on water use, which was published in a 2009 issue of Energy & Environmental Science, a monthly peer-reviewed scientific journal of the Royal Society of Chemistry. The title of that research study is Review of solutions to global warming, air pollution, and energy security, and the abstract stated in part the following: “The largest consumer of water is corn-E85.”

New concerns have recently arisen regarding Summit Carbon’s water use in preparing the CO2 for the proposed pipeline. Additionally, Iowa is experiencing a protracted drought, and a 2020 Climate Central study ranked Iowa among the top three states most vulnerable to drought.

Can you speak generally to the issues of water use and water pollution as they relate to both ethanol production and carbon capture and sequestration?

Jacobson: Around 13 percent of all corn grown in the U.S. is irrigated. As more corn is grown to produce ethanol for fuel, proportionately more water is used. Using wind or solar to provide electricity for battery-electric vehicles eliminates all such irrigation water needed.

4. You’ve recently posted on X about China’s massive surge in renewables in 2023. A November 30 article in the Australian Financial Review cited two new reports which show that “China is building wind and solar at twice the rate of the US and Europe combined, and also leading the way with huge energy storage installations.”

TPG Rise is one of Summit Carbon’s major investors, and one of TPG’s anchor investors is the China-based Silk Road Fund. Another major Summit Carbon investor is SK E&S, a subsidiary of Korea-based SK Group. Yet another SK subsidiary, SK Engineering & Construction Co. Ltd., pleaded guilty to defrauding the U.S. Army in 2020 and was fined $68.4 million by the U.S. Department of Justice. In its most recent SEC Form D filing, dated May 12, 2022, Summit Carbon Holdings identified a total of 464 investors in its proposed pipeline project, the vast majority of whom remain unknown.

I’m concerned about the failure of the U.S., as one of the most developed countries in the world, to track ownership of a project that may pose security threats, and this characterization comes from Summit Carbon itself.

Can you speak to any potential U.S. energy security issues you may have identified relative to the Summit Carbon pipeline?

Jacobson: The major energy security risk associated with the Summit pipeline project is that it increases carbon dioxide by a factor of 2.4-4 and consumer costs in the five states at issue by $44-66 billion over 30 years compared with using the same money to purchase wind and battery-electric vehicles due to the higher cost of ethanol versus electricity. It also results in higher food costs, more land used, more water used, and more air pollution. These costs drain the resources of the United States, making the U.S. less competitive in a global market.

5. Can you offer some Iowa-specific recommendations that may help the residents of this state better understand what is at stake and potentially allay some of their concerns, particularly among farmers who may view a threat to the ethanol industry as a threat to their livelihoods?

Jacobson: It is far better for residents of Iowa to invest in battery-electric vehicles and wind and solar to provide the electricity for such vehicles. In comparison with corn for ethanol with carbon capture and pipes plus flex-fuel vehicles, wind powering battery electric vehicles reduces carbon dioxide by a factor of 2.4-4 and reduces consumer costs by many billions of dollars over 30 years.

Using wind and battery-electric vehicles also reduces food costs, land use, water use, and air pollution. Farmers can benefit by leasing some of their land for solar PV and/or wind. Putting wind on their land does not reduce their corn yields but results in extra income. Putting solar on their land increases the energy output of their land by a factor of 20 because growing corn for energy is only 1 percent efficient (since photosynthesis is 1 percent efficient), whereas PV on the same land is 20 percent efficient.

Top photo of Dr. Mark Z. Jacobson is published with permission