We will be performing maintenance on the SourceWatch wiki on Saturday, November 21, 2009, beginning at 11am EST. During this time, editing will be suspended and the wiki will be offline at times. The process will take several hours. We apologize for any inconvenience this may cause you. Thank you for your continued support of the SourceWatch project!

FutureGen

From SourceWatch

Jump to: navigation, search


This article is part of the Coal Issues portal on SourceWatch, a project of CoalSwarm and the Center for Media and Democracy.
This article is part of the coalSwarm coverage of "clean coal."
Sub-articles:
Related articles:

FutureGen is a proposed 275 megawatt (MW) coal-fired power station in Mattoon, Illinois which would trial the use of Carbon Capture and Storage technology.

Contents

[edit]

Initial Site Announcement

On Dec. 18, 2007, the FutureGen Alliance announced[1] their plans to build the experimental FutureGen coal-fired plant, which would attempt to capture and sequester CO2 emissions; the project would cost an estimated $1.8 billion, and is being billed as "the world’s first coal fueled, near zero-emissions power plant." Mattoon was selected over several other locations; in July 2007, Illinois lawmakers had approved an $80 million incentive package designed to lure the project to Illinois. Construction is planned to begin by July 2009.[2]

FutureGen announcement its preferred site, Scientific American reported, "over the objections of its primary government backer, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE).[3] In a media release issued on the same day as the FutureGen site announcement, the Department of Energy's Acting Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Fossil Energy, James Slutz, stated that "as the Department of Energy (DOE) has discussed with the FutureGen Alliance for the past several months, projected cost overruns require a reassessment of FutureGen's design." The release also noted that "DOE has not yet issued the Record of Decision (RoD), which is required to enable a final siting determination" and that the agency wanted a "restructuring" of the FutureGen proposal to "maximize the role of private sector innovation, facilitate the most productive public-private partnership, and prevent further cost escalation."[4]

[edit]

DOE Withdraws Support for the Project

In January 2008, the U.S. DOE indicated that it plans to pull its support from the plant in part because of ballooning costs.[5] In May 2008 the DOE released an outline of a proposed new funding strategy. Instead of pouring funds into the proposed Mattoon plant, DOE proposed the funding of a number of projects "to accelerate the near-term deployment of advanced clean coal technology by equipping new IGCC or other clean coal commercial power plants - that generate at least 300 megawatts of power - with CCS technology". It stated that it expected that this approach would "at least double the amount of carbon dioxide (CO2) sequestered compared to the concept announced in 2003."[6] In a June 13 letter to FutureGen, the DOE stated that it had terminated all funding for the Mattoon project and would withdraw from the Alliance.[7]

Faced with the collapse of DOE support for the project, the alliance has flagged that hopes to enlist sufficient support in Congress "to keep FutureGen at Mattoon alive until the next Administration takes office."[8] In July 2008, Senate appropriators did just that by approving legislation that would postpone decisions on FutureGen until the next presidential administration.[9]

In December 2008, the FutureGen Alliance acquired a 400-plus acre site on which to build the plant. The group and the Illinios Deparment of Commerce and Economic Opportunity also released a report with geophysical data confirming the site's suitability for storing carbon dioxide captured from the proposed coal plant. Supporters of the plant hope that the new Obama Administration will provide federal backing for the project.[10]

In March, 2009, the Majority Staff of the Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight of the Committee on Science and Technology released a report concluding that FutureGen was a "public relations ploy":[11][12]

Based on how easily the Department of Energy abandoned the FutureGen project, it appears that President Bush, Secretary Bodman and the Office of Management and Budget were never fully committed to the FutureGen project or its goal of developing technology to allow the use of coal without massive emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases and pollutants. In retrospect, FutureGen appears to have been nothing more than a public relations ploy for Bush Administration officials to make it appear to the public and the world that the United States was doing something to address global warming despite its refusal to ratify the Kyoto Protocol.
[edit]

Obama administration revives FutureGen

In June 2009, Energy secretary Steven Chu announced a provisional agreement with the FutureGen Alliance to revive the project. Chu said that FutureGen is an important step for the Obama Administration's commitment to carbon capture technology. "The FutureGen project holds great promise as a flagship facility to demonstrate carbon capture and storage at commercial scale. Developing this technology is critically important for reducing greenhouse gas emissions in the US, and around the world," Chu stated in a media release.[13]

The announcement of the DOE's renewed interest in the project was jointly announced in a media release by Chu and Assistant Senate Majority Leader Dick Durbin (D-IL). The media release quoted Durbin who claimed that "in my time in Congress, I can't recall a project that has greater scientific and practical significance than FutureGen, not to mention the enormous economic benefit it will have in Illinois."[13] In November 2008 Durbin had met with the board members of the alliance. Following the meeting, Durbin issued a media release in which he stated that "we are going to work hard to make sure that the new Secretary of Energy and the new Administration make an early commitment to FutureGen so we can move forward." Durbin also stated that others at the meeting were Congressman John Shimkus (R-IL), representatives from the offices of Congressmen Tim Johnson (R-IL) and Jerry Costello (D-IL). Durbin also boasted that since DOE's initial withdrawal he had written to "the White House to inform the President of his intention to hold all DOE nominations until FutureGen project moved forward. Durbin has held three nominations this year."[14]

The Department of Energy plans to contribute just over $1 billion to the project; most of the federal funds will come from the economic stimulus law. DOE plans to restart design work, issue an new cost estimate, and prepare an analysis of potential underground sequestration sites through early 2010. DOE will then reach a decision about whether to proceed.[15][16]

The agreement between DOE and FutureGen also requires "expansion of the Alliance sponsorship group." DOE also stated that "the FutureGen Alliance's total anticipated financial contribution is $400 million to $600 million, based on a goal of 20 member companies each contributing a total of $20 million to $30 million over a four to six year period. The Alliance, with support from DOE, will pursue options to raise additional non-federal funds needed to build and operate the facility, including options for capturing the value of the facility that will remain after conclusion of the research project, potentially through an auction of the residual interests in the late fall."[13] (As of June 2009, the Alliance had 11 member companies.)[17]

[edit]

Two companies withdraw from FutureGen Alliance

Less than two weeks after Chu's announcement that the FutureGen project was being revived, American Electric Power and Southern Company announced they were leaving the Alliance. AEP described the company's exit as purely a financial decision. Both companies said they would pursue their own clean coal initiatives.[18]

Michael J. Mudd, chief executive of the alliance, said the group had started with seven partners and at one point expanded to thirteen. The Alliance is now down to nine members and is seeking a total of twenty.[19] Former partners Luminant and PPL pulled out after the Bush administration withdrew support for the project.[20] Without a utility partner to take over the plant after construction and testing, the FutureGen project could again lose DOE support.[18]

[edit]

FutureGen Alliance Members

The DOE's private-sector partners on this project are[21]:

[edit]

Project details

Sponsor: U.S. Department of Energy and 11 coal and energy companies
Location: Mattoon, Illinois
Capacity: 275 MW
Type: Experimental carbon-capture
Projected in service: 2012
Status: Preliminary development

[edit]

Personnel

[edit]

Contact Details

Website: http://www.futuregenalliance.org/

[edit]

Financing

[edit]

Citizen groups

[edit]

SourceWatch resources

[edit]

External links

[edit]

References

  1. ↑ "FutureGen Alliance Selects Mattoon, Illinois as the Final Site for the First-of-a-kind, Near-Zero Emissions Coal-fueled Power Plant", Media Release, December 18, 2007.
  2. ↑ "Stopping the Coal Rush", Sierra Club, accessed December 2007.(This is a Sierra Club list of new coal plant proposals.)
  3. ↑ David Biello, "New Power Plant Aims to Help Coal Clean Up: A "clean coal" power plant is set to be built in Illinois in 2009; if it works, it could help avoid catastrophic global warming", Scientific American, December 19, 2007.
  4. ↑ "Statement Regarding FutureGen from DOE's Acting Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Fossil Energy James Slutz", Media Release, December 18, 2007.
  5. ↑ "Energy Dept. Pulls Support for FutureGen", Associated Press, January 30, 2008.
  6. ↑ "DOE Takes Next Steps with Restructured FutureGen Approach: Announces Draft Solicitation for Multiple Commerical-Scale Clean Coal Plants with Sequestration", Media Release, May 7, 2008.
  7. ↑ "Energy Department says it will formally withdraw from FutureGen partnership", Associated Press, June 13, 2008.
  8. ↑ "FutureGen Alliance Will Continue to Fight to Keep FutureGen at Mattoon Moving Forward", Media Release, June 16, 2008.
  9. ↑ "Senate panel freezes funding for restructured FutureGen", E&E News PM, July 8, 2008. (Access to this article requires a trial subscription.)
  10. ↑ "Land acquisition completed for FutureGen plant," St. Louis Business Journal, December 12, 2008.
  11. ↑ "The Passing of FutureGen: How the World’s Premier Clean Coal Technology Project Came to be Abandoned by the Department of Energy," Report by the Majority Staff of the Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight of the Committee on Science and Technology to Chairman Bart Gordon and Subcommittee Chairman Brad Miller, March 10, 2009
  12. ↑ Joseph Romm, "FutureGen was NeverGen from the Start," Gristmill, March 12, 2009
  13. ↑ 13.0 13.1 13.2 U.S. Department of Energy,"Secretary Chu Announces Agreement on FutureGen Project in Mattoon, IL: Paves Way for First US Commercial Scale Carbon Capture and Storage Project", Media Release, June 12, 2009.
  14. ↑ "Durbin Meets with FutureGen Alliance to Prepare for Next Congress", Media Release, November 20, 2008.
  15. ↑ "DOE Revives FutureGen, Reversing Bush-Era Decision," New York Times, June 12, 2009.
  16. ↑ "Stalled Clean Coal Plant Moving Ahead In Illinois," Associated Press, June 12, 2009.
  17. ↑ "Alliance Members", FutureGen Alliance, accessed June 2009.
  18. ↑ 18.0 18.1 "Utility Wanted: Loss of Coal Giants Ups Pressure On FutureGen, DOE," Earth2Tech, June 26, 2009.
  19. ↑ Matthew L. Wald, "Two Utilities Are Leaving Clean Coal Initiative," New York Times, June 26, 2009.
  20. ↑ "AEP, Southern pull out of FutureGen project," Reuters, June 25, 2009.
  21. ↑ "Alliance Members", accessed April 2008.
[edit]

External Articles

[edit]

U.S. Department of Energy Announcements

[edit]

General Articles

Retrieved from "http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=FutureGen"
Personal tools

This encyclopedia is written by people like you, so jump in.

Be a SourceWatcher!

Enter your e-mail address to get the Center for Media and Democracy's free weekly e-newsletter.