February 15, 2010
A critical clean coal project could kick in early this year. FutureGen, which got its start in 2003 but which lost steam late in the Bush administration, purports to be a near zero-emissions power plant that seeks to capture and bury carbon dioxide.
While the Obama administration has been warm to the idea, the facility's odds of getting built are a lot greater now that the president has given it an official thumb's up in his state-of-the-union speech. The central drawback -- the one that caused the previous administration to pull the plug -- is the potential costs. That facet along with setting the criteria to evaluate performance is presently under discussion.
"The current administration and the Department of Energy have been great supporters of the FutureGen project," says Lawrence Pacheco, spokesman for the FutureGen Alliance. "The alliance is optimistic about these discussions. It's been an ongoing process and we are finding the same level of optimism now as we did before the president gave his state-of-the-union speech."
Specifically, FutureGen would be a 275 megawatt facility that uses integrated gasification combined cycle technology, called coal gasification, which has the potential to capture the carbon. The technology converts coal to a vapor before the toxins are filtered out and the carbon dioxide would be separated from the hydrogen, which could be used to produce transportation fuel.
The federal government would contribute slightly more than $1 billion while private companies would add another $400 million to $600 million. The Bush administration had become skittish of the project after its earlier cost estimates had jumped from $1 billion to $2.5 billion. That price tag is holding steady.
President Obama gave developers a newfound hope, although his administration has insisted on knowing how the additional money would be raised and how the already allocated funds would be spent. His administration has promised a decision by the end of the first quarter of 2010. The FutureGen Alliance would then expect to break ground later in the year and to complete the facility by 2014.
To help pay for it all, the FutureGen Alliance just announced that Illinois-based Exelon has joined its cause. Chief executive John Rowe says that coal remains the nation's primary fuel source and that it is the industry's responsibility to work to "reduce or even eliminate" heat-trapping emissions.
"The carbon capture and sequestration technologies planned for this flagship facility are vitally important to America and the world," says Energy Secretary Steven Chu. "This step forward demonstrates the Administration's commitment to developing clean energy technologies, creating jobs, and reducing emissions of greenhouse gases."
Calculated Risk
Chu's comments came at a time when the Obama administration was trying to pass the federal stimulus bill. The subsequent funding of the project will come from this measure. But rather than dive headfirst into it, the White House says it will all be done in phases. That is, it will be operated in the early years to capture 60 percent of carbon emissions so as to validate capabilities. After three years, however, the goal is to capture 90 percent.
While some in environmental community call advanced coal technology an illusion, others recognize the heavy dependence on the fossil fuel and are therefore reserving judgment on FutureGen and coal gasification. Any progress would be mitigated if carbon capture is not included, they say, noting that they still emphasize a concentration of public wealth on developing green energy.
"It looks like FutureGen will suck up a lot of money at a time when deficits are growing," says Frank O'Donnell, president of Clean Air Watch. "It seems like a dubious investment at a time when we are bleeding red ink."
But the reality is that coal provides about half of the nation's electric generation and about 250 years worth of reserves now exists. If the country didn't produce at the levels it currently does -- about 2.8 million tons a day -- then it would have double the present rate of natural gas production. That's possible too. But policymakers would then have some difficult choices to make.
The decision has been to diversify the nation's mix of generation fuels. In his address to the country, President Obama recommitted himself to building out a green energy platform. But he also said unequivocally that nuclear, clean coal and natural gas would also be part of the solution.
Indeed, the same gasification technologies that would be used in FutureGen could also be applied to natural gas plants, although coal facilities are a better market because they emit a lot more greenhouse gases. Older coal-fired units, meanwhile, could be retrofitted. But such remedies are costly and less efficient than building coal gasification plants.
The problem in any case is the expense. But it is the hope of the FutureGen Alliance that after the government has provided the seed money the private sector could then assume the risks. "The more you build, the more plant prices will come down," says Mike Mudd, chief executive of the FutureGen Alliance, in an earlier interview with this writer. "Once we get dozens of them, then we will be able to see the availability and performance."
Odds are that FutureGen will get restored. It's a calculated risk. But given the current role of coal in electricity production, it's a venture some say is necessary so as to chart a new course while maintaining the country's productivity.
More information is available from Energy Central:
Respond to the editor.
Ken Silverstein EnergyBiz Insider Editor-in-Chief
Read Ken's Blog
