8,912
Life MemberLife Member
8,912

PostDec 12, 2008#26





Land acquisition completed for FutureGen plant



The companies hoping to build a $1.8 billion coal-fueled, near-zero emissions experimental power plant have completed the land acquisition in Mattoon, Ill.



The FutureGen Alliance and Coles Together recently combined funds to purchase the 400-plus-acre site, using nearly $3 million raised locally by Coles Together along with non-public Alliance funds provided by the group’s 13 member companies, including Peabody Energy Corp.





link

http://stlouis.bizjournals.com/stlouis/ ... ily65.html

2,772
Life MemberLife Member
2,772

PostDec 12, 2008#27

crbswiss wrote:There is no such thing as "Clean Coal." Even if the emissions at power plants can be significantly reduced, the mining alone emits huge amounts of carbon into the air, causes mercury and lead runoff into groundwater and topsoil, and destroys entire ecosystems. Not to mention all the carbon emissions released during the transport of the coal to the power station.


I found some statistics on your argument about there being "no such thing" as clean coal. Congratulations, you are in the minority!


* 72 percent of opinion leaders nationwide support the use of coal to generate electricity, a significant increase over the past year and the highest level of support since the group began polling nearly 10 years ago.

* When asked the question “do you believe coal is a fuel for America’s future?”- 69 percent of Americans agreed (compared to 26 percent who disagreed).

* 72 percent agreed that new technologies would allow coal-based electricity plants to meet an ultra-low emissions profile (near zero emissions including the capture and storage of carbon dioxide) within the next 10 to 20 years.

* 84 percent agreed developing new advanced clean coal technologies offered opportunities to create American jobs and export these technologies to other countries (65 percent).
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/New-Poll- ... 89413.html



The carbon is captured and actually pumped into the ground. I couldn't believe it when I was told that "environmentalists are, for the most part, happy with this idea." I assume that's because it's being pumped into the ground as opposed to release into the air.



In 2010 a federal law goes into affect that even high-sulfur coal can be sold, because there is going to be a requirement for coal burning plants to have scrubbers that clean the coal. At that time you will start seeing coal mines pop back up into southern Illinois, because the high sulfur coal is good to go. The requirement sets the bar so high (very low sulfur content) on the amount of sulfur allowed in coal, that the requirement is basically impossible without the use of the scrubbers. So even the lower-sulfur coal that is found in W. Va, Colorado, Wyoming, etc, will have too high a sulfur content to be burned.

362
Full MemberFull Member
362

PostDec 13, 2008#28

Well, I would have to agree that burning coal is in no way "clean." Coal is trapped carbon, basically, in non-fully decayed left over plants (the plants took millions of years to soak up that carbon and trap it all underground). Burning it releases that carbon that otherwise would have been safety locked away. So, I technically agree with the sentiment that there is no such thing as "clean" coal, no matter how you spin it.



But, on the other hand, you have to think about what is happening with carbon sequestration. You are just taking the carbon that was in the ground, burning the plant matter out of it, and returning the carbon back to the ground where it came from. If you can successfully sequester so that the carbon (now in the form of a gas instead of a solid) never gets out, and at the same time you are responsible in removing the coal so that there is not subsidence, then I say go for it. Given that solar, wind, water, etc. are all decades away from being substantial energy sources and no one wants nuclear in their backyards, carbon sequestration is a hell of a lot better than no carbon sequestration because either way we are going to be burning coal for a long time to come.

PostJan 29, 2009#29

The resurrection of FutureGen is on.



Both Missouri Senators, as well as both Illinois Senators, are involved in the process. Nice to see a little interstate cooperation.

2,929
Life MemberLife Member
2,929

PostMar 11, 2009#30

BUREAUCRATIC IDIOTS!


Wednesday, March 11, 2009, 2:52pm CDT

$500M math error found in FutureGen cost

St. Louis Business Journal - by Kelsey Volkmann



The U.S. Energy Department killed a proposed coal-fueled experimental power plant in Mattoon, Ill., based on a half-billion-dollar miscalculation, a new report shows.



The DOE mistakenly said the plant had doubled in price to $1.8 billion, prompting the Bush administration to dump the project after investing $170 million in it, according to a report from the U.S. Government Accountability Office.



In dismissing the project, former Secretary of Energy Sam Bodman inaccurately compared 2005 constant dollars, or dollars that reflect the purchasing power of money in 2005, with inflated dollars that would have been spent over the following years, according to the report.



In constant 2005 dollars, the plant would cost $1.3 billion, an increase of about $370 million, or about 39 percent, over DOE’s estimate, rather than a near doubling of costs, according to government auditors.



U.S. Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., has continued his push for the project, which could create 1,300 construction jobs and 150 permanent jobs.



“We always knew the DOE’s logic was flawed; now it turns out their math was wrong, too,” said Joe Shoemaker, a spokesman for Durbin.



Durbin and other lawmakers now hope that the project has received new life under the Obama administration and the new secretary of energy, Steven Chu. Durbin successfully pushed to include $1 billion in the federal stimulus package that could help pay for the plant.



In December, the FutureGen Alliance and Coles Together, the economic development organization for Coles County, bought a more than 400-acre site using nearly $3 million raised locally by Coles Together, along with other funds provided by the group’s 13 member companies, including St. Louis-based Peabody Energy Corp.





kvolkmann@bizjournals.com
Source: http://stlouis.bizjournals.com/stlouis/ ... rround=lfn



Focus: The politicians, the constituents, and the business community haven't forgotten FutureGen, and now they have more footing to fight for reinstatement of the program. With POTUS being from IL (albeit Chicago) and already throwing tens of billions out on a now daily basis ($30.8B to Freddie Mac this afternoon), he should have some good say for the proposal getting back on track.

6,662
AdministratorAdministrator
6,662

PostMar 11, 2009#31

How the hell does something like that happen, and no one catches it?

1,610
Totally AddictedTotally Addicted
1,610

PostJun 12, 2009#32

DOE advances on coal-burning plant in Illinois


WASHINGTON (AP) — The Department of Energy is moving forward on a futuristic coal-burning power plant in Illinois that the Bush administration had declared dead.

362
Full MemberFull Member
362

PostJun 14, 2009#33



So, its good to be back on track, I guess. I think there are new renderings at the FutureGen Alliance page.



Anyway, in this Post story, they say that although the project is back on track, instead of intending to capture 90% of emissions, the plan is to only capture 60% of emissions.



That seems a pretty big step down, doesn't it? At 90% capture, the multi-bullion dollar investment seemed worth it. At 60%, I sort of have to wonder.

12K
Life MemberLife Member
12K

PostJun 15, 2009#34

I think this plant is meant as a prototype. Presumably, they can learn from this one, and future plants will become progressively more efficient.

Read more posts (-16 remaining)