Twitter headlines« SwRI Full-Load Study of Scuderi Split-Cycle Engine Indicates Higher Power, Torque and Efficiency Than Conventional Engines of Equal Displacement | Main | PACCAR to Use SCR and EGR for 2010 Engine NOx Requirements »
DOE Restructures Its Approach to FutureGen
30 January 2008
The US Department of Energy (DOE) is restructuring its commitment and approach to the planned $1.5-billion FutureGen project, which would have resulted in the construction and operation of a prototype 275 MW plant that would co-produce electricity and hydrogen from coal with essentially zero emissions, including carbon dioxide emissions, which would be captured and sequestered. (Earlier post.)
The restructured approach will focus on separating carbon dioxide for CCS in multiple future IGCC plants. DOE will support industry in building IGCC (Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle) plants by providing funding for the addition of CCS technology to multiple plants. The new approach does not include support for hydrogen production.
This approach, said Bodman, builds on technological research and development advancements in IGCC and CCS technology achieved over the past five years and is expected to at least double the amount of carbon dioxide sequestered compared to the FutureGen concept originally announced in 2003. It also reduces the financial commitment from the federal government.
Under the new plan, DOE’s investment would provide funding for no more than the CCS component of the power plant—not the entire plant construction, compared with the original FutureGen concept in which the federal government would incur 74% of rising costs. This would allow for commercial operation of IGCC power plants equipped with CCS technology to begin as soon as the plants are commissioned, between 2015 and 2016.
This restructured FutureGen approach is an all-around better investment for Americans. As technological advancements have been realized in the last five years, we are eager to demonstrate CCS technology on commercial plants that when operational, will be the cleanest coal-fired plants in the world. Each of these plants will sequester at least one million metric tons of carbon dioxide annually and help meet our nation’s rapidly growing energy demand.
—Secretary Bodman
Concurrent with the announcement, the DOE issued a Request for Information (RFI) that seeks industry’s input by 3 March 2008, on the costs and feasibility associated with building clean coal facilities that achieve the intended goals of FutureGen.
Following this period and consideration of industry comment, DOE intends to issue a competitive solicitation to provide federal funding under cooperative agreements to equip IGCC (or other clean coal technology) commercial power plants that generate at least 300 MW, with CCS technology aimed at accelerating near-term technology deployment. Initial input from industry will assist in determining how many demonstrations can be commissioned.
The four sites—two in Illinois and two in Texas—evaluated in the Department’s Environmental Impact Statement issued in November 2007, including the site announced by the FutureGen Alliance in December 2007, Mattoon, IL, may be eligible to host a commercial-scale IGCC plant with CCS technology, according to the DOE. The site analysis and characterization data at these sites may be applicable to future environmental analyses under this restructured approach.
More than one site may be selected as a host for the commercial demonstration of CCS technology and DOE encourages applicants to include these four sites in their consideration for this restructured approach. Also, the FutureGen Alliance’s 13 member companies may compete with all the other applicants.
The official DOE announcement on FutureGen caps weeks of speculation on the future of the program that began following the failure of the DOE to immediately approve the site in Mattoon, Illinois selected by the FutureGen Industrial Alliance as the site to host the FutureGen power plant. (Earlier post.)
The FutureGen Alliance issued a statement in response to the restructuring, saying that it is committed to keeping the original project moving ahead at Mattoon.
Carbon capture and sequestration is an important technology, but it must be integrated with advanced power plant technology so that we understand the full system cost, performance and operating strategies.
FutureGen can deliver the needed technology with urgency. It will take four to five years for DOE to evaluate new proposals, place contracts, and conduct environmental reviews for new projects. FutureGen has crossed these hurdles and is positioned for success.
The Alliance remains committed to keeping FutureGen on track. We owe it to the people of Illinois, to the Alliance members who have contributed significant funds and resources to bring the project to this stage and to society which depends on technology to provide clean, affordable and secure energy.
The FutureGen Alliance is a non-profit organization representing some of the world's largest coal companies and electric utilities including: American Electric Power, Anglo American, BHP Billiton, the China Huaneng Group, CONSOL Energy Inc., E.ON U.S., Foundation Coal, Luminant, PPL Corporation, Rio Tinto Energy America, Peabody Energy, Southern Company, and Xstrata Coal.
Secretary Bodman also announced President Bush’s budget request of $648 million for the DOE Office of Fossil Energy’s advanced coal technology research, development and demonstration program for Fiscal Year (FY) 2009. The FY09 budget requests $407 million for coal research—including development of more efficient gasification and turbine technologies, innovations for existing coal power plants, and large-scale CCS injection tests—and $241 million to demonstrate technologies for cost-effective carbon capture and storage for coal-fired power plants, including $156 million for the restructured FutureGen approach and $85 million for DOE’s Clean Coal Power Initiative.
This $648 million request represents a $129 million increase from the President’s FY2008 request and is the largest amount requested for DOE’s coal program in more than 25 years.
January 30, 2008 in Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS), Coal, Hydrogen Production, Policy, Power Generation | Permalink | Comments (29) | TrackBack (0)
Comments
Posted by: Jay Alt | January 31, 2008 at 07:59 PM
Sounds like the Alliance will go forward in any case. Good. Last minute cancellation in cases like these usually arrive because someone has badly miscalculated what is to be given or taken away. If ever we are to see behind the facade this area of government hides behind - we're bound to find someone tampered with the mechanism and miscalculated the reaction. Now the only way to fix it is with reparation.
Posted by: Sulleny | February 01, 2008 at 12:07 AM
The FutureGen plant was canceled as soon as the DOE realized that Mattoon Illinois was the site selected.Two of the other sites were in Texas. They withheld their approval or disapproval until it was announced. The timing was extremely suspicious to all involved.
I am a Republican, but may end up voting Democratic due to environmental, alternative energy, vehicle controls, and other concerns.
Posted by: Ronald Wagner | February 16, 2008 at 11:09 AM
The Mattoon, IL site has the advantage of better geology. Two reasons there. I'm told the underlying sandstone/cap rock / saline aquifer is common throughout the midwest. It is shared by KY, WI, IN, OH and other states who are interested in the project.
http://sequestration.org/map.htm
In contrast, the geology of the 2 TX sites is specific to Texas. Also, the TX sequestration sites are in old oil fields that are full of holes. Sequestration tests need to find out if the CO2 stays put and won't leak up into drinking aquifers or out into the atmosphere. You can't find that out by putting it into an old oil-field riddled with unmapped test holes and abandoned wells.
Posted by: Jay Alt | February 18, 2008 at 11:53 AM
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c4fbe53ef00e55013d6ef8834
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference DOE Restructures Its Approach to FutureGen:
The solution, always to be evaded by this Administration, is putting a price on carbon. Then the technologies sort themselves out, but immature technologies need support early in the game. I think DOEs move is a bait-and-switch, brought on when Texas didn't have the best bid. DOE's politicized management will waste another year as new proposals are sought, then take action 1 week before Bush leaves office. New project completion dates would be shifted forward several more years . . .
The mantra is technology, technology, blah, bah. But always delay, delay, delay in taking action.
The FutureGen Alliance is ready to go. They have pledges for an additional $600+ million dollars so the taxpayer cost won't increase. That shows how important the project is to them. DOE has unwisely tried to make it everything to everyone. But the industries involved want had committed to a demonstration plant the basic concept: that gasifiers can be coupled to power generation and cleanup islands. That is the only way to get cost data for the system. I expect Congress to vote to continue the project and to put the money in the budget to keep it alive. A new administration of either stripe would continue the project.
The project will monitor a high volume CO2 sequestration, do caprock studies and extensive long-term monitoring. Those are necessary to prove whether or not sequestration is viable and safe. Sure the petroleum industry has injected CO2 and water for years, but they do no follow-up. An example of the monitoring to be done (whether FutureGen is built or not) is work by the Illinois State Geologic Survey. They'll study a site where ~1 million tons/year are to be injected.
http://www.isgs.uiuc.edu/
As to this being a project by 'adults', FutureGen was devised and approved on Bush's watch. He has boasted about it for 5 years. When DOE cancelled it at the last minute, it reflects the reality that their policy shift is driven by lobbyists, secret meetings and industry insiders rather than what is best for the country.