What a difference a month makes. No sooner did the FutureGen Alliance announce its long-awaited decision about the location of the zero-emissions demonstration plant than the DOE did an abrupt about-face and dropped out of the project, ostensibly due to its rising cost (Figure 1). There is no joy in Mattoon, Ill., these days.
1. The FutureGen that never will be. It looks as if an artist's conception may be all we'll ever see of FutureGen. The DOE abruptly backed out of the project and is now looking to invest in the carbon capture and sequestration portion of several commercial IGCC projects. Source: FutureGen Alliance; modification: Leslie Claire
The DOE attempted to soften the blow by noting that the department has decided to spread (hedge?) its investment dollars over a broader playing field by focusing on support of the carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology portion of several commercial integrated gasification combined-cycle (IGCC) plants now under development. The aim of the so-called “restructured” FutureGen remains the same: accelerate the commercial deployment of CCS technology—seen as crucial to the continued use of coal under an economywide CO2 cap—at IGCC plants.
The estimated cost of the original FutureGen rose from $1 billion when the project was first announced in 2003 to $1.8 billion today, although the DOE's cost-share commitment rose “only” from $800 million to $1.1 billion. The department said it “anticipates” that up to $1.3 billion will be available for the restructured project, subject to congressional appropriations from fiscal year 2007 through fiscal year 2020.
Taking a different path. The DOE quickly released a formal request for information (RFI) seeking expressions of interest from plant developers who would consider participating in the revised initiative. The RFI notes the restructured program “will help shape a competitive Funding Opportunity Announcement in the second quarter of the year.”
The goals for the new projects remain the same: demonstrate the feasibility and viability of the IGCC-CCS system but “at a commercial scale of at least 300 MW per unit plant power train, per demonstration.” Qualifying projects will be required to demonstrate approximately 90% CO2 capture and storage and the ability to store 1 million metric tons of the gas annually in a saline aquifer. However, for these new projects, the DOE will contribute “not more than the incremental cost associated with CCS technology.”
Insulating the department from a reprise of the inevitable cost escalation of such projects, the RFI stipulates that, “Since under this approach FutureGen is focused on a commercial power train, the project recipient will be responsible for absorbing project cost growths with the remainder of the plant as it would in any other commercial venture.”
Qualifying plants must be capable of 99% sulfur removal and 90% mercury removal. They also must have a nitrogen oxides emission rate of less than 0.05 lb/mmBtu and a particulate emission rate of less than 0.005 lb/mmBtu. In addition, qualifying projects must help establish standardized technologies and protocols for the deployment of IGCC-CCS, including those for CO2 monitoring, mitigation, and verification. Furthermore, the DOE wants projects to demonstrate that IGCC-CCS plants meet commercially accepted operability and reliability standards and can accurately quantify the CO2 storage potential of possible underground reservoirs.
Congress unhappy with decision. The reaction on Capitol Hill was unsurprising. “After our meeting today, it is clear that Secretary of Energy Sam Bodman has misled the people of Illinois, creating false hope in a FutureGen project which [the DOE] has no intention of funding or supporting,” Sen. Richard Durbin (D-Ill.) said in a written statement. “In 25 years on Capitol Hill, I have never witnessed such a cruel deception.”
Not helping Bodman sooth all those ruffled political feathers was C.H. “Bud” Albright, a DOE undersecretary. During a conference call with supporters of FutureGen after the DOE's retreat from the project, he said the federal government isn't interested in “building Disneyland in some swamp in Illinois.” Albright's written apology followed quickly after Sen. Dick Durbin and Rep. Timothy Johnson, R-Ill. excoriated Albright for insulting the Land of Lincoln.
Mickey and Goofy were unavailable for comment.
Email
Comments
Print
Reuse
