FutureGen Scrapped, CCS to be Demonstrated on Multiple Clean Coal Power Plants

From a DOE announcement:

DOE announced a restructured approach to its FutureGen project that aims to demonstrate cutting-edge carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology at multiple commercial-scale Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle (IGCC) clean coal power plants.

Under this strategy, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) will join industry in its efforts to build IGCC plants by providing funding for the addition of CCS technology to multiple plants that will be operational by 2015.  This approach 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 concept announced in 2003.  . . .

The Department today issued a Request for Information (RFI) that seeks industry’s input by March 3, 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 Funding Opportunity Announcement – or 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 megawatts, with CCS technology aimed at accelerating near-term technology deployment.  . . .

Under this 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 FutureGen concept announced in 2003 where 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.  . . .

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.

I think this approach is much better than the original, provided it does not delay the demonstration of CCS and the following legislation to require CCS, or equivalent technology, on future coal fired plants.

Comments

[Charles Barton]

Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle is another bone to the fossil fuels industries. It is as expensive as nuclear to build, far more expensive to operate, produces pollutant including enormous amounts of CO2, and thus may be shut down before it ever pays back the original investment.

[Gary Reysa]

I guess it could be a better plan than FutureGen, which seemed have a very long time table. But, I don't see anything that guarantees that there will be industry participation. What do they do if no one signs up to build the IGCC plants?

Good article on cleaning up coal:
http://www.nrdc.org/onearth/05fal/coal1.asp

Gary

[GreyFlcn]

Something a lot of people ignore, is that CO2 is a much bigger molecule than plain Carbon.

__Molar Weight of C: 12.01kg
Molar Weight of CO2: 44.01kg
Over 3.5x as big

This is why cars are able to spew out their own weight in CO2 every year.

_

This of course has storage implications as well.

According to MIT’s 2007 “Future of Coal” study, capturing and compressing just 60 percent of the carbon dioxide produced by U.S. coal-fired power plants would demand a new pipeline network big enough to move 20 million barrels of liquefied carbon dioxide each day from power plants to suitable sequestration sites (which depend on particular geology)—a volume equal to all the oil piped daily throughout the country. Sequestration sites would have to be honestly administered, closely monitored, and tightly sealed. Such demanding technical requirements led journalist Jeff Goodell to write that “the notion of coal as the solution to America’s energy problems is a technological fantasy” www.orionmagazine.org/index.php/articles/article/506
_

Even if carbon capture was cheap, and compatible with all existing power plants, the cost of this infrastructure, (and the parasitic loads) required by it would be astronomical.

[bigTom]

I've found that I can no longer credibly argue that CCS can/will be built. The skeptics who beleive it is just a distraction while the industry pursues business as usual have the better case.

[averagejoe]

What about using biochar as one of the methods of carbon sequestration? Using pyrolysis methods, biomass can be turned into electricity or liquid fuels with biochar as a co-product. Why not fertilize crop lands with biochar (and maybe some rock dust for trace minerals)? Whatever beliefs a person holds regarding the magnitude of greenhouse gas effects, most people would agree that restoring soil fertility is a good thing.

[bigTom]

averagejoe: That is a good thing to do. I doubt the volume of CO2 reduction possible is big enough, but everybit helps. And its not like soil depletion isn't a big problem. I think I read the other day that at the rate we are using soil we have 40 years of soil left.

[DaveMart]

bigTom,
Agrichar is a massively important technology, and potentially could not only do much to restore the decline in soil fertility you note, especially on marginal lands, but whilst doing so could contribute a lot to feeding the extra 3 billion people likely in the next 50 years, and contribute towards liquid fuel supplies whilst solving the issue of carbon sequestration:

'That means turning unimproved soil into terra preta can store away more carbon than growing a tropical forest from scratch on the same piece of land, before you even start to make use of its enhanced fertility. Johannes Lehmann of Cornell University in Ithaca, New York, has studied with Glaser and worked with Sombroek. He estimates that by the end of this century terra preta schemes, in combination with biofuel programmes, could store up to 9.5 billion tonnes of carbon a year — more than is emitted by all today's fossil-fuel use4.'

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v442/n7103/full/442624a.html

A transformational technology if ever there was one!

[Lead Acid Battery]

Nice work. I love reading your points!

[ukrainske]

I guess it could be a better plan than FutureGen, which seemed have a very long time table. But, I don't see anything that guarantees that there will be industry participation.

[coalportal]

It is a bit of juggling game in the coal industry and coal prices from underground mines to ensure enough electricity and steel capacity worldwide while making sure the impact on the environment and people is minimal. www.coalportal.com

[coalportal]

coal statistics would suggest the commodity isn't going anywhere. Coal reports show if we have to live with it, we may as well reduce the impact of coal and CCS seems to be the best solution found to date. Cherry www.coalportal.comWhile for some an ideal world would see no reliance on coal industry to produce electricity,

[Furniture Stores Burbank]

Glad you think this is better than the original idea. Any improvements are good!

[Auto Lease Los Angeles]

Why didn't FutureGen work?

[Dentist Los Angeles]

I am glad the DOE is getting involved with this.

[Air Purifiers]

Gary had a good point, what if no one signed up to help build these plants? Is there an update on this?

[Therapist San Francisco]

Was there a follow up to this article? I am wondering what the industry input in March 2008 was...

[Reversing sensors]

So the government won't help with as many of these costs since it's a different project? Isn't that bad?

[SEO Services]

I am glad you like this approach better, I hope it is doing better than FutureGen.

[Core Drilling Machine]

The article is well written..And thanks for sharing this with us..It created a lot of awareness..I think most of the people are not aware of this point..I am hoping for more post from you..

[acting classes los angeles]

Hope this is working out...

[Microsoft Office 2010]

The new President will have to embrace this exact plan if the United States is to avoid economic catastrophe.

[las vegas wedding chapels]

I guess it could be a better plan than FutureGen, which seemed have a very long time table. But, I don't see anything that guarantees that there will be industry participation.