There's been lots of speculation that a FutureGen announcement may be coming soon:
Developers of a $1.5 billion experimental low-pollution power plant said today they are ready to announce whether it will be built in Illinois or Texas, despite an unexpected letter from their federal partner advising them to slow down.
The Futuregen Alliance, coal and power companies planning to construct the plant in partnership with the Department of Energy, says it will announce the plant’s future home at a news conference Tuesday in Washington, D.C.
Four towns — Mattoon and Tuscola in east-central Illinois, Jewett in east Texas and Penwell in west Texas — are in the running.
But a DOE official told FutureGen Alliance chief executive Michael Mudd in a letter Monday that the developers are moving too fast.
The department will not have issued what is known as a record of decision — a final step indicating all four sites are suitable — by Tuesday, wrote James Slutz, acting
principal deputy assistant secretary for fossil energy.Arrangements for the announcement “(were) done without any consultation with the department,” Slutz said.
“We consider it inadvisable for the alliance to schedule any site selection announcement or media advisory at this time without prior consultation with the department,” Slutz added.
Just a hunch: I think a delay hurts Illinois' chances.
(Hat tip: CapFax)
Welcome to the Club, Grody
Now you and I both are in the Hope to Hell we are completely wrong Club.
I agree, the delay sounds very suspicious to me, because administrative delays have nothing to do with technical suitability.
To that end, I am, and shall always remain;
Rex Bradfield
I also have to agree. It appears once again, politics trumps technical, an all to common course for this administration. I have also heard concerns regarding funding---namely the increased cost estimate has some of the private funding companies talking backout.
Well there you have it. A political genius, a world renowned engineer, and an Oil Man who is internationally known for his energy expertise, all agreeing. I guess we may as well fold our tents and head to Texas.
Anon 10:11, if you would really like to go ,,,I can arrange to have a one way ticket for you at the Greyhound counter by this afternoon. If you spent more time reading and understanding what these two people wrote,,,you would realize they know alot of good things. Even I know when I have crossed the line.
Illinois is not going to get it. Texas has the dirtiest electricity in the US. This will undoubtedly go to Texas.
So stop biting your fingernails. We're not getting it.
Thanks Byrd,
You know the really sad part of this is a very good idea and process for the entire Nation and World to benefit from, might not be as effective as it should be. Then we all suffer. We have struggled and struggled to find natural resources to bridge that gap until we can effectively use the energy of the sun and wind, and certainly here is a process that crosses a lot of that gap.
Illinois is the perfect site, and this should not even be a multiple state consideration, but it is. If it were California that is the perfect state, then I would support California, because the world benefits.
Alas, I am really crossing my fingers and hoping that clear minds will prevail.
Oil man,
What you mentioned about the funding is something of which I was unaware, care to expand?
To that end, I am, and shall always remain;
Rex Bradfield
"Well there you have it. A political genius, a world renowned engineer, and an Oil Man who is internationally known for his energy expertise, all agreeing. I guess we may as well fold our tents and head to Texas."
Which one is the political genius?
;-)
Gordy I mean' t to tell that anon,,,,,,3 people,,,,,sorry :)
Rex---here is the latest report publicly available late spring from the group: http://www.futuregenalliance.org/publications/fg_icdr_052507_v2.pdf
I am just hearing from contacts within DoE and the power industry, the 1+ billion dollar cost projection in addition to no Federal Funding allocation as yet, has increased. Hopefully, this will not have an impact on going forward with this potentially great project. Unfortunately, as a technical type, I have little patience for the political delays imposed on the project todate by this administration through their political appointees. I will post data on the project funding increase if released.
IP has a sense of humor. Too bad many don't.
"IP has a sense of humor. Too bad many don't."
I'll be the first to admit that I have no inside information when it comes to FutureGen. That's why I identified my hunch as a, well, "hunch."
My sense is right now that Illinois has the strongest package. Delaying will only help Texas catch up. Again, that's my hunch, based on absolutely no inside information whatsoever.
Rex:
We have struggled and struggled to find natural resources to bridge that gap until we can effectively use the energy of the sun and wind, and certainly here is a process that crosses a lot of that gap.
There is no reason why we can't use the sun and wind now except for the usual arguments of $$$. How much is the coal powered FutureGen plant again? And how much of my tax dollars are funding this? Both of these resources can certainly add to the baseload mix if not provide the majority of this country's energy needs now if deployed enmass.
I read today in the paper that Futuregen would cost over a billion dollars. Seems like a lot to me, but I understand most of it is federal funding. I'll be shallow and say that since it's the entire country footing most of the bill, go Illinois!!!
The situation may be that , contrary to earlier statements, DOE may not issue a favorable record of decision on all sites. It would be embarrassing for all concerned if the selected site was rejected by DOE. I know there have been problems with Odessa's application. They made some very last minute changes between the draft and final EIS to both their water supply proposal and their CO2 pipeline scenario - neither of which have had all the necessary environmental and archeological studies competed.
I'm wondering why I haven't seen anything in the media that could be construed as critical of this whole FutureGen thing. Everybody fawns over how "clean coal" is the holy grail of energy independence and environmental-friendliness. You rarely, if ever see anything in the media that mentions the downside of coal. Try talking to the folks in West Virginia whose ground water has been contaminated by coal sludge. Or the folks in Danville whose water is contaminated by fly ash. Or one of the families who lost a loved one in a coal-mine accident. I was glad to see the story in today's N-G, but it is the exception rather than the norm. It just bothers me that the public is being spoon-fed a line about how "clean coal" is the ultimate solution to all of our woes.
I'd rather have "clean coal" than more environmentally damaging coal plants. But I'd also rather have more nuke plants and, where feasible, renewable energy systems on a higher priority than clean coal.
--
Glock21 Op/Ed
I'm all for more nuclear plants, but "environmentalists" spent so many years lobbying against them (mistakenly, IMHO) that it's been decades since any have been built.
Nuclear is clean (in carbon emissions terms) and safe and reliable and can produce bucketloads of energy with the technology we have right now. If we're really in a global warming crisis, then I hope the people who are telling us it's a crisis will start demanding more nuke plants.
Nuclear power, based upon our current generation technologies, continually underestimates its cradle-to-grave costs to remain competitive with other forms of energy generation.
"Nuclear power, based upon our current generation technologies, continually underestimates its cradle-to-grave costs to remain competitive with other forms of energy generation. "
How does it compare to other mostly-clean (i.e., carbon-emissions free) forms of energy generation?
Conscious,
Certainly money must be directed toward those solutions you mentioned, but at the same time we must have a means of producing energy to meet our demands while that technology is being developed to meet the requirements of demands. That is why I said "clean coal" is bridge until the two methods of energy cross paths.
Gordy,
The Clinton Plant was doomed to financial disaster because of original underestimates of cost and then the Nuclear Regulatory Agency, kept changing the construction standards "on the fly" while it was being constructed. That put the construction cost into the Time and Material payment method which means the Contractor got his time and expenses and also a reasonable overhead and profit paid for the changes.
Overhead and profit are a percentage of the Time and Material cost, and that led to the abuse of the time costs.
Union employees were asked to come to work and many just slept off a good drunk or reported drunk and all were put into a room together. Their wages were paid, but and the dollar amount generated by the percentage of overhead and profit went into the Contractor's pocket. It was truly an enormous waste of money. I knew many of the workers that said the only way you could get fired was not to show up. Then drunk or sleeping they got paid and the OH and Profit went into Contractor's pocket.
Still we the technology which we have is far better than the rest of the world, except possibly France, which uses our guidelines anyway.
I like Gordy, believe that nuclear energy is a solution that must be used.
Got a question for you Oil Man, how come we just don't put the radioactive waste material back into the same hole we got it from?
To that end, I am, and shall always remain;
Rex Bradfield
It is Mattoon, IL .
So much for the pundits posting here.
"So much for the pundits posting here."
I'll be the first one to admit it was a guess, but this is what I wrote last week:
So, basically, my hunch was right. Damn pundits!