Obama joins Illinois legislators pushing to revive FutureGen

Posted by David Roberts at 2:02 PM on 30 Jan 2008

Read more about: politics | energy | coal | Illinois | Barack Obama

When the DOE announced it was yanking support for FutureGen, I wondered where Obama would come down on it. Pro-Illinois, or pro-green-coal-haters?

Here's our answer:

Nine members of Illinois' congressional delegation are urging President Bush to keep the FutureGen clean-coal power plant on track.

In a letter sent to the president today, the bipartisan group said it has lost faith in Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman after meeting with him Tuesday. Bodman, in that meeting, told the lawmakers that his agency wants out of the public-private partnership planning to build the plant in Mattoon.

The Energy Department, which was supposed to provide about three-quarters of the funding, has complained about the $1.8 billion price tag.

The letter was signed by Senators Dick Durbin and Barack Obama and Representatives Tim Johnson, Ray LaHood, Rahm Emanuel, Peter Roskam, Jan Schakowsky and Danny Davis.

I'm not particularly surprised by this and don't view it as a particularly big deal, but I know others disagree.

For story: Obama joins Illinois legislators pushing to revive FutureGen
14 Comments | Post a Comment

When all is said and done...

It all comes down to jobs in your district to get elected. And as crazy as FutureGen is, it will create jobs in Illinois. Bogus, make-work jobs that compromise the long term health of the economy I will grant you, but jobs nonetheless.

Bottom line - I'm with you. Neither surprised, nor particularly disappointed.

by Sean Casten at 3:05 PM on 30 Jan 2008

Obama is making it difficult

...for me to support him fully. Now that my Johnny E. has gone the way of Mike Gravel (has Gravel gone away yet?), I will be supporting another candidate.

I've said it a hundred times before. If Obama wants to win in the purple states of the American West next Tuesday, he needs to speak directly to our big issues (i.e. climate, energy, environment).

Although Colorado certainly has a strong presence in the coal industry, there are just as many people here who want to move away from coal - clean or otherwise

Tim Hurst ecopolitology

by Tim Hurst at 5:01 PM on 30 Jan 2008

according to FOE

Obama is for 100% auction

and will accept nothing less

(until elected)

by ce1907 at 5:58 PM on 30 Jan 2008

Get him Hillary!

He's really vulnerable on his support for this boondoggle. Barack the lobbyist friendliest candidate.

He had a dream. A million dollar home. He couldn't afford it so his indicted friend and former employer got him a deal.

I bet he has other dreams. A 10 million dollar home, or two, or three? Take care of that ethanol, nuclear, and clean coal lobbies.

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog

by amazingdrx at 9:44 PM on 30 Jan 2008

Heh

Well, it was nice while it lasted.

DOE Restructures Its Approach to FutureGen
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....(more)

by GreyFlcn at 10:10 PM on 30 Jan 2008

Illinois

Well, this is probably a dumb way to give money to Illinois, but according to:
http://www.bcnys.org/whatsnew/2001/1211balance.htm

if you look at balance of payments btetween Ilinois and the Federal Government, in fiscal 2000:

IL sent $100B to Washington (#3 after CA & NY) and got $66B back, i.e., 66%. , making them #5 on the wrong end of the scale (CT (60%), NV (61%), NH (63%), NJ (64%). CA (where I am) of course sends the most $$ to DC that doesn't come back, but percentage-wise, it's 75%.

Of course, all this begs the question of why it's a good idea to send as much money to DC as we do, so it can go through a political earmarked meatgrinder before it comes back. Put another , maybe they can give $1.8B back to IL, and let them decide whether this is the best use of it or not...

Anyway, I find it hard to be too hard on Obama for this one, he is an IL Senator first.

Local politicians usually fight for their local constituencies. The real question is, if they take office at a higher level, do they try to take care of the whole entity they now represent/manage, or do they continue to represent a narrow constituency? it is not alwasy easy to determine this about someone, except in hindsight...

-John Mashey

by JohnMashey at 10:38 PM on 30 Jan 2008

2015 to 2016 operational

They will be commisioned, according to the update article. It's about the same for nukes started up now. That leaves eight years to beat them.

Renewable distributed smart grid technology, including affordable solar PV and wind, plugin hybrids, biogas waste recycling/organic farming,and geo heat exchange heating/cooling is ready now.

An administration that will back these over coal, nukes, and fuel farming would be helpfull.

And a democratic house and senate. These political types must be baraged with our schpeil, 'til it blocks out the lobyyist's cash wagging braying.

Divert subsidies for big energy and ag to this new energy, transportation, and farm policy.

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog

by amazingdrx at 11:37 PM on 30 Jan 2008

Pot, Kettle, Black

Seriously? You're going to try to bring some fairy tale of a scandal into this debate. Given the Clinton's history (whitewater, travelgate, rose law firm, just off the top of my head) I don't think that's wise. By the way, the Clinton's two homes (New York and DC) come in at a combined total of $4.55 million, so they're getting a bit closer to you're fabled 10 million figure.

If you want to talk about lobbyists, check out the first sentence of this report from The Hill:

"Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) has a network of lobbyists and political insiders three times the size of her closest Democratic rival, Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.)."

My suggestion is to stick to the facts of this debate.

by davidconnell at 5:49 AM on 31 Jan 2008
[ Parent ]

Obama's con

John,
If coal is good for coalbama's Ill constituency, then it'd be good for his con as potus. It's clear he has his head in a hole and what L-W stands for.
Americanism (Perfect by Fred Holland)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Al_8STEFrSY&feature=re ...

by ids at 7:24 AM on 31 Jan 2008

CCS

Some environmentalists are cheering the failure of FutureGen, which might make sense if it's just an example of a big taxpayer handout to industry being averted. Others, however, seem keen to see CCS undermined completely. It is true that it is an untested technology; only four installations in the world use anything like it. It is also true that it could perpetuate fossil fuel usage and slow the development of renewables. At the same time, it must be recognized that building renewables isn't a purpose in its own right. It is a means to low-carbon and reliable energy. If that can be achieved through a combination of coal and CCS, we should probably be happy - especially given the strong likelihood that many coal rich countries (the United States, China, etc) are likely to burn as much of the stuff as they can get out of the ground for the foreseable future, with potentially ruinous climatic effects.

a sibilant intake of breath

by sindark at 9:07 AM on 31 Jan 2008

Illinois

I have no idea whether coal is good for Obama's constituency, [I rather doubt it, if it were me, I'd spend it on supporting more things like efficiency improvements, encouraging investments in industries like wind-turbines, etc.]

I simply point out that if there's a pot of "free" Federal money to be had, then it is very hard for state legislators to resist competing for it, even if the usage of it is to build bridges to nowhere or even pyramid-equivalents. (jobs! bring home the bacon for the district!)

The general idea of CCS is less bad than those, after all, even James Hansen says it's important.

The issue is whether or not this particular CCS example is a good usage of money. R&D is supposed to follow "progressive commitment":

research
applied research
exploratory development
development
scaleup and deployment

[At least, when I was at Bell Labs, that's what we did, usually; when we didn't (occasionally) we wasted a lo of money.]
In general, it is a bad idea to go to 5 until you've done the others. I can't tell offhand where this plant falls in that scale. Maybe Sean Casten can comment?

-John Mashey

by JohnMashey at 9:25 AM on 31 Jan 2008
[ Parent ]

Fund raising

Fund raising is corrupt. All across the spectrum of US politics. The Clintons have been thoroughly investigated already.

Barack's missteps are just coming out. They must be exposed during the primary so that they aren't swiftboat fodder in the general election.

Look what happened to Sen Kerry. We really need to win this time around. McCain wants an indefinite commitment in Iraq. Will that entail an ongoing cold war with Iran and the rest of the ME countries?

What about the rest of the potential jihad spawning areas? Only one fifth of the muslim world lives in the ME. This corporate christian crusade (for oil and minerals)needs to be qwelled, not expanded.

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog

by amazingdrx at 9:27 AM on 31 Jan 2008

f gen

Sindark is right, the apparent death of F Gen is nothing to cheer about, it's not like the money won't go to other coal projects. Funny the Ill legislators are complaining polititx is trumping science in this particular coal matter (for TX sake), as if it isn't always the case. Mattoon will get over it.

A BO POTUS will likely split the difference and give both TX and ILL more coal subsidies. Illinois is about the most corrupt pay-to-play state in the union with a lot of nuke and coal $ around, that is BO's constituency. Protecting the health of the planet and those on it and preserving its resources is secondary.

by ids at 11:29 AM on 31 Jan 2008

Subsidies flowing to solar from coal and nuclear

Amazingdrx wrote: affordable solar PV and wind

If there would be anything affordable about solar PV and wind, it would be partly the fault of subsidization by coal, gas, nuclear, hydro, and oil. Eliminate the latter, and any affordability of the former likewise vanishes.

by Nucbuddy at 9:55 PM on 31 Jan 2008
[ Parent ]

ADVERTISING POLICY

You are not logged in. Thus, you cannot post a comment. If you have an account, log in. If you don't have an account, well, by all means go make one! Meet you back here in five.