Staff Contributors
Guest Contributors

Flipflopping on FutureGen

Bush drops mismanaged 'NeverGen' clean coal project

Posted by Joseph Romm (Guest Contributor) at 4:52 PM on 31 Jan 2008

no-coal-is-clean-small.jpgFor those remaining seven or eight three or four people who still buy the Bush rhetoric that he cares about global warming and is committed to addressing the problem with new technology, Exhibit 435C for the prosecution is the just-canceled "clean coal" project called FutureGen.

[Amusing anecdote for FHA (Future Historians of America): I once had a boss at the U.S. Department of Energy who practiced repeating "clean coal" in front of a mirror so as not to break out smiling when uttering that oxymoron.]

Yes, I know Bush said as recently as Monday (in the most vetted of all presidential speeches), "Let us fund new technologies that can generate coal power while capturing carbon emissions." But he wasn't lying or flip-flopping or anything. He didn't say, "We are funding new technologies ..." or "Anyone who actually meant what they said would keep funding new technologies ..." Give the guy a break. He said, "Let us fund new technologies ..." He was imploring Congress for help in a "Let my people go" vein.

Yes, two months ago, "administration officials were calling it a 'centerpiece' of their strategy for clean coal technologies," but centerpieces are largely decorative, no?

This is sort of a setback for those who believe coal gasification combined with carbon capture and storage could be a major global warming solution. I say "sort of" for two reasons. First, the program was being horribly mismanaged:

"The idea of FutureGen makes complete sense," Dr. Moniz [undersecretary of energy during the Clinton administration] said. However, a study he helped direct concluded earlier this year that the FutureGen project was badly structured, with confusion about whether it was a research project or a demonstration. Among its problems, he said in a telephone interview on Friday, was that it has "a cast of thousands" ...

Apparently the too-many-cooks overseeing FutureGen couldn't make up their minds whether they were developoing new technology or demonstrating existing technology. Hey. No big deal. We have a decade. Why not do both?

The second problem: The goal of FutureGen was to "validate the engineering, economic, and environmental viability of advanced coal-based, near-zero emission technologies that by 2020" will produce electricity that is only 10 percent more expensive than current coal-generated electricity.

So the project was either doubly pointless or doubly cynical, depending on your perspective. After all, by the time this technology was ready to commercialize on a significant scale in the early 2020s, the world will have built or begun construction on more than a 1000 GW of coal plants, using traditional technology that is not designed for carbon capture and storage. The climate will have been destroyed irrevocably before Futuregen could have accomplished anything useful in the marketplace. Also, we will still need a mandatory cap on carbon emissions to make future FutureGen plants viable because they will be more expensive than traditional plants even in the 2020s. Since the Bush administration opposes a mandatory cap, the whole R&D effort looks like another delaying action ... if you were inclined to take anything the administration says seriously, of course.

No wonder people in the energy business called the project "NeverGen."

(You can read more on the cancellation here.)

This post was created for ClimateProgress.org, a project of the Center for American Progress Action Fund.

*cough*

http://youtube.com/watch?v=3gPPUeKNUMo
http://www.americanprogressaction.org/issues/2007/coal_re ...
http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2007/05/coal_repor ...

SBD

Silent but deadly! In one instance it stinks and with either you can't put it back once you turn it loose.

The eons of time and nature was good to us down here. It was not until we become civilized that destroying our habitat become fathomable or fashionable.
Trash gasification

A guy here in Wisconsin made his own trash gasification plant, it was 5 years ago or so.  

A high pressure, high temperature vessel cooked  the trash, it broke down and gave off gas.  The gas heated the vessel.  The waste heat generated power.

There's your demonstration project, have him use coal instead of trash.  I bet he'd do it for a few 100 grand.  It would be all done in 6 months.

But that would stop the diversion.  The diversion of tax dollars better spent on incentives to homeowners and small businesses to invest in renewable energy and conservation.  The diversion of attention and political will.  

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog

Hoo!

Liked that SBD analogy.

In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world
Thx!! Request cite for 16.9 cents/kWh for IGCC/CCS

Hello Joseph:

Many thanks for your great work, your commitment and your expertise.  I read Hell and High Water and continue to follow your blog.

In your email push of May 9, 2008, you cited 16.9 cents/kWh for IGCC with CCS; and 15.2 cents/kWh for nuclear.  I looked through the CPUC May 6th presentation you included a link for, but couldn't find those numbers.  

I'm a pro bono intervenor at the Colorado Public Utilities Commission, working to reduce coal emissions, stop gasified coal, etc.  The citation would be very helpful.

Thanks again -- there's so much amazing information, and the people who are working together -- without pay, long hours -- to bring about the changes we need.  Unfortunately, Congress is a 'lagging indicator' -- in the words of political pundit Mark SHields -- so the people must lead.

And we must move away from fossil fuels.

Please email me directly: nancy@energyjustice.net or nancylaplaca@yahoo.com

Nancy LaPlaca www.energyjustice.net/coal/igcc

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.
sign in
Search Gristmill
Subscribe
  • subscribe via RSSStay updated with the Gristmill RSS feed.
  • Add to My Yahoo!
  • Subscribe with Bloglines
  • Subscribe in NewsGator Online
  • Subscribe in Netvibes
  • Subscribe in Google
Using Gristmill
  • What is Gristmill?
  • Posting rules
The comments of Gristmill users reflect the opinions of those individuals only, and do not necessarily reflect the viewpoints of Grist, its staff, its board members, their psychotherapists, or their aestheticians. Got it?

Gristmill is powered by Scoop.

ADVERTISING POLICY


About Grist | Support Grist | Job Board | Archives | Grist by Email | RSS | Podcast
Gristmill Blog | In the News | Ask Umbra | Muckraker | Victual Reality | 'Tis the Season | The Grist List | The Bottom Line



Grist: Environmental News and Commentary
a beacon in the smog (tm) ©2008. Grist Magazine, Inc. All rights reserved. Gloom and doom with a sense of humor®.
Webmaster | Sitemap | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Trademarks