FutureGen's Future Cloudy
Feds Abandon Clean Coal Project
By Richard Martin, 2-01-08
 |
|
 | |
|
Since I detailed the gaps in Montana Gov. Brian Schweitzer’s ambitious plans for “clean” coal plants in his state last month, the whole clean-coal movement has suffered a major blow. This week the Department of Energy said it would cancel funding for the FutureGen project, which is planning a commercial-scale coal plant with a carbon sequestration system in Matoon, Illinois.
Citing the high cost and potential difficulty in building a futuristic coal plant of this size, the DOE says it will cut its clean-coal funding and shift the dollars to smaller projects.
“This restructured FutureGen approach is an all-around better investment for Americans,” said energy secretary Samuel W. Bodman in a statement. The Energy Department is now budgeting $241 million for several power-plant projects that will capture a smaller percentage of their emissions. The FutureGen Alliance, which comprises 13 partners including the governments of China, Australia, Britain, and Germany, issued a press release refuting many of the points made by Bodman in withdrawing DOE’s backing for the scheme.
To say this is a disaster for developing less-destructive forms of coal generation – which still supplies about half of the nation’s electricity – is an understatement. Private investors were counting on federal funds to help create a working plant that would prove the feasibility of burning coal, and burying the resulting CO2, at a large scale. Now that won’t happen, and the prospects for new coal-fired plants in the U.S. look a lot grimier.
In other energy news:
-- While forging ahead with an ambitious renewable energy plan, Xcel Energy Inc. is also benefiting from rising prices in its core business. The Minneapolis-based utility, “Colorado’s largest electricity provider, said Wednesday its fourth-quarter profit jumped 37 percent as revenue climbed for natural gas and electric businesses,” according to the Rocky Mountain News. That still wasn’t enough to beat the predictions of Wall Street analysts, who forecast a profit of 38 cents a share rather than 31.
-- The Bush administration has come up with a controversial plan to reduce the money that flows back to states from federal mineral leasing. This week Colorado Senator Ken Salazar joined the legislators from both sides of the aisle who are objecting to that move, signing on to a letter sent to Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne and Office of Management and Budget director Jim Nussle. Revenue from mining on federal land have been split equally between the states and the U.S. government, but a provision in last month’s $555 billion appropriations bill would shift that to a 48-52 percent split.
-- The war of words between the energy industry, and its backers in the Colorado legislature, and the state agencies involved in redrafting the rules for permits for oil and gas production continued this week. “Conservative legislators … sent a shot across the bow” of the Colorado Oil and Gas Conversation Commission, reports the Grand Junction Sentinel, while David Neslin, acting director of the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, fired back during a joint hearing of the House and Senate natural resource committees. Oil and gas companies have claimed that overhauling drilling regulations will erect new roadblocks to energy production in the state.
Like this story? Get more! Sign up for our free newsletters.
Comments
I honestly thought that the energy industry, with all these record profits from public lands energy production, wanted to come to the table and discuss the future with other users, and with the owners of the lands, the public.
But the comments on my story last week or so, and what we see here in Colorado, prove that to be untrue. The strategy is to say the same things over and over again, claiming that there are no problems, no issues, then to attack their critics, all the while rushing forward with no reagrd whatsoever to their impacts. We've seen enough of this, across the board, in our country, and it is not an effective model.
I know there are responsible individuals in this industry- I know some of them personally. But in the current climate their moderate and forward-looking voices are silent.
Soon people will begin asking what the terms of this trade really are. I am amazed at the lack of any credible public relations move on the part of industry. Just saying there are no problems while rushing ahead and grabbing with both hands is not really a long term strategy. Is it?
I'm reminded of a roomful of 10 year olds, hopped up on too much candy, yelling and breaking things, getting wilder and wilder, keeping one eye out for the adults, actually begging for an adult to step in and take control, begging to be shown the parameters, the limits, before something really awful happens.
If you are going to send us to a link telling us to "be healthy, be kind and respect the environment" don't you think maybe you should try to exemplify all the tenets? Let us know when you've figured it out.