Two Utilities Are Leaving Clean Coal Initiative (6/26/09)
New York Times
By MATTHEW L. WALD
Two of the nation’s biggest coal-burning utilities said Thursday that they were withdrawing from a $2.4 billion project to demonstrate carbon capture and storage, and would instead pursue their own work in the field.
The announcement by the utilities, Southern Company and American Electric Power, is a blow to the multinational consortium called the FutureGen Alliance. The group is seeking to build a $2.4 billion plant in Mattoon, Ill., that would convert coal to a fuel gas, capture the carbon dioxide and then burn the gas in a turbine to make electricity. Financing for the project was uncertain even before the announcement by the two utilities.
The Bush administration had tried to kill FutureGen, saying it was too expensive. But the Obama administration said last week it would restore financing.
Michael J. Mudd, chief executive of the alliance, said the group had begun with seven members, and had expanded to 13. After other departures, the group now has nine members, but it is seeking a total of 20. The alliance is a 501(c)(3) voluntary organization; each member has contributed about $2 million.
Executives are trying to determine whether costs have fallen because of the drop in the price of materials and construction work that has followed the recession. The federal government has agreed to contribute $1 billion, Mr. Mudd said, in addition to $100 million previously appropriated. The partners will contribute $400 million to $600 million, although that still leaves a shortfall.
To cut costs, the alliance had decided that initially, the plant would capture only 60 percent of the carbon dioxide instead of 90 percent as originally planned.
Much of the laborious work of picking a site and getting permits is done. But many companies are pursuing alternatives because of the delays created by government’s vacillation in financing.
Steve Higginbottom, a spokesman for Southern Company, confirmed that the company had pulled out of the alliance.
“The reason we did was to focus on the projects that we are currently involved in with government and industry partners that focus on the carbon capture and sequestration and clean coal technologies,” he said.
Melissa McHenry, a spokeswoman for American Electric Power, cited the current economic conditions, a cut in the company’s capital budget as well as the shortfall in the FutureGen plan.
She said the utility would focus on pursuing its own project at a plant in West Virginia.
An environmental group supporting the project, the Natural Resources Defense Council, said it was disappointed with the news.
“We really do need an engagement with the private sector in this,” Henry Henderson, the group’s Midwest director, said. “I don’t believe it’s a death knell.”
By MATTHEW L. WALD
Two of the nation’s biggest coal-burning utilities said Thursday that they were withdrawing from a $2.4 billion project to demonstrate carbon capture and storage, and would instead pursue their own work in the field.
The announcement by the utilities, Southern Company and American Electric Power, is a blow to the multinational consortium called the FutureGen Alliance. The group is seeking to build a $2.4 billion plant in Mattoon, Ill., that would convert coal to a fuel gas, capture the carbon dioxide and then burn the gas in a turbine to make electricity. Financing for the project was uncertain even before the announcement by the two utilities.
The Bush administration had tried to kill FutureGen, saying it was too expensive. But the Obama administration said last week it would restore financing.
Michael J. Mudd, chief executive of the alliance, said the group had begun with seven members, and had expanded to 13. After other departures, the group now has nine members, but it is seeking a total of 20. The alliance is a 501(c)(3) voluntary organization; each member has contributed about $2 million.
Executives are trying to determine whether costs have fallen because of the drop in the price of materials and construction work that has followed the recession. The federal government has agreed to contribute $1 billion, Mr. Mudd said, in addition to $100 million previously appropriated. The partners will contribute $400 million to $600 million, although that still leaves a shortfall.
To cut costs, the alliance had decided that initially, the plant would capture only 60 percent of the carbon dioxide instead of 90 percent as originally planned.
Much of the laborious work of picking a site and getting permits is done. But many companies are pursuing alternatives because of the delays created by government’s vacillation in financing.
Steve Higginbottom, a spokesman for Southern Company, confirmed that the company had pulled out of the alliance.
“The reason we did was to focus on the projects that we are currently involved in with government and industry partners that focus on the carbon capture and sequestration and clean coal technologies,” he said.
Melissa McHenry, a spokeswoman for American Electric Power, cited the current economic conditions, a cut in the company’s capital budget as well as the shortfall in the FutureGen plan.
She said the utility would focus on pursuing its own project at a plant in West Virginia.
An environmental group supporting the project, the Natural Resources Defense Council, said it was disappointed with the news.
“We really do need an engagement with the private sector in this,” Henry Henderson, the group’s Midwest director, said. “I don’t believe it’s a death knell.”
Views: 22
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by sesport on -
Les - With regards to this process ...
"convert coal to a fuel gas, capture the carbon dioxide and then burn the gas in a turbine to make electricity"
How much of a reduction in emissions over "traditional" coal-burning plants? Also, do you consider the above process cleaner than an ng fired plant or a nuclear plant? I realize the coal fired plants are usually for baseload and ng for peak, but is it possible to use ng for a baseload plant?
Thanks in advance - :0)
-
Permalink Reply by Les Bamburg on
-
Sesport, the following are comparisons:
Traditional Coal Plant - 2614 lb CO2e/MWHr
Traditional Natural Gas Plant - 797 lb CO2e/MWHr
Advanced Coal Plant w/ Sequestration- 240 lb CO2e/MWHr
The above process is cleaner than traditional NG plants but has a huge level of technical challenges & issues. Nuclear is still the cleanest.
Yes, you can utilize natural gas plants for baseload.
-
Permalink Reply by ALongview on
-
Les, This looks like the 90% capture number. Wouldn't the 60% capture number being tossed around now be just slightly dirtier than NG?
-
Permalink Reply by Les Bamburg on
-
AL, sorry I was using another source of information. The following would be the correct amount at a 60% capture rate:
Advanced Coal Plant w/ Sequestration- 700 lb CO2e/MWHr
-
Permalink Reply by sesport on
-
Weellllll now, that looks to me to be very competitive with ng. Thanks for the correction, Les. Could reduce that strip mining of coal. Those folks will have to find a way to diversify their economy, though.
:0)
-
Permalink Reply by w.r. frank on
-
Only competitive on CO2-797 vs. 700. Capital costs are widely in favor of NG, plus nobody has the technology developed to say CCS can even be done.
Neither Obama nor Chu can say "natural gas". In his last public statement this week, Obama said wind, solar, nuclear(he did pronounce it correctly) and "clean coal.
-
Permalink Reply by Les Bamburg on
-
WR, also natural gas is the only choice for "firming" all that future wind and solar power.
-
Permalink Reply by sesport on
-
Just for further clarification ... from the IRS re. 501(c)3 qualifications ...
"To be tax-exempt under section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, an organization must be organized and operated exclusively for exempt purposes set forth in section 501(c)(3), and none of its earnings may inure to any private shareholder or individual. In addition, it may not be an action organization, i.e., it may not attempt to influence legislation as a substantial part of its activities and it may not participate in any campaign activity for or against political candidates.
-
Permalink Reply by sesport on
-
Sidwell Friends School under educational institutions???????????????????????
Thanks for the link - :0)
-
Permalink Reply by Mattie on
-
Virtually any fuel could be used as a baseload rather than peaking source. THe issue is primarily cost-related. Otherwise, gas-fired would be baseloaded more so than coal.
Transportation and overall supply reliability are key factors in determining whether a source could be " baseloaded". Insofar as coal is concerned, ensuring that delivery (usually by rail) is not interupted, plus keeping the coal dry (freezing rain/ice pack over a coal stack can actually inhibit coal-use during winter peak demand, thus requiring much more backup and/or baseload of NG units. NG's reliability is usually only hindered by wellhead freeze-offs (Mid-Continent/Rockies are the worst areas for this); thus NG storage becomes very important to keep deliverability high. Wind-power, IMHO, is a hoax. It is very unreliable, expensive, and when the wind isn't blowing, requires another fuel source, such as NG, to keep the blades turning.
NG is the logical answer, especially given the ample supply for long-term use and the competitive price. I cannot understand why Obama doesn't embrace this sooner. I guess too much love for his coal-producing friends in PA, OH, et al.
-
Permalink Reply by Mac Davis on
-
Don't forget that CO2 is not the only waste product from a coal fired power plant. don't the "gasification" coal plants may have some advantages in terms of other waste products? For instance, it's often said that coal plants emit mercury and radioactive elements in their smokestack emissions, because those elements are in the source coal in small amounts.
Support GoHaynesvilleShale.com
Top Content
Not a member? Get our email.
Groups
-
San Augustine, TX
386 members
-
Natchitoches Parish
399 members
-
Cass County, TX
119 members
-
Franklin County, Texas
8 members
-
Rusk County
97 members
-
Vernon Parish
59 members
-
Bienville Parish, LA
242 members
-
Sabine County, Texas
172 members
-
Sabine Parish, LA
455 members
-
Angelina County, TX
87 members
© 2024 Created by Keith Mauck (Site Publisher).
Powered by
