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: 30
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Les Bamburg on
-
Sesport, Mac's comment was comparing 'gasification" coal plants with traditional pulverized coal plants. These traditional plants have in many cases had to add or retrofit "scrubbers" to remove harmful pollutants (mercury, SOx, etc) from their exhaust. The "gasification" process may produce lower emissions levels.
This is not an issue for natural gas fired plants because their exhaust does not contain those particular pollutants.
-
Permalink Reply by sesport on -
Thanks, Les. I didn't think it was an issue for ng. I was unsure because of the way it was worded, I guess. Just needed clarification.
best - :0)
-
Permalink Reply by Mac Davis on
-
One way of burning coal is to essentially throw the coal into a fire and burn it.
What I'm calling a "gasification" coal burner takes the coal, processes it in various ways, generates gasses, processes those gasses, then burns those gasses.
The real picture is somewhat more complicated, but that's the gist.
It's been claimed that the gasification coal burners may produce low pollution levels with high efficiency. It may also be easier to separate CO2 for sequestration.
-
Permalink Reply by Max on
-
Clean Coal??????? I left a coal fired plant in 2002 and I'm still digging coal dust out of my ears. The flyash was even worse, you could take a cup full, pour it into the wind, come back the next week, and that sh__ would still be floating around. 'Clean Coal' is a gimmick adopted by coal producers and utilities to fool the American public into thinking that the industries are working on the emissions of CO2. If NG wants to play with the big boys, they will have to send $$$$$$ and lobbiest to D.C. and put those $$$$$$ in the pockets of our congressmen.
-
Permalink Reply by Max on
-
Hey sesport, I'm trying to figure out what number that is in Roman Numerals, (FOMCLMAO), but I can't get past FOM.
Max
-
Permalink Reply by sesport on
-
Okay, AEP went to CCX. Where did Southern Company go to, is there another exchange?
thanks :0)
-
Permalink Reply by sesport on
-
Mr. Krow - Since you addressed me directly, I'll reply directly. The above was a question, not a comment/statement, which I do a lot of. I would venture to guess, number wise on scientific & technical topics, I've asked many more questions than made comments. I read through the link provided, read through links on the link. And just came up with a question as I frequently do because my brain engages at various levels of thinking while I read. From literal all the way up to synthesis & application.
In any case, if you feel one of my questions isn't one that you wish to answer, I won't be offended if you or anyone else doesn't do so. I'll just keep rummaging around until I come up with an answer.
And thank you for answering anyway, I appreciate that you took the time & shared what you know. Sincerely.
best - sesport :0)
-
Permalink Reply by Les Bamburg on
-
Jim, I hate to question but are you absolutely sure that Southern Company is part of AEP? SC (Alabama Power, Mississippi Power, Georgia Power, Gulf Power) is a huge power corp and I was not aware of any merger with AEP.
I am not questioning Swepco as I knew they were an AEP affiliate.
-
Permalink Reply by Spring Branch,mineral owner on
-
You are 100 % correct, Les B.
-
Permalink Reply by Les Bamburg on
-
Jim, no disagreement from me regarding coal. I have always felt "clean coal" was an oxymoron and a red herring. If we are serious about lowering CO2 emissions then coal has to be dropped to a much lower percentage of the power supply.
I am waiting to see the final form of Waxman-Markey that ends up being law after the coal interests (producers, power companies & states) reshape the language.
- ‹ Previous
- 1
- 2
- Next ›
Support GoHaynesvilleShale.com
Top Content
Not a member? Get our email.
Groups
-
San Augustine, TX
386 members
-
Miller County, Arkansas
27 members
-
Sabine Parish, LA
455 members
-
South Caddo Parish Group
440 members
-
Natchitoches Parish
400 members
-
Bienville Parish, LA
244 members
-
Fayetteville Shale
149 members
-
North Caddo Parish
358 members
-
Central Texas Gas
63 members
-
Cass County, TX
119 members
© 2024 Created by Keith Mauck (Site Publisher).
Powered by
