There is plenty of research going on in this region that the Mattoon location is an ideal candidate for the sequestration techonology.

The Bushies pulled the funds because the Illinois site won over Texas sites. Bush league politics.

These types of research and innovations are going to cost trillions, but unless we spend the money to figure out which technologies work where, we'll be having this same argument 30 years from now.

http://sequestration.org/

"President Obama has been a longtime supporter of "clean coal," the still-illusory concept"

The still-illusory concept?

So, you're saying Obama is being deceptive? I'm not so sure he would campaign on something he thought was a deception.

Maybe I'm wrong. I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt.

It's a shame the Republicans would take the FutureGen projects and politicize it. The link you provided to the wiki sounds promising enough. It seems it would make sense to invest in a couple of these plants, one in Ill and another in Texas. Sure, the initial costs would be quite substantial, but, would still only be the cost of one week in Iraq.

So lets see, 1 week in Iraq vs. the future of our coal energy needs...hrmm.

My guess is the costs for these plants is so high because much of the technology they use is not mass produced. If indeed the technology can be tweaked to be more efficient and does truly work, then local U.S. manufacturing could be used to upgrade our coal burning energy plants across the U.S.

Image the work to be had if that conversion took place.

I understand environmentalists get their panties in a knot about coal but ffs it's cheap and we've got tons of it. If we can figure out a way to burn it clean enough not to impact us, then why not.

I smell a boondoggle too. There will never be clean coal. There might be "cleaner" coal, but is that basically an inconsequential improvement in the grand scheme of things?

Just because the U.S. has an abundance of coal doesn't mean it makes sense to give that industry billions of dollars.

Is sequestration technology proven? Is it scalable? Is there even an economically sound business model for it?

Ethanol was a boondoggle, and everyone was seduced by "cellulosic ethanol", a more advanced supposedly viable version of the stuff.

Congress through money at it before most realized it wasn't viable for a number of reasons.

IMO, any process that converts food, or byproducts of food, or water, into fuel for our cars is an inherently flawed idea. Because they are dwindling natural resources as it is.

I am not an expert on this stuff, I could be wrong with some of my assertions. If you know more, I'd love to hear it.

I'm going through the bill posted on huffingtonpost.com right now HERE on page 73.

It appears this is in.

"Provided, That $2,000,000,000 is available for one or more near zero emissions powerplant(s): Privided further, $1,000,000,000 is available for selections under the Department's Clean Power Initiative Round III Funding Opportunity..bla bla bla"

At least that appears to be the same thing unless I'm mis-reading. Which wouldn't be a surprise.

I always miss the mark.

As a scientist (with no material interest in the coal industry) who has followed this closely, I'm really disappointed in many of the comments here and the tone of the article. Many are just pure uninformed fantasies with no technical backup. Some of you argue that we shouldn't test this technology because its untested.
I suggest that anyone interested could check a Scientific American article on carbon sequestration. There is a lot of preliminary study of carbon sequestration, and it looks feasible but requires a real test before it can used on a large scale. FutureGen is that test, carefully planned in a long, competitive technically serious process. It was only canceled by Bush because TX lost. And yes, it includes major components to clean up other pollutants, not just CO2.
In many parts of the world, there won't be enough suitable geology for sequestration, so it's not a panacea. However, it will be very hard to put together any workable energy policy without using all the greener possibilities, of which this is one the the biggest.

Sorry to sound like a Republican, but will there be some actual... you know... stimulus, in the stimulus bill?

I guess that is the problem we run into, because coal mining and oil drilling are very long term labor intensive operations, whereby lots of people get jobs in long term labor projects.

But windmills and solar power equipment, once someone puts them up, they don't require much maintenance or manpower, so therefore don't create many jobs per say. On the other hand drilling rigs and coal mining are so toxic and destructive to the land, so I just think, we better find other ways to create jobs and find new types of demand.

"Although the processes involved in CCS have been demonstrated in other industrial applications, no commercial scale projects which integrate these processes exist, the costs therefore remain highly uncertain. The increased energy requirements of capturing and compressing CO2 significantly raises the operating costs of CCS-equipped power plants. In addition there are added investment or capital costs. The process would increase the fuel requirement of a plant with CCS by about 25% for a coal-fired plant and about 15% for a gas-fired plant[1]. The cost of this extra fuel, as well as storage and other system costs are estimated to increase the costs of energy from a power plant with CCS by 30-60%, depending on the specific circumstances. Pre-commercial CCS demonstration projects are likely to be more expensive than mature CCS technology, the total additional costs of an early large scale CCS demonstration project are estimated to be €0.5-1.1bn per project over the project lifetime" From wikipedia, but this information can be found in many areas.

China is in process right now to build more coal generation plants and China is a participant in Future Gen. Anything that kicks out industrywide free use tech info on building better, less damaging coal plants is a good thing IMO. You don't get the kind of coal company oooperation you have with Future Gen often, and there is a lot of peripheral info that will get hard looks witht he program too.

Is China really interested in clean coal technology? I mean, it's not the kind of thing third world industry seem to be to interested in doing. I noticed that China is making lots of deals with Mideast for oil.

The thing about building Furture Gen is than we have to tear down the mountain to bring the coal to the new plant and that is why it doesn't really matter how clean the plant is, it still destroys the land one way or another. NO more coal plants, no more fossil fuel investments. Bill Clinton really should have started a move away from fossil fuel when he was in office. We need to move beyond fossil fuel and not build another coal plant. It's a really a bad idea.

Why are we having the same discussion that's been going on for over half a century? Why do people continue to misshape this into something that resembles a practical debate?

I'm not sure there are even two sides to this broken record.

The cause becomes a movement-the movement becomes a business-the business becomes a racket. The whole co2isapollutant racket is approaching the absurd. Do you realize how in your supposed intelligence, you have become a fool?

The (trace) gas that sustains life on this planet is only a pollutant because of the racket called environmentalism. This racket is useful in that it generates a power source (pun intended) for the ruling class and leverages fear in the populace to effect a ceding of liberty.

Perhaps you all could learn something from your hyper-ignorant conservative brethren. A little economics concept called the diminishing returns curve throws a fatal wrench into all your zero-emissions plans doesn't it?

But facts be damned, we have a world to rule for all the smart people. Right?

Full Disclosure: I'm from the Mattoon area, which may make me biased, but it also makes me knowledgeable about this thing.

I too am kinda dismayed at the arguments I'm seeing here. First up, this thing is the definition of stimulus. This is an economically depressed area that has been bleeding manufacturing jobs for years and replacing them with Wal Mart greeters. If anywhere needs a big nudge towards green industry, it's central Illinois. Second, it's shovel-ready, as this thing has been in the planning stages for years and was ready to go when Bush axed it. All of the players have worked very hard to keep it on track under the assumption that it would probably be revived under an Obama admin. It'll create a few hundred construction jobs within 12-18 months, and have untold knock-on effects on the area's economy once it's done. This is the kind of current-stimulus + future benefit thing that most everyone agrees we want to maximize in this bill. Frankly, I just assumed it would be in there as part of the money going to Energy, earmark or no, and I don't really care how or why as long as it gets done since it has already been through an extensive federal bidding, planning, and vetting process. It's not like this is some senator's vanity project or something. Almost the whole Illinois delegation, crossing party lines, is behind this.

As far as the environmental merits, I've been kinda mystified by the whole clean coal war in the media over the past year. I thought the campaigns against clean coal were more aimed at the fallacious idea that the tech is already here, so we can keep on merrily burning coal like always with no consequences. That's certainly something worth pushing back on, but genuine attempts to make the technology a reality? That's cutting off your nose to spite your face.

I can't see any way we meet our energy needs over the next 50 years without coal and/or nuclear carrying a share of the load, especially if we want to get off of oil and go to electricity for much of our transportation. If environmentalists want us off of any energy which harms the environment, then they want us to take a big hit to our standard of living. Which is a tenable position, but they need to be arguing for it and winning people over, and I don't see that happening. And even if by some miracle it did here, it sure as hell won't in China. We're going to have to be ready to help them clean up their energy, and they're not going to stop burning coal because they can't w/o throwing tens of millions of people back into poverty.

I want wind and solar to be as large of a part of the solution as possible, but I don't want to put all of our eggs in one basket. I basically think this is a huge impending crisis and we should be funding the hell out of any and all possible avenues that have any merit. If they also happen to create jobs and save American communities, more's the better.

Most, though not all, of this discussion pretty much ignores how dirty and destructive of the environment that coal is, and even before it gets to the burning stage!

I won't deny that, but we're talking about costs we've been willing and able as a society to endure thus far, and probably can into the future, at least compared to the larger threats we face. In the coming energy / global warming / peak oil / whathaveyou crisis, asking people to go even further than we're already going to need to go... to make our energy not only hydrocarbon free and carbon neutral but also externality free in general is going to be very tough. It's a great goal, but I'd think reasonably that's more of a 100-year than a 50-year goal. We're going to be very lucky to get anywhere close to carbon neutral within 50 years in my opinion. We probably won't have a choice on the hydrocarbon part, but that'll make the overall transition that much more difficult and will probably require us to rely a lot more on existing infrastructure and technologies, especially at first. Which is not to say that we shouldn't shoot for and fund as much externality-free energy as possible... just that we shouldn't let the perfect be the enemy of the good. If we don't succeed in the transition at all, then the 100-year goal becomes pointless.

my exactly should be aligned with krcook

also, and sorry for excessive posting (somewhat delirious), but does anybody know what happens to coal ash with sequestering...and as I'm asking this question the absurdities continue to arise...there are a ridiculous amount of environmental considerations and technological solutions that are needed to alleviate the inherent damages of coal...as has been stated by others, why not devote our policy towards technologies that do not require these ad-hoc technological solutions...very frustrating.

Don't blame posters for being confused about this issue. There's been a lot of misinformation and disinformation about this stuff.

The starting perception is that coal is a dirty word. The two best points I've heard here are:

Not all cleaner coal technology efforts are created equal.

Coal, whether we like it or not, is too integral a part of our energy resource to write off overnight. We'll be dependent on it for decades to come, even though our goal is to move to carbon free alternatives.

How pragmatic are the proposed technologies to burn coal cleaner?

More importantly, what constitutes pragmatic?

How do we separate the lies of coal lobbyists from the honest efforts?

"As for deciding this enormous crucial worldwide issue on the basis of which industry has schmuckier executives, we don't have that luxury."

This misrepresents the point. For one, sequestering will, like it or not, require, even if proven successful (which it appears it will be), a tremendous amount of careful monitoring and oversight, which is something that the coal industry has an apalling record of doing. I've also highlighted the hubris of the industry because we cannot decide this enormous crucial worldwide issue by pandering to an industry that does not uphold the value of the public good. They now base there existence, and I believe have insinuated this in their commercials, that because coal provides so much energy now it should de facto exist in the future. This is not how we evolve as a society. This is a sad cultural precedent to set. I have no problems with allowing them to invest and make change as an industry, but to willfully aid their negligence is civically irresponsible. A pronounced national effort, and dedication to renewable energy strategies creates the cultural conditions to foster regional energy autonomy strategies by smaller-scale communities. A over-reliance on coal is a statement of complacency. Furthermore, how many CCS plants will be implemented if they aren't cost effective? How many can be implemented after proper testing? How long will it take to construct the infrastructure to dispose of compressed CO2? How long does proper testing take? How will we account for the extra energy require to sequester the carbon (estimated between 10-40 percent). CCS requires 90 percent more water resources, where will these resources come from? Not all existing coal plants can be retrofitted with CCS technology. Which raises the question. Why not simply devote the calculated output of CCS coal plants to renewables and natural gas, and in the meantime convert existing plants (if possible) to IGCC. What I see as slightly absurd is that they want to advance a clean technology at the productio level, that already exists in other technologies. Why reinvent the wheel (or rather, why ignore that the wheel exists)?

one addendum

"IPCC has provided estimates of air emissions from various CCS plant designs (see table below). While CO2 is drastically reduced (though never completely captured), emissions of air pollutants increase significantly, generally due to the energy penalty of capture. Hence, the use of CCS entails a reduction in air quality."

"How long will it take to construct the infrastructure to dispose of compressed CO2?" We're talking about plants that include the whole sequestration process...."

sorry, but every CCS plant doesn't just conveniently have its own sequestration area. You have to approve of areas that have the capacity to sequester the CO2. For instance, a CCS project in Germany trucks the CO2 to its disposal area. FutureGen may be unique in that the site includes the approved sequestration area, but this would not be the case for every CCS plant.

The increased energy output point is this: at twenty percent increased output, you would need new plant to fuel the sequestration for every four plants built.

The calculated output point is this: determine the output of the planned energy output of the apparently planned (?) amount of sequestration plants and meet the output with renewables.

The last point is this: Sequestration is already projected to be extremely expensive undertaking, with operating costs making it essentially uncompetitive without subsidies, which coal in some senses already recieves. So why not make a massive transition to renewables, that with federal support will be cost effective, plentiful (after all, the photons are the most abundant resource, wind is as well--to the extent that we couldn't even theoretically utilize all of its energy potential, geothermal--more of a regional resource, but highly productive where you can get it, tidal--would tremendously help coastal cities, technology has been improving exponentially, and as I've hinted at--wood gasification for small community production that has access to manageable forest reserves...this isn't including biomass, natural gas, and to some extent nuclear.) and yes they are already, and note, inherently low-impact. It's partially about diversification, but also an imperative shift in where we devote our captial resources in regard to our energy strategies. There are plenty of projections that highlight the perils of devoting our resources to CCS; it comes down to playing catch-up with a resource that involves a tremendous amount of environmental inefficiencies.

"In the US, the Department of Energy has asked for a 26.4% budget increase for CCS-related programmes (to US$623.6 million) while at the same time scaling back renewable energy and efficiency research by 27.1% (toUS$146.2 million). 29 Australia has three research centres
for fossil fuels, including one committed to CCS; there is not one for renewable energy technology.30 The Norwegian government recently committed 20 billion NOK (US$4 billion) for two CCS projects at the expense of investment in renewable technologies." These number don't signify a very committed approach to diversification...there's a difference between what's being proposed here in the forum, and what is actually happening with regards to energy investment...

"The concept of “capture ready” power stations allows new coal-fired power stations to be built today while providing no guarantee that emissions will be mitigated in the future. In lieu of delivering a concrete solution to fighting climate change, it banks on the promise of an
unproven technology and risks locking us into an energy future that fails to protect the climate."

In the UK, for example, a proposed new coal-fired power plant at Kingsnorth, Kent is being sold as “capture ready.”Yet this doesn’t mean that the new plant will be able to capture and store carbon; it will just be ready to incorporate CCS should the technology ever become viable in the future; and no-one has any idea if and when this might be. In the meantime, and possibly for its entire lifetime, Kingsnorth (if built) will pump out around 8 million tonnes of CO2 per year, an amount equivalent to the total annual CO2 emissions of Ghana"

"The survey,conducted by GlobeScan, the World Conservation Union,IUCN and the World Bank, reveals substantial doubt about CCS. Only 34% of those polled were confident that retrofitting clean coal technology could reduce CO2 emissions over the next 25 years without unacceptable side effects, and only 36% in the ability of ‘clean coal technology’ to deliver low carbon energy with new power stations. In contrast, 74% expressed confidence in the ability of solar hot water to deliver, 62% for offshore wind farms, 60% for onshore wind farms, and 51% for combined heat and power plants."

"Assuming that commercial viability is reached, scenario studies indicate that by 2050 only 20-40% of global fossil fuel CO2 emissions could be technically suitable for capture86. This includes 30-60% of emissions from the power sector.87 Therefore up to 70% of emissions from
electricity generation in 2050 may not even be technically suited to CCS. Furthermore, this figure does not account for the fact that power stations will often be far away from storage sites. In Australia, CCS would lead, at best, to a 9% emissions reduction in 2030 and a cumulative emissions reduction from 2005 to 2030 of only 2.4%.88 This is partly due to the lack of suitable storage locations. For example, in the Newcastle-Sydney-Wollongong area of New South Wales and at Port Augusta in South Australia, which together produce about 39% of Australia’s current net CO2 emissions from electricity generation, there are no identified storage sites within 500 km of the coal-fired power stations.89 In comparison, a modest improvement in energy efficiency could – at zero or even negative cost decrease emissions in 2030 by about the same amount,and cumulative emissions by twice as much.90"

"CCS not only cuts energy efficiency but also increases resource consumption. A study by Rubin et al. (2005),quantified the impacts of capture systems on plant resource consumption and emission rates. For a 500MWe PC unit fitted with carbon capture, a 24% energy penalty was estimated to have resulted in an increase of
approximately 25% for fuel, limestone (for the flue gas desulphurisation system) and ammonia (for nitrogen oxide control) inputs (see Table 3).95 A US DOE analysis on the freshwater requirements for carbon capture found that in
2030, deploying CCS in PC plants with scrubbers and IGCC plants would increase water consumption in all scenarios examined by 90% (anywhere from 2.2 to 4.3 billion gallons of water per day).96 In a report for the German Department for the Environment, the Fraunhofer-Institute estimates that wide-scale adoption of CCS could
erase the efficiency gains of the last 50 years and increase resource consumption by one third.97"

"Achieving the substantial CO2 emissions reductions required to avoid catastrophic climate change would require broad deployment of CCS in a relatively short period of time. Global emissions from coal are currently 2.5 Gt of carbon per year. Sequestering just 1 Gt of carbon (3.6 Gt of CO2) would require the injection of approximately 50 million barrels of supercritical CO2 per day from about six hundred 1000 MWe coal plants.110 The IEA estimates that the magnitude of CO2 emissions that need to be captured and stored by 2050 is in the order of 6000 projects each injecting a million tonnes of CO2 a year into the ground.111 The vast infrastructure required to capture and transport CO2 from diverse and widely distributed point sources would also need to be built."

"In the US alone, reducing CO2 emissions from the
electricity sector could require 200 projects, each with injection rates ten times bigger than Sleipner.112 The US DOE estimates the country has enough technical capacity to store CO2 for tens to hundreds of years.113 However, a recent Congressional Research Services report shows that on the ground realities complicate the picture substantially. The report examines several scenarios for pipeline development in a seven-state region. The model scenario considered CO2 emissions from the 11 largest CO2 sources, all coal-fired power stations.114
In the report, the first storage option considered is Rose Run sandstone, a deep saline formation, very close to the CO2 sources. Though its proximity is ideal, the site has many problems including limited storage capacity, low permeability and questionable integrity (i.e. high risk of leakage).115 The second storage option examined includes a combination of coal beds and depleted oil and gas fields in the area. Further away than Rose Run, these sites would have limited utility. The coal beds lack sufficient storage capacity and the practicality of storing CO2 in coal seams is virtually untested. The oil and gas fields also lack sufficient capacity, and leakage is a concern mostly due to the numerous boreholes drilled to extract fossil fuels from them in the first place.116 The third storage option is the Mt. Simon formation, appealing because it is both larger and less fractured than the Rose Run location. Distance, however, is a limiting factor; Mt. Simon would require the construction of pipelines with an average length of 374km.117When scaling up CCS from demonstration phases, such scenarios are likely to be repeated many times over."

"Given how much better the same
money could have been spent on
other climate and energy
development projects, the head of
the Norwegian Institute for Energy
Research (IFE), called the decision to
rush development of the Kårstø plant
“close to immoral.5”

"The higher power demands of plants using carbon capture require higher coal and other fossil fuel use. Thus the major localised environmental problems associated with extraction and transport of fossil fuels including habitat destruction, damage to rivers and waterways (from subsidence due to longwall mining),and air pollution will also increase."