JG-TC.com > News > FutureGen might be 'rescoped' to meet DOE funding concerns

TODAY'S HEADLINES

SPECIAL SECTION

ONLINE POLL

ONLINE EXTRAS

SITE TOOLS

OTHER LINKS

St. Louis Post-Dispatch

Lee Enterprises

Thursday, January 10, 2008 8:54 PM CST
FutureGen might be 'rescoped' to meet DOE funding concerns

MATTOON — The FutureGen plant in Mattoon might be downsized and the project “rescoped” into developing several research sites across the country, U.S. Rep. John Shimkus, R-Collinsville, said Thursday morning.

Shimkus said that is one scenario he has heard being considered by the U.S. Department of Energy as a cost-cutting measure. A restructuring would send different types of coal and sequestration research to different facilities in the country.

Though he is frustrated by infighting delays on the power plant project, Shimkus said Mattoon will be part of the effort, however. Moving forward with FutureGen would help the state’s coal industry as well, he said.

“DOE’s position is they can do more with the (projected $1.8 billion expense). One plan might have five coal gasification facilities across the country,” said Shimkus during a visit to Mattoon. “(DOE’s) idea is you can get a better return on the money if you divide the research.”

“DOE believes that the public interest mandates that FutureGen deliver the greatest possible technological benefits in the most cost-efficient manner,” said Julie Ruggiero of DOE. “This will require restructuring FutureGen to maximize the role of private sector innovation, facilitate the most productive public-private partnership, and prevent further cost escalation.

“More details on the structure of FutureGen will be provided later this month,” said Ruggiero.

For more information, see the Friday Journal Gazette and Times-Courier.

Add your comments

*Member ID:
*Password:
Remember login? (requires cookies)
	Forgot Your Password?

Not already registered?
Then click Here.

Comment policy:

JG-TC.com encourages readers to engage in civil conversation with their neighbors. Comments that are submitted are not posted to the site immediately. They go into a queue to be moderated and may take several hours to be reviewed. Comments posted on Saturday may not be reviewed until Sunday afternoon.

In order to keep the page a set width, long lines (mostly long links) will be chopped. Try putting spaces in your links or consider using tinyurl.com to make a smaller link that you can include.

We will never edit or alter your comments, but we do reserve the right to remove comments that violate our code of conduct.

No comment may contain:

* Potentially libelous statements; such as accusing somebody of a crime, defamation of character, or statements that can harm somebody's reputation.
* Obscene, explicit, or racist language.
* Personal attacks, insults, threats, harassment or inciting violence.
* Commercial product promotions.

If you have any questions, please contact our moderator.

Tom Andres wrote on Jan 10, 2008 5:41 PM:

" Now, where the heck is that other shoe? Oh, wait a minute, I see, it hasn't dropped yet. Could it be this is a political process after all? I wonder why, all of a sudden, after several years in the decision-making process, DOE mysteriously decides that diluting research efforts at Mattoon will somehow produce better technology worldwide? Hmmm, seems bassackwards to me. I always thought 'bringing our best scientific minds together' was the more acceptable format for getting things done in a hurry. My standard rule is: when something doesn't make any sense at all, it must be political! "

Chris 2.0 wrote on Jan 10, 2008 6:51 PM:

" How is building 5 sites cheaper than building one? I smell a rat. "

Rotty wrote on Jan 10, 2008 8:27 PM:

" Someone has their sheep's clothing on nice & snug, huh? "

lefty wrote on Jan 10, 2008 8:30 PM:

" Hahahaha, I thought this was supposed to be our salvation?! "

cman wrote on Jan 10, 2008 10:30 PM:

" what was that I said a few weeks ago??? oh yeah - "Come on people do you really think this will happen?" "

The Question wrote on Jan 11, 2008 12:15 AM:

" That's your pals in the corrupt Bush administration at work, Andres. Maybe the five sites can all be schemed out for maximum kleptocrat profit in one of Cheney's secret energy policy meetings.
Typical. "

Locke wrote on Jan 11, 2008 1:25 AM:

" FutureGen is coming to Mattoon! Hurray for us! Hurrah! Yippy skippy! What? Huh? It's not coming to Mattoon? We're not the super cool winner? Boy, I bet those fools at the Time feel pretty stupid now. "

warrior wrote on Jan 11, 2008 9:26 AM:

" I wonder if the people who work for the DOE are the same people who who work for IDOT and think that a certain amount of people have to die at an intersection before it warrants a traffic signal (lakeland college ring a bell). Sure glad Illinois spent all our money to get FurtureGen here or is it?? "

291953 wrote on Jan 12, 2008 7:58 AM:

" On another story it was said that the MIT was concerned about the site selection and now the Energy Department "echoes that concern". Ladies and Gentlemen, if you buy this story then I have some prime farmland in the Artic I think you'll be interested in. I agree with others who have stated that it's only because Texas didn't get chosen that the DOE is having "second thoughts". It's a tactic called "bait and switch" and it's also a crime. "