JG-TC.com > News > Shimkus: Multiple FutureGen sites a possibility

TODAY'S HEADLINES

SPECIAL SECTION

ONLINE POLL

ONLINE EXTRAS

Shop Smart, Shop Local

SITE TOOLS

OTHER LINKS

St. Louis Post-Dispatch

Lee Enterprises

Thursday, January 10, 2008 8:54 PM CST
Shimkus: Multiple FutureGen sites a possibility
Lawmaker says 'rescoped' project considered as government officials look to trim price tag

By HERB MEEKER, Staff Writer
hmeeker@jg-tc.com

MATTOON — The FutureGen plant might be downsized here 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 separate different types of coal and sequestration research at 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). 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.

“It’s not about the location or the work that’s been done there. Everything is still valid about Mattoon,” he said. “If it is rescoped then you will not have all the bells and whistles.”

DOE is the major funding partner on the project to convert coal to hydrogen for electrical generation, and storing the greenhouse gases underground. The department has withheld a record of decision on the FutureGen plant site west of Mattoon due to concerns with rising costs of the energy project.

FutureGen Alliance is a group of energy-related firms from nine countries committed to the clean energy effort to make coal a more viable energy source for power production worldwide.

Asked about the possibility of restructuring the FutureGen program into multiple research sites, a DOE spokeswoman did not confirm or deny specifics on the plan.

“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,” she said.

“Clean coal technology is a vital component of the Bush administration’s vision for a cleaner, more secure energy future. And FutureGen, which seeks to demonstrate integrated clean coal technologies with carbon capture and sequestration, remains a cornerstone of this vision,” said Ruggiero.

The estimated total cost of building the FutureGen plant has nearly doubled from $850 million to $1.5 billion in four years, based on figures cited by different sources. DOE and other sources have quoted the current price as $1.8 billion, but FutureGen Alliance leaders said that includes $300 million for coal costs, not actual construction estimates.

Shimkus said a report by the Massachusetts Insitutue of Technology titled “The Future of Coal” recommends that DOE launch at least three large-scale sequestration demonstration projects.

Shimkus also said DOE might want to recapture costs by having mutiple facilities generate and sell electricity on a regular basis. Different coal types could be shipped into the FutureGen plants to gauge the most efficient energy source for the technology to produce near-zero emissions.

“Right now, you would have to shut down and calibrate for different coal types. You can’t sell electricity that way,” he said. “This is about taxpayers’ dollars. That’s why DOE is saying if you rescope this then you sell the power.”

Shimkus said there is still support for FutureGen in the White House. He discounts fears that cost concerns will scrap the project the Bush administration proposed to help fight climate change.

“This is President Bush’s initiative. Low-cost power is critical,” Shimkus said. “The only way you can do it is with FutureGen or a morphed program. I think Bush wants to leave office with this moving forward. This being his baby, I don’t think he wants to walk away from it.”

But the main indicator on the fate of FutureGen will come in a matter of days when federal budget figures are released. Shimkus said it will then be up to the White House or the congressional appropriators to determine the funding.

Involved in the FutureGen project for some time, Shimkus wants the political infighting to end, but he said he is a realist. He plans to be part of a bipartisan meeting, including fwllow House members Tim Johnson, R-Champaign, and Jerry Costello, D-Belleville, and U.S. Sen. Dick Durbin, a Democrat who is assistant majority leader, later this month to help resolve some FutureGen issues.

“In Washington, they always tell you don’t celebrate until you get the dirt moved. If we get to the point where the dirt is moved on a rescoped project, then that is good,”he said.

Contact Herb Meeker at hmeeker@jg-tc.com or 238-6869.

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.

Locke wrote on Jan 11, 2008 1:20 AM:

" This is too funny. "

291953 wrote on Jan 11, 2008 6:22 AM:

" What's this?? The city of Mattoon was the choice for this much-publicized plant that they were told would bring hundreds of jobs to Mattoon and the surrounding area. Now the government wants to change their mindsss?? NO, I don't think so. Our representatives should make it clear that the package that was offered and given to Mattoon should be the one that actually comes.This has given the city and the surrounding area the best news and the most hope it has seen in decades, and it would be the worst of tricks to now say "April fool!". "

The Question wrote on Jan 11, 2008 9:13 AM:

" Typical Bush administration corruption. We will find that the money is being diverted to some Republican corporate scum, and the scientific studies can go to blazes. Bush has never let science stand in the way of his corrupt practices. "

Matt Toon wrote on Jan 11, 2008 11:12 AM:

"
This sounds like politics at its worse. And it looks like the Bush administration is largely to blame. If the problem is insufficient money I can't understand why they would built four or five small plants instead of one big one. Surely that would be more costly.
"

Becky wrote on Jan 11, 2008 11:16 AM:

" The Bushbots are at it again. The DOE was all for it as is until they found out it wasn't going to Bush's backyard in Texas. Now they will hold the funding until they are sure that Texas still gets a piece of the pie. Man, I can't WAIT until these corporate ho's are OUT OF OFFICE!!!!! Yes, I know that so are the rest of them in Washington, but at least they previously had some kind of shame and kept it to some limits. Now, it's all out in the open and they are all laughing in our faces. Hopefully, we'll be the ones laughing last. "

caringmom wrote on Jan 11, 2008 7:34 PM:

" Why does this all not surprise me? Like they say - if it sounds too good to be true, it usually is. "

Chad(USAF) wrote on Jan 12, 2008 12:02 AM:

" ROTFL! Now it's Bush's fault that Futuregen may not be coming? Wow...you people really amaze me. "

soybeanpod wrote on Jan 12, 2008 8:05 AM:

" Just read the MIT report folks. If this was in another state and we were hearing the design was bad, we would be in another corner on this discussion. "

The Question wrote on Jan 12, 2008 10:24 AM:

" " ROTFL! Now it's Bush's fault that Futuregen may not be coming? Wow...you people really amaze me. "
---
Bush controls the Energy Department, Chad. Or rather, Cheney does with his secret energy policy meetings. You didn't know that? Wow... you really amaze me. "

Early Bird wrote on Jan 13, 2008 6:14 AM:

" The Question does make a good point, Chad. All presidents have a tendency of trying to politicise most government departments, but the Bush/Cheney team seems to have taken this to a new low, especially the Justice Department, and now it looks like we can add the Energy Department. It's not just Bush hatred, as his supporters would have us believe, that causes people to question actions taken by our government. Bush has brought this mistrust upon himself by his own actions. This whole scenario has Bush and his energy czar, Cheney's fingerprints all over it. I'm guessing there are too many dollar signs involved here, for Bush/Cheney duo not to get involved, and steer, at least some of this potential money, toward their supporters. The Cheney's have become quite wealthy off of their involvement with the military/industrial complex, and while this doesn't seem to be connected to that, I would imagine those greedy hogs are somehow involved. Anyone else remember Reagan's Attorney General, Meese, and his wife buying buildings in the Washington D C area, in her name of course, and renting them out to the Federal Government? Ah, more Republican family values, like the ones we hear so much about at every election time. And speaking of Republican values, does any one know what's going on with Tom Delay? "

CentralIllinoisWasp wrote on Jan 13, 2008 11:18 PM:

" I have examined the MIT Report. It does not question technical aspects of proposed FutureGen project. It suggests that FutureGen be categorized as a demonstration project (and thus receive less federal funding) rather than as an advanced research and development project (and thus receive a larger amount of federal funding). The concerns it raised deal with advanced research concerns and potential political problems vis-a-vis such research; as a demonstration project these concerns are much reduced. Appears that FutureGen consortium is willing to accept the lower level of federal funding associated with being a demonstration project. Throughout the MIT Report is an expressed worldwide urgency for such projects to be undertaken. So now how will Bush and his DOE try to get out of his earlier support? As with Iraq, No Child Left Behind, etc., I have confidence that they will keep tryng one excuse after after another. They have only hot air when it comes to meaningfully working on energy and global warming matters. "