Friday, February 1, 2008 8:35 PM CST
Alliance counters DOE objections to FutureGen
By HERB MEEKER, Staff Writer
hmeeker@jg-tc.com
MATTOON — Getting Congress to override the Department of Energy’s decision on FutureGen might be an option, a Coles Together official said Thursday.
The FutureGen Alliance also issued a rebuttal Thursday to major objections voiced Wednesday by DOE Deputy Secretary Clay Sell.
“If Congress approved the funding for FutureGen over the DOE’s objection, then Congress could force the release of the Energy Department’s Record of Decision,” said Coles Together Vice President Anthony Pleasant.
Pleasant described the ROD as the final “grade card” on the acceptability of the FutureGen site at Mattoon; all four finalist sites had received nods of acceptance through the final Environmental Impact Statement last fall. DOE has refused to release the ROD documents, which Pleasant said are probably ready for release.
DOE officials said they pulled the plug on the FutureGen Alliance plan for the cleaner coal power plant due to increasing costs and concerns about the design for future commercial application.
“The ROD should be done from what I understand,” said Pleasant, a member of the local FutureGen team. “It was our understanding the ROD would only eliminate bad sites on geology or environmental factors. It was not to have anything to do with economics.”
Alliance spokesman Lawrence Pacheco repeated plans to move forward at Mattoon under the single plant design. DOE advocates multiple sites.
“The alliance will continue to work with Congress and officials in Illinois and Mattoon,” he said. “But it is too difficult to say what our specific plans are at this point.”
U.S. Sen. Dick Durbin said efforts to approve FutureGen funding over the objections of the Bush administration could be an “uphill battle.”
FutureGen Alliance and lawmakers tore into the Department of Energy’s restructuring plan for producing cleaner coal technology throughout the country.
In a fact sheet released Thursday, the alliance countered DOE statements on cost increases, financing and design for underground carbon dioxide storage. A DOE official during a teleconference Wednesday announced DOE is restructuring FutureGen by equipping multiple new clean coal plants with carbon capture and storage technology, called CCS.
Officials with the FutureGen Alliance and Department of Energy did not return phone calls Thursday.
Here is a summary of the alliance responses to the DOE position:
DOE: Project costs have nearly doubled.
The oft-repeated claim by DOE officials is that the original estimated cost of FutureGen was about about $1 billion in 2003 when it was first announced by President Bush. Now the estimated cost is $1.8 billion, and DOE Deputy Secretary Clay Sell said the ever-increasing cost was a major factor for the decision to split it up into multiple plant sites.
ALLIANCE: Project costs have increased, but DOE’s share has not doubled — not even close.
When President Bush first announced FutureGen, the DOE share was $800 million. DOE’s current estimated share is $1.1 billion with the increase due to inflation. A White House official was quoted in The New York Times on Dec. 17 as saying, “... the market for steel, concrete and power plant components has just gone through the roof globally.” The alliance has offered to provide DOE with partial-to-full repayment to ease the final cost to taxpayers. The costs are manageable, according to the alliance.
DOE: Financing part of FutureGen is inappropriate.
Taxpayer responsibility was 74 percent of the alliance design plan, including a similar figure of any cost escalations.
ALLIANCE: DOE cleaner coal projects routinely involve financing.
It is common practice for commercial plants to be majority financed and, under DOE’s alternative plan, it is a near certainty that industrial partners will finance a major part of the project.
In addition, alliance member contributions, thus far, have been cash donations. The alliance has told DOE it still expects a majority of its contributions will come from cash donations. Proposed financing is small relative to traditional projects, the alliance contends. The alliance is made up of some of the world’s largest companies; DOE’s notion that they might default is nonsense, according to alliance leaders.
DOE: The government must have iron-clad funding guarantees from industry.
Sell said a lack of guarantees on the funding could put American taxpayers at risk under the previous plan.
ALLIANCE: DOE is providing no guarantees for its own funding, which will be available on a year-to-year basis depending upon appropriations.
DOE: FutureGen, as configured, is “smaller than commercial scale.”
According to the alliance, FutureGen is commercial scale.
The facility will be built around a commercial-scale gasifier and commercial-scale frame 7 turbine.
DOE: DOE’s alternative plan will sequester twice as much carbon dioxide as the current project’s 1 million ton goal.
This is one of the reasons the FutureGen project has been restructured, so it can be more cost-effective on emissions controls, according to the government.
ALLIANCE: The Mattoon site and FutureGen, as currently configured, can sequester approximately 2 million tons per year.
The environmental impact statement considered as much as 2.5 million tons.
Supporters of FutureGen said they cannot understand why DOE officials pulled the plug on FutureGen after nearly five years of effort on the current design. Sell said concerns on the project were raised in early 2007, and negotiations eventually fell apart.
Contact Herb Meeker at hmeeker@jg-tc.com or 238-6869.
Add your comments
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.
|
|
|
