Answering questions on FutureGen Posted by Joe Lucas on 06/24/2009 10:40:53 AM

(The FutureGen discussion begins at the 10-minute mark.)

As many of you know, the Obama administration gave conditional support today for a federal-industry partnership that would build an advanced coal-burning power plant in Illinois to trap and store carbon dioxide emissions.

The project, dubbed FutureGen, will be built in Mattoon, Ill.

President Obama has mentioned five one-of-a-kind carbon capture and storage projects that his administration would be willing to fund.

ACCCE CEO Steve Miller appeared on Clean Skies Sunday, an online TV show, to talk about the project and answer tough questions about the future of clean coal technology.

FutureGen, a Blueprint for Clean Energy Posted by Joe Lucas on 06/12/2009 05:55:40 PM

Hot off the presses is this story: "The Obama administration gave conditional support today for a federal-industry partnership that would build an advanced coal-burning power plant in Illinois to trap and store carbon dioxide emissions."

The project, dubbed FutureGen, will be built in Mattoon, Ill.

President Obama has mentioned five one-of-a-kind carbon capture and storage projects that his administration would be willing to fund.

The Obama administration is to be commended for their decision to reinstate the FutureGen program and fast-track the development of this extremely valuable project.

It is reassuring to know that the president supports the development and implementation of clean coal technology into our energy portfolio. Given that FutureGen is the first commercial-scale, "fully integrated" carbon capture and sequestration project in the country, we are hopeful that its success will become a blueprint for the coal-based electricity sector going forward.

Clean coal and the new president Posted by Joe Lucas on 12/02/2008 11:20:35 AM

During the election, President-elect Obama talked a lot about investing in America's energy future. While that will involve investing in all of our available domestic energy resources, the President-elect was clear that developing and deploying clean coal technologies would reduce our dependence on foreign energy sources, create American jobs and hold down U.S. electricity costs.

In President-elect Obama has had to say about the future of clean coal:

“I am a big proponent of clean-coal technology and I want us to move rapidly in developing those sequestration technologies that's required.”

“What we need to do though is to put clean coal technology on the fast track and that means money. It means investment in research. That's something that we should have already been doing.”

“An Obama administration will provide incentives to accelerate private sector investment in commercial scale zero-carbon coal plants.”

We're looking forward to working with the new president, his administration and the new Congress as we seek ways to increase energy independence, reduce energy costs and invest in new technologies to meet new environmental challenges such as reducing greenhouse gas emissions in the energy sector.

In a recent interview with E&ETV, our CEO Steve Miller noted that the new administration would wrestle with a trio of issues, including fitting energy into an economic stimulus; moving the country to greater energy independence; and meeting our responsibilities to the environment.

We think a number of energy projects can help us overcome these challenges, including the revival of FutureGen, which is a public-private partnership to build the world's first near zero-emissions coal-fueled power plant. As Miller said: “President-elect Obama has mentioned five one-of-a-kind carbon capture and storage projects that his administration would be willing to fund; we hope that’s [FutureGen] one of them.”

ACCCE—a coalition of more than 40 coal-based electricity providers—stands ready to work with the president-elect, his administration and the 111th Congress to pioneer a new generation of advanced clean coal technologies that will capture and store carbon emissions and position America as a leader in innovation.

Join us in leading the way.

No matter what you've heard, FutureGen is alive Posted by Joe Lucas on 11/21/2008 02:57:40 PM

Recently, we had the chance to chat with Fred Palmer, senior vice president at Peabody Energy

We talked about the status of a project slated for Matoon, Ill., called FutureGen — a public-private partnership to build the world's first near zero-emissions coal-fueled power plant. (Peabody is one of the founding members of the FutureGen Alliance).

In the video below, you'll hear him say "FutureGen is alive."

He adds, "We'll make a concerted effort in the Obama administration to reinstate the project and get this built as originally planned."

We share Fred's cautious optimism that this important project will get back on track early next year, given the commitments made by Barack Obama — both in terms of this project specifically and in support of the deployment of a number of large-scale commercial carbon capture and storage projects.

Watch the whole video for yourself.

The latest news on FutureGen Posted by Joe Lucas on 07/03/2008 03:53:51 PM

Last month, the Department of Energy announced that it will likely select the revised FutureGen clean coal projects by the end of the year — underscoring the federal government's commitment to making clean coal a part of our energy future.

According to the Department of Energy, the projects will concentrate on the carbon capture and sequestration component of multiple commercial power plants across the United States.

DOE is initially offering $290 million to fund the 50-50 cost share of the carbon capture and sequestration components of the projects, to be followed by $1.1 billion that would be available in subsequent years if approved by Congress.

We still believe that the government should honor its initial commitment to build a FutureGen demonstration plant in Mattoon, Ill. That is... the Mattoon project should not have been scrapped to pursue other projects. If we're serious about meeting CO2 reduction goals, we should be doing MORE, not LESS.

People in Illinois think so too - just this week, a state board pledged $2 million to move FutureGen forward and the FutureGen Alliance will match the grants and spend another $6 million toward the effort.

Remember, for each month the project delayed, the cost goes up by about $10 million because of inflation. So it's in everyone's interest to get the political part of this squared away soon!

FutureGen Dropped From Spending Bill Posted by Joe Lucas on 05/21/2008 11:32:00 AM

Senators dropped the original FutureGen project from the supplemental war spending bill last night in a unanimous consent request.

If the senators decided that this wasn’t the best vehicle for FutureGen, so be it.

But the project still needs to be voted on, and quickly at that — the original FutureGen agreement runs out on June 15.

As I said last week, Congress should follow through with its original commitment to ensure that we have the technology to meet our goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions in the utility sector, and the FutureGen project as it is now scheduled to be demonstrated in Mattoon, Ill., is a key component of that effort.

The Future Of FutureGen Posted by Joe Lucas on 05/08/2008 03:36:00 PM

It’s been a big day for clean coal technology on Capitol Hill.

Good news emerged from the FutureGen Senate hearing this morning when Sen. Byron Dorgan, chairman of the Senate Appropriation’s energy and water subcommittee, said that lawmakers would likely keep the original FutureGen project alive until our next president has a chance to evaluate it.

Congress should follow through in demonstrating its commitment to ensure that we have the technology to meet our goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions in the utility sector, and the FutureGen project as it is now scheduled to be demonstrated in Mattoon, Ill., is a key component of that effort.

Some are now suggesting that the Department of Energy’s reluctance to move forward with the original FutureGen plan appears to be a matter of political wrangling over the location. And despite the claims of some, this was never an indictment of the technology.

As I’ve said here before, in order to meet the goal of having widespread deployment of carbon capture and storage technologies in a timely manner, there will need to be a stronger commitment from both the public and private sector.

Otherwise, it will be unlikely that America will be able to achieve the goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions in the utility sector and still meet the nation’s growing demand for affordable, reliable electricity.

                               

Using Coal To Neutralize National Security Threats Posted by Joe Lucas on 03/24/2008 03:49:00 PM

Over the weekend, I noticed a story about the U.S. military putting forward a plan to wean itself from foreign fuel by turning to coal.

The Air Force realizes that they could “help neutralize a national security threat by tapping into the country's abundant coal reserves.”

It makes sense, of course, to have the U.S. military use a domestically abundant resource rather than relying on politically volatile regions for the fuel to power our own fleet.

I don’t talk much about transportation fuels, but with high gasoline prices on everyone’s mind, it’s worth joining the discussion about whether the future of automobiles is electric cars or vehicles that run on hydrogen.

If the nation decides to move to electric cars, that will mean a need for increased investment in more clean coal plants. After all, half of our electricity comes from coal — and we’ll need coal even more it if we are plugging in our cars to the electricity grid (and any residual increase in emissions from the increased production of electricity would be more than offset by the emissions reductions in the transportation sector).

As hydrogen vehicles also catch on, coal can provide a clean solution there too. Using advanced technologies, we will be able to use coal to produce electricity with hydrogen being a beneficial byproduct.

As I’ve said many times, we need to change our way of thinking if we want to reduce our dependence on foreign oil. Knowing that technology will allow us to use coal to produce electricity and produce hydrogen for things like hydrogen fuel cells is more relevant now than ever.

The Clinton Energy Plan, Part Deux Posted by Joe Lucas on 11/08/2007 04:36:00 PM

                                    

I’ll admit it, I’m a political junkie. I follow politics and I am fascinated in watching how public opinion shapes public policy. In watching recent polls, I’ve noticed that the public is becoming increasingly concerned about “energy security.” In some recent polls, “energy security” concerns are even higher than concerns about “the environment” (generically) or “global warming” specifically.

Given the public’s growing concern about energy security issues, I’m somewhat surprised that Senator Clinton’s energy plan did not do more to address those very real concerns.

Currently, over 50% of the electricity we use each day comes from American coal. If you’ve seen our ads, you know that we have more coal in the U.S. than Saudi Arabia has oil (actually, that’s an understatement – we have more coal than the Middle East has oil).

However, if regulatory programs that will reduce America’s reliance on coal become law – our country will become more reliant on imported energy resources to meet our electricity needs!
That’s a fact, regardless of claims that energy efficiency and Herculean growth in the use of renewables can replace traditional energy resources like coal.

Unfortunately, Senator Clinton’s plan is not specific enough to discuss how she would address these concerns. This obviously has energy security as well as national security implications.
We think she needs to say more!

But before it appears that we’re coming down too hard on Senator Clinton for what she did say … let’s be clear that she is the only presidential that has offered details on this very important issue (at least thus far in the campaign).

So, like I said yesterday, Senator Clinton’s plan is a good first draft … but we’ll need to do better if we’re going to meet America’s growing energy needs and continue to improve our record of protecting the environment.

To the other presidential candidates, give us a chance to talk more about your energy plans. Get out there and talk to America about your energy and environmental policies that will ensure that we keep the lights on (and keep energy costs affordable) and protect the environment. We’re waiting to hear from you.

                               

I Give Hillary’s Plan a B- Posted by Joe Lucas on 11/06/2007 04:19:00 PM

                                    

Did everyone have a chance to read Senator Clinton’s energy plan yet? I did. Here’s why I’m giving her a B- (we all know she’s an educational overachiever, so I’m guessing that she’ll be bothered that she didn’t get an A!).

The good

First, she gets the fact that “technology” is the solution to the challenge. In most cases, “she’s putting her money where her mouth is” instead of just telling people that “this will be an easy fix.”

Second… Hillary is talking about an important near-term way we can address concerns about climate change—storing the greenhouse gases or what’s called “sequestration.” She proposes funding ten large geological carbon storage sites—and she favors incenting farmers and ranchers to use proven methods to store carbon in soil and in plants.

Third, Hillary recognizes that new power plants using coal can’t be expected to put on carbon capture and storage technologies on that don’t yet exist. That’s why it is crucial that the federal government join with the private sector in funding the research, development, and deployment of these new technologies — and soon.

Hillary is getting a break on the grading curve. At this point, her competitors in the presidential campaign are getting an incomplete (come on guys, you have to submit your paper to get a grade). She is the only one, so far, who has provided real details. This is a big deal issue that will have a greater effect on the domestic economy (and therefore American families) than any other set of regulations considered for quite a long time. So it is reasonable (that’s an understatement) that folks running for president need to have some details on how they see the issue playing out.

The “could do better” part

There’s the old political “double speak” about how we will meet America’s growing energy needs. Senator Clinton places a lot a confidence in energy efficiency; and, like her, we also embrace using energy more wisely. However, regardless of how energy efficient you make a television … it doesn’t get you around the fact that we’re all plugging in four or five televisions, when several years back it was one or two televisions per house. I use televisions just as an example to say we are becoming more energy efficient … but at the same time, we’re using more energy. So, new coal-based power plants will be needed. These power plants will meet increased energy demand as well as replacing older, less efficient power plants.

Also, I’m concern that there is not enough in her plan to protect families from higher energy costs. I’m particularly concerned about her plan for 100% auction of the emissions credits for GHG regulations. Experience from the successful acid rain program show that assigning credits based upon emissions sources helps to lower the compliance costs for utilities and those savings ultimately passed along consumers.

With oil prices at a record level (and 10% of American households already paying 50% of their income to cover energy-related expenditures), having a “safety valve” in any plan to regulate CO2 is essential to protect families and the economy from substantially higher energy costs.

As first drafts go, this one shows promise. Let’s hope that Senator Clinton can add some provisions to look out for working families so I can give her that “A” I know she’s striving for.

That’s important because climate change is such an key issue — America can’t afford to support a B- platform. The American public deserves (and, in fact) will require that whatever policy gets enacted on this set of issues be an A+ plan.

(Note: Next, I want to share with you some ideas on how I see Senator Clinton’s plan in relation to energy/national security and her plans for outreach to the international community on this issue.)