|
running on a project that is critical to our nation's energy future will set back
our efforts to develop carbon sequestration technologies which are vital to enable the cleanest possible use of America's
vast coal reserves, and it will not inspire the confidence of other companies seeking to collaborate with the Department of
Energy."
Bush announced the FutureGen project in his 2003 State of the Union address. The idea was to build an experimental plant
that would use cutting-edge technologies to generate electricity while capturing and permanently storing carbon dioxide deep
beneath the earth. The plant would also produce hydrogen and byproducts for possible use by other industries.
A nonprofit consortium of 13 coal mining and electric utility companies from around the globe was formed to partner with
the Department of Energy on the project. This group is known as the FutureGen Industrial Alliance.
According to the Alliance, the integration of coal gasification, electricity generation, emissions control, carbon
dioxide capture and storage, and hydrogen production technologies is what made the project unique. These technologies have
never been put together and tested at a single plant - an essential step for technical and commercial viability, the
Alliance says.
Site selection for the plant began in May 2006. Seven states responded to a Request for Proposals with a total of 12
sites, four in Illinois. Selection of the site was to be done by the Alliance based on scientific analysis, not politics. In
November 2007, it announced four finalists, two in Illinois and two in Texas. In December 2007, the consortium made its
final selection: Mattoon, Ill.
"If the Administration had its way, it would have gone to Texas," Costello said. "There's no doubt about it. I can't say
that I blame them. I fight as hard as I possibly can to bring things to my district, to build jobs and help the economy, so
if they would have said from the beginning, 'Hey, we're going to locate this in Texas,' we probably would have objected,
but we wouldn't have stopped the project. But instead, they went through this façade of being competitive and non-political.
That's why we brought this Alliance in, because they were non-political, and they would do it based on the science," he
added.
"Working with the Alliance, I was really encouraged," Costello said. "When we got down to four sites, everybody said
'It's going to Texas,' and I said, 'I don't think so. I think that based upon the science and the geology, I think it's
coming to Illinois.' When it was announced in Mattoon, I was very pleased. And then, of course, the Administration pulls the
plug," he said.
The reason given by the Bush Administration for dropping the project is that the projected cost had nearly doubled from
about $1 billion six years ago to approximately $1.8 billion today. The deal had been that the Department of Energy would
contribute 76 percent of the cost and the Alliance would fund the rest. When the price escalated, the Alliance went to the
Department of Energy and offered to negotiate a different split - with the private sector picking up a bigger share of the
cost, according to Costello - but their overtures were rebuffed. Regardless, the Department of Energy should have
anticipated price escalation in such a project, Costello said.
|
"From concept to construction, when you talk close to a decade, you're talking about substantial increases in cost…and
that should have been anticipated from the beginning in the planning stages," said Costello. "If you take a look at the
Peabody Coal plant that is going up in Lively Grove, Ill., from the time that it was announced as a concept until the time
it broke ground, it went from about a $1 billion project to about a $3 billion project now."
U.S. Rep. John Shimkus, also from Illinois, has been a strong supporter of the project and said he was greatly
disappointed by the FutureGen decision.
"This was a made-to-order project announced by Pres. Bush in the State of the Union address which brought me great pride,
in that a sitting Republican president realized the importance of coal and was willing to spend the resources necessary to
move us into the next generation of clean coal technology," Shimkus said. "You can imagine how betrayed I felt when I
started hearing the rumblings of change from the Department of Energy."
Shimkus said that he and U.S. Rep. Tim Johnson, a Republican from Champaign, Ill., spoke with Pres. Bush about the
decision and were told that Secretary of Energy Samuel Bodman was concerned about the escalating cost. But Shimkus said he
felt that the Department of Energy had led the communities on, even sending a letter in December 2007 to each member of the
Illinois delegation expressing the Department's support of the project.
"They just led the communities on, and it's a shame," said Shimkus.
Shimkus and Costello have not given up the fight, however. Shimkus said they have sent a letter to Sec. Bodman asking for
reconsideration, and Shimkus said Costello is circulating a letter to congressmen from across the country to weigh in with
support for the project.
Costello said the idea is to try to keep the project alive in 2008 and look to revive it under a new administration in
2009.
"Whoever are the Democratic and Republican nominees," Costello said, "it is my goal to get both candidates to commit to
FutureGen and to publicly state their support for sequestration and a FutureGen-type project. I don't think either one will
commit to the absolute site, but I want them to commit the federal government and their administration to pursuing
sequestration and a FutureGen-type project."
Shimkus says the fight won't be easy, however. He says that he is amazed at how little support there is in Congress for
coal energy. There are only about a half dozen states that have coal supplies and some of his colleagues would like to see
the nation never use another ounce of coal again, he said.
Both Shimkus and Costello say this is not a matter of Illinois versus Texas, but rather a vital project for the future of
the nation.
"Unfortunately, we are where we are and the Administration is not going to change its mind," Costello said. "What we have
to do is try to pick up the pieces and try to hold on to the project, because I believe in this project. We have a 250-year
supply of coal in the United States. It's the cheapest form of energy that we have. The whole purpose of FutureGen was to
see if we can figure out a way to burn it where it's environmentally friendly. It was a $2 billion investment in a project
that could open the doors to a 250-year supply of the cheapest form of energy that we have. It's a small price to pay. And I
believe that's part of the responsibility of government - to partner with the private sector to do research and development
in areas that could benefit the American people."
|
-->
