Clean dream: FutureGen was the Bush administration’s showcase project to produce carbon-free power and hydrogen from coal. The plant was to burn hydrogen gas produced from coal in high-temperature gasification vessels while carbon dioxide from the coal was sequestered deep underground.
U.S. Dept. of Energy

Energy

The Future of Clean Coal

The DOE's decision to abandon FutureGen could accelerate clean-coal technology.

  • Thursday, February 7, 2008
  • By Peter Fairley

When it was first announced in 2003, FutureGen was billed as a $1 billion prototype for the coal-burning power plant of the future, combining electricity and hydrogen production with the near elimination of harmful emissions. So the U.S. Department of Energy's (DOE) decision late last month to back out of the project, which was meant to build an advanced coal-gasification plant designed to sequester its carbon dioxide emissions underground, is once again fueling debate over the future of clean-coal technology in the United States.

Some energy-policy analysts say that technology development and changing priorities have simply made FutureGen obsolete. In fact, they say that the DOE's plans to instead finance carbon-capture equipment at commercial power plants could actually accelerate the implementation of the clean-coal vision that FutureGen once represented. "The fact that the [FutureGen] project was cancelled reflects budgetary issues more than a lack of confidence in the technology," says Alex Klein, a senior analyst tracking developments in power generation for the consultancy Emerging Energy Research, based in Cambridge, MA. "If the government does, in fact, concentrate its efforts on capture and sequestration, it will be just as significant a development for the industry as if FutureGen went forward."

In a statement released last week, U.S. secretary of energy Samuel Bodman explained that FutureGen had become too expensive. Indeed, FutureGen's predicted price tag has gone from $950 million in 2003 to $1.5 to $1.8 billion today. The DOE had agreed to foot 74 percent of the bill, leaving just over a quarter to the FutureGen Alliance, a consortium of primarily coal-fired utilities.

FutureGen was also overtaken by public concern over rising greenhouse-gas emissions and the emergence of rival commercial projects. Utilities have proposed more than 50 Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle (IGCC) power plants, which are similar in design to FutureGen. Both technologies convert coal into a mixture of hydrogen and carbon monoxide. The commercial IGCC plants burn the mixed gases, producing a more concentrated (and thus easier to capture) stream of carbon dioxide than conventional power plants do. In contrast, FutureGen's design would remove the carbon before the combustion of pure hydrogen in more efficient but as yet unproven ultrahigh-temperature turbines, further reducing the energy penalty caused by carbon capture.

Advertisement

Since the commercial plants are based on existing equipment, they are considerably cheaper to build than FutureGen would have been. For example, utility giant American Electric Power estimates that the 629-megawatt IGCC plants that it wants to build in Ohio and West Virginia would cost about $2.5 billion each, including carbon capture, which is at least 27 percent cheaper per megawatt of power produced than projected costs for FutureGen.

Print

Related Articles

Getting Power From Coal Without Digging It Up

An Alberta project will transform coal deep beneath the ground into gas.

Using Rust to Capture CO2 from Coal Plants

Process could capture carbon more cheaply.

FutureGen Rises from the Dead

The DOE's backing revives a pioneering clean-coal project.

Close Comments

To comment, please sign in or register

Forgot my password

DJTal

154 Comments

  • 1467 Days Ago
  • 02/07/2008

CO2 Storage.

Was storing CO2 deep underground EVER going to be economical ? Since there are an increasing number of ways to use CO2 productively the answer is obvious .

Reply

Guest (jpdemers)

  • 1464 Days Ago
  • 02/10/2008

Re: CO2 Storage.

Unfortunately, there really are no economical uses for CO2 that are remotely capable of putting a dent in emissions.  CO2 is a thermodynamic dead-end: you have to expend energy to turn it into anything else.  Producing that energy with a CO2-emitting plant, of course, only leaves you further behind.

Reply

DJTal

154 Comments

  • 1463 Days Ago
  • 02/11/2008

Re: CO2 Storage.

Take a look at the EPRIDA (www.eprida.com) process for converting CO2 and hydrated ammonia into ammonium bicarbonate on a substrate of charcoal , which can be used as a soil improver .

Reply

Viv

61 Comments

  • 1467 Days Ago
  • 02/07/2008

Why burn coal?

Why burn coal in the first place should be the question, not how to burn coal cleanly and what to do with the resulting pollution, its far too valuable a feed-stock resource to just burn in such an uncontrolled and wasteful manner, burning coal for heat is a ridiculous waste.

Reply

Eco Eco

1 Comment

  • 1467 Days Ago
  • 02/07/2008

Sorry, not convinced

So the project went from being a pure-research effort to generate new knowledge, to being a subsidy for CCS for Big Energy fearing having to actually do something to curb CO2 emissions before 2050.  If we really wanted to save TAX money, Congress would pass real ghg caps, and let the magic of the marketplace solve the problem.

Reply

SVE

51 Comments

  • 1467 Days Ago
  • 02/07/2008

Coal Cling-ons

Clean Coal was never a good term. At the end of any process, carbon in solid form on the ground is turned to carbon in gaseous form (CO2) trapping solar heat. And all the Rube Goldberg ways of trying to capture the huge amounts of gas was just silly.

We need a longterm non-carbon way of dealing with our energy needs for our stationary users (electricity) and our transportation users (bio? or electricity?).

The government is right on focusing on giving financial inducements to the existing coal plants to make their stacks cleaner. We are going to be using a lot of coal for the near future.

But government sponsored R&D should be directed towards more futuristic technologies research that are too far off to be financially justified by existing energy producers. These involve all the clean alternatives. Closing FutureGen is smart.

Reply

Guest (v240)

  • 1467 Days Ago
  • 02/07/2008

cost per watt

Does anyone know the cost per watt for clean coal? From the article it looked like 4 dollars a watt.  This seems to high. Current photovoltics can do better than that.  Nanosolar is claiming 1 dollar per watt.

Reply

Advertisement

MakeSense

99 Comments

  • 1467 Days Ago
  • 02/07/2008

Burn Biomass

The best use of biomass is not ethanol, but burning it for electricity. It's the same stuff with fewer steps, less processing and less waste. Giant Miscanthus has been proposed as a prolific woody substitute or cogen for coal. Biomass electricity produces low net greenhouse gases and fewer pollutants than coal.

Coal is very important. But if you want to reduce greenhouse gases, mercury, arsenic, etc..., then biomass is the way to go.

Reply

oconnmic

21 Comments

  • 1467 Days Ago
  • 02/07/2008

Re: Burn Biomass

I know biomass is deemed "neutral" because it sequesters co2 and then releases it when burned.  However, the same argument can be made for coal.  The co2 was just sequestered a long time ago! 

Anyway, the earth's temperature has been going up since the last ice age, long before humans could have impacted temperatures.  I don't think the earth really cares what we do, it's going on it's merry way with or without us.  Since we don't know the consequences of our actions it seems insane to constantly demand changes in the way we live based on the theory de jour.

Reply

MakeSense

99 Comments

  • 1466 Days Ago
  • 02/08/2008

Re: Burn Biomass

The harmful effect of CO2 released from coal comes the fact that the carbon was trapped millions of years ago followed by an equilibrium. Releasing the fossil carbon as CO2 changes this equilibrium. When plants are grown then burned, they cycle carbon over an extremely shorter timeframe; this does not affect the current equilibrium.

Reply

Guest (jpdemers)

  • 1464 Days Ago
  • 02/10/2008

Re: Burn Biomass

It's incorrect to think that the earth spins along, and we're just along for the ride: humans do have a foot on the accelerator, if not the steering wheel. 

But there is no "equilibrium" between coal and CO2 -- natural coal fires aside, it's a one-way process.

The planet has been slowly burying CO2 for a billion years, leaving a bit of coal and oil, but mostly quadrillions of tons of carbonate rock.  The danger in reversing that process is that the climate reverts accordingly, and -- at current rates of fossil fuel burning -- it's reverting too quickly for living things to adapt. 

Reply

JohnQPublius

1 Comment

  • 1466 Days Ago
  • 02/08/2008

IGCC and POPs

I remember reading somewhere that the IGCC process produces dioxins. Is this being dealt with by these next generation plants? If so, how? Thanks.

Reply

mpolikoff

1 Comment

  • 1446 Days Ago
  • 02/28/2008

Re: IGCC and POPs

You can remove dioxins, mercury etc. in the conversion process but they still require disposal; perhaps even worse, large amounts of mercury are released to the air and water in the mining process and there is no abatement for that. There is nothing clean about coal.

Reply

Advertisement

MAGAZINE

Can We Build Tomorrow's Breakthroughs?

Manufacturing in the United States is in trouble. That's bad news not just for the country's economy but for the future of innovation.

Videos

Printing Parts

More

Advertisement

Technology Review Lists

TR50

Our list of the 50 most innovative companies, including the following:

Pacific Biosciences

Calxeda

PrimeSense

Toyota

More

Advertisement

Facebook

Advertisement