Technology Review - Published By MIT
Advertisement

Potential Energy


Kevin Bullis is Technology Review’s energy editor.

Recent Posts

Blog Topics

Recent Comments

  • ... : As this is a new car maker then also, they have done a great job. The car looks awesome sporty...
  • matlseng : I agree with cutting back the budget for hydrogen fuel cells. They are not economically feasible...
  • kjblack : Old Chinese proverb. "You cant make a silk purse out of a sows ear."
  • mkogrady : I have to be convinced that our involvement is not relate to oil or petroleum. So far it seems...
  • gabrielg01 : Very good post, thank you!   Even if the calculations were to be off, they still make the point.
  • gabrielg01 : Indeed, the war in Afghanistan is not about oil.   But I was not shooting for exact figures,...
  • kstauff : I'll reiterate here what I did in my previous response.  The Afghanistan war is not related to...
  • kstauff : "There are more than 700 overseas US military bases, most of which are concentrated in the Middle...
  • mkogrady : Redirecting funds for military security forces in the Middle East would go a long way towards...
  • lasertekk : Yes yes.  I don't know what that figure is, but I would be damn interested in knowing.  Couple...
Advertisement
Monday, March 30, 2009

Chu Entertains FutureGen Alliance

Energy Secretary Steven Chu meets with proponents of a troubled clean-carbon project.
By Peter Fairley
FutureGen's carbon-free coal vision may soon be more than a clean dream

Potential Energy has learned that Energy Secretary Steven Chu met with representatives of the FutureGen Alliance today, reinforcing positive signals from Chu two weeks ago that the troubled project could be revived. The public-private partnership to prove the integration of coal gasification, carbon capture, and sequestration technologies was killed by the Bush Administration in January 2008 using what Congressional investigators have shown to be specious accounting.

In an email to TechReview today, Department of Energy press secretary Stephanie Mueller confirms that Chu and the Alliance had a "good discussion" and that the Secretary Chu "believes that the FutureGen proposal has real merit":

Secretary Chu believes that investment in carbon capture and storage research and development is critical to meeting our energy and climate change challenges. Unfortunately, the prior Administration simply walked away from FutureGen after years of work ... In the coming weeks, the Department will be working with the Alliance and members of Congress to strengthen the proposal and try to reach agreement on a path forward.

Michael Mudd, FutureGen Alliance chief executive, struck a confident tone after the meeting about the prospects for reviving the project. "It is not certain but I think it is highly likely. We have a vehicle for funding it through the stimulus package. We have interest of the Obama Administration in seeing this go through. There's growing interest in reducing CO2 emissions. All of the aspects are there pointing towards [reviving the project]," says Mudd.

One attraction of the project is that it is more "shovel ready" than average--particularly for a capital-intensive energy installation. An environmental impact statement already issued under the Bush Administration, and a Record of Decision (ROD) from DOE formally approving the project seems to be in the works. "Step one is for new sec of energy to issue the ROD. With that we can do a detailed design and start procurement. If that happens quickly we can begin the heavy construction next year, and even some light construction this year," says Mudd. The plant could actually start up in as little as three years from now, with "90% carbon capture and sequestration from Day One," according to Mudd.

Which would be just in time for Obama's re-election campaign.

Comments

  • [no subject]
    so what happened to the billion or so dollars that the DOE put into the project in the first place?  Did it mostly go to waste?  Is anyone else sick of the government taking 30 cents to your income tax dollar and pissing it away?
    Rate this comment: 12345

    jpm1u
    03/31/2009
    Posts:11
    Avg Rating:
    3/5
  • Govmint  Runaway Spending
    Yep, this is the unfortunate side effect of when government gets too political about funding projects of good intention with too much lobbyist greasing of the funding. The Republicans lost it's conservative bearings under Bush and I hope they have learned their lesson from 2008. But the problem with most Congressmen is too many of them are technologically stupid to know when not to fund what appears to be promising technology that offers more promising campaign funding then viable technology.

    Just look at the ethanol scam. Because of the hype from venture capitalists, who somehow thought ethanol was the way out of oil dependence, it got distorted by corn producers who looked at it and came to the conclusion- "works for us". They then greased the political wheels with lobbyist campaign funding and wha-la, Ethanol is part of the energy, environment and climate solution. The ignorant public bought it up and the driveby media wailed it as a solution for everyone and the green economy. What a joke. Even Popular Science got carried away, but how many times has that publication got carried away with future technology?

    I don't see any one technology as top dog except nuclear. It will take various technologies over decades of R&D to show where the top dog winners are. Wind and solar are just euphemistic technologies as they seem to be free and viable. People just don't presently see past the hype that their much more behind the bling technological problems to be solved before wind and solar become more then supplemental energy on any real measurable scale.

    Just look how the oil price blame continually gets dumped on the oil and gas producers. People just don't see what tit takes to produce and transport the stuff. There's plenty of oil and gas but unfortunately much of it is in other counties and places and much of it takes more expensive, sophisticated technology to extract. And you have terrorism and geopolitical problems associated with it too. The logistics are mind boggling.
    Rate this comment: 12345

    Scottar
    05/21/2009
    Posts:15
    Avg Rating:
    4/5
Advertisement

Log In

Forgot your password?     Register »
Advertisement
Technology Review November/December 2009

Current Issue

Natural Gas Changes the Energy Map
The United States has vast supplies of this cleaner fossil fuel. But how should we use it?
•  Subscribe
Save 36%
•  Table of Contents
•  MIT News
» Gift Subscription
» Digital Subscription
» Reprints, Back Issues
» Subscribe
» Table of Contents
» MIT News

More Technology News from Forbes

Advertisement
MIT Massachusetts Institute of Technology © 2009 Technology Review. All Rights Reserved.