Technology Review - Published By MIT
Advertisement

FutureGen Rises from the Dead

Continued from page 1

By Tyler Hamilton

Wednesday, June 24, 2009

smaller text tool iconmedium text tool iconlarger text tool icon

Howard Herzog, a research engineer at MIT's energy and environment lab, cautions that the return of FutureGen isn't without its challenges. "The key barrier for moving ahead is money," he says. "The amount currently committed by government and consortium members is not adequate to fund the original version."

Despite the energy department's renewed commitment, the FutureGen Alliance still needs to come up with $700 million to $900 million to go ahead with what's now estimated as a $2.4 billion project, up from the original $1.5 billion price tag.

The alliance has until January to come up with a more detailed cost estimate and present a full funding plan to the energy department, which must still give its final approval in order for the project to go ahead. "Everything will be reviewed," says Lawrence Pacheco, spokesman for the alliance, which is mostly made up of large electric utilities and coal companies. "Many different options will be considered to reduce cost and technical risk. Once the DOE and alliance make a decision to move full-speed ahead, we will be able to break ground and begin procurement in 2010, with operations beginning in 2014."

Another difference between the original and revived FutureGen is the carbon-capture goal. The early plans called for a 90 percent CO2 capture rate--a target that won over the support of environmental groups that reluctantly accepted clean coal's role in curbing global greenhouse-gas emissions. The new plan is less ambitious to start, calling for a 60 percent target. But Pacheco says that the higher target is still in play: "The plant will be built to reach, eventually, a 90 percent capture rate."

Mead says that what's important is that the plant be built and demonstrated, allowing utilities to discover many of the unknowns surrounding the technology and share in the FutureGen Alliance's experiences. "It may not have breakthrough or revolutionary features in every step of the process, but together, it's going to be a demonstration of the best we can do today," he says.

The technology in FutureGen, however, is targeted at new power plants and does little to address the more than 600 existing coal plants scattered across the United States. A report released last week from MIT urged the U.S. government to bolster research in post-combustion approaches to reducing CO2 emissions from coal plants.

Comments

  • A better way?
    Just wondering - what if coal-fired plants were located close to forest land.  From what I've read, a single mature tree can absorb 48 lbs. of carbon dioxide each year and release enough oxygen into the air to sustain 2 humans.  Just divert the CO2 output of the generation plant towards the forest, and let nature take care of the rest.
    Rate this comment: 12345

    coffeetime
    06/24/2009
    Posts:2
    Avg Rating:
    2/5
    • Re: A better way?
      It's a nice thought, but I don't think it's going to matter where the plant is located. The trees are going to pull the same carbon out of the atmosphere regardless, and no nearby forest is going to use it at the rate it's being put out.

      Now, if the genetics folks could get us some superfast-growing trees, that might help. In fact, just an hour or so ago I was thinking about how algae farms might do at capturing carbon if they were to build some specifically to thrive in CO2-rich environments. Fertilizer-rich runoff could be diverted to them, so they'd act as water-scrubbers at the same time.

      Still probably way too slow, of course, on any scale that wasn't itself environmentally destructive. On the other hand, anything taken out and left out would be a help, especially if emissions come down to reasonable levels.
      Rate this comment: 12345

      Monsterboy
      06/24/2009
      Posts:89
      Avg Rating:
      4/5
      • Re: A better way already thought of?
        Bubbling CO2 emissions thru algae tanks to capture has already been thought of.  This might become reality as the algae can be turned into hydrocarbons, gas or diesel.

        http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20090629/bs_afp/usclimateenergyethanoldow

        and this link shows the obvious:
        http://gas2.org/2009/03/26/algae-biofuels-world-summit-wraps-up-in-san-francisco/

        there is hype about algae, 15,000 gal/acre is hype, 2,000 might be more realistic, still much more than biomass or corn.

        co-location, i.e. near end users such as chem plants, and near co2 output is likely key, and original use may be to output other than fuel..  The result would still be substantial reduction in fuel use if that occurs.

        Likely to take additional energy, possibly from growing the algae in clear glass bubbling tubes so sunlight can be used, hence sunny climate likely best.

        While this recycles the carbon into fuel, the resulting fuel, if burned outside a carbon capture environment would simply delay slightly the release of carbon from fossil fuels into CO2 in the atmosphere.

        If the algae hydrocarbons were instead turned into materials such as plastic lumber like they make out of recycled plastic now, or carbon fibers for building materials, concrete reinforcement, instead of fuel then we wouldn't affect the climate.
        Rate this comment: 12345

        erbium
        06/28/2009
        Posts:109
        Avg Rating:
        3/5
        • Re: A better way already thought of?
          I look at CO2 that is used to grow an algae replacement for diesel fuel as an offset of carbon produced by petroleum, not coal. So, it is not in my opinion a form of carbon sequestration. What it would be is a way to produce hydrocarbons domestically that would otherwise be imported and to do so in a nearly carbon-neutral way.
          Rate this comment: 12345

          MakeSense
          07/04/2009
          Posts:93
          Avg Rating:
          3/5
  • Nuclear Waste versus CO2
    There is some irony in the fact that many people deem nuclear waste a serious risk. First the quantities are tiny in comparison the energy equivalent CO2 and second they are mostly heavy elements that aren't going to get very far even if containment fails.

    The idea that you indefinitely sequester a volatile like CO2 seems far more risky.
    Rate this comment: 12345

    TooMany
    07/04/2009
    Posts:47
    Avg Rating:
    4/5
  • Nice idea but...
    ...I still think it doesn't compare to next generation nuclear power.
    Rate this comment: 12345

    dkohn
    07/08/2009
    Posts:12
    Avg Rating:
    4/5

Log In

Forgot your password?     Register »
Advertisement

Videos

The Marcellus Shale Gas Rush
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?
Advertisement
Advertisement
Subscribe to Technology Review's daily e-mail update. Enter your e-mail address

TECHNOLOGY RESOURCES

More Technology News from Forbes

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