skip to main content

Natural Resources Defense Council

Switchboard

Henry Henderson's Blog

FutureGen is Now

FutureGen is Now

Energy Secretary Chu has moved to restore the "FutureGen" project that the Bush Administration irresponsibly cancelled last summer. The action restarts an important effort to move the nation into a new energy future, which the past Administration's gaff had rendered "Too much Future and not enough Gen..."

FutureGen is a large-scale carbon capture and sequestration project that has the potential to manage coal's dangerous carbon emissions, along with significant reductions other pollutants such as mercury. While getting the federal climate bill signed into law is far more central to solving global warming, green lighting the FutureGen project sends an important signal and sets up a test of technology that could be part of the climate fight.

Carbon capture and sequestration (or CCS) removes CO2 from power plant air emissions and pumps deep underground into storage. FutureGen is intended as a demonstration project, to prove that the technology can work on a commercial scale. With coal generating more than half of the electricity in many American states (as well as countries like China and India), it is important to determine if this technology can be rapidly put into place to control greenhouse gas emissions, as a bridge to a broader clean energy economy.

Eventually this technology could help to address some of the serious harms caused by burning coal. And while problems with extraction, water pollution, destroyed mountain tops, poisonous coal ash floods demonstrate that there is no "clean coal," addressing global warming pollution from this fuel source is critically and immediately important.

While the technology could be important, the short term signal that this announcement sends could be even more valuable. It is a signal that American ingenuity is moving forward to fix the climate change problem. As we approach the international climate talks in Copenhagen this December, today's announcement takes on further importance.

Some may complain that FutureGen carries an undue cost that should not be shouldered by the American taxpayer and suggest that this research should have been handled by the coal and manufacturing industries.

I understand the sentiment---polluters should pay for their pollution.

But the reality is that absent a price on carbon, the private sector is not going to investto control what they can dump on the public for free. Absent a price on greenhouse gas emissions, the pollution is subsidized by the public, and the ultimate costs come in mortal threats to the public health, safety wellbeing and security. The immediate and long-term threats need to be addressed NOW. This forces public investment in order to bring the technology to scale and FutureGen is an important down payment on that investment.

Recognition of the need to put a price on greenhouse gas pollution reinforces the essential nature of the Waxman-Markey bill making its way through Congress. It also shows why we cannot dither on testing and demonstrating CCS technology---particularly if it means waiting for industries that have shown little interest in cleaning up their horrific operations. As Senator Durbin noted today:

"In my time in Congress, I can't recall a project that has greater scientific and practical significance than FutureGen, not to mention the enormous economic benefit it will have in Illinois." 

With the announcement, the future is now. So let's get the capture technology where it needs to be and then prove the "Gen" part quickly.

 

Tags:
carbon, carboncap, CCS, co2, coal, futuregen, illinois, pollution, waxmanmarkey

(bookmark or email this entry)

Comments

Glenn FranceJun 13 2009 06:52 PM

There must be iron clad legislation that states that if the failed attempt to put the carbon safely underground occurs, as it will, then the plant cannot operate until the technology is there to put the emissions safely underground. This is a veiled attempt to build another coal plant. The technology is not available yet.

Henry HendersonJun 13 2009 07:44 PM

You are correct that we need "ironclad" commitment to real laws and standards that protect the public health and safety in connection with energy technology. Investment in ccs research and development must be linked to robust regulatory and insitutional structures that assure public evaluation, monitoring, verification and enforcement of science-based perfomance standards. And the need for genuine institutional capacity is not limited simply to carbon capture and sequestration technology. It is needed for all of the energy system. A cursory glance at compliance with and enforcement of the Clean Air Act over the past 8 years (to name one key part of the insitutional structure established to protect the publuc health and safety) is to see a huge deficit of insitutional capacity and will to protect the public. We need a thourough-going rededication to enforce the laws, regulations and standards that protect the public interest.
[N.B., I do not agree with your thrice asserted opinion that carbon sequestration is fore-ordained to failure. But you knew that...]

Dr. James SingmasterJun 14 2009 11:45 PM

I can not believe that NRDC continues to be sucked into the "Clean Coal" fraud. Even Wash. Post columnist, Eugene Pobinson came out against"Clean Coal" June 9 citing the costs and the possibility of a Lake Nyos escape disaster or even just slow leakage from fissures not evaluated in geologic studies to defeat the sequestering.
BUT then many other problems unrecognized by NRDC add to the fraud. Isn't NRDC aware of the COAL ash problem that occurred in Tenn. late last year that may cost close to a billion dollars to clean up IF some place can be found that will take it. Sounds just like radioactive wastes but even more forever with several toxic metals, cadmium and arsenic mainly, that won't ever lose toxicity like radioactive wastes can in a a few millennium.
No wonder West Virginia that just declared coal on June 9 as its state rock won't take back for decent burial in WV the ashes of its beloved but now deceased rocks from Tenn.. Talk about cruel.
The coal and power companies may be expecting govt. bailout action to handle the ash mess that they have kept very quiet about along with the mining wastes despoiling millions of acres and hundreds of miles of streams. I would suggest a 15-20% SIN tax on coal sales now to underwrite recovery of all the lands sinned upon by coal mining. A CCC type program of planting trees and curbing erosion using the tax money could pay for quite few thousand displaced coal miners to be working under much healthier conditions than mining provides.
Another problem unrecognized by NRDC staff? is the huge amounts of quite toxic and highly flammable extracting solvents
involved. NRDC has been fighting on many fronts against chemical pollution but apparently does not know about the massive amounts of solvents involved and their toxicity and flammability. Maybe we will just have to wait for a disaster to happen before getting aware, unfortunately, too late, of this albatross for "Clean Coal".
One point that probably is beyond NRDC staff is that we have an energy overload mainly responsible for the climate crisis. This was pointed out by Dr. E. Chaisson in a New Scientist online Environment Section review article titled "The Heat To Come" on April 6, 2009. Bring up trapped fossil fuel to burn or getting nuclear power trapped in atoms converted into electricity means in time adding more to the energy overload in the biosphere already causing melting. Higher temperatures in the air, water and soil are measures of there being more energy on the loose. That is what the law of conservation of energy says for a closed system which is pretty much what our biosphere is.
We need to turn to real renewables, one of which is windmills that recycle some of the extra energy that has gotten trapped in the biosphere. New Scientist a few days ago had write-up calling for wealthier countries to get nuclear power to some of the poorer countries. Why not get them windmills?
Another renewable that I have tried to get attention to is using the process of pyrolysis on the massive ever-expanding messes of organic wastes and sewage solids. This was outlined on Greeninc, NYTimes blog May 22 on the climate bill write-up comment #2 and April 16 on biosolids write-up, comments #15 & 20. Googling my name will get a number of other comments. Dr. J. Singmaster

Comments are closed for this post.

We close comments on a blog post when it's clear the conversation has moved on -- click on the tags (above) or on our homepage to see if we've got fresh news and views on this post's topic.

Clean Energy Common Sense

OnEarth: NRDC's award-winning magazine

Citizen journalism from the OnEarth magazine website

The Not-So-Badness of Guides to Green Living
by Emily Gertz
No Impact Week Day Four: Foreign Foods
by Solvie Karlstrom
Disappearing Dollars: New Orleans Soil Clean-Up Money is Tied Up and Unspent
by Earthea Nance

Read more

Fresh Conversation

Feeds: Stay Plugged In