• More Blogs
• Observations »
• Bering in Mind »
• Cross-check »
• Extinction Countdown »
• Solar at Home »
• Expeditions »
• Guest Blog »
• Anecdotes from the Archive »

Congressional investigators charge that Bush administration energy officials put the kibosh on FutureGen based on what turned out to be a megabuck mathematical error. The finding could pump new life into the project, which was slated to be the world’s first near-zero-emissions coal plant until early last year when it was deemed too pricey to build.

“I am astonished to learn that the top leadership of the Department of Energy in the last administration made critical decisions about our nation’s energy future and capacity to combat global warming based on fundamental budget math errors,” Rep. Bart Gordon (D–Tenn.) told the The New York Times.  “This is math illiteracy on a grand scale and with global consequences.”

Gordon’s chagrin comes courtesy of a report (pdf) released today by the Government Accountability Office (GAO), Congress's investigative arm, which found that the Department of Energy (DOE) had essentially forgotten to account for inflation when estimating FutureGen’s projected costs. Specifically, the department had said in 2004 that it would cost $950 million to build, a sum that it last year said had ballooned to $1.8 billion when projected through 2017. In fact, the GAO says, the actual cost considering inflation would be closer to $1.3 billion—a cool half billion less than the figures cited in justifying the killing of a centerpiece of clean-coal initiatives. (Perhaps disappointingly for Bush administration critics, the report points to incompetence and not political tampering for the mistake.)

FutureGen, announced in 2003, was intended to demonstrate that coal – the world’s top power source—could be burned to produce electricity without belching millions of tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.

The U.S. government was to foot about three-quarters of the bill for the experimental plant with the private sector chipping in the rest. Notably, energy-hungry China and India had pledged to pitch in about 8 percent of the costs to see if their diet of coal could be tempered by FutureGen’s so-called carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology (that is, capturing the climate-change-causing carbon dioxide emissions before they're released into the air and storing them underground).   

All that came to an abrupt halt in February 2008 when the Bush administration terminated funding levels appropriate for the scale of the project. The move sparked outrage from many quarters, and utility executives predicted that the proposed cutting-edge plant’s demise would set CCS back ten years.

President Obama is a clean-coal backer—and his election raised hope among supporters that FutureGen might actually have a future. In fact, some Washington observers expect that $1 billion set aside in the recently passed economic recovery package for "fossil energy research and development" may be forked over to resuscitate the project.

An artist's concept of the FutureGen clean coal plant in Mattoon, Illinois. Image Credit: DOE

6 Comments

1. 1. pgtruspace 01:48 AM 3/12/09

   Interesting, DOE bureaucrats make large accounting error and shut down a questionable project. Usually it is the other way around. For over 30 years the DOE has been backing losers and shutting down winners. So how is this news? The DOE needs to be rebuilt from bottom to the top. This country needs an energy department that works to provide all americans with low cost dependable energy supplies. Every facet of modern life is dependent on utilizing energy. With out these supplies this country would become a third world country on the virge of the dark ages.
   
   We need a well though out mosaic of supple and distribution to insure low cost, clean, dependable energy supplies for all americans. Let us stop the constant, "begger thy neighbor" attempts to prevent one kind of energy provider in favor of another. We need them all. NIMB's will also have to be dealt with. People live with trains and planes they will have to live with wind mills, solar panels and nuclear power plants. Regional private energy distribution networks may need to be forced to cooperate for the greater good, they can no longer be allowed to prevent development and distribution of needed new energy supplies to maximize their own incomes. To those who are opposed to all new energy supplies "we need greater and greater efficencies not more supply" I'm tired of your arrogant ignorance. American energy per unit production efficencies are among the highest in the world. Bottle necks in supplies are becoming a greater and greater problem for both residentual and industrial use. For the future, these problems must be dealt with.

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

2. 2. JamesDavis 07:50 AM 3/12/09

   I think the biggest problem with the republican decade is that, "We can have it in 50 years!" In 50 years, even in 10 years, it will be too late. We have all this technology right now and the willingness to mass produce it. If we can give 2.3 trillion dollars to Iraq; we have the money and the people to start building all these needed projects here in America and we can have these clean energy projects working, cleaning up our environment, in two years. California's electric car that can get 240 miles between charges and can be recharged in 45 minutes from any home outlet can be mass produced by the three auto builders and replacing the old system right now. The changes we need right now, let's start building right now. The only thing that is stopping us "right now" is government morons.

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

3. 3. mikepbel 09:16 AM 3/14/09

   Hard to evaluate costs based on limited information included in article, but in the period from 2004 to 2007, steel costs increased 75% and construction labor increased on a similar scale. Both increased significantly faster than inflation. Before you accuse someone of incompetence, perhaps a few more facts should be investigated

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

4. 4. oocheniver 02:26 PM 3/14/09

   The cleanest, most promising clean coal research project in history was inadvertantly halted during the Carter administration. It was a politically motivated decision to provide the magneto hydrodynamics, (magnet) to Russia to atone for boycotting their olympic games.
   MHD, as an acronym, fails to adequately describe the amazing potential of this technology. The research should be revived and accellerated, if we are to take maximum advantage of the world's coal reserves

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

5. 5. Trustmerafa in reply to pgtruspace 01:46 PM 8/15/09

   Amen! Are you running for office? (you should!)

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

6. 6. mac4u 12:21 PM 8/17/09

   Hmmm, I read the following at CarbonCaptureJournal.com, a release of July 15, 2009:
   
   The Department of Energys total anticipated financial contribution for the project is $1.073 billion, $1 billion of which would come from Recovery Act funds for carbon capture and sequestration research. The FutureGen Alliances total anticipated financial contribution is $400 million to $600 million.
   
   
   The total cost estimate of the project is $2.4 billion, consequently, the Alliance, with support from DOE, will pursue options to raise additional non-federal funds needed to build and operate the facility, including options for capturing the value of the facility that will remain after conclusion of the research project, potentially through an auction of the residual interests in the late fall.
   
   Published Source: U.S. Department of Energy FutureGen
   
   PS - An updated cost estimate is to be released in 2010 while inflation continues.
   
   
   

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this