Mattoon FutureGen Near Zero GHG Plant, What?

Well, this is the FutureGen Coal Gasification plant.  As you can tell, it blends well with most things here on Jetson Green, what with its sleek look and contemporary lines.  But FutureGen, which aims to convert coal into hydrogen and electricity, and in the process, store carbon dioxide 3,000 ft. underground, has found its future home in Mattoon, Illinois.  The $1.5 billion plant will generate 275 megawatts of electricity and power roughly 150,000 homes.  The claim with FutureGen is that it will be nearly free of greenhouse gas emissions.  Meaning: it goes in the ground, not the air.   

So, what do we think?  Is this our energy future?

Mattoon beat out Tuscola, Illinois and Odessa and Jewett, Texas for the plant.  With construction set to begin in 2010, FutureGen is expected to be operational in 2013.  Mattoon seems elated, too, celebrating the potential for new jobs, technology, and businesses.  FutureGen is a prototype and the folks in Mattoon feel like they're on the front end of the next generation of energy production capacity.  The truth is, coal is super-abundant and kind of cheap in the U.S., setting aside the issue of coal mining safety.  So, experts.  What do we think?  Via Popular Mechanics.

Comments

[Chad Ludeman]

While this is certainly better than today's coal plants in the US, how can it ever compare to truly sustainable methods like wind and solar? It's discouraging that the US is spending $1.5B on a coal plant that will only power 150,000 homes while European countries, Australia and even China are investing in renewable/sustainable power that will supply much more energy to their respective grids. The Maglev Wind Turbine in China is a great example that is estimated to cost $53MM and power 750,000 homes!

[Kelvin Findlay]

Who's doing the research on the effects of CO2 emmissions underground? Are they going to rocket it out of our atmosphere one day? This reminds me of the Simpsons episode when Homer became the head of Springfields waste management. I'd love to see the research behind this movement. It sounds so far that it will just create another future problem.

[Tom Konrad]

IGCC with carbon sequestration is a solution to a political problem: that is, how do we move away from GHG emissions without angering coal state politicians?

The problem is, even if it can be made to work, it's likely to be much more expensive than renewable baseload options such as CSP with thermal storage, and enhanced geothermal, and much, much more expensive than radically imporving energy efficiency.

Pretty picture, though.

[Mark Gangi AIA LEED AP]

They fail to show the coal mining portion of the process.

[Allen]

Well i see everybody is still scared to death of nuclear power ,what a shame.well lets take a little look,we can make electricity for pennies on the worthless dollar,or we can burn up all of our natural resourses so as the bushes and the gores get rich ,but at what price,our future. The navy hasbeen using nuclear power for about 50 years with no accidents,you think by chance no all of the reactors are of the same design and build,that means you can go to any T G & Y and buy a part ,that means more economical and less of a problem for down time. ther is techno out there to dispose of the radioactive waste.But your great government keeps taking money away so it may not never come to be. that makes it great for all of the exxons, mobils,chevrons,oh and shell,cant sell all of our natural gas to a nuclear powerhouse,when it does not need it to run and make megawatts,for all you dorks that would be electricity.If the oil companies and their political buddies cant make a biggggggg buck then chances are it wont happen until they have no choice but to when they depleted all of our ,s and everybody elses resources.

[Preston]

Looks like the Department of Energy plans to pull $1.8 billion in support away from this project due to ballooning costs.