Energy Dept. May Drop FutureGen Support - "Clean Coal" Costs Too Much, You See . . . WP

[hatrack]

Energy Secretary Samuel P. Bodman told lawmakers yesterday that the Bush administration might drop its support for a $1.5 billion coal-fired power plant designed to store greenhouse gases underground, citing mounting cost estimates and other possible technologies. The project, known as FutureGen, has long had the backing of the administration, which last year asked Congress to appropriate $108 million for the plant, and several states had competed for the site. On Monday night, President Bush said in his State of the Union message, "Let us fund new technologies that can generate coal power while capturing carbon emissions."

But in a meeting yesterday at the offices of Sen. Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.), Bodman told the senator and six other lawmakers from Illinois, where the plant was to be built, that he did not believe in the project, which he said he "inherited," and that he was going to consider other carbon sequestration projects instead, according to a person in the meeting.

Both sides left the confrontational meeting upset. Durbin issued a statement saying Bodman "has misled the people of Illinois, creating false hope" in the project. "In 25 years on Capitol Hill, I have never witnessed such a cruel deception," Durbin said. "For five years, the Department of Energy has urged our state and others to pursue, at great expense and sacrifice, this critically important energy project."

Bodman issued a statement last night saying that "the cost of the project has almost doubled, and we've seen technological advances over the past five years that require a reassessment to ensure that the FutureGen project delivers the greatest possible technological benefits in the most cost-efficient manner."

EDIT

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/29/AR2008012903287.html

[NNadir]

1. We'll just pile this with the other fantasies.

[pscot]

2. Stick on that shelf up there

next to the turkey digester.

[losthills]

3. Neither coal nor nuclear make sense any more.

They are antiquated technologies...

[NNadir]

5. Thanks for the meaningless platitude.

Nuclear is the ONLY alternative to coal.

[losthills]

7. The coal vs. nuclear mantra has lost it's power.

People are now turning their backs on both.

They represent the past, and renewables are the clear path to the future. Most people can see that now. This is becoming like two old farmers arguing the merits of horses vs. mules, while their nephew is saving up for a tractor.

The times, they are a changin'.....

[NNadir]

8. Actually, there are zero anti-nukes who know anything about the subject of power.

There are zero fundie anti-nukes who understand energy either.

There is NOT ONE here who can tell the difference between energy and power, which is why we are always hearing "megawatt" descriptions of systems that PEAK for a few seconds at the levels advertised.

[gulfcoastliberal]

4. Buh buh the "free market" will "innovate" in terms of reducing greenhouse gases!

:sarcasm:

[hatrack]

6. Unless it costs too much, in which case it won't . . .

:eyes:

Which reminds me of my favorite Kunstler quote: "We'll keep on doing what we do until we can't, and then we won't."