Comments on: FutureGen in trouble: I rest my case http://www.cleanbreak.ca/2008/01/29/futuregen-in-trouble-i-rest-my-case/ Trends, happenings and innovations in the clean technology market Thu, 18 Mar 2010 22:38:27 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: susan welborn http://www.cleanbreak.ca/2008/01/29/futuregen-in-trouble-i-rest-my-case/comment-page-1/#comment-4314 susan welborn Fri, 13 Feb 2009 18:59:19 +0000 http://www.cleanbreak.ca/2008/01/29/futuregen-in-trouble-i-rest-my-case/#comment-4314 I believe Americans are starting to concentrate on being "more green" to save out planet for future generations. I believe Americans are starting to concentrate on being “more green” to save out planet for future generations.

]]> By: Anonymous http://www.cleanbreak.ca/2008/01/29/futuregen-in-trouble-i-rest-my-case/comment-page-1/#comment-1768 Anonymous Thu, 31 Jan 2008 21:42:57 +0000 http://www.cleanbreak.ca/2008/01/29/futuregen-in-trouble-i-rest-my-case/#comment-1768 Maybe this is just an indication of a bit of a return to true conservative economic principals by the administration. The principal that government may not be best suited to anoint winning business strategies through taxation and subsidies. It would seem to me that the true conservative way of addressing climate change would be through a cap-trade system, with a long term plan allowing business to see the progressive yearly reduction of emission allowances. Until the system is global we might need to require importers to purchase credits to avoid simply shipping the CO2 problem overseas. Likewise, until the system is global it might be wise to put in a relief valve of a CO2 credit price cap which would be stipulated to rise each year. This scheme would give business a stable system whereby they could do the long term planning of how best to make money while still addressing the realities of global warming. If CCS works economically then it would get done. If huge investments in solar are more cost effective then they would happen. Maybe it's geothermal or algae... or some off all of the above. I guess the basic question is what productive roll does government have in seeding research in new technologies versus when does it become business distorting subsidies, propping up technologies that are suboptimal. Maybe this is just an indication of a bit of a return to true conservative economic principals by the administration. The principal that government may not be best suited to anoint winning business strategies through taxation and subsidies. It would seem to me that the true conservative way of addressing climate change would be through a cap-trade system, with a long term plan allowing business to see the progressive yearly reduction of emission allowances. Until the system is global we might need to require importers to purchase credits to avoid simply shipping the CO2 problem overseas. Likewise, until the system is global it might be wise to put in a relief valve of a CO2 credit price cap which would be stipulated to rise each year.

This scheme would give business a stable system whereby they could do the long term planning of how best to make money while still addressing the realities of global warming. If CCS works economically then it would get done. If huge investments in solar are more cost effective then they would happen. Maybe it’s geothermal or algae… or some off all of the above.

I guess the basic question is what productive roll does government have in seeding research in new technologies versus when does it become business distorting subsidies, propping up technologies that are suboptimal.

]]> By: Anonymous http://www.cleanbreak.ca/2008/01/29/futuregen-in-trouble-i-rest-my-case/comment-page-1/#comment-1767 Anonymous Thu, 31 Jan 2008 15:32:41 +0000 http://www.cleanbreak.ca/2008/01/29/futuregen-in-trouble-i-rest-my-case/#comment-1767 Being aware that there are bound to be prices involved in energy infrastructure transitions is one thing. That doesn't mean you can't dig your heels in when things start looking ridiculous. I accept that I have to pay to keep my car maintained; I maintain I have the right to turf my mechanic if he's billed me for over twice his original estimate without even finishing. Being aware that there are bound to be prices involved in energy infrastructure transitions is one thing. That doesn’t mean you can’t dig your heels in when things start looking ridiculous.

I accept that I have to pay to keep my car maintained; I maintain I have the right to turf my mechanic if he’s billed me for over twice his original estimate without even finishing.

]]> By: Anonymous http://www.cleanbreak.ca/2008/01/29/futuregen-in-trouble-i-rest-my-case/comment-page-1/#comment-1766 Anonymous Wed, 30 Jan 2008 22:57:12 +0000 http://www.cleanbreak.ca/2008/01/29/futuregen-in-trouble-i-rest-my-case/#comment-1766 FutureGen, has and always will be a distraction from real carbon reduction strategies. The DOE plans to "demonstrate" a plant that will cogenerate 275 Megawatts of electricity and hydrogen and sequester the CO2 by 2020. (Cite "Hell and High water, Joseph Romm pg 157 par. 1) Meanwhile more of the inefficient, polluting coal plants get built. Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle (IGCC) plants exist now and can be built today. They cook the coal and by doing so remove the impurities like the oxides of sulphur. What's left is hydrogen rich gas and CO2. The gas is burned to generate electricity and the CO2 is sequestered. It is true that while CO2 sequestration has been used in the oil industry it has yet to be tested to determine its feasibility in electric power generation. However IGCC technology exists now but the utilities won't build them in the absence of a cost attached to CO2 emissions. That is why FutureGen is called NeverGen by people in the industry. This was also covered by Romm (same citation) and Jeff Goodell in his book "Big Coal." FutureGen, has and always will be a distraction from real carbon reduction strategies. The DOE plans to “demonstrate” a plant that will cogenerate 275 Megawatts of electricity and hydrogen and sequester the CO2 by 2020. (Cite “Hell and High water, Joseph Romm pg 157 par. 1) Meanwhile more of the inefficient, polluting coal plants get built.

Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle (IGCC) plants exist now and can be built today. They cook the coal and by doing so remove the impurities like the oxides of sulphur. What’s left is hydrogen rich gas and CO2. The gas is burned to generate electricity and the CO2 is sequestered. It is true that while CO2 sequestration has been used in the oil industry it has yet to be tested to determine its feasibility in electric power generation. However IGCC technology exists now but the utilities won’t build them in the absence of a cost attached to CO2 emissions.

That is why FutureGen is called NeverGen by people in the industry. This was also covered by Romm (same citation) and Jeff Goodell in his book “Big Coal.”

]]> By: Anonymous http://www.cleanbreak.ca/2008/01/29/futuregen-in-trouble-i-rest-my-case/comment-page-1/#comment-1765 Anonymous Wed, 30 Jan 2008 17:01:49 +0000 http://www.cleanbreak.ca/2008/01/29/futuregen-in-trouble-i-rest-my-case/#comment-1765 Clean Coal with any economic feasibility is a pipe-dream. Capital needs to be spent on renewable energy solutions. The 20 billion that Suncor is going to be spend in the tar sands is a colossal mistake. http://canadianpress.google.com/article/ALeqM5icEJttVs_xL3NPfgz863-BRxKZPA Jason Clean Coal with any economic feasibility is a pipe-dream. Capital needs to be spent on renewable energy solutions. The 20 billion that Suncor is going to be spend in the tar sands is a colossal mistake.

http://canadianpress.google.com/article/ALeqM5icEJttVs_xL3NPfgz863-BRxKZPA

Jason

]]> By: Anonymous http://www.cleanbreak.ca/2008/01/29/futuregen-in-trouble-i-rest-my-case/comment-page-1/#comment-1764 Anonymous Wed, 30 Jan 2008 03:13:58 +0000 http://www.cleanbreak.ca/2008/01/29/futuregen-in-trouble-i-rest-my-case/#comment-1764 Wow. This is especially surprising given how many climate plans hinge on the widespread adoption of CCS. To what degree is this decision an indictment of CCS in general and to what degree does it reflect the peculiarities of the FutureGen project? Wow. This is especially surprising given how many climate plans hinge on the widespread adoption of CCS.

To what degree is this decision an indictment of CCS in general and to what degree does it reflect the peculiarities of the FutureGen project?

]]>