2010 GTC Conference Wrap-up:

IGCC on the move
despite obstacles

Five US IGCC power projects under construction or being developed will add almost 2500MW over the next 3-5 years.


Once again, a large and far-reaching turnout was attracted by the annual Gasification Technologies Council/EPRI conference attesting to the continued broad interest in the status of project and technology development connected with gasification of coal and other feedstock. 

More than 600 attendees gathered from all over the world attended the 3-day Washington DC event.  The range of topics presented over covered the gamut - from the booming commercial coal-to-chemicals industry in China to the emergence of new gasification-based technologies for the conversion of biomass to synthetic natural gas and liquid fuels.

The November-December issue of Gas Turbine World magazine features comprehensive coverage of  key presentations made at the conference, with focus on major commercial-scale projects under construction and actively under development.  A copy of this convenient wrap-up is now available at this link.

Summit Clean Energy Texas
coal-based IGCC / Polygen
plant gets air-quality permit

First-of-a-kind project passes
major regulatory hurdle


The proposed $2.2 billion "clean coal" plant in West Texas has passed a major regulatory hurdle, receiving approval from the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality for an air-quality permit earlier this week.

Summit Power Group's project is to use Wyoming coal while employing integrated gasification combined cycle (IGCC) technology to convert the coal to a clean "syngas", which will be used to produce electricity and other products, such as urea for fertilizer production. The plant is also designed to capture 90 percent of carbon dioxide emissions from the process and will be a "first-of-a-kind" plant in Texas, Summit said in announcing the permit.

"This is a milestone moment for America's energy economy and this project," said Summit Chairman Donald Hodel, who was energy secretary during the Reagan administration.

"We are delighted to be building this project in Texas, where federal, state and local elected officials have all worked effectively toward the same objective, namely to bring near-zero-emissions coal technology to the world marketplace," Hodel said.

Construction to start 2nd half 2011

The plant is to be built on 600 acres in Penwell, 15 miles southwest of Odessa. Construction is to begin in the second half of 2011 and operations should start in late 2014, said Laura Miller, Texas projects director for Summit and the former Dallas mayor.

The project "will be an economic boon to West Texas, creating more than 1,500 jobs at the peak of construction, 150 high-wage permanent jobs when the plant is operational, and 200 additional jobs in periods of major maintenance," Summit said.

The project has had a high profile because of the advanced technology it will employ. It has received $450 million in federal grants and therefore must undergo an environmental impact assessment, which is under way.

Earlier this year, Summit announced that the West Texas plant will employ technology and equipment for both the gasification process and the combined cycle power generating unit to be supplied by Siemens Corp.

"Overall cleanest" coal plant

Summit said the plant will be "overall the cleanest coal-fueled power project ever permitted in Texas," capturing not only the bulk of CO2 emissions, but also 99 percent of the sulfur, more than 95 percent of the mercury and more than 90 percent of nitrogen oxides.

Chemical processes will convert coal into clean-burning industrial gases used to generate electricity. The process creates a "pure stream" of CO2 that will be captured and sequestered, according to Summit.

The captured CO2 will be diverted to West Texas oil fields to boost oil recovery. This will complement or replace naturally occuring CO2 currently being supplied by pipeline from outside of the area. Reportedly, approximately one-third of the project's operating revenue will be derived from the sale of CO2 for this purpose.

The Summit plant is rated at 400MW gross generating capacity, but that is reduced to 214MW net output as a result of the heavy on-site plant power consumption to support the conversion process and the processing of plant byproducts. That still is enough capacity to power more than 200,000 homes, based on an often-cited yardstick of each megawatt providing enough power for 1,000 homes, Miller said.

Source: Ft. Worth Star Telegram
jzsmith@star-telegram.com

Miss. Power breaking ground
on Kemper County IGCC plant

Source: WLOX DeKalb, MS

Mississippi Power will break ground today on its next generation of power plants.

The company touts the $2.4 billion Kemper County Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle ("IGCC") Plant as a step toward energy independence in Mississippi.

The company fought a long battle to get to this stage, including questions from the state Public Service Commission and protests from environmental groups. One of the big issues was how Mississippi Power would pay for the plant.

The company had originally proposed that it be allowed to pass along construction costs to customers right away. After hearings with the PSC, the company reached an agreement to delay adding those costs to power bills until 2012.

Mississippi Power selected Kemper County for the plant site because it has huge lignite coal reserves that remain largely untapped. Mississippi Power will take the lignite and turn it into a gas to be used to produce electricity.

Construction of the Kemper County plant will create about 1,000 jobs. Mississippi Power expects to create 260 permanent jobs. The first two stages of construction are scheduled to take all of 2011, with construction of the plant in 2012 and 2013. The Kemper County plant is expected to begin operations in 2014.

Miss. Power's website says "the local lignite will provide decades of low-cost fuel and avoid huge price swings associated with uncontrollable fuel markets. It is the lower cost fuel available - and with a 4 billion ton reserve in Mississippi - we Mississippi Power can secure a stable fuel source while reducing our dependence on foreign fuel for future generations, due to its abundance and affordability."

Ed note: The nominal 600MW (net) IGCC plant will utilize the Southern Co/KBR "TRIG" air-blown gasifier integrated with two Siemens SGT6-5000F gas turbine generators, the hot exhaust of which produces steam to drive a steam turbine generator. Southern Co. is the parent company of Mississippi Power. The project will enjoy a substantial financial boost from Federal tax credit incentives. The South Mississippi Electric Power Association has agreed to take a minor equity stake in the project.

The plant will include capture of 65% of the carbon in the lignite feedstock, giving it a carbon footprint approximately equal to that associated with a natural-gas fired combined cycle plant. The captured CO2 is expected to be fed into a pipeline for use in enhanced oil recovery or other uses.

2010 Gasification Technologies Council
Annual Conference Papers Now Available On Line

The 2010 GTC conference is now history, and quite an event it was. It took place November 1-3 in Wash DC and there were plenty of important project updates and technology developments that highlighted jam-packed program.

The event attracted more than 600 attendees from all over the world, and from a myriad of industries related to the growing application of gasification technologies as a preferred way to utilize a variety of energy feedstock.

With permission of the GTC, we are providing a copy of the conference program and direct links to all of the presentations.

Look for special coverage of the conference highlights in the upcoming issue of Gas Turbine World Magazine.

Conferences Conference Presentations

Jump to a date:
Monday, November 1	Tuesday, November 2	Wednesday, November 3

Sunday, October 31
1:00 - 3:30 pm	GTC Fall Membership Meeting
4:00 - 7:00	Conference Registration - Registration Desk
5:00 - 7:00	Opening Reception - Exhibit Hall
top ↑

Monday, November 1
7:00 am	Conference Registration and Check-In - Registration Desk Continental Breakfast - Exhibit Hall
8:00 am	Opening Sessions & Introductions - Marriott Ballroom
8:30 am	Keynote Address
Matthew L. Wald The New York Times
9:00 am	Project & Technology Updates I Session Chair: Lee Schmoe, Bechtel Corporation
E-Gas Technology 2010 Outlook Phil Amick, ConocoPhillips Updates on Key Projects on Three Continents Keith White, GE Energy - Gasification Heavy Residue Gasification in Today's World Michiel Mak, Shell Gasificaion & Clean Coal Energy Siemens Technology Advances and Project Development Activities Harry Morehead, Siemens Energy, Inc. KBR’s Transport Gasifier - Technology Advancements & Recent Successes Siva Ariyapadi, Kellogg Brown & Root
10:30 am	Break - Exhibit Hall
11:30 am	Project & Technology Updates II Session Chair: David Denton, Eastman Chemical
Further Developments and Commercial Progress of the BGL Gasification Technology Hans Hirschfelder, Envirotherm GmbH Update on New Projects & Design Development with the Lurgi FBDB Gasifier Max-Michael Weiss, Lurgi GmbH Technical Update of the MHI Air Blown and Oxygen Blown Gasifier Hiromi Ishii, Mitsubishi Heavy Industries Overview of the Kemper County IGCC Project Using Transport Integrated Gasification Randall Rush, Southern Company Gasification OMB Gasification - Industrial Application Updates of Slurry Feeding and Developments of Dry Feeding Prof. Haifeng Liu, Institute of Clean Coal Technology
1:00 pm	Lunch - Exhibit Hall
2:30 pm	Emerging Biomass & Secondary Materials Gasification Opportunities I Session Chair: R.A. Olliver, Aplethora Energy Services
PRB Coal and Coal/Biomass Gasification Activities at Emery Energy Company's New Pilot Facility Benjamin Phillips, Emery Energy Uhde Biomass and Coal Gasification: Applying Fluidized Bed and Entrained Flow Gasification Karsten Radtke, Uhde Corporation Biomass Gasification for the Production of SNG: A Practical Route through Available and New Technologies Rosa Domenichini, Foster Wheeler S.p.A.
4:00 pm	Break - Exhibit Hall
5:00 pm	Emerging Biomass & Secondary Materials Gasification Opportunities II Session Chair: R.A. Olliver, Aplethora Energy Services
Plasma Gasification: Integrated Facility Solutions for Multiple Waste Streams Pieter van Nierop, Alter NRG Corp. Poornima Sharma, Technip USA, Inc. TPRI Technology and Future Fuels Projects Updates William Douglas, Future Fuels LLC Coskata's Syngas-to-Ethanol Platform Ralph Corley, Coskata, Inc.
6:00 pm	Adjourn
6:00 - 8:00 pm	Reception - Exhibit Hall
top ↑

Tuesday, November 2
7:00 am	Conference Registration and Check-In - Registration Desk Continental Breakfast - Exhibit Hall
8:00 am	Keynote Address
Donald Hodel Chairman and Senior Vice President, Summit Power
8:30 am	Energy Market & Environmental Gasification Drivers Session Chair: Neville Holt, EPRI
Coal to SNG via Gasification: Efficiency, Environmental and Economic Benefits Dale Simbeck, SFA Pacific Implications of Greater Reliance on Natural Gas for Electricity Generation Catherine M. Elder, Aspen Environmental Group POSCO Gwangyang SNG Project Cliff Keeler, ConocoPhillips A New Look at Lignite: A Central European Perspective Wojtek Ksiazkiewicz, SNC Lavalin A Strategic Fuel Switch From Natural Gas to Local Lignite: Development of the Komsomolsk Gasification Project Marco Kanaar, Gasification Solutions
10:00 am	Break - Exhibit Hall
11:00 am	Gasification's Carbon Management Advantage Session Chair: Michael DeLallo, WorleyParsons
Overview of the DOE Industrial Carbon Capture & Storage Program Darren Mollot, U.S. Department of Energy, Fossil Energy Pathways to Improved IGCC Performance and Economics with Carbon Capture and Storage Ron Schoff, EPRI Advanced Hydrogen and CO2 Capture Technology for Sour Syngas Jeff Kloosterman, Air Products & Chemicals, Inc. CCS Options & Cost Reductions with New SELEXOLTM Flow Schemes Raj Palla, UOP LLC Wandoan IGCC with CCS Project - Development Challenges & Opportunities Chris Walker, Stanwell Corporation
12:30 pm	Lunch - Exhibit Hall
2:00 pm	In Situ Coal Gasification Session Chair: George Gruber, Black & Veatch
Update on the Linc Energy Chinchilla UCG Project Don Schofield, Linc Energy Swan Hills in Situ Coal Gasification and Power Generation Doug Shaigec, Swan Hills Synfuels
3:00 pm	Break - Exhibit Hall
4:00 pm	Addressing Project Economics Session Chair: Doug Todd, Process Power Plants LLC
Coal Gasification: Delivering Performance in Chinese Operations & Developing Technology Deployment Solutions Jim Volk, Shell Gasification & Clean Coal Energy The Cost Estimating Process for the Taylorville Energy Center Jim Welniak, Tenaska Revving Up Reliability, Availability & Maintainability: Applying Experience to Improve Plant Performance DeLome Fair, GE Energy - Gasification New Technologies and Projects Based on Topsoe's Knowledge of Downstream Gasification Technologies Jens Perregaard, Haldor Topsoe A/S Cleanly Unlocking the Value of Low Rank Coal Carrie Thompson, Synthesis Energy Systems Reduction of CAPEX in Coal Milling and Drying Units Tobias Korz, Loesche GmbH
5:30 pm	Adjourn (evening open)
top ↑

Wednesday, November 3
7:00 am	Conference Registration and Check-In - Registration Desk Continental Breakfast - Exhibit Hall
8:00 am	Advances in Gasification Technologies I Session Chair: Jenny Tennant, U.S. DOE/NETL
ConocoPhillips E-STR Technology Development for Lignite Gasification Albert Tsang, ConocoPhillips Scale-up of the RTI Warm Syngas Cleanup Process at the Polk Power Station IGCC Raghubir Gupta, RTI International Accelerating Commercialization and Deployment of Advanced Gasification Technology Through Multiphase Modeling Chris Guenther, U.S. DOE/NETL Ion Transport Membrane (ITM) Technology for Lower-Cost Oxygen Production Robert Steele, EPRI Building on History: the Next Generation of Technology Joe Zuiker, GE Energy, Gasification
9:30 am	Break - Exhibit Hall
10:30 am	Advances in Gasification Technologies II Session Chair: Phil Amick, ConocoPhillips
Compact Gasification Development & Test Status Alan K. Darby, Pratt & Whitney Rocketdyne Results and Evaluations of the 5,000 Hour Durability Test at the Nakoso Air Blown IGCC Plant Tsutomu Watanabe, Clean Coal Power R&D Co., Ltd. Low-Swirl Combustion Technology for Advanced IGCC Systems David Littlejohn, U.S. DOE/LBNL Rectisol Wash Acid Gas Removal for Polygeneration Concepts Downstream of Gasification Thomas Haberle, Ulvi Kerestcioglu, Linde Engineering
12:00 pm	Conference Adjourns
top ↑

FUTUREGEN IGCC + CCS
ALIVE AND WELL - IN TEXAS
WHILE MATTOON GETS SHAFT

DOE shifts FutureGen technology to oxy-combustion
boiler retrofit and moves plant site to Meridosa IL


On August 5, the news was finally out in the open: the US DOE and the FutureGen Alliance had quietly struck a new deal that totally changes the face of the FutureGen project.

They are calling it "FutureGen2".


Enter oxy-combustion retrofit
Instead of continuing along the rocky path that effectively duplicates Summit Energy's Texas Clean Energy (IGCC) Project - already receiving some $350 million in DOE funding -and other IGCC+CCS projects, FutureGen2 will take the form of an oxy-combustion boiler retrofit of an existing 200 MWe pulverized coal-steam plant in Meridosa, IL – some 150 miles west of Mattoon.

So, what is left for little old Mattoon - the official winner of the original competition for the FutureGen IGCC project?

Well it could be worse. With FutureGen2 they get more than they would have gotten the first time the project was killed back in December, 2007.

But now, rather than providing a site for a new $2 billion state-of-the-art power plant, they get to host the end of a pipeline carrying the CO2 collected at the Meridosa plant, and to supply a place for the long-term storage deep under 400 acres of rural farmland.

The good news
Perhaps Mattoon feels otherwise, but the good news is that the announcement of FutureGen2 is a big step forward.

The announcement actually included the naming of a bona-fide host utility (Ameren Energy), and the major contractors - B&W and Air Liquide - to supply the new oxy-combustion boiler system that will produce steam to power one of the now-idle 200 MWe steam turbine generators at the Meridosa site.

The other good news - to this observer - is that the US DOE - in spite of the expected political fireworks - has shown signs of some real strategic thinking going on behind the scenes.

And for Mattoon, the region will be at the hub of a regional CO2 transportation infrastructure now being given a jump start by the project.

Change was coming
The fact that the Texas Clean Energy (IGCC) Project had received a $350 million award under Round 3 of DOE's Clean Coal Initiative, and is moving ahead nicely with a front-end engineering design (FEED) study being carried out by Siemens and Fluor - made it virtually impossible for the DOE to continue support of FutureGen as a parallel "state-of-the-art" IGCC project.

Other IGCC+CCS projects in Mississippi and California also appear to be moving ahead with DOE funding and/or other forms of government financial support.

Clearly, FutureGen missed it's window of opportunity and the choice was clear - kill it again or have it emerge in a different form. Opting for change has again saved the project.

Oxy-combustion retrofit of existing coal-steam plants is recognized globally as an important option for the future of coal-based power generation in a carbon-restrained world.

In that light, the announcement of FutureGen2, although coming as a surprise, immediately made a lot of sense to anyone keeping an eye on the situation.

US needs oxy-combustion demo
Supporters of IGCC technology (as well as those in and around Mattoon) might bemoan the loss of what might have been substantial government support of another new IGCC+CCS plant.

But, in my opinion, the change in FutureGen's direction is the right way to go.

DOE's own studies have shown the economic benefits of oxy-fuel combustion technology as a means for retrofitting existing coal plants to achieve real reductions in CO2 emissions.

Moreover, there are already a number of significant oxy-combustion demonstration projects underway in Europe, where it is widely accepted that retrofit for CO2 capture is an imperative.

Yes, Mattoon, it may be difficult to swallow yet another disappointment, but the US needs to support the development of its own oxy-combustion technology, and to support a commercial-scale demonstration of the technology.

With so many old coal-steam plants scheduled to be shut down due to their high emissions and huge carbon footprint, it could be that retrofit with new oxy-combustion boilers will prove to be the most cost effective way to keep these old plants online.

Is oxy-combustion ready?
At the very least, the parallel development of the Texas Clean Energy Project and FutureGen2 will provide an excellent way to obtain actual field data from the two main competing clean-coal technologies, operating at commercial scale, thus helping the US map out the future of coal-based power generation.

Is oxy-combustion technology ready for the scale-up to 200 MWe? Some think not - and say that FutureGen2 may be doomed to failure without more R&D. But B&W has already operated a pilot test unit, and the scale-up risk is considered to be manageable.

It looks like we'll all find out before too long - as long as FutureGen2 can get on track and avoid missing this new window of opportunity.

Dr. David H. Archer
Father of coal-based IGCC
1928-2010

Dave Archer, IGCC Pioneer - Westinghouse R&D
Adjunct Professor - Carnegie Mellon University

I guess that it's a personal thing with me, but the way I see it was Westinghouse's Dave Archer ("Dr. Dave") who should be considered as the father of the IGCC power plant concept.

And I'm saddened by the passing this past Thursday of an old friend, a nice guy and a technology pioneer.

Coal in gas turbines?
It was fall, 1973, when I joined the Westinghouse Gas Turbine Systems Division, and the Arab Oil Embargo was just taking effect. My first assignment, I soon learned, was to join the marketing effort that was going to save our business.

The days of cheap oil were over, and the buzz was all about "alternative fuels" for gas turbines. I was told to call Dr. David Archer at our R&D Center and learn all about the one idea that was going to save us. I soon learned that he was working on new ways to use coal in gas turbines!

Coal in gas turbines? Of course. What else? Cheap and plentiful domestic coal.


Combined cycles just taking hold
Ironically, the nascent concept of combined cycle power generation using large oil- or gas-fired gas turbines was just beginning to take hold. Record levels of orders were rolling in from all over the country. But almost all of these orders were now being canceled due to uncertainties in the global fuels market.

At the same time, the Clean Air Act of 1972 had just been passed, and the pressure was on the industry to find a way to cleanly use high sulfur coals. The use of scrubbers on exhaust stacks was seen as technically unsound, and much too expensive.

Were these parallel major developments to mean the end for both large coal-fired steam plants and for combined cycle plants at the same time?

Was nuclear power really the only answer? (Anyone remember "Power too Cheap to Meter"?)

Was my career in gas turbines going to be a short one?

Luckily, there were believers
Luckily for Westinghouse gas turbines (and for Siemens some 25 years later?) there were at least a few in upper management who strongly believed in the future of the combined cycle power plant. Even if traditional fuel sources were now in question, they saw ways for the concept to survive and grow. (Remember, this was even before the word "cogeneration" was invented.)

At the same time, these foresighted people saw how the combined cycle power plant could even provide an alternative way - through the use of gasification - to use high sulfur coal and still meet the tough new emission standards that were about to be promulgated under the Clean Air Act.

Enter Dr. David Archer - and IGCC
At the time Dave Archer, a manager at the Westinghouse R&D Center, was heading a group of mostly chemical engineers working on advanced concepts of integrating both fluidized bed coal combustion and air-blown fluidized bed coal gasification with combined cycle power generation.

When I called him to learn about the alternative fuels path for survival I felt that I was talking with the guru - and the creator of a great new concept that was not only going to save Westinghouse gas turbines but also give my new job a whole new meaning.

Although this all happened well before the coining of the term Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle, and the acronym "IGCC" (by EPRI? GE? both?), we were there - almost 40 years ago - at the beginning of a great idea.

Westinghouse was already testing low-BTU syngas fuel in modified W501B combustors, with DOE support, and we really thought that we were onto something very special.

A marketing strategy was developed to convince customers to stick to their plans to install our new PACE combined cycle plants. Our theme (sound familiar, even for today?):

• Gas or Oil - Now
• Syngas from Coal - Later

An idea that has come and gone - and come again
Well, a lot of water has flowed over the dam since then - and the idea of IGCC has come and gone and come again as the greatest thing since who-knows-what for improving the technology of coal-based power generation.

Entire careers in IGCC development and commercialization have also come and gone since I was first introduced to the idea by Dave Archer.

My own career with Westinghouse gas turbines lasted some 30 years. Unexpectedly, and thanks to Gas Turbine World, it returned to the promotion of IGCC about 5 years ago, shortly after I retired from Siemens-Westinghouse.

Happily, I heard again from Dave Archer when he saw the series of articles that we were publishing in support of gasification and IGCC. He was still working as adjunct professor at CMU teaching advanced power generation to graduate students.

In fact, it was only a few months ago that I last heard from him.

We had just posted the news item on the EPA putting pressure on the developers of the Kemper County (KY) IGCC project to consider natural gas as the primary fuel for their power plant, and their announcement that their IGCC plant was going "hybrid" - that is, separating the coal-to-gas plant from the gas-fired combined cycle plant.

Dave's comment - some 40 years after he fathered the concept as an answer to the Clean Air Act:

"It seems that EPA really wants to strangle IGCC before it takes a real breath.
Keep the faith?"

Fondly remembering Dr. Dave.

Harry Jaeger
Gasification Editor
Gas Turbine World Magazine


The following is reprinted from the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette:

ARCHER DR. DAVID H.
On Thursday, June 24, 2010, age 82 of Ross Township formerly of West View.

Beloved husband of the late Justine (Garnic) Archer. Loving father of Catherine Archer, Miriam (Mac) McCann, Amy Archer & Marsi (Lance) Thrash; brother of Miriam Jeske, proud grandfather of Charles, Andy, Justine & Vivian McCann, and Jordan David, Tim & Bailey Thrash; also survived by 6 great-grandchildren; longtime friend & companion of Myrna Rombach.

Family will welcome friends Monday 2-4 & 6-8 p.m. at the SCHELLHAAS FUNERAL HOME, INC., 388 Center Ave., West View 15229. Service will be in Emanuel's Ev. Lutheran Church, 10 N. Fremont Ave., Bellevue 15202 on Tuesday at 11:00 a.m.

Dr. Archer was retired, Westinghouse Electric Corp.; Adjunct Professor, Carnegie Mellon University; Organist and Music Director, Emanuel's Ev. Lutheran Church; Member, National Academy of Engineers; Member, American Guild of Organists.

If desired memorials may be made in Dr. Archer's name to the Intelligent Workplace Program, Carnegie Mellon University, P.O. Box 371525, Pgh., PA 15251-7525 or Emanuel's Ev. Lutheran Church.

Memorable Memorial Day for

Kemper County IGCC Project

Mississippi Power announces that it will move forward to construct a 582MW IGCC power plant as Public Service Commission relaxes financial restrictions on the project.

May 28, 2010

Mississippi Power, a wholly owned subsidiary of Southern Company, said that it will formally accept the terms of the revised order of the state regulators allowing for the construction of an advanced design IGCC power plant, which is expected to come online by 2014.

The utility said that the proposed plant would use Mississippi lignite. This locally available and relatively low-cost energy source will be added to its existing fuel mix of natural gas and coal, and will allow the company to mitigate the volatility and growing costs associated with other fuels.

Mississippi Power had asked the Mississippi Public Service Commission to reconsider conditions it had previously placed on the utility's plan to build the 582MW plant, including a recoverable cost cap of $2.4 billion.

The utility had claimed that the $2.4 billion price cap along with other conditions "created unacceptable risks to the company, our customers, our lenders and our investors."

After rehearing the case, the commission voted 2-1 to raise a price cap it placed by nearly $500 million to $2.88 billion and to allow the utility to begin charging customers for some plant costs starting in 2012, at least 2 years before it is expected to begin producing electricity.

Commission Chairman Brandon Presley, who opposed the plant in April as too risky for ratepayers, voted against the revised order. In a dissenting opinion, Presley criticized the action by the other two commissioners in acquiescing to the utility's objections.

Other project critics -- owners of merchant power plants in the region and at least one environmental organization -- said the utility was counting on high natural gas prices to justify the plant's economics at a time when the US natural gas supply is climbing with new production that should keep costs in check.

The Kemper County plant will employ an advanced air-blown circulating fluidized bed "transport" gasifier (the "TRIG" system) developed by Southern Company and KBR, in conjunction with the US Department of Energy. It will be the first commercial-scale application of the technology in the US.

An earlier attempt by Southern, KBR and the DOE to develop a commercial-scale demonstration plant in Orlando, Florida had failed to materialize.

In September 2009, KBR announced that it had been awarded a license and services contract in China with Beijing Guoneng Yinghui Clean Energy Engineering Co., Ltd that is expected to result in the first commercial scale installation of the TRIG system.

DOE/NETL Defines
Technology Pathways
to Lower IGCC Costs

Final report on benefits of advanced IGCC technologies now available


Back in early October this site reported on a study by the DOE/NETL Office of Analysis and Planning of the potential of advanced technologies currently under development to lower the cost of coal-based IGCC power plants with high levels of carbon capture.

Study results, presented at the 2009 Gasification Technologies Council (GTC) conference held Oct. 4-7 in Colorado Springs, predict that significant improvements are indeed possible. Now the final study report dated, November 2009, is available for downloading at the DOE/NETL website.

Severe economic impact of CCS
A number of studies supported by EPRI and the DOE/NETL (see Jan-Feb 2009 Gas Turbine World), have focused on the severity of the economic impacts of carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) for all forms of coal-based power generation.

For example, the impact of 90% CO2 capture on typical current-technology IGCC plants is to increase HHV heat rate by more than 16 percent (i.e. reducing plant efficiency from around 38% to below 32%). And the additional parasitic plant loads associated with CO2 processing and compression reduce net plant output by more than15 percent.

The combined overall effect is to increase total plant capital cost ($ per net kW) by over 35 percent and add at least 35% to the 20-year levelized cost of electricity (COE).

R&D aims at recouping CCS losses
In a drive to recoup losses in IGCC plant efficiency, and mitigate increases in plant capital costs due to adding CCS, the DOE has several advanced technologies under development with a well defined technology pathway for both near term and longer term improvements.

The NETL report "Current and Future Technologies for Gasification-Based Power Generation" (DOE/NETL- 2009/1384) provides estimates of the benefits of each element of DOE's broad portfolio of advanced power systems technology programs.

Presented roughly in order of expected commercial deployment, these programs are shown to significantly improve process efficiency, cut capital costs and substantially lower the COE for coal-based IGCC plants operating with 90% CCS.

Largest returns are expected of the following R&D efforts which are targeted at specific advances in design and performance:

• Advanced hydrogen turbine. Increases in efficiency and power rating will lower emissions and reduce $/kW total plant cost.
• Warm gas cleanup. Eliminates thermal penalty of conventional cold cleanup and reduces capital cost. Included is application of high temperature hydrogen transport membranes for CO2 separation.
  
• Ion transport membrane oxygen. "ITM" oxygen production greatly reduces power penalty and cost of cryogenic air separation.
• Gasifier technology. Improved gasifier materials, instrumentation and controls improves plant reliability and availability. Increasing plant time on-line goes directly toward lowering energy production cost per kWh.
  

Starting with a nominal 600 MW current-technology FA-Class IGCC plant with slurry-fed gasification, cold gas cleanup, and 90% CO2 capture and compression, progressive application of these advanced technologies is shown to more than restore plant efficiency to pre-CCS levels (to better than 40%), and to reduce capital cost ($/kW) and COE ($/MWh) by 32% or more.

The Nov-Dec issue of Gas Turbine World magazine features a summary abstract of the DOE/NETL study, highlighting the benefits of the various advanced programs being supported by the DOE.

Additional savings on horizon
Additional savings are on the horizon with progress being made in the development of other advanced IGCC technologies outside of the DOE R&D program.

One example is the revolutionary Pratt & Whitney Rocketdyne (PWR) compact gasification process, which involves the innovative application of rocket-based technology for the production of coal-derived syngas at high pressure and temperature.

Operating conditions result in improved process efficiency and greatly reduced pressure vessel volume (by 90%), leading to an estimated 50% reduction in gasification system cost. This would clearly have a major positive impact on IGCC economics.

In another presentation at the 2009 GTC conference, PWR reported on the status of their program, including their partnership with ExxonMobil and the Alberta Energy Research Institute. As scheduled, the 18 tpd compact gasification pilot test unit started operations at the Gas Technology Institute research facility near Chicago on November 5. Hot-gas testing is now underway, and initial results have reportedly been very satisfactory.

With their process pilot plan now in operation, PWR is said to be close to announcing plans for a commercial-scale demonstration project.

Gas Turbine World is looking forward to presenting an update of the progress of this very promising advanced gasification technology program, including initial test results and design performance data, in our upcoming 2010 IGCC Reference Guide.

Progress reported at 2009 GTC conference in spite of challenging times for coal gasification and IGCC

Construction of Edwardsport IGCC and progress of other key projects and technology improvements overshadow continuing uncertainty over CO2 regulations.

In the face of an extended period of globally cheap natural gas, economic downturn and capital shortages, topped by continuing uncertainty over pending greenhouse gas regulations, this year’s annual Gasification Technologies Council (GTC) conference kicked off in Colorado Springs with a message of a positive future for the industry.

Conference co-hosts Jim Childress, GTC executive director, and EPRI’s venerable Neville Holt each delivered opening remarks with a message of “difficult and challenging times” mixed with optimism over technology developments underway to address both economic and environmental obstacles.

Childress noted that, despite the down economy, registered attendance of almost 750 people demonstrates continued interest and strength in the industry.

The highlights of the conference were indeed positive and forward looking:

• Construction of the 630MW Edwardsport IGCC plant is more than 25% complete
• China continues to lead in new gasification installations and development
• FutureGen, ZeroGen and GreenGen are all progressing
• Cost-cutting advanced technologies moving ahead

This is the first of several postings planned to report on the 2009 GTC conference.

Visit the GTC website for access to all conference presentations.


Wyoming strikes sharp keynote
Keynote speaker, Hon. David Freudenthal, Governor of Wyoming, showed extraordinary insight into today’s challenging energy and environmental situation.

Wyoming, US’ leading coal producer, is in a “great position” to meet the energy needs, says the governor, “but we need more from the Federal government to put its words and promises into action.

All that we have gotten so far from Washington is symbolic crumbs – not substance.”

“With the likes of the Sierra Club being supported by the natural gas industry to fight coal utilization, large-scale clean-coal projects – and gasification in particular – need to succeed,” he continues.

For this to happen, he says, there needs to be CO2 legislation passed to provide some clarity to investors. “There is too much money sitting on the sidelines waiting for clarity, and there remains a lot of work to be done by Congress since current bills won’t do the trick.”

There is also a need for the same type of financial commitment for clean coal that the government has made to support wind energy, which is enjoying investment tax credits and other forms of financial support.

“Coal needs a level playing field,” concludes Gov. Freudenthal, “it is still our lowest cost option.”

Illinois on the move
Since gasification-based technology gives new promise to the use of high sulfur eastern coals, states such as Indiana, Illinois and Kentucky are proven to be very favorable locations for projects that will help revive their coal industries.

An upbeat presentation by Bart Ford of Tenaska described how strong state support is helping keep the Taylorville Energy Center project in Illinois on a forward tack.

That project, currently estimated to cost around $3.5 billion, is now configured as a “hybrid IGCC”, says Ford, where the gasification island will be operated to produce pipeline quality SNG, and the stand-alone 730MWe power block can be fired with SNG produced on site or from the natural gas pipeline. Sixty percent of the CO2 normally vented by the methanation process will be captured and delivered to a pipeline for remote geologic storage or for enhanced oil recovery

Ford praised supportive state policies that are enabling the Taylorville project to obtain favorable financing terms. For one thing, the project has qualified under the Illinois Clean Coal Portfolio Standard Law, which establishes a framework for developing coal gasification projects with carbon dioxide (CO2) capture and storage. The law, says Ford, requires emissions from these plants to be as clean as natural gas – and at least 50% CO2 capture.

Importantly, the law mandates 30-year power purchase agreements with qualifying “initial clean coal facilities”, and this has put the Taylorville project on track for financial closing early in 2010, according to Ford.

In a separate announcement, Harry Morehead, Manager of Gasification and IGCC Marketing at Siemens Energy, told the conference that Siemens Fuel Gasification technology has been selected by Tenaska to supply the gasifiers for the project. There was no similar announcement regarding the supply of the power block. Unconfirmed reports are that the owner’s engineer, Burns & McDonnell, is expecting to handle that under their scope.

FutureGen reborn
More optimism was displayed during a conference session dedicated to gasification power projects in development with carbon capture.

FutureGen Industrial Alliance’s David Brown talked about the “rebirth” of the advanced nominally 250MWe IGCC project to be sited in Mattoon, Illinois.

“It’s the right technology, and the right time”, says Brown about the US DOE-supported project that was all but killed at the close of the Bush administration due to its escalating costs. But with a new administration, and a correction in the way that the cost increase was determined, the project seems to be back on track.

Site selection and the environmental impact statement are completed, according to Brown, and a comprehensive cost estimate for a re-configured design will soon be published.

“The plant will initially operate at 60% carbon capture (i.e. natural gas equivalence) and will go to 90% capture in the third year of operation”, explains Brown. “At that level the advanced gas turbine will be operating on high-hydrogen syngas that will push well beyond demonstrated limits.”
The RFP for a turnkey gasification island was issued in September and selection of a contractor is pending further evaluation and budget approval. The new FutureGen project schedule shows startup late in 2013, and commercial operation a year later.



In next installment: ZeroGen (Australia) and GreenGen (China) make progress.

Bringing down the cost of IGCC
plants with Carbon Capture

By now, industry observers and especially regular readers of Gas Turbine World Magazine and this blog well understand the negative impact on coal-based power plant performance and costs associated with the various technical and regulatory proposals aimed at lowering CO2 emissions and to dispose of the waste CO2.

Several recent studies, notably those supported by EPRI and the DOE/NETL (see Jan-Feb 2009 GTW), have been focused on the severity of the economic impacts of carbon capture and sequestration for all forms of coal-based power generation.

For example, the impact of 90% CO2 capture on typical current-technology slurry-fed IGCC plants is to reduce HHV efficiency by more than 15 percent (from around 38% to below 32%).

And the additional parasitic plant loads reduce net plant output of 15 percent. Combined, the net effect is to increase total plant capital cost ($ per net kW) by over 35 percent and add at least 35% to the 20-year levelized cost of electricity (COE).

IGCC has advantage
NETL estimates that the impact for pulverized coal plants with 90% CCS is even a larger penalty - a whopping 85% increase in COE -- emphasizing a true advantage of IGCC technology in a carbon constrained world.

In a drive to recoup losses in IGCC plant efficiency, and mitigate increases in costs, the DOE has several advanced technologies under development with a well defined technology pathway for both near term and longer term improvements.

Most recent studies published by NETL show that the cumulative impacts of advanced technology programs are expected to improve the efficiency of IGCC+CCS plants by 8 percentage points and reduce capital cost and COE by over 30 percent.

Progress reported
Progress being made on a broad portfolio of DOE/NETL advanced technology development programs promises to significantly improve process efficiency, cut capital costs and substantially lower the cost of energy produced by coal based IGCC plants operating with carbon capture and sequestration.

Largest returns are expected of the following projects which are targeted at specific advances in design and performance:

• Warm gas cleanup. Eliminates the thermal penalty of cold cleanup and reduces capital cost of the process.
• Ion transport membrane oxygen. "ITM" oxygen production reduces power penalty and cost of cryogenic air separation.
• Advanced hydrogen turbine. Advanced gas turbine increases efficiency and power rating, lowers emissions and reduces $/kW total plant cost.
• Gasifier technology. Improved gasifier materials, instrumentation and controls improves plant reliability and availability.

At the 9th Greenhouse Gas Technologies Conference held in Washington DC late last year, Julianne Klara, a senior analyst with NETL, Pittsburgh, discussed the potential for these technologies to reduce costs in future IGCC plants.

An updated presentation of study results will be made at the 2009 Gasification Technologies Council conference being held in Colorado Springs, next week Oct 4-7.


Natural gas as the "bridge fuel"
The focus of DOE’s Clean Coal R&D program is on restoring the economic viability of coal-based power generation with carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) by applying advanced technologies to a gasification-based configuration.

Because of the steep environmental challenges currently frustrating new coal-based projects in the US, she maintains, the situation has created a dilemma for coal. Almost all new generating capacity being added is based on using natural gas fuel.

Although the use of this “bridge fuel” by utilities and developers alike is seen as the only viable alternative for reducing CO2 emissions at this time, recent history tells us that this alternative is fraught with risk of fuel cost volatility relative to coal.

The long-term solution for coal, according to the NETL study, is the technology needed to achieve the cost reductions and performance improvements to make coal-based IGCC plants with CCS more competitive with natural gas fired combined cycle plants.

NY Times Attack on FutureGen Not "Fit to Print"

Op-Ed piece throws FutureGen under the bus in IGCC / Clean Coal Blooper

On June 28, the New York Times carried an Op-Ed piece by "author/journalist/lecturer" Gregg Easterbrook entitled "The Dirty War On Clean Coal" that raises serious questions about the Times' 100+ year-old motto "All The News That's Fit To Print". (In case you can't open the link to the actual piece, I've repeated it at the bottom of this posting.)

Rather than the Times having Easterbrook's work pre-viewed by their energy staff, it would appear that the op-ed page editor had full freedom to publish, and was either totally blind to the issues and/or was just as technically inept as is the author.

The following letter was sent by this writer to the author. Others have sent letters to the Times editor to suggest that they should be embarrassed by the piece.

In the words of one industry executive: I was also appalled at the uninformed inconsistency of Eastbrook's Op Ed. It was an embarrassment to the New York Times for them to publish such a poorly researched work that was so full of factual errors.

Read on and tell us what you think. If you get turned on by the issue the way that we were, write your own letter the the NY Times editor to help set them straight. At least they may try to do a better job researching such technical matters, rather than just exploiting it as the political issue that it has become.

Dear Mr. Easterbrook,

Where shall I begin?

I'm still so upset about your Op-Ed piece "The Dirty War Against Clean Coal" in the June 28 issue of the New York Times that I'm not sure just how to start to tell you.

I've been closely involved with the subject of IGCC and clean coal for many years, and, of late, I have been writing articles in Gas Turbine World Magazine on the subject. Frankly, my readership compared to yours is quite small. Even our blog is visited only a few times a day. But I know that my audience is technically astute and I'm careful to make sure that I'm technically accurate and fundamentally sound in my editorial commentary.

When I read your piece I couldn't believe that something with so many technical errors and mis-statements is being read by so many - not only in print but also by the wide on-line audience enjoyed by NYTimes.com.

First of all, how can you pretend to know what you are talking about when you don't even realize that the FutureGen project, which you condemn, is, in fact, exactly what you are trying to promote?

FutureGen as currently configured will be a state-of-the-art IGCC plant, which you say you favor for immediate deployment. It will be fitted with an added chemical process step to remove CO2.

Moreover, the fact of the matter is that GE will almost certainly be offering to FutureGen essentially the same technologies - gasification and power generation -that they have sold commercially to Duke Energy for Edwardsport.

So, FutureGen will not be an R&D "experiment" as you make it out to be. It will be a working IGCC plant, just as you are suggesting should be built right now.

The CO2 capture technology that would be used to remove at least 60% of the CO2 (and thereby give the plant at minimum the same carbon footprint as a modern natural gas fired combined cycle plant) is very old chemistry that is in use in numerous chemical plants where CO2 has to be removed from gas streams.

It is not new and unproven as you intimate. In fact, it is being used in the Dakota Gasification plant in North Dakota where coal is used to manufacture synthetic natural gas (SNG, which is essentially methane). For more information on that operation you should visit http://www.dakotagas.com/

By the way, that plant was built with Synthetic Fuels Corporation support and was taken over by private operators. So your comment about how the SFC didn't accomplish anything is off base. The predecessor to the successful Wabash (IN) IGCC plant was also supported by the SFC.

At the Dakota plant, the CO2 used to be vented directly into the atmosphere. Since 2005 it has been collected and sent by a 200 mile pipeline to Alberta, Canada for use in pressurizing an old oil field to enhance production. This is the sort of thing being planned for the CO2 collected at the FutureGen project, although they are primarily considering some form of geologic injection or injecting into a deep saline aquifer.

So, contrary the picture that you painted, FutureGen will combine two proven technologies: an IGCC plant using an F-class gas turbine and conventional CO2 removal chemistry. It will not be an R&D project in its initial configuration. It has been carefully planned as a plant that will not - repeat will not - use unproven technology and risk being a white elephant. If they build it - it will work. And it should go forward to provide a useful demonstration of the marriage of these two technologies.

Another issue that I had with your piece is that you seem to be inferring that the new Duke Energy Edwardsport IGCC plant will be the first commercial scale coal-based IGCC plant. Are you not aware that the first successful IGCC plants in the US were operating in California and Louisiana more than 20 years ago?

Are you not aware of the operating plants (since the mid-90s) in Wabash, Indiana and Tampa, Florida?

Are you also not aware of two large coal-based IGCC plants operating in Europe? What about 10 or more IGCC plants that operate on refinery residue in the US and Europe?

You should have taken time to learn about those plants so you could be more accurate when write about these things.

And, by the way, your entire premise about IGCC cutting CO2 emissions by one-third compared to conventional coal plants is way off base. For it to be correct, the heat rate or efficiency of an IGCC plant would have to be one-third better than conventional coal. That just isn't the case.

Unless you are comparing new IGCC plants to very old coal-fired plants, the fact of the matter is that the heat rate or efficiency of modern coal plants (where they burn coal as they have for a hundred year, as you put it) is not that much worse than that of IGCC plants. So the amount of coal used to generate the same amount of electricity in an IGCC plant and a new conventional coal plant is not all that different.

Therefore, the amount of CO2 emitted by the two coal-based power generation technologies per kilowatt hour of electricity is not that different. Please see the attached chart which illustrates this fact. It came from a DOE presentation a few years ago, but is still very valid.

On this basis, your idea of promoting IGCC as a way to cut CO2 emissions by one-third is totally in error - and makes your entire position technically unsound. This sort of erroneous argument does not help the case of IGCC.

What is true - and you do touch on this - is that removing CO2 in a pre-combustion mode from syngas (i.e. using coal gasification and IGCC) is much more practical and economical than removing CO2 from the exhaust of a conventional coal-fired power plant.

This is the main argument in favor of IGCC for new plants, that is, when there is regulatory pressure on the removal of CO2 from coal-based power generators, it will be more economical to build IGCC plants with CO2 removal than to build conventional plants with CO2 removal.

As you could see, although I agree with you that gasification has its advantages over conventional coal burning, I have many issues with your piece and it aggravates me that the New York Times would publish it without first consulting with someone who knows something about the technology and the technical issues before letting it go out to such a wide audience.

Yours very truly,

Harry Jaeger

Gasification Editor

Gas Turbine World Magazine

Following is the Op-Ed piece published on June 28 in the N.Y. Times.

The Dirty War Against Clean Coal
By GREGG EASTERBROOK
Washington

WHILE President Obama’s cap-and-trade proposal to reduce greenhouse gases has been the big topic of recent environmental debate, the White House has also been pushing a futuristic federal project to build a power plant that burns coal without any greenhouse gases.

Sounds great, right? Except the idea is a rehash of a proposal that went bust the first time around. More important, the technology already exists to make huge reductions in greenhouse emissions from coal, allowing power companies to begin cutting the carbon footprint of coal today. Instead, advanced-technology coal power sits on the shelf while regulators wait to see what happens with a project that may be just an expensive boondoggle.

The big project, a public-private partnership called FutureGen, was first announced by George W. Bush in 2003. Dreading facing up to the problem of greenhouse gases from electricity generation, the Bush White House suggested that decisions should wait while FutureGen developed a coal-fired power with no emissions. FutureGen’s administrators spent five years on studies, proposals and studies of studies, but never broke ground for a test installation.

Then, in a fit of integrity, the Department of Energy decided the project should be put in Illinois, a
Democratic state — Midwestern coal is high in carbon, making this a logical choice — rather than in Republican Texas, which the White House preferred. The administration promptly canceled financing for FutureGen. But this month, Energy Secretary Steven Chu announced he was reviving the project, hinting that the ultimate cost may run to billions of dollars.

FutureGen was better off canceled. Government is good at basic research, poor at commercial-scale applied energy technology. The Synthetic Fuels Corporation, a heavily subsidized attempt begun by the Carter administration to manufacture gasoline substitutes, flopped without ever producing a marketable gallon.

The Energy Department has also financed such overpriced, unrealistic projects as the MOD-5B, a wind turbine that weighed 470 tons and stood 20 stories tall: it looked like a gigantic propeller intended to push the earth to a new star system. It ended up being sold for scrap.

The Obama administration’s FutureGen plan calls for yet another year of study before any actual action; test runs may not begin for a decade. No wonder the project’s nickname is “NeverGen".

This is part of a Washington tradition — beginning pie-in-the-sky projects that create an excuse to avoid forms of conservation and greenhouse-gas reduction that are possible immediately. Companies including General Electric have already perfected technology to reduce emissions substantially, called “integrated gasification combined cycle” power. (Yes, it needs a better name.)

Current coal-fired power plants burn pulverized coal using a combustion process that hasn’t changed in a half a century. The new approach turns coal into a gas similar to natural gas, which runs through a device similar to a jet engine. Such plants can achieve near-zero emissions of toxic material and chemicals that form smog, and they require about a third less coal than regular coal-fired power plants to produce an equal amount of energy, which means about a third lower greenhouse gases.

Beyond that, the promising technology of “sequestering” carbon dioxide — pumping it back into the ground to keep it out of atmosphere — appears for technical reasons to be impractical for conventional pulverized-coal power plants. But gasification plants have technical characteristics that should make “sequestration” of carbon feasible. A gasification power plant with sequestration would have around two-thirds lower greenhouse gases than a conventional coal-fired generating station.

The first commercial gasification power plant, designed by General Electric for Duke Energy, is being built in Indiana. Yet, absurdly, most state public-utility commissions have denied requests to construct the seenvironmentally friendly systems. Last year, Virginia denied a major utility’s request to build a coal-fired power plant that would have sequestered nearly all its carbon output.

One reason Virginia gave for the denial was the higher up-front cost of a gasification plant. Yet, once greenhouse gases are regulated (and President Obama’s cap-and-trade plan would in effect tax carbon), the economics of gasification plants may become attractive, with low-emission plants costing less to run.

Another reason for the denials is that utility commissions are waiting for the outcome of the FutureGen experiment. This is a classic instance of the best being enemy of the good. Rather than starting to cut coal-caused carbon emissions right now, we are waiting to see if a hypothetical system could achieve perfection decades from now. Meanwhile, emissions continue willy-nilly.

FutureGen is politically appealing: contractors get subsidies, politicians get to hand out money in their districts and astonishing breakthroughs are promised at unspecified future dates. Why aren’t progressives fighting for an immediate embrace of gasification power?

Much of the environmental movement clings to a fairyland notion that coal combustion can soon be eliminated, and therefore no coal-fired power plant of any kind, even an advanced plant, should be built.

Reflecting this mindset, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has said he opposes integrated gasification plants — only new solar, wind and geothermal facilities should be allowed. Environmentalists who correctly point out there can never be absolutely “clean coal” thus end up in the position of opposing coal that’s far cleaner than what we are using.

Yet coal use is a future certainty. Half of our power comes from coal, versus about 2 percent from solar and wind: in the next few decades, green power simply cannot grow quickly enough to eliminate the need for coal.

We have two choices: do nothing and wait for FutureGen while coal-caused carbon emissions continue unabated; or start building improved coal-fired plants that reduce the problem. Which seems moreforward-thinking?

Gregg Easterbrook is the author of “The Progress Paradox” and the forthcoming “Sonic Boom.” Y
http://www.greggeasterbrook.com/

IGCC Cost Error or Illinoisian Math - You Call it

$500M math error found in FutureGen cost

We all learned in today's headlines that the cost of the FutureGen project did not really double, as claimed by the Bush administration in their Xmas Eve 2007 dumping of the ill-fated US flagship IGCC+CCS project

No, as it turns out, the DOE "erred" by $500 million. The project cost may actually have increased by only 39% above its original $1 billion budget, and should not have been killed after all.

Politics and economics
Apparently, the resurrection of the FutureGen project - in Illinois - was on the new administration's agenda all along.

Thanks to the Government Accountability Office they now have the vehicle to put it back on track - in less than two months after Obama took office!

A GAO report that just brought this to light was prepared for Representative Bart Gordon (D-TN), chairman of the House Science Committee. (Why did it take a year to surface? And, why didn't FutureGen supporters challenge this "mistake" earlier?)

Rep. Gordon, expressed "astonishment" that the top DOE leadership made critical decisions about US energy future and efforts to combat global warming on the basis of "fundamental budget math errors".

He called it "math illiteracy on a grand scale and with global consequences."

To inflate or not to inflate?
What's all the fuss about anyway? What "mistakes" have been uncovered?

According to the GAO report, it all happened back in December, 2007 - just after it was prematurely announced that the selected site for the project would be Mattoon IL, and not in Texas.
After spending some $175 million on the project, the DOE announced that the estimated cost had doubled from the original $950 million estimate, and pulled the plug on the project.

This conclusion, now says the GAO, was reached when DOE inaccurately compared the original estimated project cost in constant 2005 dollars with a new estimate in fully inflated dollars that reflected what would have been spent over the life of the project.

Based on the same constant 2005 dollars, say GAO auditors, an apple-to-apples comparison would have concluded that the plant would cost $1.3 billion, an increase of about $370 million, or "only" about 39 percent, over DOE’s original estimate.

It did not increase by more than $900 million as previously concluded by DOE, a near doubling of the project cost, say GAO auditors.

Could it be?
And why would the DOE be so bold as to make such a blatant apples-to-oranges comparison in broad daylight? Why wasn't this error caught sooner? And why did the GAO report just now surface?

Could it be that the FutureGen Alliance's "premature" announcement of its decision to build the project in Illinois had something to do with a change in the DOE's methods used to estimate project costs?

Could it be that such an "error" was pure politics, and it took a full change in government to get the GAO to issue its report and bring this all to light?

According to the Times article, internal DOE communications were found indicating that key members of DOE management were looking for reasons to kill the project.

As a substitute, the DOE is supporting a number of regional CO2 capture and storage demonstrations, such as the WESTCARB oxy-fuel project in California, but no alternative commercial-scale power project has yet surfaced to replace FutureGen.

This may change soon as the economic stimulus bill just rushed through by the Obama administration and passed by Congress may provide money for the original FutureGen project.

As reported by the Washington Post last week, the bill contains language providing for $1 billion for a "clean coal" research project. Everyone seems to know that this project is FutureGen. President Obama supported the project when he was a senator from Illinois, and new Secretary of Energy Steven Chu "would support it with some modifications" according the the Post.

Chu has been quoted as saying that FutureGen "deserves a fresh look" among potential clean coal projects.

So, stand by IGCC fans.

A year after Matooners awoke to find coal in their stockings, it looks as if a belated Xmas present may be on its way.

Yes, my Illinoisian friends, there is clean-coal Santa Claus in the White House after all!

Don't Forget - Visit www.GTWbooks.com