[Novus]

Some would say clean coal is nothing more than a "true lie."

[jbeckton]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('pstarr', 'C')lean Coal is an instant classic much like:
Authentic Reproduction
Female Sperm Whale
Fresh Frozen
Marijuana Initiative
Conservative Think Tank
Born Again
Butt Head
or my favorite: Fresh Smelt

[yesplease]

Wait, so more money from FutureGen being put into Carbon sequestration of current fuels, instead of the proposed Hydrogen production, with very little distribution infrastructure, is a bad thing? I think it's better to spend more on Carbon sequestration and less on Hydrogen w/o the needed infrastructure than the other way around...
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '[')b]The restructured approach will focus on separating carbon dioxide for CCS in multiple future IGCC plants. DOE will support industry in building IGCC (Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle) plants by providing funding for the addition of CCS technology to multiple plants. The new approach does not include support for hydrogen production.

[vampyregirl]

Clean coal like Syngas (product of coal gasification) a technology invented by Shell and is currently used in power plants in Europe and Asia?
You mean to tell me the US Department of Energy couldn't do what Royal Dutch Shell has been doing for years?
Or am i missing something? Did this cancelled project involve more than just coal gasification?

[lawnchair]

The proposed project did distinctly more than IGCC/syngas. In those existing plants, the CO2 goes right up the flue, just like it always has. IGCC is the promise, because it will be cheaper to capture that CO2 and, supposedly, trap it underground forever (at least till it leaks, or someone puts a drill bit through a connected pocket). Cheaper to capture than at a pulverized coal plant, but not cheap. Not cheap, at all. FutureGen was going to be our very first plant that actually tried to pump any substantial quantity of CO2 underground. You know, to see if that even works.

[Starvid]

Anyone surprised? Clean coal never made any sense. It is inferior in all ways to nuclear power, just like fuel cells are inferior to batteries.

[efarmer]

Starvid, where does Sweden get it's nuclear fuel? Do you have your own, do you buy it from Australia, Russia, the USA? The USA has coal
in the way that KSA has petroleum. Now wouldn't you like to see us working on how to use it in a carbon neutral way instead running around the world on military adventures? I know Sweden struggled with 9000 tons of nuclear waste in temporary storage, and I hope you have solved that issue long term, and I hope your nuclear programs continue to be a success.

When this American sees the government de-funds cutting edge energy projects but pursue multi billion dollar submarines and bombers and aircraft carriers, it makes me question if we intend
to design and innovate for our energy or fight for it. This is bad for everyone on the planet Starvid, even a nuclear energy powered Sweden.

[Starvid]

We import it mainly from Australia, Africa and Uzbekistan.

Not that it matters really. Uranium is even more fungible than oil is. We do have massive low grade uranium reserves, but they aren't profitable enough to be mined. We did mine them in the 50's and 60's to get fissile material for our nuclear weapons program. We have recently found several high grade deposits which will probably be mined in the future.

We have our spent fuel issues well in hand. I've written about it here: http://www.eurotrib.com/story/2006/8/13/184016/739

[SchroedingersCat]

{thread merged by emersonbiggins}

So the DOE has 'restructured' the FutureGen clean coal project. Seems it will cost too much. Huh, imagine that.

‘Bold’ Step to Capture an Elusive Gas Falters

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'S')o there was much enthusiasm five years ago when the Bush administration said it would pursue “one of the boldest steps our nation has taken toward a pollution-free energy future” by building a commercial-scale coal-fire plant that would emit no carbon dioxide — the greenhouse gas that makes those plants major contributors to global warming.

That bold step forward stumbled last week. With the budget of the so-called FutureGen project having nearly doubled, to $1.8 billion, and the government responsible for more than 70 percent of the eventual bill, the administration completely revamped the project.

[Oil-Finder]

Let the record show that I am not the only one who starts threads on topics which already have recent threads, as several people have accused me of doing. The other thread on this topic is not only recent, it's even still on the same page as this one!
http://www.peakoil.com/fortopic36111.html

[SchroedingersCat]

Sorry. I did a search on FutureGen and didn't see much.

[aflurry]

i thought the supply curve was supposed to bring shit like this online, not turn it off.

[SchroedingersCat]

I think this shows the future all too clearly. The government will pay lip service to developing clean alternatives but instead divert needed funds to supporting the industries with the most influence.

Technology isn't something you can produce with a mandate or a report. It takes years of research and refinement to get to a commercially viable stage.

Costs of everything related to new projects are going up and will continue to do so. The Law of Receding Horizons.

Hirsch was right.

[joe1347]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'M')arch 12, 2008 Washington, DC, USA: U.S. Department of Energy to Invest up to $13.7 Million for Breakthrough Solar Energy Projects link
The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) will invest up to $13.7 million, over three years (Fiscal Years 2008 – 2010), for 11 university-led projects that will focus on developing advanced solar photovoltaic (PV) technology manufacturing processes and products. These projects are integral to President Bush’s Solar America Initiative, which aims to make solar energy cost-competitive with conventional forms of electricity by 2015. Increasing the use of solar energy is also critical to diversifying our nation’s energy sources in an effort to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and dependence on foreign oil. Combined with a minimum university and industry cost share of 20%, up to $17.4 million will be invested in these projects.

[highlander]

with the priorities of the ruling class full tilt on keeping their status, you can be sure there will be no change in direction before we meet the dozers parked on the highway. Doesn't the US spend about $100M/year on leaf blowers?

[Valdemar]

Wow. Not even seven million pounds. That's, what's the word? Oh yes, pathetic. Meanwhile, Heather Mills just got over double that off a former Beatle. Is it me, or is this picture disturbing?

[cipi604]

They are really cheap these days.

[aahala]

The $13.7 million works out to about 1 cent per person per year, or the approximate US cost of the Iraq war for 90 minutes.
Since the cost to mint a penny now is two cents, maybe it's a half penny or 2 cents per person.