Note: Jason Hayes, ACC Communications Director, will take part in a modertated discussion with a representative of the Sierra Club's Beyond Coal Campaign. They will discuss the topic of "clean coal" in the final afternoon session of the first day.
The Lewis & Clark Law School website describes the Greening the Grid conference,
Development of renewable energy sources has become one of the major political and legal issues of our time. Due to concerns related to climate change, energy independence, and escalating fuel and electricity prices, many policymakers, environmental advocates, and entrepreneurs have called for the United States to adopt a new national energy policy that promotes use of renewable energy sources. However, others argue that renewable energy sources will never adequately meet the country’s escalating energy needs. This conference will explore the ongoing debate regarding the U.S. energy policies and consider how the country may revise its energy system to promote sustainable energy sources.
GAO Report on DOE Restructuring of FutureGenA February 2009 GAO report on the Department of Energy, FutureGen project describes how the decision to restructure the project in 2008 was based on inaccurate cost estimates.
While the initial $950 million estimated price was based in constant 2004 dollars, the later $1.8 billion estimate was a life cycle cost out to 2017 with inflation accounted for
If the same estimate process were used, the increased cost of the project would be $1.3 billion (not $1.8 billion), an increase of 370 million (+39%). Given the rising costs of steel, cement, labor, and the faltering economic conditions, the 39% price increase appears far more reasonable.
From the "Results in Brief" section of the report,
DOE did not use sufficient information to support its decision to restructure FutureGen. According to our recent work and best practices, a decision to terminate or significantly restructure an ongoing program should be informed by timely and sufficient information on the costs, benefits, and risks of such a decision. DOE did not prepare a comprehensive analysis of the costs, benefits, and risks of its decision to replace the original FutureGen with the restructured program. DOE made its decision based, in large part, on its conclusion that construction and material costs for the original program would continue escalating substantially in the indefinite future and that life-cycle costs were likely to double. However, according to economic forecasting organizations, such as DOE’s Energy Information Administration, significant cost escalations for building power plants, in general, do not typically continue in the long run. Also, DOE reached this conclusion by comparing its cost estimate for the original FutureGen ($950 million in constant 2004 dollars) with the Alliance’s 2006 estimated life-cycle costs for the program through 2017 (about $1.8 billion, considering inflation). In explaining his decision to restructure FutureGen, the Secretary of Energy noted that the projected program cost had “nearly doubled,” from $950 million to $1.8 billion. However, that assertion did not take into account a major difference between the two estimates: one was based on constant dollars and the other on inflated dollars. Our analysis indicates that the Alliance’s estimate in constant 2005 dollars would be approximately $1.3 billion—an increase of about $370 million, or about 39 percent, over DOE’s estimate, not a near doubling of costs. As DOE’s restructuring decision was not based on a comprehensive analysis of the associated costs, benefits, and risks, DOE has no assurance that the restructured program is the best option to accomplish the goal of promoting the accelerated and widespread commercial advancement of CCS. In contrast to the restructuring decision, FE identified and analyzed 13 other options for incremental, cost-saving changes to the original program, such as reducing the CO2 capture requirement. While FE did not consider all of these options to be viable, it either recommended or noted several of them for consideration, each with potential savings from $30 million to $55 million.
Several media outlets, along with Senate, and the FutureGen Alliance websites were praising the July 8th and July 11th votes by the The Senate Energy and Water Appropriations Subcommittee and Senate Appropriations Committee respectively. In both votes, the Senate chose to protect $134 million in federal funding for the FutureGen plant at Matoon, Il.
In two separate FutureGen Alliance news releases, CEO Michael Mudd applauded the decision as helping to move the world's first near-zero emissions coal plant closer to reality.
NCC - Urgency of Sustainable CoalFrom the Introduction to the National Coal Council's latest report, the "Urgency of Sustainable Coal".
On October 12, 2007, the Secretary requested the National Coal Council conduct an additional study to “focus on several technological options to increase coal use consistent with the environmental goals of the country.” Pursuant to this request, the NCC submits the current report, The Urgency of Sustainable Coal. Significant energy-related events have occurred in the past several years that have far reaching implications for the United States and for the central role coal will play in the world’s future. The present 2008 report follows the Secretary’s directive and refines and extends the findings and recommendations in the earlier reports, particularly in regard: 1) Carbon management technologies; 2) Legal and regulatory issues; 3) Hybrid electric vehicles; 4) In-situ coal gasification and; 5) Converting coal to liquid fuel (CTL) and substitute natural gas (SNG).
A June 18th, 08 Powerspan/Basin Electric Power Cooperative (BEPC) news release describes their efforts to advance an industry-leading carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) project in North Dakota.
Unstoppable Global Warming Every 1,500 Years
Review of: Unstoppable Global Warming Every 1,500 years (updated & expanded edition)
By: S. Fred Singer and Dennis T. Avery
Rowman & Littlefield, 2008
Review by: Jason Hayes, M.E.Des., Communications Director, American Coal Council
A few years back, I was asked to give a few presentations on the science of climate change. So I discussed the claims that a broad scientific consensus existed on the causes of global climate change. Proponents of that theory argued that science had determined human use of fossil fuels was releasing CO2 into the atmosphere and thereby causing unprecedented and potentially dangerous warming. This theory is often called anthropogenic global warming (AGW).
I suggested that the average person could be excused for thinking that AGW was the cause for our changing climate. Governments, media, and NGOs all swore that was the case and since that time their rhetoric has become even more pervasive. They also informed us that so-called skeptics who question their theory were isolated loners, resident on the outermost fringes of the discussion. They have also created and presented expensive and prestigious awards for their frightening epics on AGW that depict the dangerous outcomes of using of fossil fuels. Some have even charged skeptics as being morally akin to holocaust deniers, actually borrowing and reworking the term into “climate denier.” It is their influence that has brought on a call for the immediate enacting of carbon-control legislation that is making its way through governments around the world.
Given those circumstances, no one could still seriously consider questioning the science. What would be the point? Even if the science wasn't settled when I gave my presentations a few years ago, it has to be now so raising the question again would be a waste of time, right?
The authors of a newly released book would tell you that thought is wrong.
