DOCSLIB.ORG

Futuregen Case Study by Gretchen Hund1 and Sallie Greenberg2

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Futuregen Case Study by Gretchen Hund1 and Sallie Greenberg2 FutureGen Case Study By Gretchen Hund1 and Sallie Greenberg2 1Pacifi c Northwest National Laboratory 2Illinois State Geological Survey – Advanced Energy Technology Initiative In fulfi llment of Task 1 for CSIRO on behalf of the Global CCS Institute: International Comparison of Public Outreach Practices Associated with Large Scale CCS Projects FutureGen Case Study Disclaimer This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by the Global CCS Institute (GCCSI) through the Commonwealth Scientifi c and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO). Neither the Battelle Memorial Institute, nor the Illinois State Geological Survey – University of Illinois, nor any of their employees, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specifi c commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favouring by the institutions mentioned herein or any agency thereof. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or refl ect those of GCCSI, CSIRO, the United States Government or any agency thereof. PACIFIC NORTHWEST NATIONAL LABORATORY operated by BATTELLE for the UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY under Contract DE-AC05-76RL01830 ILLINOIS STATE GEOLOGICAL SURVEY UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS 2 FutureGen Case Study CONTENTS Glossary 4 Executive summary 5 What is FutureGen? 5 1 Introduction 7 2 Location and site characteristics 7 3 National context 8 4 Characteristics of the Project 9 4.1 FutureGen Alliance 10 4.2 Site selection 10 4.3 Regulatory framework 11 4.4 Stakeholder involvement 11 4.5 Timing of milestones and key events 11 5 Methodology 13 6 Stakeholder interview responses 13 6.1 The Community: A self-characterisation 13 6.2 How interviewees became involved in FutureGen 14 6.3 Main themes heard in the interviews 15 6.3.1 Knowledge and awareness gained over time 15 6.3.2 Perceived benefi ts 16 6.3.3 Engagement 18 6.3.4 Questions and concerns 20 6.3.5 Perceptions of the project developer and project proponents 21 6.3.6 Positive and negative community perceptions 23 6.3.7 Changes in perception: Ups and downs 24 6.3.8 Personal touch important 24 6.3.9 Political connotations 25 7 Media analysis 25 7.1 Media analysis 2006 25 7.2 Media analysis 2007 25 7.3 Media analysis 2008 26 3 FutureGen Case Study 8 Conclusions and lessons learned 29 8.1 Competition as motivation 29 8.2 Community pride and altruistic benefi ts 29 8.2.1 Cultivating community pride 29 8.2.2 Recognising altruistic benefi ts 29 8.3 Cooperation and coordination critical 29 8.4 Understanding specifi c and varied audiences 30 8.5 Understanding where people obtain information and providing accurate and consistent information 30 8.5.1 Understanding where people get information 30 8.5.2 Providing accurate and consistent information 30 8.6 Ensuring access to experts 31 8.7 Using different engagement approaches 31 8.7.1 Engagement through meetings 31 8.7.2 Engagement in different forums 31 8.7.3 Engagement through demonstrations 31 8.8 Transparency is critical 32 8.9 Demonstrating community presence 32 9 References 33 Appendix A – Interview guide 35 Table of Figures Figure 1. Map of United States with outline of Illinois Basin 8 Table 1. Main characteristics of the FutureGen Project (as originally designed) 9 Figure 2. FutureGen milestones and events timeline 12 Figure 3. Total media coverage of FutureGen 2007 26 Figure 4. Total media coverage of FutureGen 2008. 28 Glossary American Electric Power (AEP) Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) Carbon Dioxide (CO2) Center for American Progress (CAP) Department of Commerce and Economic Opportunity (DCEO) Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) Environmental Impact Volume (EIV) Illinois State Geological Survey (ISGS) Integrated Gasifi cation Combined Cycle plant (IGCC) International Non-Governmental Organisation (NGO) Megawatt (MW) National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Request for Proposal (RFP) US Department of Energy (DOE) 4 FutureGen Case Study Executive summary What is FutureGen? FutureGen was created as a partnership between the US Department of Energy (DOE) and the FutureGen Alliance (Alliance) – a non-profi t consortium of around a dozen coal companies and electric utilities with operations around the world. FutureGen was designed as a competition for US communities to vie to be selected as the host site for a near-zero emissions power plant using carbon capture and storage (CCS). The Alliance is responsible for designing, building and operating the facility and led selection of the host site. FutureGen would be a model for the integration of power generation and CCS while serving as an international research facility for energy and climate mitigation technologies. A central mission of the Alliance is research and the underlying intent for FutureGen is to share lessons learned broadly so that the technology can be replicated around the world to help address climate change. Twelve states entered the competition to be selected as the host site for FutureGen. Two states emerged as the semi-fi nalists – Illinois and Texas – each with two sites in the running. Each of these states had strong teams working on technical issues and community engagement. This paper is a retrospective view of the FutureGen project, which was initiated in 2006. (Not included in this discussion are reactions regarding the recently announced restructured FutureGen 2.0.) This report details the Alliance’s effort and the Illinois FutureGen Team’s community engagement activities and the perceived effectiveness of this engagement. The timeline is from July 2006, when the four semi-fi nalist sites were selected, through December 2007, when Mattoon, Illinois was selected as the fi nal site, and ends one year later. The research team conducted interviews with nine stakeholders from various perspectives to hear their views of the Mattoon community, how they became involved in FutureGen, and their perceptions of the project overall, the engagement process specifi cally, and the stakeholders involved. The report also includes a media analysis during this 29-month period – identifying the themes reported, how they changed, and the percentage of positive, negative and balanced or neutral coverage over this period. Lessons learned Unique to this case was that competition served as a motivator in the site selection process. The Illinois FutureGen Team was interested in identifying communities that met three types of criteria defi ned by the Alliance: (a) qualifying criteria, (b) scoring and best value criteria, and (c) fi nal decision criteria. The successful sites were solid technical matches with the criteria but also were able to demonstrate community enthusiasm. Future project proponents may consider adding public acceptance as an explicit criterion in evaluating sites. Self-selection was found to be an effective community engagement ideal, which allowed communities to consider pros and cons of projects before project commitments and created a situation where the competing communities became invested in winning. Cultivating community pride through this process was seen as an important achievement. Pride centered on being selected as the national and international focal point for hosting this new, research-based, integrated power plant of the future. Closely related were the altruistic benefi ts viewed by an early-adopter community in being at the forefront of energy research. Stakeholders felt that cooperation and coordination were important in winning FutureGen. Communities that historically had not worked together were collaborating to ensure that FutureGen came to Illinois, regardless of which of the two semi-fi nalist sites was chosen. In addition, a neighboring community to Mattoon was to provide water for the plant and was home to a university; both were seen as important assets to the proposal. This level of cooperation was new to the participating and neighboring communities and continues beyond the scope of FutureGen. Understanding specifi c and varied audiences was critical to stakeholder engagement. The Alliance, the state, and local project proponents spent time preparing for engagement by doing their homework and knowing the perspectives of stakeholders before engaging them. Key observations include that background, generational infl uences, and social characteristics of the community may provide increased stakeholder understanding. Seeking input from audiences about what information will be of interest to them and providing that information in 5 FutureGen Case Study a timely manner can be benefi cial to engagement. Allowing time for audiences to absorb information and keeping the lines of communication open to answer additional questions as they arise is essential. Understanding where people got their information, providing accurate and consistent information were critical aspects of community engagement. Key strategies included: • being prepared to provide information early and often • providing consistent information created by multiple sources (often with varying perspectives) • providing accurate information so that people are not left with false expectations. Ensuring that stakeholders have access to technical experts, not just project proponents, to answer questions through multiple venues
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 1920 503800 Passenger Vehicles Are
    1920 503,800 passenger vehicles are registered with the Illinois Secre- tary of State’s office. Trucks begin to be registered separately from passenger cars. The prefix TRUCK appears vertically on these license plates. Truck owners are required to display a metal truck plate, attached to the license plate, with the word “ILLINOIS WEIGHT” and the maximum weight of the vehicle and the load permitted embossed on it. The plate must be attached to the vehicle at all times in a conspicuous place. Greenduck Co. of Chicago is contracted to make the plates. However, 100,000 passenger plates and the metal truck plates are sublet to Grimm Stamp and Badge Co. of St. Louis. 1921 583,400 passenger vehicles are registered with the Illinois Secre- tary of State’s office. License plates are made by four different companies: • Grimm Stamp and Badge Co. of St. Louis, MO, numbers 1 to 200-000 • Western Display Co. of St. Paul, MN, numbers 200-001 to 300-000 • C.H. Hanson Co. of Chicago, numbers 300-001 to 500-000 • Greenduck Co. of Chicago, non-passenger plates. The first highway police force is created on June 24 when the 1 Illinois General Assembly authorizes the Illinois Department of Public Works and Buildings to appoint a sufficient number of State Highway Maintenance Police to patrol the highways and make arrests for violations of the Motor Vehicle Law. 1922 682,300 passenger vehicles are registered with the Illinois Secre- tary of State’s office. The increase in the number of automobiles necessitates more policing. In 1922, the Secretary of State’s office is granted police powers for the enforcement of automobile laws.
    [Show full text]
  • Guidelines for Recreation and Park Systems
    DOCUMENT RESUME ED 057 968 RC 005 858 AUTHOR Bannon, Joseph J.; Storey, Edward H. TITLE Guidelines for Recreation and Park Systems INSTITUTION Illinois Univ., Urbana. SPONS AGENCY Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C. REPORT NO Circ-1017 PUB DATE Jun 70 NOTE 26p. EDFS PRIcE MF-$0.65 HC-$3.29 DESCRIPTORS *City Planning; rommun ty Involvement; *Educational Facilities; Government Role; Individual Needs: *Land Use; Needs; Park Design; *narks; *Recreational Facilities; Regional Planning; Shared Services; State Laws ABSTRACT In this publication, written for use in guiding community recreation and park systems, the following topics are discussed: why parks and recreational facilities should be developed, the need for governmental participation, and park-system development. Additionally, neighborhood parks, playlots, community parks, city-wide parks, regional parks and reservations, and specialized recreation areas and facilities are examined in terms of desirable physical characteristics and user populations. Principles applying to design of park and recreation areas and cooperative facility usafe by school and community are also reviewed. To provide examples of joint development of school-recreation facilities, 4 communities are described: Topeka, Kansas; Mount Prospect, Illinois; Austin, Texas; and Elk Grove Village, Illinois. An outline of recommended community park and recreation practices discusses administration, community cooperation, planning, facilities, programs, and personnel, and a chart of selected Illinois laws is included. (MJB) Contents Why Develop Parks and Recreation Facilities9 2 The Need for Government Participation 4 Guidelines for Park System Development 6 Distribution in the Park System ......... .. .. 7 Neighborhood Parks Playlots 8 Community Parks 9 City-Wide Parks Regional Parks and Reservations....... .... 10 Specialized Recreation Areas and Facilities 11 Designini Parks and Recreation Areas 11 Using School F :militias in Park and Recreation Systems 12 Examples of Joint Development ......
    [Show full text]
  • APRIL A. OTTERBERG Partner APRIL A. OTTERBERG
    APRIL A. OTTERBERG, Partner April A. Otterberg concentrates on professional liability litigation, with more than a decade of experience litigating complex professional liability disputes. She defends lawyers and law firms in pending or threatened legal malpractice and related claims, including aiding and abetting claims, claims from non-clients, and claims brought by receivers, and she defends other types of professionals targeted for alleged errors or defects in the services they provide. Ms. Otterberg has substantial experience investigating professional liability claims and developing and mounting effective and practical defense strategies, whether pre-complaint or through the litigation process. She also represents corporate clients in breach of fiduciary duty and related claims under ERISA, and she has experience representing corporations and employees in trade secret and restrictive covenant cases. APRIL A. OTTERBERG Ms. Otterberg has represented clients in a range of civil litigation matters, Partner including putative class actions, appellate matters, cases litigated successfully CHICAGO at trial, and several matters involving pre-suit counseling, mediation, and Office: 312 840-8646 settlement negotiations. She is a member of the firm’s Professional Fax: 312 840-8746 Responsibility, ERISA Litigation, and Trade Secret and Restrictive Covenant Email: [email protected] Litigation and Counseling practices. PRACTICE GROUPS Ms. Otterberg has focused her pro bono efforts on criminal defense matters, Energy ERISA Litigation including her longtime representation of a client on federal death row in Intellectual Property connection with his appeal and post-conviction proceedings. She is co-author of Litigation the Illinois portion of the American Bar Association’s The Law of Lawyers’ Professional Responsibility Liability and of the firm’s outline of Illinois trade secrets law.
    [Show full text]
  • Governors Conference on the Management of the Illinois River
    Proceedings 1995 Governor's Conference On the Management of the Illinois River System Fifth Biennial Conference October 10-11, 1995 Hotel P_re Marquette Peoria, Illinois Proceedings 1995 Governor's Conference On the Management of the Illinois River System Fifth Biennial Conference October 10-11, 1995 Hotel P_re Marquette Peoria, Illinois Elizabeth D. Wagner, Editor Institute for Environmental Studies Issued as Special Report No. 22 Water Resources Center Institute for Environmental Studies University of minois at Urbana-Champaign 1101 W. Peabody Dr., Urbana, IL 61801 (217) 333-0536 Photographsby Jon Hubbert, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Department of Agriculture. Printed with financial support from the Illinois Department of Natural Resources. (450/February 1996) Printed on recycled paper. Contents Acknowledgments Opening Address Robert W. Frazee .............................................. 3 Keynote Speech Sharing the Challenge: Floodplain Management Into the 21st Century Brigadier General Gerald E. Galloway, Jr .............................. 7 Session L The Past Navigation on the Illinois Donald R. Vonnahme and Bruce Barker ............................. 19 Illinois Possesses Unique Knowledge About Its Weather and Climate Stanley A. Changnon ........................................... 29 A Century of Water Resources Research at the Illinois State Water Survey: Meeting the Challenge Mike Demissie, Vernon Knapp and Adrian Visocky ...................... 43 Forbes Biological Station Commemorates 100 Years of Research, S.P. Havera and K.E. Roat ....................................... 53 Keynote Speech Economic/mpact of the _linois River on River Communities David R. Allardice .. ...... 59 Session IL The Present An "NRI Snapshot" of Resource Conditions in the Illinois River Drainage Basin Robert McLeese .............................................. 75 nlinffts T by 2000 Transect Survey, 1995 Results Chet Boruff ................................................. 83 No-Till in the lllinois River Watershed Robert W.
    [Show full text]
  • The Role of the Industrial Alliance in the USA
    The Role of the Industrial Alliance in the USA Joint Workshop on Industrial Alliances for IGCC & Co- Production and CO2 Capture & Storage Beijing, China May 23-24, 2007 Thomas A. Sarkus, FutureGen Project Director National Energy Technology Laboratory National Energy Technology Laboratory • Only DOE national lab dedicated to fossil energy − Fossil fuels provide 85% of U.S. energy supply • One lab, five locations, one management structure • 1,100 Federal and support-contractor employees • Research spans fundamental science to technology demonstrations Pennsylvania Oregon West Virginia Alaska Oklahoma TAS 5/23/07 Presentation Outline • Part I: Clean Coal Demonstration Programs − a) Clean Coal Technology (CCT) Program − b) Power Plant Improvement Initiative (PPII) − c) Clean Coal Power Initiative (CCPI) • Part II: FutureGen • Part III: Observations & Discussion TAS 5/23/07 Part I: Clean Coal Demonstration Programs a) Clean Coal Technology (CCT) b) Power Plant Improvement Initiative (PPII) c) Clean Coal Power Initiative (CCPI) TAS 5/23/07 DOE’s Coal Demonstration Programs Implemented Through Competition Fleet of Tomorrow Industry / Government CCPI Partnership Clean Coal Power Initiative - 2002-2012 PPII Min 50% Power Plant Improvement Non Fed’l Initiative - 2001 Cost Share CCT Clean Coal Technology Program - 1985-1993 Repayment Existing Fleet TAS 5/23/07 CCT Program Success Stories FGD Scrubbers Advanced Pollution Controls • Installed on 75% of U.S. coal plants • 1/2 to 1/10 cost of older systems • Billions saved in compliance costs Low-NOx Burners HAPS & Hg Data Advanced Coal Power Systems • 2 IGCC pioneers + 1 large-scale CFB • Quantified HAPS Levels • Basis for Hg R&D, regs, Tampa IGCC etc.
    [Show full text]
  • Futuregen to Be Shut Down After Feds Withdraw $1B in Funding 4 February 2015, Bydavid Mercer
    FutureGen to be shut down after feds withdraw $1B in funding 4 February 2015, byDavid Mercer Coal companies working with the government on Department's decision was a disappointment for the long-planned $1.65 billion FutureGen clean- both central Illinois and supporters of clean-coal coal project said Tuesday they have no choice but technology. to shut it down after the Department of Energy suspended the majority of its funding. "A decade-long bipartisan effort made certain that federal funding was available for the FutureGen The department confirmed that it will not provide Alliance to engage in a large-scale carbon-capture the $1 billion in stimulus funding it had committed demonstration project," Durbin said. "But the to the project, which aimed to refit a coal-fired project has always depended on a private power plant near Meredosia in western Illinois and commitment and can't go forward without it." store carbon dioxide from the coal underground. As recently as last September, the project reached The FutureGen Alliance, the companies working what the FutureGen Alliance called a major on the project in western Illinois, said they were milestone when the U.S. Environmental Protection disappointed by the news but had no way to make Agency issued permits for FutureGen to start up the money. storing carbon underground. "The federal funding was the key component," According to the Department of Energy, it has FutureGen Alliance spokesman Lawrence spent $116.5 million on the power plant and $86 Pacheco said, adding that the Department of million on the underground storage site.
    [Show full text]
  • Futuregen Alliance
    FutureGen Alliance February 8, 2006 For Immediate Release FutureGen Industrial Alliance Announces Site Selection Process for World’s First “Zero-Emissions” Coal Plant and Launches Website WASHINGTON, DC, Feb. 8 – The FutureGen Industrial Alliance today announced a site selection process to determine the host site for the world's first coal- fueled "zero emissions" power plant. A draft Request for Proposals (RFP) for public review will be issued in the latter part of February 2006, with a final RFP targeted for release in March 2006. Proposals for the host site will be due by May 2006. Based on an evaluation of the proposals received, the Alliance will develop a list of candidate sites by summer of 2006. Information about the process is provided on the FutureGen Alliance website at www.FutureGenAlliance.org, which was launched this week. The host site will be selected through an open, competitive process. Candidate sites will be identified by applying a set of technical, environmental, regulatory and financial criteria developed by the Alliance, with input from the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), independent technical experts and stakeholders. The criteria will include those typically considered when siting power plants, such as access to water, fuel delivery systems, and transmission lines, as well as requirements that are unique to the FutureGen project, such as the suitability of the site geology for permanent carbon dioxide storage. These criteria will be explained in detail in the RFP. Following the FutureGen Alliance’s identification of a list of candidate sites, DOE will use the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) review process to determine which sites are acceptable from an environmental impact perspective.
    [Show full text]
  • Samuel W. Bodman Nomination Hearing
    S. HRG. 109–1 SAMUEL W. BODMAN NOMINATION HEARING BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES UNITED STATES SENATE ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS FIRST SESSION TO CONSIDER THE NOMINATION OF SAMUEL W. BODMAN TO BE SECRETARY OF ENERGY JANUARY 19, 2005 ( Printed for the use of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 99–513 PDF WASHINGTON : 2005 For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800 Fax: (202) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001 VerDate 0ct 09 2002 11:39 Mar 04, 2005 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 5011 Sfmt 5011 P:\DOCS\99513.TXT SENE3 PsN: SCAN COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico, Chairman LARRY E. CRAIG, Idaho JEFF BINGAMAN, New Mexico CRAIG THOMAS, Wyoming DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska RON WYDEN, Oregon RICHARD BURR, North Carolina, TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota MEL MARTINEZ, Florida MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana JAMES M. TALENT, Missouri DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California CONRAD BURNS, Montana MARIA CANTWELL, Washington GEORGE ALLEN, Virginia JON S. CORZINE, New Jersey GORDON SMITH, Oregon KEN SALAZAR, Colorado JIM BUNNING, Kentucky ALEX FLINT, Staff Director JUDITH K. PENSABENE, Chief Counsel BOB SIMON, Democratic Staff Director SAM FOWLER, Democratic Chief Counsel (II) VerDate 0ct 09 2002 11:39 Mar 04, 2005 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 5904 Sfmt 5904 P:\DOCS\99513.TXT SENE3 PsN: SCAN C O N T E N T S STATEMENTS Page Akaka, Hon.
    [Show full text]
  • Communication, Project Planning and Management for Carbon Capture and Storage Projects: an International Comparison
    Communication, project planning and management for carbon capture and storage projects: An international comparison Energy Transformed Flagship Peta Ashworth, Judith Bradbury, C.F.J. (Ynke) Feenstra, Sallie Greenberg, Gretchen Hund, Thomas Mikunda and Sarah Wade EP 104273 Prepared for Sarah Clarke, Global Carbon Capture and Storage Institute Communication, project planning and management for carbon capture and storage projects: Enquiries should be addressed to: Peta Ashworth Tel: + 61 7 3327 4145 Disclaimer CSIRO advises that the information contained in this publication comprises general statements and observations based on social scientifi c research and should not be regarded as advice. The reader must not rely or act on that information without seeking prior expert professional, scientifi c and technical advice as appropriate and must consider their particular circumstances. To the extent permitted by law, and subject to the terms of the funding agreement pursuant to which this report was prepared, CSIRO (including its employees and consultants) excludes all liability arising from use of this publication (in part or in whole) and any information or material contained in it. The views expressed herein are not necessarily the views of the Global Carbon Capture and Storage Institute Ltd, and the Global Carbon Capture and Storage Institute Ltd does not accept responsibility for any information or advice contained therein. This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by the Global CCS Institute (GCCSI) through CSIRO. Neither the Battelle Memorial Institute, nor the Illinois State Geological Survey – University of Illinois, nor any of their employees, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights.
    [Show full text]
  • Futuregen the Energy Plant of the Future
    FutureGen The Energy Plant of the Future CSLF – Barriers to CCS Deployment Workshop FutureGen Overview March 2007 Victor Der Director, Office of Clean Energy Systems Office of Fossil Energy, U.S. Department of Energy 1 Tomorrow’s Energy Plant Through a government-industry partnership, the FutureGen research project has as its goal the establishment of the technical feasibility, economic viability and broad acceptance of co- producing electricity and hydrogen from coal with essentially zero emissions, including carbon (sequestration). Industry will lead since it will ultimately deploy the technology in the energy market. U.S. Department of Energy 2 FutureGen Goals Design, construct and operate a 275 MW prototype gasification plant that produces electricity and hydrogen fuel, while sequestering CO 2 at an annual rate of 1-2 million metric tons to adequately stress the geologic formation with CO2 injection. Sequester 90 percent of CO2 initially and up to near 100 percent sequestered eventually Prove the effectiveness, safety, and permanence of CO 2 sequestration through validating the technology at large scale under real world conditions . Establish technology standards and protocols for CO2 measuring, monitoring, and verification Validate engineering, economic, and environmental viability of advanced coal-based, zero emission technologies for commercial readiness in the 2020 timeframe U.S. Department of Energy 3 FutureGen: the Focus of the R&D Program Fuel Cells Carbon Sequestration FutureGen Gasification with Cleanup Separation System Optimized Integration H -Turbines H2 Production 2 U.S. Department of Energy 4 FutureGen Systems Oxygen Gasification Gas Cleaning Water/Gas Shift Oxygen Membrane Power Gasifier High Efficiency Turbine H2/CO 2 Separation Fuel Cell Coal Process Heat/Steam Electricity H2 Fuel Products/ Byproducts CO Liquids 2 Conversion Utilization Fuels/Chemicals Fuels and CO 2 Chemicals Figure 2 Sequestration Coal Seams Saline Reservoir Enhanced Oil Recovery U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Federal Register/Vol. 71, No. 145/Friday, July 28
    42840 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 145 / Friday, July 28, 2006 / Notices U.S. Department of Education, 830 First Council on Environmental Quality communities, the environmental Street, NE., Union Center Plaza, room (CEQ) NEPA regulations (40 CFR parts community, international stakeholders, #41B4, Washington, DC 20202–5320. 1500–1508), and the DOE NEPA and research organizations to participate Telephone: 202–377–3212; and as a implementing procedures (10 CFR part in the FutureGen Project through the secondary contact, Shirley Wheeler, 1021), to assess the potential NEPA process. Director, Collections Management, environmental impacts for the proposed Potential environmental impacts of Federal Student Aid, U.S. Department of action of providing Federal funding (up each of the four alternatives will be Education, 830 First Street, NE., Union to $700 million) for the FutureGen analyzed in detail in the EIS. Center Plaza, room #41F1, Washington, Project. The FutureGen Project would Reasonable power plant technologies DC 20202–5320. Telephone: (202) 377– comprise the planning, design, and component configurations proposed 3294. If you use a telecommunications construction and operation by a private- by the Alliance will be used in the device for the deaf (TTD), you may call sector organization of a coal-fueled evaluation. In addition, DOE will the Federal Relay Service (FRS) at 1– electric power and hydrogen gas (H2) consider potential mitigation 800–877–8339. production plant integrated with carbon opportunities in the EIS. Individuals with disabilities may dioxide (CO2) capture and geologic DATES: To ensure that all of the issues obtain this document in an alternative sequestration of the captured gas. related to this proposal are addressed, format (e.g., Braille, large print, Following an evaluation of 12 site DOE invites comments on the proposed audiotape, or computer diskette) on proposals from seven states, DOE scope and content of the EIS from all request to either contact person listed in identified four sites as reasonable interested parties.
    [Show full text]
  • Status of the Futuregen Zero Emission Coal Power Plant
    TheThe statusstatus ofof thethe FutureGenFutureGen zerozero emissionemission coalcoal powerpower plantplant BriefingBriefing toto representativesrepresentatives ofof thethe CSLFCSLF TechnicalTechnical GroupGroup AprilApril 3,3, 20062006 JosephJoseph GioveGiove IIIIII ProgramProgram ManagerManager OfficeOffice ofof CleanClean CoalCoal U.S.U.S. DepartmentDepartment ofof EnergyEnergy 1 U.S. Department of Energy 2 Tomorrow’sTomorrow’s EnergyEnergy PlantPlant TheThe goalgoal ofof thethe FutureGenFutureGen researchresearch projectproject isis toto establishestablish thethe technicaltechnical feasibility,feasibility, economiceconomic viabilityviability andand broadbroad acceptanceacceptance ofof co-producingco-producing electricityelectricity andand hydrogenhydrogen fromfrom coalcoal withwith essentiallyessentially zerozero emissions,emissions, includingincluding carboncarbon (sequestration).(sequestration). U.S. Department of Energy 3 RD&DRD&D toto MeetMeet TechnologyTechnology ChallengeChallenge TraditionalTraditional AdvancedAdvanced TechnologyTechnology ResearchResearch InventionsInventions CryogenicCryogenic SeparationSeparation OO22 MembranesMembranes AmineAmine ScrubbersScrubbers HH22 Membranes,Membranes, “Clathrate”“Clathrate” CO CO22 SeparationSeparation oror AdvancedAdvanced SolexolSolexol GasGas StreamStream Clean-UpClean-Up “Dirty”“Dirty” Shift Shift ReactorReactor SyngasSyngas TurbineTurbine HydrogenHydrogen TurbineTurbine FuelFuel CellCell ($4,000/kW)($4,000/kW) SECASECA FuelFuel CellCell ($400/kW($400/kW design)design) EOREOR
    [Show full text]