Editing FutureGen (section)

==Original project==
The original incarnation of FutureGen was as a [[public-private partnership]] to build the world's first near zero-emissions coal-fueled power plant. The 275-[[megawatt]] plant would be intended to prove the feasibility of producing electricity and hydrogen from coal while capturing and permanently storing carbon dioxide underground. The Alliance intended to build the plant in [[Mattoon Township, Coles County, Illinois]] northwest of Mattoon, Illinois, subject to necessary approvals (issuing a “Record of Decision”) by the [[United States Department of Energy|Department of Energy]] (DOE) as part of the [[National Environmental Policy Act]] (NEPA) process.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.rsinc.com/how-much-does-viasat-internet-cost.php|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080202233448/http://www.futuregenalliance.org/about.stm|url-status=dead|title=How Much Does Viasat Internet Cost?|archive-date=February 2, 2008|website=www.rsinc.com}}</ref>

FutureGen was to be designed, developed and operated by the FutureGen Industrial Alliance, a non-profit consortium of [[coal mining]] and electric utility companies formed to partner with the DOE on the FutureGen project. The project was still in the development stage when its funding was cancelled in January 2008. The Alliance decision of the location of the host site, subject to DOE's completing NEPA environmental reviews, was announced in December 2007 after a two-year bidding and review process. Construction was scheduled to begin in 2009, with full-scale plant operations to begin in 2012.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.futuregenalliance.org/publications/fg_factsheet_7_final.pdf |title=Archived copy |access-date=2008-02-02 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080216073139/http://www.futuregenalliance.org/publications/fg_factsheet_7_final.pdf |archive-date=2008-02-16 }}</ref>

The estimated gross project cost, including construction and operations, and excluding offsetting revenue, was $1.65 billion.<ref name="sequestration.mit.edu">{{Cite web | url=http://sequestration.mit.edu/tools/projects/futuregen.html |title = Carbon Capture and Sequestration Technologies @ MIT}}</ref> The project was governed by a legally binding cooperative agreement between DOE and the Alliance.<ref>DOE Cooperative Agreement # DE-FC26-06NT42073:  FutureGen - A Sequestration and Hydrogen Research Initiative</ref> Under the agreement, DOE was to provide 74% of the project’s cost, with private industry contributing the other 26%. The DOE also planned to solicit the financial support and participation of international governments in the FutureGen project, since by 2020 more than 60% of man-made greenhouse gas emissions are expected to come from developing countries. Foreign financial support was to offset a portion of DOE’s cost-share. As of January 2008, the foreign governments of [[China]], [[India]], [[Australia]], [[South Korea]], and [[Japan]] had expressed interest in participating and sharing the cost of the project.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.rsinc.com/how-much-does-viasat-internet-cost.php|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080513164454/http://www.futuregenalliance.org/costs.stm|url-status=dead|title=How Much Does Viasat Internet Cost?|archive-date=May 13, 2008|website=www.rsinc.com}}</ref>

FutureGen was to sequester carbon dioxide emissions at a rate of one million [[metric ton]]s per year for four years, which is the scale a [[Massachusetts Institute of Technology]] (MIT) report cites as appropriate for proving sequestration. The MIT report also states that “the priority objective with respect to coal should be the successful large-scale demonstration of the technical, economic, and environmental performance of the technologies that make up all of the major components of a large-scale integrated [[Carbon capture and storage|CCS]] system — capture, transportation and storage.”<ref>The Future of Coal, http://web.mit.edu/coal/The_Future_of_Coal.pdf</ref> An injection field test similar to this was done in Norway.<ref>[http://www.seed.slb.com/en/scictr/watch/climate_change/sleipner.htm Sleipner—A Carbon Dioxide Capture-and-Storage Project] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20061101151123/http://www.seed.slb.com/en/scictr/watch/climate_change/sleipner.htm |date=2006-11-01 }}.</ref><ref>[https://web.archive.org/web/20071222184622/http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V2S-4CC7RP3-V&_coverDate=08%2F31%2F2004&_alid=509250811&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_qd=1&_cdi=5710&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=eae16bc99d60c2aff71a07a8f5a8b9f1 Monitoring of CO2 injected at Sleipner using time-lapse seismic data].</ref>

In March 2009 [[Washington Post]] reported that U.S. Secretary of Energy [[Steven Chu]] expressed support for continuing the project using stimulus funds (after some changes that have not yet been specified) and making it a part of a larger portfolio of research plants developed in collaboration with other countries.<ref>{{Cite news
  | last = Kindy
  | first = Kimberly
  | title = New Life for 'Clean Coal' Project
  | newspaper = [[Washington Post]]
  | date = 2009-03-06
  | url = https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/05/AR2009030502138_pf.html}}</ref>

Following the successful completion of the first phase, in February 2013, the Energy Department announced the beginning of Phase II of the project development with a new cooperative agreement between the FutureGen Industrial Alliance and the Department of Energy. This means that the FutureGen project has government support as it moves into its third phase, deployment of the project.<ref name="sequestration.mit.edu"/>

===Site selection===
[[Site selection]] for the FutureGen facility was based on a competitive process which began in May 2006. Seven states responded<ref>{{cite news |first=Keith |last=Benman |title=FutureGen not in near future for Indiana |url=http://www.thetimesonline.com/articles/2004/03/10/business/business/f5e87b5fd54a377186256e52007c6430.txt |work=The Times |location=Munster, IN |date=2004-03-10 |access-date=2007-12-18 }} (Bids by states to host FutureGen)</ref> to the Site Request for Proposals with a total of 12 proposals. Proposals were reviewed against a set of environmental, technical, regulatory, and financial criteria with input from external technical advisors on power plant design and [[carbon sequestration]]. In July 2006, four candidate sites were selected for further review, including an environmental impact analysis as required by NEPA.

DOE issued its Final [[Environmental impact statement]] (EIS) on November 8, 2007, which concluded that all four sites were acceptable from an environmental impact standpoint and all would move forward in the site evaluation process.  EPA published a Notice of Availability (NOA) for the EIS in the Federal Register on November 16, 2007.<ref>[http://www.eh.doe.gov/nepa/na/64618.pdf Federal Register, Vol. 72, No. 221] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080216073055/http://www.eh.doe.gov/nepa/na/64618.pdf |date=2008-02-16 }}</ref> The DOE is required by federal law to wait at least 30 days after the NOA release before issuing its final Record of Decision (ROD).  The waiting period legally closed on December 17, 2007.  DOE chose not to issue the ROD and advised the FutureGen Alliance to delay the final site selection announcement, which was scheduled to occur at the end of the 30-day waiting period. The Alliance chose to move ahead with the announcement, citing time, money, and a commitment to proposers to select the final site by year-end. "Every month of delay can add $10 million to the project's cost, solely due to inflation," said Michael Mudd, the Alliance's chief executive.
{| class="wikitable" style="text-align:center;margin:1em auto"
|-
! City
! Proposals
! Finalists
|-
| align="left"| [[Effingham, Illinois]]
| x ||
|-
| align="left"| [[Marshall, Illinois]]
| x ||
|-
| align="left"| '''[[Mattoon, Illinois]]'''
| '''x''' || '''x'''
|-
| align="left"| [[Tuscola, Illinois]]
| x || x
|-
| align="left"| [[Henderson County, Kentucky]]
| x ||
|-
| align="left"| [[Bowman County, North Dakota]]
| x ||
|-
| align="left"| [[Meigs County, Ohio]]
| x ||
|-
| align="left"| [[Tuscarawas County, Ohio]]
| x ||
|-
| align="left"| [[Odessa, Texas]]
| x || x
|-
| align="left"| [[Jewett, Texas]]
| x || x
|-
| align="left"| [[Point Pleasant, West Virginia]]
| x ||
|-
| align="left"| [[Gillette, Wyoming]]
| x ||
|}

The Michael Mudd, the CEO of the FutureGen Alliance, announced the selection of [[Mattoon, Illinois]] as the host site on December 18, 2007.<ref>{{cite news|title=Mattoon lands FutureGen power plant |url=http://www.news-gazette.com/news/local/2007/12/18/mattoon_to_land_futuregen |work=[[The News-Gazette (Champaign-Urbana)]] |date=2007-12-18 |access-date=2007-12-18 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20081205083135/http://www.news-gazette.com/news/local/2007/12/18/mattoon_to_land_futuregen |archive-date=December 5, 2008 }}</ref><ref>{{cite news |title=Illinois chosen for experimental coal plant |url=http://chicagobusiness.com/cgi-bin/news.pl?id=27486&seenIt=1 |work=[[Crain's Chicago Business]] |date=2007-12-18 |access-date=2007-12-18 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20071223003003/http://chicagobusiness.com/cgi-bin/news.pl?id=27486&seenIt=1 |archive-date=2007-12-23 }}</ref> According to the EIS, Mattoon, IL the site is located about {{convert|3.5|mi|km}} northwest of downtown Mattoon in the eastern part of Mattoon township section 8 on {{convert|1.8|km2|acre|sigfig=2|abbr=on}} of former farm land. The carbon sequestration area is about {{convert|8000|ft|km}} below the ground.<ref>FutureGen Alliance. [http://www.futuregenalliance.org/news/fg_mattoon_eiv_v1_master_rev1.pdf Environmental Information Volumes for Mattoon, Illinois] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080216073055/http://www.futuregenalliance.org/news/fg_mattoon_eiv_v1_master_rev1.pdf |date=2008-02-16 }}. (PDF) 12.1 MB. December 1, 2006.</ref> In July 2007, Illinois Public Act 095-0018 became law giving the state of Illinois ownership of and liability for the sequestered gases.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.ilga.gov/legislation/publicacts/fulltext.asp?Name=095-0018|title=Illinois General Assembly - Full Text of Public Act 095-0018|website=www.ilga.gov}}</ref>

===Technology===
Original FutureGen project was intended to combine and test several new technologies in a single location, including [[Coal#Gasification|coal gasification]], emissions controls, [[hydrogen production]], electricity generation, and [[Carbon capture and storage|carbon dioxide capture and storage]] (CCS).<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.futuregenalliance.org/technology.stm |title=FutureGen - Technology |access-date=2008-01-04 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080101033603/http://www.futuregenalliance.org/technology.stm |archive-date=2008-01-01 }} FutureGen Technology Overview</ref>

[[Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle]] (IGCC) was the core technology behind FutureGen. IGCC power plants use two turbines – a gas and a steam turbine – to produce electric power more efficiently than pulverized coal plants. IGCC plants also make it easier to capture carbon dioxide for carbon sequestration.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.futuregenalliance.org/technology/coal.stm |title=FutureGen - Coal Gasification |access-date=2008-01-21 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080113072754/http://www.futuregenalliance.org/technology/coal.stm |archive-date=2008-01-13 }} Coal Gassification</ref>

FutureGen was to capture carbon dioxide produced during the gasification process and pump it into deep rock formations thousands of feet under ground. FutureGen specifically targeted rock formations containing saline water, as these are one of the most abundant types of geologic formations that can be used to store carbon dioxide worldwide.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.futuregenalliance.org/technology/carbon.stm |title=FutureGen - Carbon Sequestration |access-date=2008-01-21 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080112193255/http://www.futuregenalliance.org/technology/carbon.stm |archive-date=2008-01-12 }} Carbon Sequestration</ref> A study by the Global Energy Technology Strategy Program estimates the storage capacity of these saline rock formations in the U.S. to be 2,970 gigatons of carbon dioxide, compared to a capacity of 77 gigatons of carbon dioxide for all other types of reservoirs, such as depleted gas fields.<ref>“Carbon Dioxide Capture and Geologic Storage: A Core Element of A Global Energy Technology Strategy To Address Climate Change, p. 26. {{cite web |url=http://www.pnl.gov/gtsp/docs/gtsp_reportfinal_2006.pdf |title=Archived copy |access-date=2008-02-02 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080216073055/http://www.pnl.gov/gtsp/docs/gtsp_reportfinal_2006.pdf |archive-date=2008-02-16 }}</ref> Focusing on rock formations with saline water was intended to help ensure that the lessons learned from the project are broadly transferable throughout the U.S. and around the world.

===Challenges===
Maintaining the project schedule and keeping costs down were two major challenges with which the DOE and the FutureGen Alliance grappled. The project had remained on schedule with the announcement of the host site before the end of 2007; however, a desire by DOE to restructure the project’s financial arrangement has brought the project to a halt.

In December 2007, the DOE Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Fossil Energy James Slutz stated that projected cost overruns for the project "require a reassessment of FutureGen's design."  And that "This will require restructuring FutureGen to maximize the role of private-sector innovation, facilitate the most productive public-private partnership, and prevent further cost escalation."<ref name="Illinois wins, official warned">{{cite news | last = Fowler | first = Tom | title = Illinois wins coal project, and along with it a tussle / Official warned against announcing winning town in $1.8 billion project | work = Houston Chronicle | date = 2007-12-18 | url = https://www.chron.com/CDA/archives/archive.mpl?id=2007_4480471 | access-date = 2008-01-31}}</ref>

The FutureGen Alliance wrote a letter to the Department of Energy’s Under Secretary C.H. “Bud” Albright Jr. stating that overall inflation and the rising cost of raw materials and engineering services are driving costs up on energy projects around the world. According to [[James L. Connaughton]], chairman of the White House [[Council on Environmental Quality]], the market for steel, concrete and power plant components has “just gone through the roof globally”, and much of the reason is the construction of hundreds of new conventional coal plants.<ref>{{Cite news
  | last = Wald
  | first = Matthew L.
  | title = New Type of Coal Plant Moves Ahead, Haltingly
  | newspaper = The New York Times
  | date = 2007-12-18
  | url = https://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/18/business/18coal.html
  | access-date = 2009-03-10
  }}</ref>

On January 11, 2008, the FutureGen Alliance sent a letter to the DOE offering to lower the government's portion of the project's costs.  The initial plans had called for DOE to pay based on a percentage of the total cost, and their portion had risen from about $620 million to about $1.33 billion.  The letter indicated that DOE's portion would now be $800 million.<ref>{{cite news | last = Mitchell | first = Tim | title = No future for FutureGen? | work = Champaign News-Gazette | date = 2008-01-30 | url = http://www.news-gazette.com/news/business/2008/01/30/no_future_for_futuregen | access-date = 2008-01-31}}</ref>

[[Risk management]] was a significant portion of the cost of the first FutureGen experimental implementation.<ref>[http://www.netl.doe.gov/technologies/coalpower/futuregen/EIS/FG%20Risk%20Assessment%20110807.pdf Final Risk Assessment Report for the FutureGen Project Environmental Impact Statement] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080216073054/http://www.netl.doe.gov/technologies/coalpower/futuregen/EIS/FG%20Risk%20Assessment%20110807.pdf |date=2008-02-16 }}, U.S. Department of Energy, October 2, 2007</ref> FutureGen involved many complex never-before-solved technology problems. The risks also included significant health risks, if the untested-technology systems failed to work correctly.

===Funding cancellation===
On January 29, 2008, the U.S. Department of Energy announced that it would pull its funding for the project, mostly due to higher than expected costs. The move is likely to delay the project as other members seek the additional funds that the DOE was to provide. The sudden concern over cost after an Illinois site was chosen over those in Texas raised questions about the motives for the cancellation. Local and state officials in Illinois, including then Governor [[Rod Blagojevich]], expressed frustration at the move, especially in light of the money and resources that the state had spent to attract the project. Democratic Senator [[Dick Durbin]] of Illinois accused Energy Secretary [[Samuel Bodman]] of "cruel deception" of Illinoisans by "creating false hope in a FutureGen project which he has no intention of funding or supporting."<ref>{{cite news
| agency = Associated Press
| title = U.S. lawmakers: Energy Department pulls support for FutureGen
| work = Daily Herald
| date = 2008-01-29
| url = http://www.dailyherald.com/story/?id=123764&src=109
| access-date = 2009-03-10}}</ref> Durbin claimed that "when the city of Mattoon, Illinois, was chosen over possible locations in Texas, the secretary of energy set out to kill FutureGen."<ref name=ChT>{{cite news
 |last       = Secter
 |first      = Bob
 |title      = Energy Department backing out of Illinois-bound FutureGen project, officials say
 |work       = Chicago Tribune
 |date       = 2008-01-30
 |url        = http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-future-gen_30jan30,1,280681.story
 |access-date = 2008-02-02
}}{{dead link|date=January 2018 |bot=InternetArchiveBot |fix-attempted=yes }}</ref> Mattoon mayor David Cline said "one could question the motivation of the Department of Energy which was ready to move forward with the project until a site other than Texas was chosen."<ref name=ChT/>

In March 2009, Congressional auditors determined that the DOE had miscalculated the government portion of the project's cost, overstating the amount by a half billion dollars.  As a result, the Bush administration cited the project as having nearly doubled in cost when, in reality, it had increased by 39%<ref>{{cite news
| last = Wald
| first = Matthew
| title = Energy Dept. Said to Err on Coal Project
| work = New York Times
| date = 2009-03-10
| url = https://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/11/science/earth/11coal.html?_r=1&ref=business
| access-date = 2009-12-12}}</ref>

Secretary Bodman stated that with restructuring the FutureGen project, DOE plans "to equip multiple new clean-coal power plants with advanced CCS technology, instead of one demonstration plant. That will provide more electricity from multiple clean-coal plants, sequestering at least twice as much CO<sub>2</sub> and providing for wider use and more rapid commercialization."<ref>{{cite news
 |last        = Bodman
 |first       = Samuel W.
 |title       = New technology makes FutureGen a waste of tax money
 |work        = St. Louis Post-Dispatch
 |date        = 2008-02-06
 |url         = http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/stories.nsf/editorialcommentary/story/FED1EF50F9C186CA862573E70017463B?OpenDocument
 |access-date  = 2008-02-11
 |url-status     = dead
 |archive-url  = https://web.archive.org/web/20080210071104/http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/stories.nsf/editorialcommentary/story/FED1EF50F9C186CA862573E70017463B?OpenDocument
 |archive-date = 2008-02-10
}}</ref>