Alliance reiterates its belief in FutureGen
The FutureGen Alliance has responded to the Department of Energy's request for ideas about alternate clean-coal technologies.
But the alliance's proposal reiterates that it still believes one carbon-sequestering plant in Mattoon is the way to go.
The proposal was submitted in time for the Department of Energy's Monday deadline, said alliance spokesman Lawrence Pacheco. The alliance comprises 13 companies from around the world.
Department of Energy spokeswoman Julie Ruggiero said Monday afternoon that she's not sure of the number or types of companies that submitted, and isn't sure if that information will be released.
She said the Department of Energy is eager to take a look at all the proposals submitted by those in the power industry, including from the FutureGen Alliance.
The Department of Energy announced at the end of January that it wants to restructure the FutureGen project, even after the alliance named Mattoon as the $1.8 billion plant's future site. It requested proposals from members of the power industry for new ideas, concepts and projects that could demonstrate carbon capture and storage and could be built by 2015.
It stepped away from the one large plant slated for Mattoon that it had agreed to help pay for and invited the FutureGen Alliance to submit a proposal.
And so the alliance did. Its proposal outlines the reasons the project would be best suited for one plant in Mattoon – it is five years into the project and could beat the 2015 deadline. It could also meet the department's goals for carbon capture and emission goals, and would be a commercial-scale project. The project would also involve countries from all over the world, because of the alliance's diverse members.
Pacheco said other projects would complement the plant at Mattoon, but one plant is the best option.
The proposal also raised concerns about the restructured project. The alliance doesn't think the department can find a project that will meet its clean-energy goals by 2015 and is alienating other projects by breaking ties with the FutureGen Alliance. A restructured program will require more appropriations and does not provide enough information about operating costs, the proposal stated.
The department will probably receive many proposals from many entities, ranging from concepts to better-developed projects. But the alliance wants to convince the Department of Energy that building a plant in Mattoon is still the best way to go.
To Pacheco's knowledge, members of the FutureGen Alliance and Department of Energy haven't talked since the restructuring was announced and since members of the alliance's board announced their hopes to rekindle negotiations on the project.
Some of the alliance members will submit their own proposals to the department for consideration for a restructured plant, Pacheco said.
"They're basically required to," Pacheco said.
"It would be irresponsible if they did not because they are regulated by public utility commissions. (But) each member .. is wholeheartedly dedicated to building with FutureGen at Mattoon."
Also on this date
- Flash index show recession hasn't hit Illinois yet
- Kids get Web site to learn about weather
- Sidewalks top list of Tuscola council's priorities
- Meijer seeking customer who bought recalled food
- Urbana council changes rule on nominations
- Official to urge tax referendum
- Round Barn mail site set to close
- Police report numerous accidents on highways from storm
- Share-a-meal initiative benefits local charities
- Obituaries