So it looks like the President's centerpiece for his strategy for Clean Coal technologies, FutureGen, has been shelved.
The reason?
The project costs for the planned 275MW coal-fired plant had risen to $1.8 billion. And folks, that's just to build it. That doesn't even include the cost of the very resource it depends on to operate--coal.If they were truly seeking cleaner energy, they could've just as easily pulled off a concentrating solar farm, delivering the same 275MW for roughly the same price.
Of course, that's just construction.
Once a concentrating solar power plant is built, the resource--the sun's rays--is inexhaustible, and free.
Coal?
Well, figuring conservatively, we probably have about 30 years of that high-energy content coal left. (Learn more about peak coal.) And the FutureGen Alliance estimated the plant would use up to 1 million tons per year.
At a cost of $34.26 per ton (per the EIA's 2006 figures), you're looking at $34.26 million a year, or about $685 million over the course of 20 years (the average life most power plants, both renewable and non-renewable are given as a base measurement), assuming no price increase over the next two decades...which is not a safe assumption to make.
So now we're looking at a choice between $1.8 billion for the concentrating solar project, or almost $2.5 billion for the FutureGen project.
But wait... there's more!
Cost: Clean Coal's Dirty Secret
The cost to transport heat from the sun is roughly $0.00 per year. (Sorry, I couldn't help myself). The cost to transport coal?
Since rail carries the majority of coal tonnage in the U.S., we'll look at the costs attributed to rail transport. According to the EIA, the average cost in 2005 was $11.68 per ton.
Multiply that by 1 million, and you're looking at about $11.68 million a year, or about $233.6 million over the course of 20 years.
This brings our total to roughly $2.719 billion for the "clean coal" plant. The price for the "always clean, never been dirty" 275MW concentrating solar plant is still about $1.8 billion-or about $919 million cheaper.
For that extra $919 million, you can build another 256MW concentrating solar power plant. Not a bad deal.
Clean Coal... Not So Clean After All
Consider the fact that even with a coal plant that doesn't emit CO2, such as the FutureGen Alliance claimed its plant would do, you still have the issues of mercury, sulfur dioxide emissions, and nitrogen oxide emissions.
Granted, the FutureGen Alliance claimed results that would lower emissions of mercury, sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide. But by how much? Well, that's a piece of information we couldn't seem to get a straight answer on.
Either way, it's more than solar, wind or geothermal.
Now I'm not spouting off about this just because I'm unwilling to accept any type of power generation that pollutes as much as coal (complacency cannot be accepted, nor should it be tolerated with so much clean energy technology at our fingertips), but rather to draw your attention to an issue that will continue to be a major thorn in the side of those that champion coal-fired power generation.
Perhaps you remember last year when the American Electric Power company agreed to a $4.6 billion settlement over pollution controls. They now have to shell out a wad of cash to make improvements that will reduce--not eliminate--the plant's sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide emissions.
Just one more thing to consider when analyzing the future growth prospects of both proven renewable energy technologies and unproven non-renewable technologies.
Coal ain't clean folks...even if they put the two words together on a press release.
And until they can prove it, just like the solar, wind and geothermal industries have proven their technologies to be effective and competitive on a level playing field, our skepticism will remain strong. As it should be when it comes to any investment.
And as a side note, Citigroup, JP Morgan, and Morgan Stanley all announced on Monday they will now set environmental standards that factor in risks posed by carbon-emissions when lending to power companies that seek to build coal-fire power plants.
And another nail is hammered in. Invest appropriately.
To a new way of life, and a new generation of wealth...
Jeff
Visit the Green Chip Stocks homepage for more on alternative energy stocks
Subscribe to
Nice article - too bad about FutureGen but with that price tag it would bound to happen.
Question:
Since coal plants are going to continue to be produced, I'm capitulating and looking into coal scrubbers and other technologies that reduce pollution as much as possible (or whatever the coal plant owners will pay for). Any suggestions?
Thanks, Matt
That all this type of myopic nearsighted, short term, gain of status quo fossil fuel oligarchy goes with it.
This country needs to reinvent itself, and it needs to do it NOW.
As we had transitioned from an argrarian way of life into an idustrial one, a segway into clean energy and of the dynamic power that would be generated (ie. a whole new economy and lifestyle) for this nation would be cultivated, bringing prosperity and health to the top again. AND most likely put the powers that be in terrorists nations OUT OF BUSINESS! If no one has noticed, is something that we as a nation (due to our current political position) are financing against ourselves!
Of course we have. We just don't have the leaders like that of our forefathers, who give a shit.
And it is going to hit the fan.
The pathetic part of all this, is that NO ONE running for office for President today is tlaking about such. NO VISION.
"Meet the new boss," "same as the old boss."
Yours truly concerned,
Steven Psaros
2008 Front pg...FyI
Mitch
While I applaud the premise of your article, and support the environmental arguements you put forward, you missed an important aspect of the economics. The key economic variable is how many MWh will each system produce over a 20 year lifetime. The coal plant will produce ~48 million MWh over 20 years, the concentrating solar plant will produce ~19 million MWh over 20 years. With the costs your use for each plant, clean-coal works out to ~$0.06 per kWh and solar concentrating to ~$0.09 per kWh. A significant cost difference for each kWh. Thus the dilemma in cost of energy vs incremental environmental improvement.
Keep up the good work!
Bill
Do you know the estimated costs for nuclear, including government subsidies, and the added security infrastructure costs of nuclear? (Of course waste management cannot be factored into the equation because we don't know what it would cost.
GerryK