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

Get the inside track on the most lucrative stock plays in today's scorching-hot alternative and renewable energy markets.

Sign up for the FREE Green Chip Review daily e-Letter from alternative energy expert Jeff Siegel.

Hi Jeff I sent you an detailed analysis of Global warming a couple of months ago did you get it???

Germany is putting online a coal fired power plant that: burns coal that has been cleaned with air that has been altered to not release co2. It is expensive to create the first one, however, like anything else once the model is up and working the subsequent plants will be less expensive and more efficient. The often forgotten part of the energy equation is the infastructure. What about the miners and all the other industries that depend on coal? Changing to solar, wind, and geothermal is the way to go but once these systems are in place thousands of jobs will be lost. Technology to utilize coal and not produce any co2 exists and will be improved. The extra cost will be offset by carbon credit trading as with other forms of non polluting energy. I see an energy model utilizing: solar, wind, geothermal, nuclear, and fossil fuel. If the nuclear can be made safe, which is possible if regulated, and the co2 from fossil fuels are reduced substantially, which is possible; then these fuels should be around for a long time. Used in lesser and lesser amounts they will do less and less harm and last longer. There is an efficiency pertaining to each source of energy. The only question is, "Can we make money selling it and how much?" The rule is what the market will "bear", and when solar, wind, and geothermal energy is available it will cost just as much as oil, gas, and coal does.

I live in in Canada, and although I agree with most of your argument, I also believe that there is room for both solar and clean coal. Up here, it's not always that sunny - in fact, there are days and days without seeing old Sol. Although more expensive as you lay out, both financially and environmentally, clean coal derived power will be available 24/7. If and when battery technology, or other electrical storage devices can compete, there will remain an inexorable demand for an energy source that can be counted on to perform at the flick of a switch: ie, nuclear, petroleum-based, hydro. BTW, and I'm sure I've missed this, but what is your solution for power generation from solar when the sun does go down every night, or is not available due to clouds, etc.? I'd appreciate your comments on my points when you get a chance.

I believe you need to ad for inflation, say 1%/year minimum over 20 years ads about 40% total to your transport cost only and you have an unbearable costly project and continually adding to the pollution of this unsustainable project.
GerryK

You put the capital costs for both coal and solar at $6.55 per watt. I think the costs for wind farms are about $1.00 / $1.50 for land based and $3 / $3.50 for offshore.

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.

Jeff, What do we do for power when the sun goes down and the wind isn't blowing? You have to have something what do you suggest.

Great article on clean coal. clean coal is an oxymoron. Nuclear power, wind power and solar power along with electric cars are the answer.

Jeff,

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

Jeff,

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

The only problem with coal is emissions. Sorbents are used to prevent release of emissions (SoX, NoX, mercury) but the industry uses an inferior sorbent, limestone, which has remained unchanged for generations. We have a new sorbent that absorbes 24-80% of emissions which 1) allows you to use lower quality coal (high sulfur content) for same emissions profile--or better, and 2) is more operationally efficient and therefore saves money. Saving money all the while dramatically reducing emissions is not futuristic, but is available today. But try to introduce that to a massive legacy industry and infrastructure and political scene. Good luck! We have been pushing our solution for over 20 years and there is no interest in reducing emissions and operational costs. The real issues about coal are mental, not material. Some day we will wake up and save us all a LOT of unnecessary costs (read CPI inflation).

I hope that when the current political administration is gone.
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

Midland Reporter Telegram Feb 5th
2008 Front pg...FyI

Mitch