Footnotes

FutureGen or Wind?

At Deval Patrick's working group meeting on Cape Cod several individuals spoke passionately about the threat of global warming from fossil fuels. Others expressed optimism for non-polluting sources. So let's examine just two alternatives for our future electrical energy: coal and wind power.

The Hope of "Clean" Coal

Coal gasification, a process that turns coal into synthetic gas, or "syngas" has existed for 50 years. It's a process of combining a coal-water mixture with oxygen and steam to produce a combustible gas which is cleaned by removing sulfur and mercury. Since this process is more expensive than the current cost of natural gas it is heavily subsidized by the federal government [1].

Recent developments to utilize syngas and generate electricity show it is possible but expensive. It is called integrated gasification combined cycle (IGCC) production. In this type of plant an air separation unit isolates the oxygen and nitrogen then the oxygen is used to make syngas. This gas is burned in a modern combined cycle gas turbine plant to generate electricity. Up to 20% of the cost of such plants is subsidized by the government [2].  Only about 10 of these plants have been built world wide with mixed performance results.

FutureGen

The future expectation is that the carbon dioxide (CO₂) can be removed and hydrogen produced from the syngas before it is fed to the turbines. The captured CO₂ is to be pumped deep underground for storage (hopefully permanently) in suitable geologic formations, a process called "sequestration" producing no emissions (well almost none) other than water.

This is the vision of FutureGen. Through a public-private ownership partnership involving the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) and an alliance of industrial coal producers and electric utilities as well as state governments and international participants one of these power plants will be built in the United States [3].

The current reality of FutureGen is a plan to build a small 275 megawatt (MW) experimental plant in Texas or Illinois. When completed in 2012 at a cost of about a billion dollars, with a contribution of $700 million from U.S. taxpayers [4], it will sequester a million tons of CO₂ produced every year by pumping it into an underground saline formation. The expected operational costs of just capturing the CO₂ and sequestration are estimated to be $30 to $100 million every year [5]. It also requires a lease in perpetuity or purchase of underground rights to a radius of 10 miles [6] around the plant (314 square miles). The ultimate cost of the electricity produced has not been accurately forecast, however it is certainly not competitive now.

The Promise of Wind Power

For the sake of comparison there is the reality of building an offshore windfarm in Nantucket Sound now. It's been in the permitting process since 2001. In contrast to a 275 MW FutureGen project, the windfarm will supply a maximum of 454 MW with an average output of 182 MW [7] or 79% of the electrical energy consumed on the Cape & Islands [8]. This wind power will be consumed on the Cape & Islands [9] and will be sold into the market at competitive wholesale rates helping to stabilize the ever increasing cost of electricity with a fuel that is free and abundant.

The cost of building the wind farm is the same as FutureGen, about a billion dollars. On the other hand, the wind farm will be privately financed. No government funds required. And it will avoid the emission of the same million tons of CO₂ at no cost to the public [10] as well as avoiding toxic emissions produced from local fossil fueled generating plants.

Cape Wind is the largest single supply-side project in the United States other than FutureGen which will avoid that much global warming gas.

Back to the "Real" Future

Certainly offshore wind will not provide the total electrical energy requirements of New England. But it can provide a significant contribution to the mix for near term needs.

New England's shallow coastal waters (less than 30 meters) with sites that are over five miles from shore are a resource for some 10,000 MW of wind generation capacity [11]. That's equivalent to a third of the present capacity of all the land based power plants in New England [12]. And it's available now. Development awaits only proposals and decisions from permitting agencies.

European offshore wind experience with a dozen operating wind farms beginning in 1991 and burgeoning with eight more under construction this year and next demonstrates shallow-water wind is maturing as a proven technology. Danish environmental organizations carefully monitored their sites for six years and recently reported no adverse effects on birds or sea life [13]. Furthermore, Denmark generates 20% of their electric consumption from wind and integrates it into their grid system with no adverse effects or additional costs.

A Better Way

Offshore wind power technology is available here and now. The tragedy is that there are 140 new but conventional coal-fired plants planned for construction the United States with only a few considering IGCC. The rational is based on the cost of construction and operation [14]. Old is simply cheaper. Most unfortunately, this generation of newly built conventional coal plants will continue spew out some 800 million tons of carbon dioxide every year [15] for the next 50 years [16].

As for "FutureGen [it's] a smokescreen, since it's not intended to bring technology to the market at the pace required to deal with the problem," said Daniel Lashoff, science director at the climate center at the Natural Resources Defense Council. "We don't have that kind of time."

Should we continue to invest in research projects for clean coal? Certainly. Even though more costly, we'll need all domestic options open for the future because oil and natural gas are reaching worldwide peak production limits and becoming increasingly expensive from unstable and unfriendly foreign sources. And the nuclear option has its own problems. 

So let's seize the opportunity as Governor Patrick campaigned to become the nation's center for wind power and other renewables development. We need to begin and build the Cape Wind project now! It's not only a better way, it's absolutely essential!

Charles W. Kleekamp, P.E. Ret.

Vice President, Clean Power Now

About Clean Power Now

Clean Power Now is a non-profit volunteer organization that informs citizens and empowers them to support viable renewable energy projects and policies, and to secure their local and regional benefits.

We believe that the timely development of such projects, in conjunction with energy efficiency and conservation, will bring about a clean, healthy environment, an improved economy and a more secure, sustainable America.

Our immediate focus is to increase citizen support of offshore wind power in Nantucket Sound.

Footnotes:

[1] "Renewable Electricity Production Tax Credit Extended and Expanded to Geothermal, Waste Heat and Other Resources," Perkins Coie attorneys, November 19, 2004. The subsidy is $4.37 per ton coal. Note, the current cost of coal for electrical generations is about $24/ton.

[2] Energy Policy Act of 2005, SEC. 1307. CREDIT FOR INVESTMENT IN CLEAN COAL FACILITIES. Sec. 48A. QUALIFYING ADVANCED COAL PROJECT CREDIT, subsection (a) (1) which is 20 percent of the qualified investment for such taxable year in the case of integrated gasification combined cycle projects.

[3] FutureGen Project Update, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Fossil Energy, May, 2006.

[4] "FutureGen Advances," by Ken Silverstein, Editor-in-Chief, EnergyBiz Insider, April 21, 2006.

[5] "Future of Coal Depends on CO₂ Disposal Says Earth Institute Scientist at Senate Conference," Klaus Lackner. A geophysicist with the Earth Institute testified at the U.S. Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee Coal Conference, March 10, 2005.

[6] The federal Request for Proposal (RFP) also calls for a land area of 10 miles radius or an area encompassing about 100 square miles around the sequestration site for the CO₂. (CWK note, a 10 mile radius = 314 square miles). See "Pecos County locations would store byproduct from FutureGen Plant," by Bill Modisett, Odessa American, April 28, 2006.

[7] Cape Wind press release of  October 4, 2006 indicates that the new 3.6 MW GE Wind Turbine Model XL, will boost annual production of clean wind energy by 7%. Cape Wind's annual expected wind power production will now be 1,594,207 megawatt hours, up from 1,489,200 megawatt hours. Dividing the MWh by 8,760 hrs/yr gives an average power production of 182 MW.

[8] NStar has said the average power consumption on the Cape & Islands is 230 MW. Thus the ratio of 182/230 is 0.791 or 79% of the power consumed on the Cape & Islands.

[9] Only if more power is generated by the wind farm than is consumed at any point in time on the Cape & Islands will the excess be transported over the canal to the mainland grid.

[10] EFSB 02-2. July 2, 2004. "The Siting Board finds that, in the near term, the operation of the wind farm would reduce regional air emissions by approximately 4,480 tons of SO₂, 1,323 tons of NOx and 1,062,554 tons of CO₂ annually." p. 168.

[11] "Offshore Wind Energy Potential for the United States," Walt Musial, National Renewable Energy Laboratory, May 19, 2005.

[12] The current New England installed generation capacity is 33,466 MW. ISO NE Morning Report, December 27, 2006.

[13] "Danish Offshore Wind Key Environmental Issues," November 2006, Published by DONG Energy, Vattenfall, The Danish Energy Authority and The Danish Forest and Nature Agency.

[14] "The Energy Challenge," by Simon Romero, New York Times, May 28, 2006

[15] On average, each 1,000 MW coal plant will emit about 5 million tons of CO₂ a year, so 140 plants will emit 140 million tons. Incidentally, the 1,100 MW Canal oil fueled plant in Sandwich on Cape Cod, like it coal counterparts emits on average 5 million tons of CO₂ a year.

[16] Conventional coal plants (as well as conventional oil-fueled plants) emit about 1,800 pounds (almost a ton) of CO₂ per MWh of power produced. Ref. CMR 7.29.