What is ‘FutureGen’? Here are 1 billion reasons you should take note.

FutureGen. Now isn’t that name a grabber? FutureGen — I expect to see Yul Brynner coming around the corner at any moment — is the name of an alliance (the complete name is FutureGen Industrial Alliance) between the Department of Energy and private companies to demonstrate “carbon capture and storage at a commercial scale.”

Now I find several things about this proposal to be quite intriguing. The program was initially proposed during the last administration and was strongly supported by the administration until the alliance selected Mattoon, Ill., as the site over the other two proposed sites, which were in Texas. After the selection of Mattoon, Ill., the plug was pulled on the effort in late 2007.

Fast forward to 2009 and we have a new administration with deep roots in Illinois, so the Department of Energy has revived the program by announcing a plan to spend $1 billion in economic stimulus funds to restart the effort, which is about half of what the projected full cost is estimated to run.

Now get this: Energy officials say this does not mean that the plant will ultimately be built; the decision will be made in early 2010.

Can you believe that they will commit $1 billion of the economic stimulus funds and not be committed to seeing the project through? And notice that the front half of the estimated expenditure is the money that We The People are tagged for.

I’d bet a dollar or two that if the selected site was in a state other than Illinois that it would not be on the front burner.

Another interesting point is that it was originally estimated that 90 percent of emissions (carbon dioxide) would be captured; they have now changed that to 60-90 percent. I’d suggest they spend a little less and come up with a better handle on probable results before undertaking a $1 billion commitment.

The last administration said that rising costs caused them to cancel the program for a large-scale commercial plant and that they hoped to replace it with several smaller plants. Yeah, right!

Now the Department of Energy says it hopes to move forward with both the commercial-size and smaller-size plants. (Do I detect that the camel has its head in the tent?)

What is not given prominent exposure is that two of the 11 commercial members, American Electric Power and Southern Company, have pulled out of the venture. The reason given was that they were concerned about the cost. American Electric Power said there was no definitive message from the Department of Energy as to what the scope and scale of the project would be.

Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., was irked by the withdrawal of those two members and stated, according to the Daily Illini in Urbana, Ill., “There is no project in the world of this magnitude and importance. None. And none where they can expect a billion dollars in taxpayer funds.”

That is, I find, a remarkable statement. This smacks of an effort like the superconducting super collider of the 1980s, which went belly up when costs escalated.
If I seem a bit cynical about this endeavor, it comes from experience and having lived through similar program and site-selection decisions and the rationale used in making them.

Bayne’s column runs every Sunday on the editorial page.