It is baffling that the Federal Government would provide $40 million for an unproven technology instead of supporting proven alternative energy generation like wind and solar.
.
The Carbon industry has provided generous campaign contributions to earn that support at the expense of sensible policy.
.
It is disappointing that some in the Massachusetts Senate are blinded by that propaganda, at the expense of consumers.
With an 80% Federal subsidy like the FutureGen carbon sequestration plant, how profitable would solar, wind or tidal wave energy generation be?
The Energy Challenge Mounting Costs Slow the Push for Clean Coal
In January, the government canceled its support for what was supposed to be a showcase project, a plant at a carefully chosen site in Illinois where there was coal, access to the power grid, and soil underfoot that backers said could hold the carbon dioxide for eons.
The highest-profile failure involved a project known as FutureGen, which President Bush himself announced in 2003: a utility consortium, with subsidies from the government, was going to build a plant in Mattoon, Ill., testing the most advanced techniques for converting coal to a gas, capturing pollutants, and burning the gas for power.
About $50 million has been spent on FutureGen, about $40 million in federal money and $10 million in private money, to draw up preliminary designs, find a site that had coal, electric transmission and suitable geology, and complete an Environmental Impact Statement, among other steps. NYT
.
Wind is already more competitive than electricity generated from new nuclear and coal-fired power plants.
.
More Wind Mills or Hot Air?
Coal generates 54% of our electricity, and is the single biggest air polluter in the U.S.
Coal generates 54% of our electricity, and is the single biggest air polluter in the U.S.
No comments:
Post a Comment