From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Energy Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Energy, which collaborates on articles related to energy.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.
Mid	This article is on a subject of mid importance within energy.
Help with this template This article has been rated but has no comments. If appropriate, please review the article and leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.

	This article is part of WikiProject Illinois, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Illinois on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page to join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance scale.

[edit] Energy Costs

Given that this could offer a safe-valve for the present development of gas electrcity generation, and provide countries with an option for future energy, as well as nuclear, what are the costs? What is the lifespan of a plant, in theory, and what would the per kilowatt cost be, both marginal and real? Cheers, Nick Kerr 20:50, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Good questions, but unanswerable today. The technology to build this plant isn't complete, and some of its components will be prototypes, not even first generation. Part of the cost will depend on where the carbon dioxide goes, and the method hasn't even been settled on. Simesa 22:38, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Today I e-mailed Victor K. Der for more information. Simesa 21:01, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

I have mailed both contacts for Clean Coal and received nothing in at least two weeks. Simesa 21:40, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

As of right now FutureGen is planned to a be a 275 MW IGCC plant that uses an oxyfuel input in order to produce a easily capturable CO2 flue gas stream that can then be sequestered. Right now the cost is estimated to be around 1 billion with 20-25% of that being from pirvate companies. the contruction of the plant is planeed to begin in late 2008 and completed between 2010 and 2012 with the plant operating at full capicity late in 2012. The plant will plan to be run for 30-50 years if all goes well, but all of this technology is not only first of its kind, it is first to be completely intergrated together. FutureGen also plans to produce Hydrogen from the flue gas to add in driving down per kilowatt costs due. Right now IGCC plants with carbon capture and storage are predicted to cost around $35/MWh, however with the oxygen only fuel stream, that could rise as much as 25%.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.254.147.8 (talk • contribs) 15:47, July 12, 2006

[edit] Potential Problems

This 2nd half of this section should be discarded or completely rewritten, especially the last paragraph where its just wrong:

"New IGCC coal-fired power plants produce electricity that costs 9-11 cents/kWh. Capturing and sequestering the greenhouse gases and toxic pollutants in FutureGen power plants will add at least 5 cents/kWh.[2] These prices are much higher than the current cost of clean, free, renewable, sustainable wind energy, and the expected price of solar electricity."

• Costs

The source provided, "Deloying IGCC in the decade..."[2] clearly states in table 5-6 the cost of IGCC power is established by experience to be 4-5 cents/kWh, not 9-11. Sequestration is likely to add 10% to the cost or at most an additional 1 cent/kWh. See this DOE report: "H2 from Coal ..."[1]. See the Wiki page on IGCC Costs which also contradicts the numbers listed here: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integrated_Gasification_Combined_Cycle#Cost_and_Reliability ]. The author of the talk section above (205.254.147.8) also lists 3.5 cents/kWh.

• Limited areas for geo storage of CO2? Highly suspect, needs a source.
• Comparison w/ renewable sources. The word 'free' should be deleted. The comparison in general should be deleted unless the discussion of renewable s can rise to the same level as sited in source [2] on IGCC which discusses amortization of capital costs and depreciation - the latter apply equally to renewable generation. --192.160.51.70 (talk) 23:32, 25 January 2008 (UTC)Falstaff

The last three paragraphs in this section lack sources, which is not surprising considering they are false. They should be either HEAVILY modified or simply deleted. I've been to quite a few energy symposiums and research seminars and I've never heard anything to substantiate "There are only a small number of potential geological locations for sequestering large volumes of atmospheric pollutants underground." The paragraph about leaks and blowouts could be written if it had some sources but there are several studies indicating that this will not be a major concern for appropriately chosen sites. As far as the cost estimates, I checked the source and it directly contradicts what is claimed in the article. In any case the statements regarding wind and solar power are simply untrue and oversimplify the issue that renewables are intermittent in nature. Until these paragraphs can be reworded I am going to delete some of the most blatant lies. wagsbags (talk) 21:48, 31 January 2008 (UTC)