Clean Coal, and the Alternatives
Published: July 5, 2009 in the Opinion section of The New York Times
To the Editor:
The FutureGen Alliance, a nonprofit partnership that leverages the best assets of government and industry, takes issue with several statements in Gregg Easterbrook’s article.
The Department of Energy did not decide the FutureGen project should be put in Illinois, as stated. Rather, the FutureGen Alliance selected Illinois after a peer-reviewed, competitive and apolitical process based on scientific and economic factors.
Mr. Easterbrook suggests that carbon capture and sequestration would not work with conventional pulverized coal power plants, implying that this is FutureGen’s intent. FutureGen is unique because it will use integrated gasification combined cycle technology with carbon capture and sequestration.
Mr. Easterbook’s concluding options — do nothing and wait for FutureGen or start building improved coal power plants — obfuscate the best choice: Move forward with FutureGen, which is five years ahead of any other such project.
Michael J. Mudd
Chief Executive, FutureGen Alliance
Washington, July 1, 2009