Wikipedia

Talk:FutureGen

Latest comment: 6 years ago by InternetArchiveBot in topic External links modified (January 2018)
Learn more about this page

Energy Costs

edit
Latest comment: 19 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

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)Reply

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)Reply
Today I e-mailed Victor K. Der for more information. Simesa 21:01, 17 August 2005 (UTC)Reply
I have mailed both contacts for Clean Coal and received nothing in at least two weeks. Simesa 21:40, 23 September 2005 (UTC)Reply


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

Potential Problems

edit
Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

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)FalstaffReply

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)Reply

US pulls out???

edit
Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The part of the introduction that says that the US pulled out of this enterprise does NOT have a valid source. Look at this, [2] the project's website, it makes it quite clear that the USA is still participating! Contralya (talk) 07:51, 1 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

I tried to fix it up a bit. I didn't touch anything in the bottom section describing the controversy, though. Tim D (talk) 22:38, 26 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

FutureGen not canceled

edit
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

If you look at the FutureGen website at DoE it is clear that the FutureGen PROGRAM is not canceled. They restructured it to make it more efficient and to result in MORE power plants rather than the one central one that was being discussed previously. See the website: http://www.fossil.energy.gov/programs/powersystems/futuregen/index.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.222.211.242 (talk) 18:02, 5 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

Refurbishing article after construction started

edit
Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

It is time to refurbish this article. I updated the lede. Also added some of the 2014 developments to the end of the article, in the Revised Plan subsection.

  • Maybe somebody can update the map to show the present location? I think the map pin is still in Matoon.
  • I think that parts of the Revised Plan subsection---reflecting the current scope and status of the project---should be moved up to the first section: after the lede and before all the history.
  • Parts of this article (for example the Technology section) are written in the past tense, as if FutureGen were no longer a going concern.

M.boli (talk) 15:36, 25 October 2014 (UTC) Also:Reply

  • Can somebody find a replacement for the obsolete FutureGen "Concept Art" that adorns this article?

M.boli (talk) 18:11, 25 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

edit
Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on FutureGen. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 18:14, 9 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

edit
Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on FutureGen. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 01:48, 21 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

edit
Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on FutureGen. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:14, 12 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

edit
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 16 external links on FutureGen. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:06, 9 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

edit
Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on FutureGen. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:11, 24 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:FutureGen&oldid=1207566946"