Frequently Asked Questions

• What is the role of the FutureGen Industrial Alliance, Inc versus the US Department of Energy? FutureGen is a public-private partnership between the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) and the FutureGen Industrial Alliance, Inc, a non-profit consortium of leading international energy companies. The Alliance is responsible for design, construction, and operation of the facility. DOE is responsible for independent oversight and coordinating participation of international governments. Alliance member companies are dedicating nearly $400 million toward the project's cost and bring valuable technical expertise and power plant engineering and construction experience to this effort.
• How much money are each of the Alliance members investing in FutureGen? The Alliance members will be contributing nearly $400 million toward the project over its lifetime. Currently, there are twelve members of the Alliance and each member contributes equally.
• How much of the cost for FutureGen is being spent on construction versus other activities? The cost is estimated at $1.5 billion dollars, with the vast majority going toward design and construction of the plant and the balance going toward carbon capture and sequestration and other aspects of the facility. We will have a more detailed estimate of the actual cost and breakdown by activity when the preliminary plant design is completed.
• Is there a chance that the FutureGen facility will be sold after the start-up period? The non-profit Alliance will bring a long-term perspective to FutureGen even though only four years of operation are required as part of the formal partnership with DOE. Because this is a $1.5 billion project, the Alliance sees the power plant as an important commercial-scale research and development (R&D) platform for testing cutting-edge technologies for coal-based power generation. The goal of the Alliance members is that FutureGen becomes a self-sustaining R&D facility.
• What happens at the end of the power plant's operating period? While the long-term business model for operating the plant is still being developed, the Alliance expects to operate and continue to improve coal technology at this power plant for as long as possible. Companies that build power plants typically expect the plant to operate for 30 to 50 years.
• Does the Alliance plan to build more than one FutureGen? The Alliance was formed to build and operate FutureGen as a first-of-its-kind power plant at which coal companies, utilities, and governments can learn about near-zero emission power generation. The goal of the FutureGen project is that the designs proven through the project will be replicated by utilities and power plant developers throughout the world.

Plant Operations

• FutureGen is described as a near-zero emissions plant. What will the actual emissions be? The first-of-its-kind FutureGen plant will integrate advanced technologies for coal gasification, electricity production, emissions control, CO₂ capture and permanent storage, and hydrogen production at a commercial scale. During normal operations, emissions will be as low as, if not lower than virtually any other coal plant in the world. However it should be noted that there may be criteria emissions, such as NO_x, SO₂, and particulates, when the plant is starting up and shutting down. An important element of the FutureGen project is to develop during its operation and testing, new and innovative ways to minimize emissions during these transient events.
• Are there any targets in terms of plant efficiency? How will FutureGen's efficiency differ from a traditional coal plant? There are not yet explicit efficiency targets, but the Alliance wants it to be as high as possible. While IGCC plants have higher efficiency than existing coal plants, adding CO₂ capture to the process will reduce the overall efficiency. Part of the learning that will come from operating this first-of-its-kind facility is whether electricity production combined with CO₂ capture and sequestration can be done efficiently and cost effectively. It is also important to note that FutureGen will be a commercial-scale R&D facility that will operate on a variety of coal types on varying power production regimes, so efficiency metrics in the traditional sense are not necessarily relevant.
• Will the price of electricity from FutureGen be higher? Because FutureGen is a first-of-a-kind facility integrating both coal gasification technology and carbon dioxide capture, the cost to produce electricity will be higher than it would be from a traditional facility without these added technologies. By demonstrating how to operate a plant with these integrated technologies for the first time, we expect FutureGen will help many companies provide electricity from similar plants at a competitive cost in the future.
  
  The Alliance is operating as a non-profit for purposes of demonstrating the technology. All revenue from the sale of power or any marketable byproducts will be returned to the non-profit.
• At what point do you decide what technology FutureGen will use and what if better technology is available after those decisions are made? During calendar year 2008, the Alliance will solicit bids from equipment providers and will make equipment selections before year-end. Technology development is a continuous improvement process. After FutureGen is built there will be ample opportunities to incorporate additional innovations in future commercial versions of the plant once we have demonstrated the basic concepts.
• How much water will the power plant use on a daily basis? Preliminary estimates are that the plant will require 2500 gallons of water per minute.
• Where would the water come from and how will it be used in the plant? Will there be any wastewater effluent? Each of the site proposals has identified their recommended water supply. There may be some wastewater effluent. Any water discharged from the plant will be in compliance with the EPA standards for wastewater purity.

Coal Feedstock

• What kind of coal will FutureGen use? FutureGen has been designed to operate at its best using either of two primary types of coal: bituminous (e.g. Ill#6, Pit#8) and subbituminous (e.g. Powder River Basin). However, the plant is being designed to operate on other coals such as lignite. The Alliance plans to test a wide variety of coals during its operation, to better understand how these coals perform in near-zero emission gasification operations.
• Would the Alliance test feedstocks from local plants other than coal (e.g. biofuels)? The objective of FutureGen is to demonstrate the viability of producing power from coal with near-zero emissions. Initially we plan to test both Eastern and Western coals. While we would not rule out the possibility of a test campaign using other types of feedstock, this is currently outside of the scope of FutureGen.

Carbon Sequestration and Monitoring

• How do you know that the geologic structure of the Candidate Sites is suitable and safe for CO₂ storage? Are there concerns regarding geologic faults? An international panel of independent experts in geology and carbon sequestration assessed the 12 sites initially proposed to the FutureGen Alliance. Over 100 extremely stringent criteria were used to narrow these 12 sites to four that were considered most suitable from both a subsurface and surface power plant siting perspective. All four of the short-listed Candidate Sites passed this rigorous assessment. Of these four sites, one will be selected for the project.
  
  Our initial screen suggests there are no faults that cut through the target formation and overlying caprock near any of the Candidate Sites. We will continue to evaluate seismic and drilling information collected by the local task forces and the State Geological Surveys. After selecting a site, the FutureGen Alliance will perform additional site-specific testing including in-depth seismic and drilling studies before FutureGen is constructed and CO₂ is injected into the ground.
• What type of formations will FutureGen use for CO₂ storage? Deep-saline formations, at depths greater than 3,000 feet, are being proposed as the target formation for CO₂ storage. The Department of Energy and the FutureGen Alliance are both interested in deep-saline formations because the CO₂ storage capacity of these formations is large, making them a long-term viable solution. Also, many existing large CO₂ point sources are within close proximity to deep saline formations. While CO₂ storage in depleted oil wells has been widely used for enhanced oil recovery (EOR) since the 1970s - and is well understood - EOR opportunities are much less prevalent than deep-saline reservoirs. Because the FutureGen Alliance wants to ensure that this project is broadly replicable around the U.S. and the world, it is important to demonstrate CO₂ storage in this widely occurring type of geologic formation.
• How will the CO₂ be delivered to the storage area? Will it be in a gaseous state? A pipeline will be used, most likely 10-16" in diameter, to deliver the CO₂ from the plant to the permanent storage area. (One of the Candidate Sites would not require a pipeline because the storage area is at the plant.) At the plant, the CO₂ will be compressed into a dense liquid-like state known as a supercritical fluid, which is like a liquid, before being transported for injection into the ground. It will then be delivered to the target storage formation at a depth greater than 3,000 feet, where the formation pressure will allow it to remain in a supercritical form.
• What pressure does the CO₂ have to be maintained at to remain a supercritical fluid? Are you concerned that the CO₂ will push the brine out and up to the surface? CO₂ can be maintained as a supercritical fluid at temperatures and pressures above its critical point, 31.1oC (88.0oF), and 73.8 bar (1070 psi). The geologic formations being considered for the volume of CO₂ that will be stored under the FutureGen project are large and regionally extensive. These factors will ensure that the injected CO₂ will simply increase the pressure in the formation, like adding air to a tire. The system will be engineered to ensure that pressures remain high enough to keep the CO₂ supercritical, but low enough to avoid damaging the caprock, which provides an impermeable barrier above the target storage formation.
• What kind of problems do you expect with CO₂ in a liquid state? We don't expect any issues with the CO₂ as a fluid. There is a lot of experience in the oil industry with transporting and injecting supercritical CO₂. Pipelines and wells can be engineered to handle the pressures necessary to keep CO₂ in this form using current technology.
• How much CO₂ will be injected each year? It is estimated that a minimum of 1 million and up to 2.5 million metric tons of CO₂ will be injected per year. As a result, the FutureGen Alliance is looking for sites that have the capacity to hold at least 50 million metric tonnes of CO₂. The capacities of the four CO₂ storage sites being proposed are all significantly greater than this amount.
• How do you know when you have hit the saturation point for CO₂ storage in the deep-saline formation? Injecting CO₂ will increase the pressure in the formation. We will do a thorough characterization of the selected site to determine how much pressure the caprock, or primary seal, can safely hold. Once we know how much pressure the caprock can safely hold, we can determine how much CO₂ can be safely injected. Currently, we estimate that the capacity of each of the four candidate sites is significantly greater then what is being proposed for injection.
• How do you ensure that the gas plume will remain in the area it is placed and not migrate into other places? The local FutureGen teams and State Geological Surveys at each site are providing initial information about the subsurface to help the FutureGen Alliance select the most appropriate site. When a final site is selected, the Alliance will complete a thorough characterization of the site before anything is injected. This will include detailed modeling and field studies. After the CO₂ is injected, we will monitor the CO₂ plume by conducting periodic surveys and continuous monitoring with state-of-the-art equipment to verify that the CO₂ stays contained in the storage formation, as anticipated.
• How does the Alliance know that the CO₂ storage area will not interfere with groundwater? Groundwater suitable for drinking is much shallower than the depths of the proposed target formations for CO₂ storage. The Candidate Sites have from 1300 to more than 5000 feet of rock separating the two, as well as multiple impermeable seals or caprocks between the target formation and overlying formations with potable water resources. The storage formations selected are not a source of drinking water as defined by EPA established salinity levels. Salinity levels in these saline formations are, in some cases, 10 times greater than that of ocean water.
• Is it possible that the CO₂ that is captured could be used to support enhanced oil recovery (EOR)? EOR has been practiced for decades and is well understood by the oil industry. However, depleted oil wells are much less prevalent than deep-saline formations. FutureGen targets CO₂ storage in these more-widely occurring deep-saline formations to help demonstrate its replicability around the world. Once minimum annual targets for CO₂ storage are met (i.e., > 1 million tonnes per year), it is possible that some excess CO₂ could be used for other applications, such as EOR.

Employment

• How many jobs will be created by FutureGen? Preliminary estimates suggest peak construction employment of 600-700 workers, and a permanent workforce of over 100 during the operational phase of the project. Experience has shown that each new job created from such a project typically also creates 1-2 additional spin-off jobs.

Byproducts and Waste Products

• Will FutureGen produce ash and slag byproducts of commercial value? There is a high likelihood that the ash and slag byproduct will have commercial value.
• Could FutureGen be a hydrogen source for a nearby company? Will it produce high-quality hydrogen? The FutureGen plant has the potential to generate high-quality hydrogen, but the primary intention is to use this hydrogen for power production and onsite research. Small commercial quantities may be sold primarily for demonstration purposes.

Facilities Similar to FutureGen

• Are there other IGCC plants currently operating in the US? There are currently just two commercial-scale IGCC plants operating in the US today. Both were developed in partnership with the US Department of Energy as part of a government-industry cost-sharing program. Tampa Electric's Polk Power Station in Florida is a 250-MW power plant, which began operation in 1997. The Wabash River Coal Gasification Repowering Project outside of Terre Haute, Indiana began full-scale operations in 1995. The Wabash plant supplies 262 MW of electricity to the grid.
• What kind of coal are the Tampa and Wabash IGCC facilities using? Primarily bituminous coal and petroleum coke. Although, you would need to check with the operators of the plants to get more details.
• How is FutureGen different from the other two IGCC plants operating in the U.S. today? FutureGen is the first facility to integrate advanced technologies for coal gasification, electricity production, emissions control, CO₂ capture and permanent storage, and hydrogen production at a commercial scale. In addition to power production, which is the primary objective of the Wabash River and Tampa Electric plants, research and development will play an important role in of the operations plan for FutureGen. FutureGen will serve as a "living laboratory" for researchers to test and validate novel technologies.
• What is the difference in operating cost between an IGCC plant and the integrated technology the FutureGen plant will have with IGCC and carbon sequestration? Because this is a first-of-its-kind plant, and we are still in the conceptual design phase, we do not yet know how much more it will cost to add carbon sequestration. A primary goal of the project is to observe the operating performance of the integrated technologies in order to better understand the cost differential and determine under what conditions cost and performance may be optimized for a fully integrated IGCC-carbon capture facility.
• Are there any power plants that use hydrogen to power turbines today? There are no other utility-scale turbines powered by hydrogen. FutureGen is proposing the use of a hydrogen syngas turbine. The turbine used by FutureGen will move industry more rapidly down a technology pathway toward a high efficiency, direct hydrogen-powered turbine.

Research and Technology Transfer Opportunities

• Will there be a visitor's or education center at the FutureGen facility? Yes, the Alliance currently plans to have a visitor's or education center.
• Will FutureGen technology be transferable to existing coal plants? FutureGen will advance a number of technologies that could be applicable to the existing fleet of coal plants. Insights from carbon injection and storage systems will be particularly applicable to existing plants. Lessons learned from the carbon capture process may also be important; however, because FutureGen will capture the carbon pre-combustion and existing plants would capture the carbon post-combustion, the technology will be implemented differently. In addition to FutureGen, technology development for the existing fleet of plants is also the focus of other research programs supported by the DOE.
• Is the Alliance required to share the technology and any intellectual property? DOE regulations require a significant amount of this information to be made public. It is the intent of the Alliance to make public as much information as possible about the operations of the plant during the first four years of operation. Most of the intellectual property employed in FutureGen is expected to be owned by the suppliers of the novel equipment (e.g. gasifiers) that are incorporated into the plant.

Site Selection Process

• How will the final site be selected? During 2006 the FutureGen Industrial Alliance, Inc received twelve proposals submitted through an open, competitive site selection process. A team of renowned U.S. and international scientists and engineers reviewed the proposals against a set of nearly 100 peer-reviewed, publicly-vetted criteria. These criteria reflected the environmental, technical, regulatory, and financial goals of the project. Based on a thorough evaluation, the Alliance selected four candidate sites for further review.
  In early 2007, the Alliance began a process of additional due diligence and negotiations with each of the four candidate site proposers. The final site will be selected as a result of the negotiations with the proposers based on which site provides the maximum overall value to the FutureGen project.