To get $17 billion to carbon capture and storage by 2025 does not sound like much anymore. Sadly.
But that isn't the point of this fluff article, the point is the Coalition for Clean Coal admits in the article that we will not have or use carbon capture and storage will not be ready for 'primetime until 2025 at the soonest with "hope" 10's of billions will make it viable by then.
With the administrations involvement "FutureGen will be the AIG of clean coal"
The stakes are high, and so are the costs.
If the United States and international partners can find a cost-effective way to remove carbon from coal, the coal industry would be guaranteed a future even if the world takes steps later to prevent severe global warming. Finding the right technology, however, and proving that it can be widely used won't happen quickly or cheaply.
The American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity, a group of coal companies and utilities that back the continued use of coal, supports FutureGen. The coalition estimates that it would cost $17 billion to get carbon capture and storage ready for use by 2025.
The Obama administration wants to plunge ahead.
Energy Secretary Steven Chu told the Senate Energy Committee this month that giving up coal would mean higher electricity rates and higher natural-gas prices as companies shifted to natural gas, which burns with far fewer greenhouse gas emissions than coal does. The higher prices would prompt some industries to move production overseas, he said.
"China, India and the United States will not turn their back on coal," Chu said. "So we have got to get it right."
A report released Wednesday concludes that the U.S. could reduce its greenhouse gas emissions from current levels by 85 percent by 2050, in line with Obama's goal, without nuclear power or coal. The study looks only at currently available technology, and doesn't consider carbon capture and storage. It says that currently available energy efficiency and renewable energy technology would do the job at about half the cost and would create more jobs than an alternative that looks more like the current mix of renewable energy, nuclear power and coal.
Read full at kansascity.com