NRG’s New York IGCC plant is dead
July 20th, 2008
Another coal gasification bites the dust — yes, it took a coon’s age to get this posted, what can I say, the CapX hearings are taking up a lot of time… This was the best news in ages, continuing the theme that IGCC is a bad idea, too risky, too costly. This plant was one that seemed to have a lot of backing, which to me means that IGCC is done. When I’d posted about it, it garnered some wild NRG employee comments on this blog, ones that I hope that those employees’ bosses are aware of! I know NRG is watching, but I think some of their employees need to have their typing fingers taped together and/or not operate a computer while soused!
Here are a few articles with some choice comments:
From the Buffalo News:
Power Authority stops $1.6 billion plans for advanced coal plant at Tonawanda’s Huntley Station
From newsday.com:
NYPA halts plans for clean-coal plant in Tonawanda
And from the Post Journal:
NYPA withdraws support for North Tonawanda clean coal project
… and…
… and…
”Simply, at this time, the price gap is too large to overcome” said Pritchard of NYPA.
Tell us something we didn’t already know!!!
Prenatal impacts of coal
July 15th, 2008
Yup, burning coal has an impact, you betcha. Tell us something we didn’t already know. But here’s a study that shows some specific results when comparing neurodevelopment of children exposed prenatally with those who were not exposed because the coal plant had been shut down.
Here’s the study:
Benefits of Reducing Prenatal Exposure to Coal Burning Pollutants
So what more do we need to know that shutting down coal plants is overdue?
IGCC goes overseas
June 9th, 2008
IGCC - coal gasification — it’s getting around…
There are some interesting posts on the majari blog from “the #1 portal for Indonesian engineering students.”
I imagine there will be more. These are well done, getting some of the major points, but overly optimistic about IGCC. Given that IGCC is tanking in the US, I’m sensing a promotional effort by those in the US invested in IGCC to ship this pipedream technology overseas. Why? Because we know how they’ve been trying to infiltrate those IGCC tentacles all over the US — lots of advertising and promotion with zilch about the problems, zilch about the emissions, zilch about water usage and contamination, zilch about high and now skyrocketing costs. And note this advertiser on the site, it’s the “Clean Coal, America’s Power” routine, with their classic image:
And there are others too. The financing in the US was a creative scheme, putting together federal and state doles, cutting equity required of utilities/developers, and shifting the risks and burdens to the ratepayers.
So what I’m seeing is an unworkable technology chasing/making development opportunities overseas, where word may not have gotten out about the problems with IGCC. And what an opportunity for World Bank! And then there’s the Mesaba Project and Excelsior Energy’s Julie Jorgensen’s experience in World Bank:
A couple specific examples she provides:
- Founded a Latin American infrastructure development fund in partnership with the International Finance Corp., a World Bank affiliate, and another independent power producer.
- Advised foreign governments on energy policy in conjunction with World Bank and U.S.A.I.D. initiatives. Participated as expert panelist in Baltic States energy policy conference sponsored by the U.S. Energy Association in Riga, Latvia.
Otter Tail “has no objection”
June 5th, 2008
Otter Tail’s David Sasseville (Lindquist & Vennum) said that they had no objection to administrative of their filings of June 3, 2008. What else did he have to say? Here’s his missive after I filed the mncoalgasplant.com Motion for Disclosure & Commission Notice; Exhibit A - Otter Tail Power 8k filing to, duh, have the filing disclosed and for Official Notice by the Public Utilities Commission:
This reply is submitted on behalf of the Big Stone II Applicants, and that project’s lead developer, Otter Tail Power Company. Ms. Overland’s communication to the Commission and the parties in the Big Stone II transmission docket regarding Otter Tail’s filing yesterday was inappropriate and unnecessary. Otter Tail has not formed a holding company and has not reorganized. Rather, it merely filed applications yesterday in Minnesota, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, North Dakota and South Dakota for permission to form a holding company. The SEC filing referenced by Ms. Overland merely reflects the fact that Otter Tail is seeking permission to form a holding company. Whether that ultimately occurs, and whether and how Otter Tail’s organizational structure changes, will be resolved in the context of the FERC, SDPUC and NDPSC dockets, and the MPUC docket that was created yesterday (No. PA-08-658). Under no circumstances will yesterday’s filing have an impact on the Big Stone II docket, or on Otter Tail’s ability to proceed with its obligations and commitments in that docket. Otter Tail’s filing is available electronically at the PUC’s web site. In addition, Ms. Overland and/or MNCoalgasplant.com may add their names to the mailing list in the docket to receive future filings in the matter. David L. Sasseville Lindquist & Vennum P.L.L.P. 4200 IDS Center 80 South Eighth Street Minneapolis, MN 55402 612/371-3237 612/371-3207 (fax)
Yes, the filing is NOW available on the PUC eDockets site. Go to www.puc.state.mn.us and then to “eDockets” on the left, and then to “Search Documents” and search for 08-658. Inappropriate and unnecessary? When the parties are making final arguments in the Big Stone II case and Commission is making a decision, it’s fully appropriate to nail down disclosure and notice by the Commission … sigh… and here’s my response:
Mr. Sasseville and all: It is my belief and the purpose of this Motion that: 1) this filing should be formally disclosed within the Big Stone II proceeding by Otter Tail Corporation/Otter Tail Power (as of your missive, it now has been acknowledged); and 2) this filing should receive Official Notice in the Big Stone II deliberation by the Public Utilities commission. It is unknown whether there will be any impact, and the Motion does not address substantive issues of the reorganization nor suggest that substantive issues be addressed in the Big Stone docket, just that it should be disclosed and receive Official Notice of the Commission. Carol A. Overland for mncoalgasplant.com
To which he responded:
Ms. Overland: Your email implies that the Otter Tail filing portends something the Commission should be aware of, but isn’t, and that such information is a matter of actual or potential significance to the proper determination of the Big Stone II Transmission Certificate of Need and Route Permit proceeding tomorrow. While these implications are unfounded, the Big Stone II Applicants, including Otter Tail, have no objection to the Commission taking administrative notice of any and all docket filings in matters before it, including Otter Tail’s June 3, 2008 filing, and assigning whatever weight to those filings it believes is appropriate.
Well, that’s good, “the Big Stone II Applicants, including Otter Tail, have no objection to the Commission taking administrative notice of any and all docket filings in matters before it, including Otter Tail’s June 3, 2008 filing…” which is the entire point! Get it out there in the open…
Otter Tail Corporation’s News Release Page - do you see a press release about this filing?
…so then I says:
Mr. Sasseville - My concern, again, is twofold, first, that Otter Tail disclose the fact of the filings to the Commission and the parties (I do not believe this had been done prior) and it should be in the record, and second, that the Commission take administrative notice of these filings. That’s all. Because you state that “the Big Stone II Applicants, including Otter Tail, have no objection to the Commission taking administrative notice of any and all docket filings in matters before it, including Otter Tail’s June 3, 2008, filing,” I trust that disclosure and a statement that Otter Tail has no objection will occur.. Thank you for your statement of Otter Tail’s position. Carol for mncoalgasplant.com
And so what happened at the deliberation, what’s happening right now? Who knows… Was this addressed? Who knows…
Doris Duke Charitable Foundation & IGCC - WHY???
May 30th, 2008
And here I thought the Joyce Foundation was bad…
DORIS DUKE FOUNDATION NEEDS TO DO THEIR HOMEWORK!!!! THEY’RE WAY BEHIND THE CURVE!
So will someone please explain why the Doris Duke Charitable Foundation dove into promoting coal? So will someone please explain why the Doris Duke Charitable Foundation dove into promoting coal GASIFICATION? So will someone please explain why the Doris Duke Charitable Foundation dove into promoting coal gasification with capture and sequestration when it does not exist and as if it will in the near future? Why jump in, in such a BIG way, when it’s apparaent to the world, even the DOE and Wall Street, that there is no such thing as “clean coal” and that it’s “too risky for private investment.” It’s enough to make me puke! Whatever are they thinking? Having read some about the life and interests of Doris Duke, noting the focus of the Foundation’s grants, reasonable and sound areas like wildlife preservation, Islamic art, medical research… she would be spinning in her grave if she knew what they were doing. Somebody quick channel Doris Duke, get her on a conference call!
HOW DENSE CAN THEY BE? WHY, WHEN THEY COULD PUT MONEY INTO RENEWABLE ENERGY, ENERGY CONSERVATION, PAIRING OF INTERMITTENT RENEWABLE ENERGY FOR DISPATCHABLE POWER…
THIS ISN’T ROCKET SCIENCE!
WHY COAL? WHY WOULD THEY PUT SO MUCH INTO PROMOTING THIS FOSSIL? It seems they haven’t done the most basic research and noted the… ahem… DOWNWARD TRAJECTORY OF COAL GASIFICATION!!! Maybe they like to throw money away. Maybe they have so much they don’t know what to do with it. Maybe they don’t have the creativity or braincells to conceive of a future without coal. Maybe they are beholden to the coal industry (though I don’t see the kind of coal and IGCC investments that Joyce has but we’ll see when the 2007 IRS 990 is posted). Maybe they haven’t noticed that CO2 capture is not happening and that it isn’t likely to anytime soon, per the DOE, and maybe they didn’t read the New York Times today:
Mounting costs slow the push for clean coal (see below)
What are they doing? Check out this admission on their program page:
Low-emission uses of coal, such as gasification combined with carbon capture and storage technology
Will someone please tell them that “gasification combined with carbon capture and storage technology” DOES NOT EXIST! Wherever do they get the notion that it does? Who are they listening to? Who are their experts? Who is providing them with the $$$ to throw away like this on such a flawed, such a cosmically bad idea?
And look at their grants page, look at the piles of money they threw at coal, OH MY DOG, it’s turning my stomach:
AAAAAAAAAARGH! Can’t they do the most basic research to see that IGCC is going nowhere? All they have to do is read the record for Excelsior Energy’s Mesaba Project. Here are the costs, sans the elusive and non-existent carbon capture and sequestration from Dr. Amit’s Rebuttal testimony:
Or look at the emissions analysis by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency:
Or read the ALJ Recommendation of Denial:
And if they looked around or even read what Harvard Business School is doing on IGCC, they’d know that Harvard Business School is the author of the scheme to shift risk and cost to state and federal taxpayers and ratepayers rather than the utilities or developers promoting this nonsense — all you have to do is read pages 1-21, it’s really not that complicated and it’s really that disgusting a scheme:
Here’s the Delaware PSC staff analysis rejecting coal gasification:
So do some homework, guys, please!
Enough… I can’t stand it… time to go out in the back yard and clean up the piles and piles of building supplies, lumber, parts, whatnot, work off some of this angst. As my anti-condo-development in Lake City T-shirt says” HOW DENSE CAN WE BE?




