Great Plains Instutute, no doubt working on that Joyce Foundation funded promotion of IGCC in the midwest ($437,500), is doing the Dog & Pony show about their “plan.” They know the cost figures are way off but don’t seem to think that’s a problem and don’t seem to want to update them to reflect what we’ve learned from the Mesaba Project. Earth to Great Plains, IGCC costs a lot more than what you say it does, and even AEP recognizes that and is taking their IGCC project back to the calculator. Great Plains, you’re not going to get away with this level of knowing misrepresentation!

Despite inaccurate information, Great Plains Institute is holding “Town Hall” meetings in a few states, ostensibly to get public intput into their plan, and last night’s meeting was co-sponsored by the Minnesota Project. We’ll see just how far that public input goes! To get information about these Town Hall meetings, first go to their Regional Roadmap site, then to find out more, and it’s not written clearly, we next go to “www.poweringtheplains.org” and then go to right side and click on “Attend Town Hall Meeting closest to you.” which doesn’t have a separate link. And the Coal Gasification Work Group turns into the Coal Work Group on the next screen… Look who’s a part of this: Participants

Here’s a photo from the IGCC Junket — who paid for this trip?



The fact of the promotional Joyce grant was not disclosed by Great Plains, nor has it been publicly acknowledged by the parties participating. Oh well, one more thing on the “To Do” list, eh?

Joyce Foundation Funding Announcement $3 million for IGCC promotion

Here’s what Great Plains got:

Great Plains Institute for Sustainable Development
Minneapolis, MN $437,500
To support the efforts of its Coal Gasification Working Group. (21 mos.)

Here are “their” plans:

Powering the Plains – Great Plains Institute Roadmap – Executive Summary

Pathways to a Reduced Carbon Energy System

Summary of Draft of Roadmap

After a quality meal, thank you, Joyce!, we were then to go to tables designated as a particular area of interest. I picked the Coal group. Then we were to review their “Summary of Draft of Roadmap” and comment on it. So what I did yesterday was introduce a little bit of reality into their pipedreams of IGCC, giving them my handouts ahead of time so they’d know. Much of the cost information on Mesaba has been available for months, and other information is available on the web, it’s not hard to find, so there’s no excuse for using such outdated cost estimates. None of this “apples to apples” nonsense (that tired Excelsior mantra) about using info all from the same source, it’s outdated, there hasn’t been an IGCC proposal through a public docket since Wabash River, so you’d better be paying attention to this and use the more accurate information that’s there.

There are two big falsities in the Great Plains information and plan. One is the presumption of CO2 capture and sequestration, which is a pipedream and for which the industry has only started, STARTED to address the costs of capture, to the plant gate, and sequestration on a commercial level is way off, if ever, both in timeline and geography. Second, the costs used by Great Plains, on which this “plan” is based, are off — take their number of $1,402/kW and multiply by 2.5 and you’re just a bit shy of the $3,593/kW cost of Mesaba (and we know it’s really a lot more). 2.5 times? There’s no excuse for that, it’s not justified.
Here is a comparison of the area they’re targeting for promotion of IGCC with the areas for potential sequestration:

GPISD Region & Sequestration Inverse Correlation

And then there’s costs – they are SO obscenely far off in their numbers. They have a /MW cost of $1,402,000/MW when it’s $3,593,000/MW according to the DOE. Their Efficiency numbers are way off too, demonstrated in the MPCA analysis of Mesaba — GPISD says 41%, and MPCA says 36%. Cost, well, they say busbar cost is $0.0276-0.0329/kW and $27.6-$32.9/MW, when according to Amit’s Surebuttal, minus sequestration cost, it’s $0.102-$0.187/kW or $102.33-132.05/MW. Do ya think that merits correction? We’ll see… The tables in the pdf below are Table 1 and Table 10 from their “Pathways to a Reduced Carbon Energy System for the Upper Midwest (DRAFT) that’s above.

GPISD Grossly Erroneous Numbers

Costs of SCPC v IGCC: Feasibility Study for an Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle Facility at a Texas Site

DOE Financial Assistance Agreement, p. 1 ($2,155,680,783/600,000= installed cost of $3,593/kW)

Don’t worry, Great Plains, you’re not the only ones way off base here, your other Joyce promotional compadres have the same problem, have the same corrections to make, and the light is on you all. Here’s another example, NRDC’s power point with costs of IGCC that aren’t even close, compare their costs with the Mesaba costs:

NRDC Power Point IGCC

Bottom line? It’s just not right to be misrepresenting like this and it’s just not right to be basing “policy” on this, and it’s got to stop.

Here are the MPCA reports that show IGCC’s not all it’s cracked up to be:

MPCA Emissions Comparison

MPCA – Testimony Anne Jackson

Excelsior Surrebuttal to MPCA Emissions Comparison and Jackson Testimony

MPCA Response to Comments on Emissions Cmparison

MPCA – Final

And what do you think the Joyce ancestors think of an IGCC plant just a stone’s throw east of the Joyce Estate? Here’s info about the Joyce Estate that I got when I went to check it out last summer: Joyce Estate – Trout Lake

The next meeting is in Eau Claire, no RSVP required:

Thursday, January 25
6:00 – 8:00 p.m.

Chippewa Valley Technical College
Gateway Center
2320 Alpine Road
Eau Claire, WI

If questions, it says to contact Brendan Jordan: 612-278-7152 or Bjordan[at]gpisd.net

Leave a Reply