In a feeble attempt to rebrand and repackage a bad idea, the Department of Energy announced last month that our old friend, Futuregen, would be undergoing another facelift. With a new moniker, FutureGen 2.0 calls for retrofitting an existing Illinois coal plant, rather than the construction of a brand new “clean coal” facility. But it's still the same wasteful product. Either way, taxpayers get stuck with a $1 billion+ price tag – from funds strategically earmarked in the 2009 Stimulus package and subsidies we've already wasted on the white elephant.

Proposed by the Bush Administration in 2003, FutureGen was originally a large-scale, multibillion dollar initiative of the Department of Energy (DOE), to build and operate the world's first coal-fueled, zero emissions power plant. FutureGen was intended to produce hydrogen and electricity from coal, while capturing and storing carbon dioxide emissions underground, a process known as carbon capture and sequestration (CCS). The massive “clean coal” facility was to be built in Mattoon, Illinois. 

Over the years, increasing costs, political controversy, and technological challenges have caused the project to be reworked, repackaged, and finally canceled by the Bush Administration in 2008. But like a bad slasher flick, the villain was quickly revived by the Obama Administration. This, unfortunately, wasn't surprising considering the project's biggest boosters have been the Illinois Congressional delegation, including President Obama while he was a Senator. This latest proposal, although well-received by Senator Durbin (D-IL), seems to be getting mixed reviews from Illinois lawmakers.

Beyond the FutureGen politicking there is a deeper problem. In fact, to get to the heart of FutureGen's problems you simply need to start with its foundation – the very idea of “clean coal.” A catch all term, “clean coal” is generally used to describe several technologies used to reduce coal pollution and greenhouse gas emissions – including gasification of coal to remove solid waste, scrubbing to remove sulfur dioxide, and carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) where carbon emissions are collected and stored underground in geological formations.

Although talk of clean coal has been going on for years (and billboards across many coal-state highways have you believe it's a huge success already) a 2008 Congressional Research Service report suggests that CCS technology is so uncertain and expensive that the private sector isn't willing to fund it, and the federal government may be misguided in trying to create a market for CCS with taxpayer subsidies. Adding to “ clean coal’s” dismal prospects is the recent drop in natural gas prices. If natural gas is cheap and abundant then dirty coal and its far off promises of being clean and green are even more unattractive to investors.

As much as the new FutureGen 2.0 may seem more practical because it’s smaller and builds on an existing facility, it still has its own outlandish details. The plan originally called for carbon waste to be transported by pipeline 175 miles to Mattoon, Illinois. That plan has changed however with Mattoon’s recent decision to opt out of the FutureGen 2.0 program and now DOE is saying the waste will be pumped only within 100 miles! Capturing the plants carbon emissions and storing it underground is not only exorbitantly energy intensive itself, it is technologically and economically infeasible. No one knows if the carbon can be successfully captured and transported or permanently sequestered underground. 

You can pump a locker room full of perfume, but it still stinks. As trendy and modern as the 2.0 name sounds, FutureGen is still a bad bet – relying on the same tired, unproven, costly, “clean coal” technology and pie-in-the-sky plans. Facelift or not, there is no future for taxpayers and FutureGen.