Web Development Live

WASHINGTON The Energy Department on Wednesday canceled a futuristic, virtually emissions-free coal plant scheduled to be built in Illinois, saying it preferred to spend the money on a handful of projects around the country that would demonstrate the capture and burial of carbon dioxide from commercial power plants.”This restructuring … is an all-around better deal for Americans,” said Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman in making the announcement to scuttle the FutureGen program.Bodman said the Energy Department would solicit industry applications for participation in the new carbon capture projects. The idea is for the government to pay for building the carbon capture and storage facilities and industry to build the modern coal-burning power plant. Each project would be designed to capture 1 million metric tons of CO2, the leading greenhouse gas linked to global warming, officials said.The shift has stunned officials in Illinois, where an industry group announced in December it would build the $1.8 billion FutureGen plant, three-fourths of which was being paid for by the federal government - funds now no longer available.The FutureGen program was envisioned as a unique research project that would trigger development of a virtually pollution-free coal plant where carbon dioxide emissions would be captured and buried deep beneath the earth. It would produce both electricity and hydrogen.First proposed nearly a decade ago with an estimated cost of just under $1 billion, its cost has soared to nearly double that. The project for years had trouble getting adequate funds and some critics long ago dubbed it “Never Gen.” But in 2003, President Bush hailed it as a potential breakthrough in clean coal technology and a key to eventually achieve wider use of hydrogen as a fuel.The FutureGen Alliance issued a statement saying it “remains committed to keeping FutureGen on track” but it was unclear how that would be possible without the federal funding.Michael Mudd, the alliance’s chief executive officer, called the project “America’s best hope for near-zero emission coal technology” as quickly as possible. “It will take four to five years for DOE to evaluate new proposals, place contracts, and conduct environmental reviews for new projects,” said Mudd in a statement on the Alliance’s Web site.The Energy Department on Wednesday cited its concern about the FutureGen cost escalation. Officials said it was preferable to pursue separate clean coal technologies instead of what one official called “a living laboratory” concept. It will begin a process leading to a solicitation of industry bids for projects by the end of the year.”There was a consensus view that the price of this project will only increase,” said Deputy Energy Secretary Clay Sell of the FutureGen program.Sell said FutureGen was viewed has having little prospect of commercial viability. If industry pulled out of the program at some point in the future “it would put taxpayers at risk,” said Sell.The announcement to cancel the program came 43 days after the FutureGen Alliance, the private coalition developing the program, announced it would build the plant in Mattoon, Ill., winning a competition with two other sites in Texas.Illinois’ congressional delegation waged a last ditch, and unsuccessful, appeal to the White House to keep the project intact.Illinois Reps. John Shimkus and Timothy Johnson, both Republicans, contacted President Bush aboard Air Force I.”President Bush did take the time to listen to our concerns,” said Shimkus.Some Illinois officials, noting Bush’s connections to Texas, said they believe the plant was scuttled because the industry group had selected Mattoon, Ill., over a proposed side in Odessa, Tex.Sell called such a charge “outrageous” and said the department had tried to keep the FutureGen Alliance from making a site selection on Dec. 18, so as not to give false hope to the people of Mattoon, where the project would have brought thousands of construction jobs.Sell said he and Bodman learned only last March that FutureGen’s cost had escalated from an original $950 million to $1.8 billion. “I knew (then) that we were in to something that would not end well,” Sell told reporters in a conference call Wednesday.The department will propose as part of its fiscal 2009 budget to be unveiled next Monday $241 million for demonstration programs involving carbon capture and storage from coal-burning power plants, including $156 million related to the FutureGen “restructuring.”

WASHINGTON The Energy Department on Wednesday canceled a futuristic, virtually emissions-free coal plant scheduled to be built in Illinois, saying it preferred to spend the money on a handful of projects around the country that would demonstrate the capture and burial of carbon dioxide from commercial power plants.”This restructuring … is an all-around better deal for Americans,” said Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman in making the announcement to scuttle the FutureGen program.Bodman said the Energy Department would solicit industry applications for participation in the new carbon capture projects. The idea is for the government to pay for building the carbon capture and storage facilities and industry to build the modern coal-burning power plant. Each project would be designed to capture 1 million metric tons of CO2, the leading greenhouse gas linked to global warming, officials said.The shift has stunned officials in Illinois, where an industry group announced in December it would build the $1.8 billion FutureGen plant, three-fourths of which was being paid for by the federal government - funds now no longer available.The FutureGen program was envisioned as a unique research project that would trigger development of a virtually pollution-free coal plant where carbon dioxide emissions would be captured and buried deep beneath the earth. It would produce both electricity and hydrogen.First proposed nearly a decade ago with an estimated cost of just under $1 billion, its cost has soared to nearly double that. The project for years had trouble getting adequate funds and some critics long ago dubbed it “Never Gen.” But in 2003, President Bush hailed it as a potential breakthrough in clean coal technology and a key to eventually achieve wider use of hydrogen as a fuel.The FutureGen Alliance issued a statement saying it “remains committed to keeping FutureGen on track” but it was unclear how that would be possible without the federal funding.Michael Mudd, the alliance’s chief executive officer, called the project “America’s best hope for near-zero emission coal technology” as quickly as possible. “It will take four to five years for DOE to evaluate new proposals, place contracts, and conduct environmental reviews for new projects,” said Mudd in a statement on the Alliance’s Web site.The Energy Department on Wednesday cited its concern about the FutureGen cost escalation. Officials said it was preferable to pursue separate clean coal technologies instead of what one official called “a living laboratory” concept. It will begin a process leading to a solicitation of industry bids for projects by the end of the year.”There was a consensus view that the price of this project will only increase,” said Deputy Energy Secretary Clay Sell of the FutureGen program.Sell said FutureGen was viewed has having little prospect of commercial viability. If industry pulled out of the program at some point in the future “it would put taxpayers at risk,” said Sell.The announcement to cancel the program came 43 days after the FutureGen Alliance, the private coalition developing the program, announced it would build the plant in Mattoon, Ill., winning a competition with two other sites in Texas.Illinois’ congressional delegation waged a last ditch, and unsuccessful, appeal to the White House to keep the project intact.Illinois Reps. John Shimkus and Timothy Johnson, both Republicans, contacted President Bush aboard Air Force I.”President Bush did take the time to listen to our concerns,” said Shimkus.Some Illinois officials, noting Bush’s connections to Texas, said they believe the plant was scuttled because the industry group had selected Mattoon, Ill., over a proposed side in Odessa, Tex.Sell called such a charge “outrageous” and said the department had tried to keep the FutureGen Alliance from making a site selection on Dec. 18, so as not to give false hope to the people of Mattoon, where the project would have brought thousands of construction jobs.Sell said he and Bodman learned only last March that FutureGen’s cost had escalated from an original $950 million to $1.8 billion. “I knew (then) that we were in to something that would not end well,” Sell told reporters in a conference call Wednesday.The department will propose as part of its fiscal 2009 budget to be unveiled next Monday $241 million for demonstration programs involving carbon capture and storage from coal-burning power plants, including $156 million related to the FutureGen “restructuring.”

That’s the warning from Ian Fogg, research director at JupiterResearch Europe, who was speaking during a Westminster eForum debate on the future of broadband in Britain.

Without investment to improve broadband infrastructure ?such as fibre to the home (FTTH) and fibre to the cabinet (FTTC) ?Fogg said the danger is “the next big thing on the internet may not work in the UK”.

But, even so, Fogg admitted that the business case for fibre is “incredibly hard” as the market has seen a slide in the average price for broadband over the last few years and consumers don’t see why they should pay more for fat-pipe access.

All-IP next-generation networks (NGNs) are being rolled out in the UK ?such as BT’s 21CN ?but NGNs do not solve the problem of legacy copper wiring at street level, from exchanges to cabinets and homes ?an issue known as “next-generation access” (NGA). NGA is the fly in the ointment of faster broadband in the UK.

Antony Walker, chief executive of the Broadband Stakeholder Group (BSG), told delegates the prospects for early investment in NGA are not good. But he said this is an issue that is likely to trouble small businesses before it annoys consumers, as SMEs might feel they are losing a competitive edge for accessing and competing in global markets where fibre deployments have ?or may ?outstrip the UK.

Consumer demand for upgrading the UK’s broadband infrastructure is less clear cut, Walker said. This point was echoed by Ofcom executive Peter Phillips, partner for strategy and markets development, who said there is still “a lot of uncertainty” about how long current broadband networks will deliver what consumers need.

The speakers at the eForum touched on various applications ?from videoconferencing to greater opportunities for home working to the rise of social networking and even the BBC’s iPlayer ?that might benefit from improved broadband infrastructure. But the general consensus was no “killer app” for NGNs has yet emerged.

JupiterResearch’s Fogg said: “No-one has yet identified that unique application that can only be delivered over next-generation broadband.”

Ofcom’s Phillips added that there may even be some advantage to the UK holding back on broadband development ?to see how things pan out in other countries and learn from their experience. The regulator is currently consulting on NGA.

The stance of the network operators was summed up by Andrew Lazarus, head of regulatory policy and strategy at BT, who said the company “does believe we can get a lot more out of copper”.

Lazarus cited ADSL+ ?coming next year, with top speeds of up to 24Mbps ?and said speeds would still “satisfy a lot of apps”. Issues such as broadband “not spots” ?areas not currently served by fat pipes ?and headline speeds are “not necessarily part of the fibre debate”, according to Lazarus.

The new licence adjusts to software industry changes that have arisen in the 16 years since the foundation’s founder and president, Richard Stallman, released GPLv2. One of the biggest changes: the free- and open-source programming movement has been transformed from an academic, legal and philosophical curiosity to a powerful force in the commercial computing industry.

Among those giving the new licence a warm reception are IBM, dominant Linux sellers Red Hat and Novell, and open-source database seller MySQL.

“GPLv3 code will be flowing from IBM… We’ll tell our customers we’re fine with it,” said Dan Frye, vice president of IBM open systems development. “As with any consensus process, you don’t get everything you asked for. But we got listened to. What came out is absolutely a commercially viable licence.”