Case Number: 14-0177

  • April 7, 2014

    I strongly oppose the the grand prairie gateway project, com ed shiuld listen to the public and come up with an alternative that wont gave such a negative impact on the residents
    lKristi

    Kristi
  • April 3, 2014

    My son and I farm together within a few miles of the proposed co2 injection site. One of our family owned farms west of Route 123 appears to be within the projected plume, yet we have never leased any of our storage rights to Futuregen. We believe Futuregen should be required to show all leased property at a public meeting and where the co2 plume projects. Now that a foothold has been established for underground co2 injection in Morgan County our greatest fear is state legislators will allow Futuregen to acquire our storage rights with little effort. Thus a few landowners willing to lease may affect the rights of many opposed to this project.
    It looks like by Futuregen's own maps of the Mt.Simon sandstone formation that it would be safer and more reasonable to locate a co2 sequestration facility further east in Illinois, such as in the Mattoon area, where this layer is much thicker and deeper in the earth than in Morgan County. What can we learn from having this project in Morgan County that the existing ADM injection site near Decatur can already show us. Where would geologists tell us would be the optimum location for the Futuregen project in Illinois? What is wrong with locating the injection site closer to the Meredosia plant or to any coal fired power plant to eliminate the need for a sixty million dollar tax payer funded pipeline?
    How much water will be consumed by the Futuregen 'clean coal' process at the plant in Meredosia and can the water be treated to its former state?
    Since the Mt Simon formation is already saturated with brine, how will the brine react when the liquid co2 is forced in? Liquids cannot be compressed so Futuregen will create a dynamic situation instead of the static one that has existed underground for no one knows how long. How can we justify spending a billion dollars of federal taxpayer money on Futuregen to save an aging coal industry when that money could be spent to find new sources of energy. My father planted corn with a horse drawn planter in the 1930's and lived to see tractors steer themselves by satellites. New technology for energy needs to be found and funded. Making coal clean seems to carry a huge price tag.
    As a farmer, I have been very blessed to be able to farm some of the richest land to be found anywhere in the world. I would oppose any project like Futuregen that could remotely affect the productivity of this farmland. Having grown up in southern Sangamon County I have also seen how coal removal and resulting subsidence affects agriculture. I believe there is a quote by Abraham Lincoln on one of the agriculture buildings at the University of Illinois that goes "Illinois wealth lies in her soils and in their wise development".

    Andy Davenport
  • March 18, 2014

    As an Illinois ratepayer, I have reservations and concerns about Docket 14-0177.

    Something seems inherently wrong when the FutureGen Alliance, a federal government partner and funded project requests a Protective Order to keep Updated Ratepayer Impact Analysis Report (the “Cost” Report)sealed and hidden from the public. As Illinois ratepayers and federal government taxpayers, we have a right to know how much this project is going to cost us.

    Illinois ratepayers already have a vested interest in this project as the ICC Board has approved FutureGen electricity be sold above market rates. With FutureGen applying to the ICC for a pipeline, we deserve to have access to the Updated Ratepayer Impact Analysis Report.

    I thought the primary concern of the ICC is representing ratepayer's interests and keeping the costs of energy low.

    Scott Thorsen
  • March 17, 2014

    The Meredosia electric coal plant was shut down originally because it did not meet standard pollution standards. Coal plants are a dying technology that is very polluting and restarting such a plant is counterintuitive. Coal mining, its transport, and dealing with coal ash are also polluting aspects of electric coal plant technology. Even with the new oxy combustion unit for the co2 emissions from the Future Gen plant, other polluting emissions must be dealt with. Spending millions on a dying technology coal project does not make sense. Sequestering the co2 is not a technology that can be used except under special conditions and will be applicable in few areas. Is this a case of money well spent? Leaks from the sequestered co2 are also a concern. Even a small leak is dangerous to any living thing until the co2 can be diluted with moving air. A large leak would be disasterous for the countryside. A leak negates the benefit of keeping co2 from the atmosphere. Please use the monies for this project on a green project that will benefit the planet.
    Ms Lillian Korous
  • March 12, 2014

    What studies has been done on the overall long term effects this will have within the earth, it's still carbon dioxide whether or not it's in the air or ground and will cause other effects within the ground at some point in time! Also you should explain to the group that this clean energy comes at a higher cost and that their power bills will be higher! Thank you
    James Orr
Entries: 5