They claim:
Wind and solar power are the cleanest, and one day will be our main sources of power. But all evidence points to that time being many years in the future. With coal abundant and economically feasible, we believe processes like the one to be used in Taylorville are the best bridges to our clean energy future.
As I understand the concept, a bridge technology is something short-term that's cheaper, faster, and more scientifically proven than alternatives that are still being developed. So how does the Taylorville Tenaska project compare to the alternatives?
According to the Illinois Commerce Commission, the Taylorville coal plant would be more expensive than other alternatives, including wind and natural gas. Despite the SJ-R's claim, it's not economically feasible compared to other power sources. The reason they need government subsidies and guarantees is that a competitive market won't support this project.
Other alternatives are more scientifically proven and market tested than clean coal projects. There's no carbon capture project of this size anywhere in the United States. Once again, wind and solar make better "bridge" technologies than the Taylorville project because they're already developed. There are even large scale solar projects being built faster than new coal plants.
In fact, there's only one thing that could result in wind and solar not being further developed until "years into the future:" Manipulation of the market by government to favor the coal industry.
The solar industry is already being developed right now in other Midwestern states. Why not in Illinois? Because we're busy chasing the empty promises and false hope of economic development through subsidizing a dying industry. Downstate is expect to wait around for the mines to reopen while other regions get real clean energy jobs. It isn't going to work.