The WaPo has a good read on the effort to capture the greenhouse gasses emitted by coal fired electricity plants. The article points out that such capture will be necessary, if carbon emissions are going to fall, because coal-fired plants account for so much Co2.
“There is no credible pathway towards prudent greenhouse gas stabilization targets without CO2 emissions reduction from existing coal power plants,” Ernest Moniz, a professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and a member of President Obama’s Council of Advisers on Science and Technology, said in a report earlier this year. “We urgently need technology options for these plants and policies that incentivize implementation.”
At the same time, the cost is high: $700 million for a demonstration plant in Ohio, which includes 15% of the power plant’s output to run the carbon capture operation.
Then there is the question: Is there enough space for all this Co2. Greenpeace contends that the emissions from coal fired plants would fill the Grand Canyon every 15 days. Even an executive at Schlumberger says: “The sheer scale of the challenge is daunting.”
Nor is it clear costs will go down as technology improves. As the article points out, costs of nuclear power and liquefied natural gas both rose over time.