An editorial in today's NYT opposes carbon capture and sequestration. That's not too surprising: I've heard lots of people say that it's just a sop to the coal industry, and that's probably true. However, coal forms a huge part of our current energy infrastructure, and it'd be pretty expensive to change, so giving ourselves some time to make the shift by implementing carbon capture might be a good idea. The writer gives several interesting reasons why carbon capture isn't a good idea. First, he says that it cuts energy production at plants. Second, he says we'll need 23000 miles of taxpayer-purchased pipelines to carry the waste. Finally, we'll need a really big hole in the ground, something that can take up to "the contents of 41 oil supertankers each day, 365 days of the year." That's a lot of muck!
The pipelines don't seem like such a big deal- add a bit more to the huge amount of annual government spending and who will notice? I'd have to ask a geologist to find out about underground space available, but the first one seems interesting. While this buys time for coal-based energy production, it's going to raise the cost per kilowatt hour produced, which makes coal that much less attractive as a source. Even this stopgap measure looks to be a step down the road to a less coal-y future!
