Got a problem? Bury it.

While I agree that caution is necessary with carbon sequestration, or carbon dioxide capture and storage (CCS) as the Guardian article calls it, I must say that I must disagree with some of the criticisms in contained in the article (http://www.guardian.co.uk/waste/story/0,12188,1042520,00.html#article_continue). As the article writes "environmental groups say the proposals are unsafe, unproven and will divert funds away from research needed to develop such renewable energy sources as wave and wind power."

First, whether or not it is unsafe is, like the very next word claims, unproven. Whether or not sequestered CO2 will leak over long periods isn't know because no long-term studies have been undergone. This is partly because some environmental groups have blocked any attempts to do a controlled long-term study of sequestration (as the Gaurdian writes, "protests from green campaigners and local people forced scientists to cancel experiments aimed at testing this concept in Hawaii and Norway last year"). This is a classic example of some enviro-minded groups fighting anything that may be bad. The simple fact is that all energy generation sources have their environmental costs. The trick, as always, is to chose the least bad alternative and considering our tricky position - wedged between peak oil and the threat of global warming - we must explore all our alternatives, and that means not-blocking studies. I guess we'll have to wait and watch Norwegian Statoil's current sequestration project in the North Sea.

Second, while I am an AVID supported of Wind power and other renewable, zero-emission alternative energy sources, we have to keep in mind that nearly all of them - solar, wind, wave, etc. - are variable sources of power. That is, they cannot be counted on to serve baseload demand at any given time. In order to secure a greenhouse gas-free (or at least minimal) energy scenario, we either need drastic improvements in energy storage technologies to allow energy from these variable sources to be saved in order to smooth out and make more reliable their output to the grid and/or (likely and, just like most energy issues, there's no Silver Bullet on this one), or we need some kind of dispatchable, reliable baseload generation sources. A small part of this could be served by geothermal plants but the reality is, our other options arent all that great - basically either nuclear or "clean-coal" (i.e. Internal Gassifaction Coal Combined Cycle - IGCC - plants) with or without carbon sequestration.

Due to its nearly-permanent radioactive waste-storage issues, questionble co2 emissions over the lifetime of the fuel (see the great post http://www.treehugger.com/files/2005/06/nuclear_energy.php), massive capital costs, and declining uranium deposits, nuclear may not be desirable. IGCC "Clean-coal" plants may be an mid-term option (may get us through to fusion!) for at least reducing our emissions from our baseload: IGCC plants emit comperable or less co2 than combined-cycle natural gas plants and with sequestration could effectively emit zero greenhouse gases. With large worldwide supplies of coal, it would certainly be desirable to find a way to utilize this resource without contributing to global warming and sequstration may be the means to that end.

My point is, I suppose, that energy issues are ALWAYS multifaceted. While the potential drawbacks to carbon sequestration must be considered and confirmed (the effects of co2 bubbles escaping into the ocean, for example are not fully understood as of yet), we still must consider IGCC plants with carbon sequestration as an option at this time for solving our need for a baseload energy source that doesn't contribute to global warming. They may just turn out to be the least-bad alternative we are looking for.

Jesse --

While I agree with your basic conclusion, I see you used the bogus "wind and sun" are variable sources of power argument.

Remember: nuclear and coal are baseload power and cannot be counted on to serve variable demand at any given time.

In California, something like 7% of our electricity is consumed at night to pump water to the tops of hills to pressurize our city water supplies. It is done at night because electricity is cheaper at night. If you provide cheaper, variable, electricity, we can and will switch our water pumping to pump when the variable electricity is blowing.

There has been a continuous massive campaign over the past 30 years to get industry and consumers to shift electricity consumption from peak daytime hours to off-peak baseload hours. The exact same type of campaign can be used to shift usage back to times when electricity is being generated by variable supplies.

Also note that we can pretty much count on the fact that as solar becomes entrenched over the next 30 years, energy storage technologies will also improve. In 40 years, the electric utilities will be in crisis mode because it will be cheaper for households to generate and store solar than it is to transmit and distribute electricity from a power plant.