I understand that the BLM is looking at this type of technology for sequestration. in addition at a recent conference, several oil companies were looking at this technology. It makes sense from their perspective. possible carbon credits/tax breaks/new profit and getting additional gas/oil production from old wells. The big issue is the effect of the CO2 on the substrate.

Isn't it way too early to be talking of "permanent storage"? The coal gasification/carbon sequestration technology may hold promise, but if I'm not mistaken, it's very very far from established that sequestration actually works.

At this point, for the governor to be talking about this as an effort to combat climate change seems a bit disengenuous, and quite possibly some seriously cynical greenwash.

This is akin to just sweeping your mess under the carpet.

Carbon sequestration is one of many solutions. It can play a purpose, but it shouldn't be seen as the only one. The oil companies support it because it allows people to continue burning fossil fuels, which makes it much more likely to be implemented than other options.

Re: vinegar and soda for the drain.
Much easier is a plastic snake with teeth which is about 2 feet long and slips easily into a drain and brings up all the gunk.
Costs about $3.00 at most hardwares.

This technology just makes another problem for our kids to deal with. Too bad no one is inventing tech that separates the carbon atom itself from the O2 thereby making O2 and carbon components. Of course this is too much like trying to find a new alternative energy source.

Storing deadly C02 gas could be how life on mars ended early on, if there was any, and it would explain the C02 geysers as well. When time breaks the holding areas it will release this gas in a geyser like pattern killing how many people?

We all know how fallible man is in our own creations it would only be a matter of time before it broke.

D~W

It is a fact that most experts consider carbon sequestration, along with carbon controls such as trading credits and/or taxation, would be essential create a transition to carbon neutral energy production. There is no way we can expect to transition the entire world's energy infrastructure without a transition such as this.

Obviously, there are a lot of unknowns, but it is folly to avoid looking at potential solutions. We will solve the problem by appoaching it from as many directions at the same time as possible; we don't have the luxury of time to wait for the magic bullet technology to mature.

If you think that is disengenuous or a bad idea, maybe we should do like Texas is doing, just build cheap, old technology coal plants that can't ever capture CO2. That is more than a bad idea, more like criminal.

Really, carbon sequestration is a common phenomenum in nature. There is very strong scientific evidence that it would work, as a transitional technology at least, until the world gets past the coal era.

With countries like China that are coming online with a new coal fired power plant every three days, having a way to deal with it is essential.

I applaud this kind of visionary thinking. There is no way getting around coal as an energy source in the near term future. We don't have the luxury of choosing our options, we need to attack from every angle using conservation, new alternative energy, and yes, reducing the impact of fossil fuels through carbon sequestration.

"At this point, for the governor to be talking about this as an effort to combat climate change seems a bit disengenuous, and quite possibly some seriously cynical greenwash."

Huh? What do you mean? Carbon sequestration has been proposed for 20 years and many scientists are behind it. We are in real trouble with cardon dioxide and I think people who are taking action and putting ideas out there are fantastic. Blagojevich could just do nothing, like many of the other states are doing with their mega coal plants (i.e. north carolina, texas, etc) that have no carbon capturing ability at all now, nor will they ever.

Illinois, especially Chicago, are coming up with green policies that are among the most advanced in the nation. If you are calling this some "seriously cynical greenwash" you don't know what you are talking about.

Go Illinois! Once again, I am impressed by what is going on in this region. Seriously, if you are going to burn coal (unfortunately, a reality we need to deal with) how can you not look closely at this technology. The rest of the country needs to catch up to this state. Bravo!

Oil companies??? Pat, we're talking about coal...

If you are calling this some "seriously cynical greenwash" you don't know what you are talking about.

You're right, Anonymous, I don't know what I'm talking about. That's what I said in my post. I was asking the blogosphere what the state of the debate was on this sort of carbon sequestration was, because I'd heard it was kind of sketchy.

I wasn't disputing that it's a great idea. I was questioning if it'll work in practice. Without more information, the "scientists" you say are behind it hold no more credibility to me than the "scientists" who deny climate change.

Re. greenwash: I know nothing about the guv, but Illinois voters are not Texas or NC voters. I'm guessing there's a fair whack of oposition to new coal generation, gasified or not. For all I know, he's making promises he can't keep, using unproven technology to push through an irresponsible energy agenda. But as I say, I don't know what I'm talking about, so if anyone can offer any substantive ellucidation on this technology, I'm all ears...

the plan is good if it's genuinely meant to bury CO2. However the 'greenwash' is in the text - or subtext - if you do the math you'll find out the CO2 from the additional oil is 20-50 times more than the sequesetered CO2 - the majority of these schemes on a world wide basis involve oil companies attempting to get yet more subsidies by pretending these schemes promote CO2 reduction - and politicians love sound bites and big projects.