The UK, US, Canada, Australia, China, Norway, Denmark, Holland, Germany and many other countries are all looking carefully at the prospects of capturing carbon dioxide from coal or gas power plants and storing it deep underground. Barely a day goes by without some new pronouncement - whether it’s politicians saying they are advancing the technology; think tanks, scientists and environmental groups saying they’re not moving fast enough; or industry trumpeting joint agreements for carbon capture projects.

In case you’re feeling slightly bewildered about where and when any serious commercial-scale plants will be built (we haven’t seen one yet, by the way), the Scottish Centre for Carbon Storage has developed a brilliant interactive map of projects (large and small) announced so far. Highly recommended. Since each individual large scale plant (say, 400MW or above) will cost at least $1 billion, the first movers in this field are going to require deep pockets, or substantial state support.

raymond723:

The UK, US, Canada, Australia, China, Norway, Denmark, Holland, Germany and many other countries are all looking carefully at the prospects of capturing carbon dioxide from coal or gas power plants and storing it deep underground. Barely a day goes by without some new pronouncement - whether it’s politicians saying they are advancing the technology; think tanks, scientists and environmental groups saying they’re not moving fast enough; or industry trumpeting joint agreements for carbon capture projects.

In case you’re feeling slightly bewildered about where and when any serious commercial-scale plants will be built (we haven’t seen one yet, by the way), the Scottish Centre for Carbon Storage has developed a brilliant interactive map of projects (large and small) announced so far. Highly recommended. Since each individual large scale plant (say, 400MW or above) will cost at least $1 billion, the first movers in this field are going to require deep pockets, or substantial state support.

Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant.  Besides, 6 billion human beings exhale carbon dioxide every day.  Is that a problem?

Looks like carbon dioxide is officially a pollutant whether there is any scientific basis for it or not. The decision is a legal one and not a scientific finding:

Carbon Pollution Regulation in U.S. Moving Ahead With EPA Rules 

June 20 (Bloomberg) -- The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, after seven years of declining to regulate carbon- dioxide emissions under President George W. Bush, is taking its first steps to control the main gas blamed for global warming.

Ordered to act by the U.S. Supreme Court, the EPA will begin developing limits on greenhouse gases emitted by power plants, vehicles and large manufacturers. In April 2007, the U.S. high court ruled that carbon dioxide is a pollutant subject to government regulation.

Next week, the EPA will formally seek public and industry comment on how the U.S. should respond to the court ruling, the first step in developing new rules, agency spokesman Timothy Lyons said in a June 17 interview. While new gas limits aren't likely to emerge during the Bush administration, utility and refinery lobbyists say they see the EPA action as a prelude to setting caps on carbon emissions.

Here is a link to the rest of the story:

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aC6ZsNPgGW7k