> To be specific, the EIA did a study on the capital cost of various power sources [2], and here's their results: That is just the capital costs, not the opera

> To be specific, the EIA did a study on the capital cost of various power sources [2], and here's their results: That is just the capital costs, not the operational (fuel) costs, which are significant for natural gas plants and insignificant for zero carbon sources. The full costs are expressed by LCOE. > If the government changes the incentives though, I don't see why large scale carbon sequestration would not be viable. A tax on greenhouse gas emissions would incentivize carbon free sources of electricity like renewables, storage and nuclear just as much if not more than CCS, because CCS has a max capture rate of 90% so there is a nearly 10% disadvantage out the gate. The only way CCS wins is if its levelized cost for firm energy is lower than all the zero carbon alternatives, regardless of a carbon tax. It might be economical for natural gas powered peaker plants, which fill in supply gaps and sell power at very high prices. However, these run for very short periods so therefore the technology has to be relatively cheap up front in order for the economics to work out.