The distinction between 1) and 2) is very helpful, thanks for that. I really wonder whether we know all the costs associated with storing co2 underground, for

The distinction between 1) and 2) is very helpful, thanks for that. I really wonder whether we know all the costs associated with storing co2 underground, for geological timescales.... > energy from a nuclear power plant to make jet fuel. I mean, yeah, it would be cool if an aircraft carrier could just make its own jet fuel, but the energy books have got to balance; taking CO2 out of the air and turning it into jet fuel has to take at least as much energy as burning the jet fuel and putting the CO2 into the air in the first place. Otherwise, you could just have free power by burning the jet fuel and converting it back, over and over... > article is [about] building a coal burning power plant that captures CO2 Yeah, but really, solar and wind are already cheaper than coal--and that's when you just vent the CO2 into the air. So we're not talking about building new sequestering power plants....at best we're talking about retro-fitting already existing ones....is every one of them going to have the geology which can store CO2 for geological timescales?? Maybe I'm still missing something, but I just don't see it. I mean, if I had a bunch of coal I wanted to sell, certainly it would be handy to be able to whip this paper out and shove it in the face of one of those annoying green-type protesters. It would knock them back on their heels--until they had a chance to read it. But that's all i see it being useful for.