Nice to see the capture of CO2, but the idea of pumping it underground so more natural gas is available may not be any real environmental improvement. Worse, no one really knows what organisms are living underground and how massive amounts of CO2 will effect them.

Perhaps if the plan was to make algae oil then make permanent products we could be more ok with the idea.

This report from Yorkshire Forward and partners really brightened my day this could seriously damage the arguments for new nuclear build in the UK.

I see Friends Of The Earth released a report last week which concluded that nuclear new build is not economically feasible .

I agree, imagine a new natural gas pipeline bringing natural gas to Europe from Turkmenistan or even Iran in the future, this would cause a gas price war with Russia, subsequently electricity prices would plummet leaving nuclear power plants that are loosing money, what would Edf do? they couldn't close the plants so it would be the british taxpayer who would pick up the tab.
Published: May 14 2008 17:32 | Last updated: May 14 2008 17:32
There is a broad consensus in Brussels on the need for an external energy policy to diversify suppliers and routes and loosen Russia’s grip on the European natural gas market.
Writing recently about the emerging European energy diplomacy, Benita Ferrero-Waldner, commissioner for external relations, said the European Union had signed or was negotiating agreements with Azerbaijan, Ukraine, Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan, Algeria, Egypt, Morocco, Jordan, Iraq, the countries of the Gulf Co-operation Council and, “when the political situation will allow it”, it would negotiate with Iran.

For a densely-populated area like the UK, this certainly seems to make sense.

OR you could spend the 3.9 billion for a network of local storage nodes that would allow greater penetration of renewable energy and allow thermal coal to be phased out.

OR you could spend the 3.9 billion giving away energy efficiency packages to UK households

OR you could spend 3.9 billion on wave and tidal projects that could also allow a lot of coal to be retired.

Guess what project will get up - King Coal

Come to think of it, 3.9 billion would buy a lot of wind energy and retire CO2 producing coal plants.

It seems like a lot of money to bet on the notion that the ready storability of captured CO2 as widely dispersed grains of mineral will stay dark.

For carbon catprue and sequestration, CO2 pipelines are not quite as useful as clothes shavers.

Or!!! You can spend 3.9 billion on Algae Biofuel farms that, along with sunshine/artificial light, waste water and CO2 emissions, grow biodiesel, ethanol, and animal/fish food. Use the biodiesel to produce electricity and start replacing coal energy production. Emissions from electricity produced is recycled back to make more algae. Put the farms next to the emitters, no transport necessary! Also you reduce foreign imported fossil which pollutes big time and replace it with fuel that is much cleaner. These farms make money, they don't need agricultural land and they keep real food on the table and not in our gas tanks. What could be more logical???

The "Or!!!" post above was posted by Solar Nano and not GRL Cowan.

With CCS unproven on the required scale, spending two billion pounds to build a CO2 pipeline is madness. It's almost literally pouring money into a hole in the ground. They'd permanently sequester about as much carbon by turning that sum into dollar bills and burying them.

Have I taught you anything about CCS recently, Mr. Schumacher? Here or at RealClimate?

Mr. blank should be more concerned about maintaning the life of organisms about ground (us) instead of worrying about the ones under ground.