A brief glance at this article synopsis at MATR and at the linked article doesn't begin to bring up the problems and limitation of this technology. It is apparent, though, that it will be used as energy industry propaganda.

Sequestering CO2 in underground storage has not been studied for possible negative effects. Monitoring can only tell if leaks are present, but will not cap releases. The huge amount of gas pumped underground into the limestone formation represents only 1/4th of 1% of annual U.S. production.

I spoke to an Oklahoma power plant operator who has been extolled for its efforts that have resulted in capture of carbon dioxide. The technology is complicated and expensive and only manages to capture 5% of the plant's exhaust. Of the CO2 that is captured, it is used entirely for fast freezing frozen foods, for manufacturing dry ice for refrigeration and transportation of perishables and for putting fizz in drinks. None of this is actually sequestering, of course. It merely briefly postpones release through sublimation, gassing off and belches.

An executive from a different major utility corporation confessed that no technology exists or is envisioned in the foreseeable future to capture carbon dioxide from power plant emissions.

The problem with the article is that it presents what appears to be a potential solution to the scientifically illiterate and uninformed when in fact there is no such evidence that such exists in practical terms.

We need to develop alternative forms of energy, such as broad utilization of wind energy, instead of trying to make ultimately insignificant improvements to the current dirty production.

--Frank Smith