Direct Carbon Sequestration: Capturing and Storing CO2 [Updated September 13, 2007] [open pdf - 1MB]
From the Summary: "Direct sequestration is capturing carbon at its source and storing it before its release to the atmosphere. Carbon capture and storage -- also known as CCS -- is attracting interest as a measure for mitigating global climate change, because potentially large amounts of carbon dioxide (CO2) emitted from fossil fuel use in the United States could be eligible for sequestration. Electricity-generating plants may be the most likely initial candidates for direct sequestration because they are predominantly large, single-point sources, and they contribute approximately one-third of U.S. CO2 emissions from fossil fuels. Congressional interest is growing in direct sequestration as part of legislative strategies addressing climate change. In the 110th Congress, the House and Senate have each passed bills that contain provisions expanding the current Department of Energy (DOE) carbon capture research and development program and creating new programs to accelerate R&D [research and development] for CO2 storage. The bills would require at least seven large-volume underground sequestration tests. DOE is planning to spend almost $100 million on carbon sequestration R&D in FY2007. The House- and Senate-passed bills would sharply increase that amount, doubling or tripling R&D spending on carbon sequestration within two years compared to FY2007 levels. […] DOE's carbon sequestration research program will be facilitating field tests for carbon sequestration, with seven regional partners, across the United States. DOE is also undertaking a 10-year, $1.5 billion project -- known as FutureGen -- to build a power plant that integrates carbon sequestration and hydrogen production while producing 275 megawatts of electricity, enough to power about 150,000 average U.S. homes. DOE estimates direct sequestration costs of between $100 and $300 per metric ton (2,200 pounds) of carbon emissions avoided using current technologies. Power plants with CCS would require more fuel, and costs per kilowatt-hour would likely rise compared to plants without CCS."
CRS Report for Congress, RL33801