The Cost of Gases

I like the idea of a carbon tax as long as the money was spent to find green solutions.

While having the revenue from a carbon tax go towards alternative energy would be ideal, even if it doesn't the cap and trade program will still have a positive affect on the overall level of emissions. If companies know that carbon is going to have a cost associated with it they will factor that into their budgets and reducing the amount of carbon they produce will have a direct economic benefit. This will make "green" sources of energy an even more attractive option as they become more cost competitive with fossil fuels.

I thought that this article was good, but the topic isn't. I like the idea that energy hogs are being made to pay and every thing, but maybe things should be a little bit faster, we're not getting any younger, and neither is the planet

This will cost the world a packet. Although we do not know that carbon is driving the temperatures or vice versa, we seem to, like with a total tunnel vision, concentrate on CO2 only. If in the end it turns out not to be the culprit we will have chopped down our rain forests, not built dykes agains floods, fight over drinkable water etc. How one can filter out one possible factor out of possibly thousands that make our climate, make money with it by trading and discard the rest beats me.

L.David Korkia
An experimental coal plant is getting ready to start up in Matton,Ill. Built by FutureGen it will provide 275 Megawatts to 150,000 homes. To remove carbon dioxide from the environment, it will be liquidfied, then pumped deep underground.
Why can't a closed loop be used that will use some of the liquid carbon dioxide to power generators. By running parallel pipes down, liquid carbon dioxide could expand after being heated by the earth. Under pressure the gaseous carbon dioxide would return to the surface, and used to turn turbines, the same way wind power is used.
After use, the gas could be mixed with new carbon dioxide gas prior to liquidification. The recycled gas would cool the new gas reducing the energy required to turn it into a liquid, then pumped back into the earth where the process would be repeated. As more gas is stored, more generators could be added.
This principle could be even more efficient in areas where geological formations produce more heat.

If you were going to build a geothermal power generator, you'd use water instead of CO2, constructing a sort of artificial geyser to produce steam with which to run the turbines. Other than wind and solar power, all modern methods of producing power do so by heating water to produce steam. Coal, gas, and nuclear all produce power by simply generating a lot of heat to make steam. Heck, even some solar plants use steam turbines instead of solar cells, by heating the water with focused sunlight.

The statement that they will be "liquefying" the CO2 doesn't mean that they are just cooling the CO2 to the point of condensation and then burying it (it would take a lot of energy to cool it to the necessary -78.5 degrees Celsius). More likely they are dissolving it into another liquid of some sort. That sort of fluid/gaseous mixture probably wouldn't be very conducive to use in a geothermal power plant.