So let's take a quick look at just one aspect of the likely market for CCS technology. You see all those red circles on the above map? They represent GHG emissions from coal-fired electricity generators in the US (comparable Canadian emissions are represented by yellow circles; emissions from the oilsands are captured by the blue circle). That gives you a fair idea of how much CCS technology is going to be in demand when the US finally gets around to putting a binding cap on emissions. So why shouldn't Canadians be right there with a workable technological solution? The price of which will surely fall once it goes into mass production.
One problem with the concept of CCS is that not all proponents actually believe in it. For example, British Coal Lobbyist Richard Courtney has argued that:
Firstly, the value of carbon sequestration is political: n.b. it is not technological or economic.
There is opposition to power generation systems that emit CO2 as waste (this is similar to opposition to nuclear power systems that emit radioactive waste). A response to the opposition is needed until the AGW scare is ended. And claims of carbon sequestration (cs) provide that needed response although everybody knows cs would be too expensive for it to be used.
A criticism that obviously does not apply to Ms. McCoy.