So it will be "delivered via pipeline at near ambient temperatures to dedicated storage facilities that could be located hundreds of miles away". Okay, then what? Storing CO2 is like hiding the problem under the carpet...

DO IT. I hereby reduce the military budget and allocate the funds to this project to save the health and lives of the very people that my military are supposed to be defending.

So... you have to burn 25% more coal to achieve the same output... that including the costs of commissioning and storage of the condensed gases would easily raise the cost of power for the end user up to 100%... And ok, sulphur dioxide and mercury are surely dangerous and it's worth trying to control them, but CO2, that is now "the enemy", is a natural byproduct even of our breathing http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breathing and it's not really proven that it can affect our climate. Are we really willing to pay the price of such a system? More than a scientific study I see someone that smelt a business in re-proposing old theories in a period when media attention for the mighty CO2 is high.

It's like trying to look for a solution that doesn't have a problem? CO² is not now or has ever been a pollutant! We don't have to much of it and what ever amount we generate is a tiny fraction of what occurs naturally, the earth has seen MUCH higher CO² levels in it's history and those time have been beneficial over all to the progress of man. Cut pollutants I agree with but this hiding and prevention of CO² is a colossal wast of money and will be our down fall.

No deal. CO2 isn't poisonous any more than oxygen is. Just ask a tree. Keeping smoke out of the air is great, but I'm not willing to pay 25% more for my electricity. Smoke washes out eventually.

Except they already by making O2 and using that to gasify coal, the byproducts are H2, CO and CO2, no N2 so by compressing to liquidfy the CO2, allowing it to be shipped to here needed for oil well recovery, etc or just stored underground is more eff than this proposal. Look up TECO Electric for details among many others now. TECO's been running 15-20 yrs now.
The the H2/CO also called syn gas, is easily cleaned of sulfur, radioactive metals, mercury, etc that make coal kill so many, 30k/yr and hospitalize 200k/yr in the US.
Far less expensive, polluting to the consumers is make their own power. PV is now at $1/wt, $1k/kw retail and wind at $2k/kw. An eff home needs just 2-3kw plus 1kw for each extra person above 1. Sadly few wind generators are available at such prices except Axial Flux wind generators.
Well shopped renewable energy for many pays off in 2-4 yrs and then almost free for 20-50 yrs afterward. Most RE is less complicated than a moped and really little reason to cost too much.

A football-stadium-sized cryogenic tunnel? Running liquid nitrogen maybe? I sure would like to see some end-to-end numbers here on the total cost.

Yes, anything to keep using coal! Heaven forbid they we should move away from coal, oil and natural gas to clean, abundant, renewable wind water and sunlight. Was this idea backed by the coal industry?

Did you know that most large greenhouses use CO2 generators? If there is too much CO2 already, why are they making more of their own? Because it helps the plants to grow better.

It amazes me that anyone even considers such gyrations when if we would simply ramp up the existing alternatives to burning coal (you all know what they are) we could have inexpensive electricity, avoid the exigent "societal costs" and save the coal for better uses.
But wait, that might make sense.....