I think S.S. Sam Taylor is just spoofing us. No one outside of the ecofascism movement really believes all the hyperbole of this global warming hoax. Our climate is currently in a cooling phase despite the fact that CO2 levels continue to rise, and as of now we are at the same average temps as we were in 1900. Antarctic ice levels are at all time highs. Atmospheric CO2 from anthropogenic sources amounts to less than 0.001 of total atmospheric elements. By the immutable laws of physics it is impossible for man's CO2 to have any measerable impact on global climate. And of course it has been proven that ethanol production actually contributes more CO2 per Kj than does the production of gasoline from petroleum, and synthetic diesel made from coal has lower emissions of SOX and NOX than does biodiesel.

As for the seqestration cost of "clean coal" and it's impact on the railroad industry, I think it is only a matter of time before coal is no longer the primary source of electric generation in this country for two reasons - one of course being the short term global warming idiocy which will soon fade as reality sets in, but the other more permanent reason is simply the fact that nuclear electric generation is both cleaner and more economical than coal fired generation.

Note: I said nuke is "more economical", not necessarily cheaper.

What is becoming apparent in energy circles is the fact that the only way for this nation to achieve realistic energy independence is to utilize our vast coal resources as a supplement to domestic/Canadian oil and gas production. That means we need to stop burning coal for electric generation (in deference to nuclear power) and instead start converting coal to synthetic diesel/fuel oil and synthetic natural gas. By most estimates, if we do that we can be de facto energy independent for at least two centuries at current rates of consumption (e.g. no forced conservation via government mandated repression of consumer choice).

For the CO2 alarmists, it should be noted that a plant that produces CTL fuels and/or synthetic natural gas emits much much less CO2 (in some cases near zero CO2 emissions) than does a coal-fired electric generation plant, thus no need for in suto CO2 sequestration. Quite simply, the burden of CO2 sequestration is shifted to the end user - vehicle owners, home owners. And there is no way even the most leftist-fascist government can require home owners to sequester their individual CO2 emissions - at least not in a way that doesn't cost them in the next election cycle. Coal plants don't vote, individuals do.

Now, this doesn't mean that all is lost for the railroad industry. Coal transportation will still be needed to bring the coal to a CTL/gasification plant if it is located nearer the end user - CTL/gasification needs a reliable water source for CO+H2O reformulatin, something lacking in the PRB. The synthetic fuel and it's assorted byproducts (e.g. naphtha) will still need to be transported, and not all CTL plants would be located near oil and gas pipelines. And if this shift to energy independence does decrease the flow of overseas oil, that shift will work in favor of surface transportation technologies to the detriment of ocean transportation technologies. However, it is probable that there might be a reduction in total ton/miles for coal transportation, so the industry would need to adapt.