Around the world governments are betting billions of dollars on research to develop technology to capture carbon emitted from coal plants. It's probably even money right now whether carbon capture becomes the next thin film solar (a long-pursued technology that is now bearing out) or the next hydrogen car (a technology full of promise that is always just around the corner -- if the corner is a generation away).

Norway will spend 140 million Euros over the next five years on developing carbon capture technology. Canada has committed the bulk of $860 million in research funds to reducing carbon, while in Brazil, a pilot project will capture carbon dioxide and feed it to algae to produce biofuel, a very smart idea.

The U.S. Department of Energy is schizophrenic when it comes to carbon capture. On the one hand the FutureGen project, a small-scale power plant that would capture and sequester carbon, last year was scuttled based on concerns about high cost. New Energy Secretary Stephen Chu, who is no friend of coal, is doubling down on carbon capture, building a National Carbon Capture Center in Alabama. After it goes online in 2010, the center will test carbon capture technologies in a real world environment, and participants in the project include the Electric Power Research Institute and a handful of energy companies.

Secretary Chu recently said that the U.S. should develop carbon capture technologies so that they can be exported to developing nations that will have an expanding appetite for coal, such as China and India.

Chu has a point, and it underscores the driving force for continuing the research. Coal will continue to be a primary energy source around the world, and rather than pour everything into renewables that will take time to become cost competitive, we might as well do something to cut down its impact.

But "something" and "spend billions" aren't the same thing. Countries have to weigh the risk between nothing coming from the research dollars versus developing nations increasing their coal consumption and emissions long after we've cut back because of the economics.

The selection of energy producer Southern Company to manage and operate the DOE's center is somewhat curious because of its environmental track record. Southern Company operates some of the dirtiest coal plants in the country according to the Environment News Service.

One energy company that won't be running to join the team is Duke Energy. CEO James Rogers recently said that his company will stop building coal power plants because carbon capture and sequestration technology is "15 years away."

While cost effective carbon capture and sequestration is a long shot, it appears to be the best idea scientists have come up with for reducing the impact of coal, which will continue to keep the lights on in many homes for the next generation. So while you can argue that pouring all of that money into advancing solar or wind technology is a safer bet, even long shots occasionally come in.

John Gartner is Editor in Chief of Matter Network and an Industry Analyst for Pike Research