I hope I was clear that it is the rule itself that would cost $15 million to implement. This estimate has nothing to do with the astronomical cost of CCS itself, and it does indeed pale in comparison to the actual infrastructure needed to pull this off on a wide-scale.

Thanks for your comment.

Anyways, to add something, I am extremely skeptical that of the quoted number that the rule will cost $15 million annually. CCS is very expensive. It may prove to be the best option for reducing CO2 emissions, but it is expensive. Wells to a good depth cost $3 million apiece, and gas compressors and separation of gases are also very energy-intensive. Spread that across many power plants (some of which will not be close to suitable geologic formation), and you are talking hundreds of millions of dollars. I would believe $15 million annually to track paperwork and conduct audits across the industry. But $15 million / year to capture all the carbon from power plants? If it cost that little, we'd be doing it already.

Thanks for your comments. I selected that photograph because it makes a powerful statement. The photo in the post is not of a nuclear power plant releasing steam, it is of Drax, the largest coal-fired power station in the UK. It provides 7% of the electrical power required by Britain and generates around 1.5 million tons of ash and 22.8 million tons of carbon dioxide each year (source).

I recognize that most of what you see in the picture is water vapor, but I also wanted to stress that Drax is the biggest single source of carbon dioxide in the UK.