Paris Accord Depends on CCS

Paris Accord Depends on CCS

With regards to carbon capture and sequestration (CCS), the International Energy Agency (IEA) said,

  •      “The Paris Agreement provides a framework for stronger  climate action that will increase the need for carbon capture and storage (CCS). The global community agreed in Paris to a more ambitious temperature target of ‘well below 2°C,’ to pursue efforts towards 1.5°C. … CCS remains the only technology solution capable of delivering significant emissions reductions from the use of fossil fuels in power generation and industrial processes.” (Emphasis added except for initial paragraph.)


  •      “There is no other technology solution that can significantly reduce emissions from the coal and gas power generation capacity that will remain a feature of the electricity mix for the foreseeable future. No other technology solution is capable of delivering the deep emissions reductions needed across key industrial processes such as steel, cement and chemicals manufacturing, all of which will remain vital building blocks of modern society.” (Emphasis added .)

Note that the 2° C limit is no longer sufficient, even though that goal was impossible to attain. Now we are expected to cut emissions even more, so as to keep temperatures from rising 1.5° C.

But that’s not what is most troublesome about the critical need for CCS.

The goal of CCS is impossible to achieve.

While carbon capture is technically possible, it is extremely expensive and requires additional power generation capacity to replace the capacity lost when carbon capture technologies are installed in coal and natural-gas power plants.

It is impossible, however, to be certain the CO2 will remain sequestered in geologic formations, underground, for thousands of years.

Michael Bloomberg, on a panel during the Bloomberg New Energy Finance Summit in New York City on April 24, proclaimed that CCS is “total BS.”

From Bloomberg Website
From Bloomberg Website

There are a few examples of sequestration, the best known being at the Sleipner oil field off Norway’s coast. Over a twenty year period they have sequestered approximately 20 million tons of CO2 at Sleipner.

This is minuscule compared with the approximately 40,000 million metric tons (MMT) produced over the same period just from the generation of electricity in the United States. And this doesn’t include CO2 produced by the rest of the world.

To free the United States form the Paris Accord with its bogus scenarios requiring the United States to cut CO2 emissions in increasingly greater amounts, the United States must exit the UNFCCC treaty.

The book Clexit explains why CCS is impossible, and also why the entire premiss of the Paris Accord and the UNFCCC treaty are fatally flawed … And bad for the United States.

Tom Harris, Executive Director International Climate Science Coalition, in a radio interview explains in simple terms why it’s essential to exit the UNFCCC treaty.

Here is his interview:

The claims about CCS are bogus, as are the goals of the Paris Accord and the UNFCCC treaty.

Americans are best served by withdrawing from the UNFCCC treaty.

. . .


Please follow and like us:

3 Replies to “Paris Accord Depends on CCS”

  1. Michael Bloomberg, on a panel during the Bloomberg New Energy Finance Summit in New York City on April 24, proclaimed that CCS is “total BS.”

    For once, I agree with Bloomberg

  2. Yes, CCS is BS. Proponents are now striving for only 30% of CO2 to be removed from flue gas. Reducing CO2 emissions by 30% could have been done trivially by installing ultrasupercritical pulverized coal power plants instead of the cheaper ones built in the US. Their higher temperatures and consequent higher efficiencies mean they burn less coal and emit less CO2.

    I find IEA projections unreliable, influenced by current green political thinking.

    I see no benefit to the US from withdrawing from the voluntary commitment. Worst case is we don’t quite comply, but we’ll be closer to compliance than most nations will be.

    Advanced nuclear power is a rational solution. ThorCon is designing liquid fission power plants that are much less expensive than US LWRs, and less expensive than coal-fired power plants. Because uranium fuel is dense and cheap compared to fossil fuels, ThorCon will produce electricity cheaper than coal can — the only practical way to convince developing nations to stop burning coal — economic self interest.

    • Yes, ultra-supercritical coal-fired power plants are 45% more efficient than coal-fired power plants built previously in US.
      And projections by governments and companies are all compromised by green policies. I’ll be commenting on that in the near future.
      Withdrawal from the UNFCCC treaty is essential. Without withdrawing, the US remains obligated to abide by the treaty’s provisions. For example, as Tom Harris pointed out, Island nations that are damaged by rising seas can sue the US for all kinds of damages because we belong to the treaty and therefore to the Warsaw convention. There’s no statute of limitations.
      Any disagreements the US has with decisions made by the 195 nation members will be adjudicated by the world court or by a tribunal of member countries, many of which are opposed to the United States, such as Iran.
      Clexit itemizes why the UNFCCC treaty is bad for Americans.
      I’m a fan of nuclear power, but I’m afraid it will be necessary for Thor Con to demonstrate it can do what it claims to be able to do. This is especially important after the problems with the Southern Company and SC reactor programs.
      Thanks for your comments.