An energy-deprived lifestyle with a lack of food, clean water, energy, access to health services, etc.

An energy-deprived lifestyle with a lack of food, clean water, energy, access to health services, etc.

“The ratio of energy input for the entire capture and storage system would be between three-to-five times the energy gained from the original carbon-based fuel.”
– Dr. Klaus L.E. Kaiser

The “Carbon Capture Syndrome” (CCS)  —  Part 1

Wasting (fossil fuel generated) energy on hare-brained “save-the-climate” schemes

By Dr. Klaus L.E. Kaiser

Most commonly these days, the CCS acronym stands for: “Carbon Capture and Storage” – as you can surmise from the title above, I have a slightly different interpretation of “CCS.”

“Carbon” – whatever

Of course, all this nonsense of “Carbon” storage, etc. really refers to “carbon dioxide” and not to elemental carbon as in coal or diamonds, nor to carbon-containing fuels. For my non-chemist readers, that difference is akin to the difference between “night and day” or “hell and heaven.” So, not to belabor this point, let’s assume that “carbon” and “carbon dioxide” are synonymous.

The Collins Dictionary states “CCS is technology used to stop large amounts of carbon dioxide from being released into the atmosphere, by separating the carbon dioxide from emissions and injecting it into geological formations. CCS refers to the capture and storage of carbon dioxide from emissions to prevent it from entering the atmosphere.”

To drive home the point, the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences just announced their decision of awarding the 2018 Nobel Prize for Economics to William Nordhaus and Paul Romer for their work that “helped answer fundamental questions on how to promote long-term sustainable growth and enhance human welfare.”

Both Nordhaus and Romer are ardent supporters of “carbon pricing,” a novel tax on all consumers of any carbon-containing material. As the website says, Nordhaus’ view is “Climate change is a member of a special kind of economic activity known as global public goods.” To solve this problem, “At a minimum, all countries should agree to penalize carbon and other GHG emissions by the agreed upon minimum price.”

Furthermore, Nordhaus claims: “The shadow prices, […], actually represented the cost of putting carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. And with that, climate change suddenly became a problem that could be attacked with the tools of economics.”

In my mind, this claim of “cost” is nothing else than promoting an energy-deprived lifestyle for the majority of mankind with a continued lack of food, clean water, energy, access to health services, etc.

Why the War against Carbon?

The CCS idea presumes that this invisible trace gas, called carbon dioxide with the chemical notation CO2, currently present in the earth’s atmosphere at around 0.04%, is going to make everything in the world fry if not stopped from increasing.  Actually, the really “wise men” (and equally really “wise women”) are calling not only for a stop to burning any carbon-based fuels (like natural gas, oil, coal, dung, or wood). Instead they are actually calling for using technologies to extract this “evil” gas from the atmosphere – with no costs spared.

For example, various Canadian government agencies have been rooting for such “save-the world” enthusiasts that, presumably with generous government grants plan to build systems that may promise “no cost”, or “free energy”, or other earth-shattering benefits. For example, the Carbon Engineering website claims “Direct Air Capture [DAC] is a technology that processes atmospheric air, removes CO2 and purifies it. CE’s DAC technology does this in a closed loop where the only major inputs are water and energy, and the output is a stream of pure, compressed CO₂.”

Yes, indeed, all the technologies are in place to do all that; there’s absolutely no technological problem to do that. However, there is a (not so) small proviso.

The Proviso

That proviso is: It will cost you (much) more energy to do that than you got from burning your carbon-type fuel to begin with. As a rough (low-end) estimate, I think that the ratio of energy input for the entire capture and storage system would be between three-to-five times the energy gained from the original carbon-based fuel. Clearly, that’s not a wise use of (any type) of energy; in fact, rather the opposite is the case, namely a fantastic waste of it.

Of course, understanding the basics of sciences, like chemistry, math, and physics, just for example, is not a prerequisite to become an important high level politician these days. Perhaps, it may even be an (unwritten) requirement for a job in Cabinet (?).  One can certainly get such ideas from public statements by some government representatives (and many others).

However, I think that the Roman judicial principle of “in dubious pro reo,” (Latin for “[When] in doubt, [decide] for the accused”) is a time-honored way to provide society with an anchor of justice. After all, it has served the western world quite well for millennia, ever since the time of Aristotle (384-322 BC) or earlier. Now back to carbon dioxide and the CCS syndrome.

CCS = Energy Waste

Following the CCS idea (using the Collins definition) would be a gigantic waste of resources and effort that – even if it were to be widely enforced – would not make any difference to “climate change” at all. In fact, if anything, it would rather increase the energy deprivation of many of the world’s poorer countries.

What the poorer nations on this globe really need is not less but more cheap and reliable energy. So, instead of wasting (fossil fuel generated) energy on hare-brained “save-the-climate” schemes, let’s send them this energy in form of free coal, oil, or natural gas.


Dr Klaus L E KaiserDr. Klaus L.E. Kaiser is a professional scientist with a Ph.D. in chemistry from the Technical University, Munich, Germany. He has worked as a research scientist and project chief at Environment Canada‘s Canada Centre for Inland Waters for over 30 years and is currently Director of Research at TerraBase Inc. He is author of nearly 300 publications in scientific journals, government and agency reports, books, computer programs, trade magazines, and newspaper articles.

Dr. Kaiser has been president of the International Association for Great Lakes Research, a peer reviewer of numerous scientific papers for several journals, Editor-in-Chief of the Water Quality Research Journal of Canada for nearly a decade, and an adjunct professor. He has contributed to a variety of scientific projects and reports and has made many presentations at national and international conferences.

Dr. Kaiser is author of CONVENIENT MYTHS, the green revolution – perceptions, politics, and facts

Dr. Kaiser can be reached at:


20 thoughts on “An energy-deprived lifestyle with a lack of food, clean water, energy, access to health services, etc.”

  1. I can’t believe that someone is putting ‘climate change’ under ‘economic activity’. These Nobel winners has to read again and again David Hume to become aware of what cause and effect means. Then start reading modern approaches with the only objective criticizing your own work. They even won’t suggest to stop building cities with only concrete and asphalt to put down the urban’s temperature. Locally that is impossible , any how that seems to be the argument, but globally spoken one can put down the thermometer by reducing CO2. Just turn the button and we can skate again on the canals. Scientists seems to be the servants of politics as in former days of the church.

  2. 1) There is no Nobel price in economics. It is just banksters giving awards to people suggesting to do moronic things. Like bury money and dig them up again.

    2) Anyone interested in CCS should check the “Norwegian moon landing” project.

  3. “Direct Air Capture [DAC] is a technology that processes atmospheric air, removes CO2 and purifies it.”
    And yet plants / trees will do much the same for free: process air, use CO2 during photosynthesis and store it. The byproduct of photosynthesis provides oxygen for animals. Humans use O2 and exhale CO2 as a metabolic waste product. What a great exchange between the plant and animal kingdoms, yet politicians now call CO2 a toxin and call it “pollution”. Perhaps they intend to eliminate the CO2 producing humans or tax humans based on increased respiratory rates? Any farmer will tell you increasing CO2 to 1,200 ppm in a greenhouse wildly boosts productivity. The crazy manmade CCS schemes need to stop. Canada’s boreal forest, for example, is the third largest forest in the world and an existing natural CCS. With a mere 36 M people Canada is already “carbon” negative.

  4. well they gave em to the ippc and the allegore-ical and his mate the mannikin..and a few other dodgies
    theyre pretty much trashed value wise.

    physics n chem were missing at my school for girls
    it puzzles me how they claim that a gallon(4.5lites) of petrol gives out 8kg of co2???
    i dont think its as heavy as water? and water is kilo per litre roughly weightwise.
    i just cant imaine bagging the exhaust from my car using that fuel and the air in the bag weighing 8 kilos afterwards.
    doesnt seem possible or probable. and its NOT all going to be straight co2 either is it.

    • Hello Laurel,
      Just for explanation:

      C (atomic weight 12) and O (atomic weight 16); hence CO2 has a molecular weight of 12+(2×16)=44.
      In other words, 4 kg of (pure) “carbon” will produce (44/12)= 15 kg of CO2.

      Of course 73% of the weight of that CO2 is chemically bound oxygen.

  5. Quote:
    Nordhaus’ view is “Climate change is a member of a special kind of economic activity known as global public goods.” To solve this problem, “At a minimum, all countries should agree to penalize carbon and other GHG emissions by the agreed upon minimum price.”
    On that basis given the amount of harm a greenhouse gas impacts the earth’s climate shouldn’t the primary GHG be taxed far more than a trace element burnt during an Oxygen/Sugar/Carbon chemical reaction.
    The primary GHG of the planets climate is water vapour at over 1% of the atmosphere,
    The UN is tilting at Windmills, instead of curtailing a dictator who has used WMD and will do so again.
    The entire UN propaganda purpose is to wreck the entire energy model of humans, reduce their populations to 10s of millions, and return what’s left to a medieval life of a indentured slave.

    • The attempt to put “climate change” under the mantle of global public goods is merely an attempt to legitimize a new tax without it appearing to be detrimental to the average person’s life style. The average person will see an increase in the price of heating oil or gasoline taxes and react to it, whereas yet another “unseen” tax would slip under the radar. In fact, trying to establish such a thing AS “global public goods” is just as silly – almost as silly as calling an elected official “a dictator,” and stating that he has used WMD when there has never been an actually proven case of such an event. Guilty by MSM is as bad, and believing it, isn’t much above believing that a warming planet will cause a new mini or not so mini ice age.

  6. What happens if one of these CCS facilities springs a leak? The sudden release of such huge amounts of concentrated carbon dioxide will kill every creature in the area.

    Lots of folks dreaming up schemes to make themselves rich.

  7. When one considers that CO2 is .04% of the atmosphere, its absorption bands in LWIR are 2.7, 4.3, and 15 microns or about 8.8% of Earth’s blackbody radiation, an emissivity of .002 (Prof. Hottel of MIT), possibly back radiation downward of about 1/6 (.166), and a hypothetical outgoing radiation of 235 watts/m2, when all factors are considered the back radiation might be about 2.86 microwatts per m2. Yep, we are going to fry.

  8. Recognize that establishing a “class” of goods as “global public goods” is something that could ONLY be profitable to the UN at this time, unless some other competing organization is able to claim “world governance.” Taxing such a good would be the obvious reason for creating it. Just like every other “carbon scheme,” it is all about finding new “revenue streams” to support the governments and those that are leeches on the government, such as any of the renewable schemes that are ongoing.

  9. Climate change is an economic activity for sure. The theory of AGW and policy load placed on productive industrial activites has been monetized…. Remove over reaching regulations and you remove money streams from a lot of persons who sit around and collect tolls from the persons who are creating productive works. AND you get those trolls very angry at you for taking away their means of grafting off of society. LOL seems the descriptive creation of every angry disenfranchised never Trumper across the country LoL

  10. Rodney Allam, namesake of the Allam Cycle, has developed a hybrid- combustion/supercritical carbon-dioxide turbine. Inherent in the operating cycle is highly pressurized CO2, which may be tapped at about 3% of the total internal flow; and, diverted to a pipeline connection. This may then be piped to a petroleum reservoir, chemical processing plant, or storage in a basaltic rock internment as carbonate rock.

    This turbine generating system at scale exhibits an efficiency about 60% LHV consuming natural gas, and can operate upon coal derived synthesis-gas with about 52% overall efficiency. Based upon the 2018 test results of the pilot plant, expect commercial operation of the first 300 MWe plant within the 2020-2022 timeframe.

    • The world already has a medium term (500 year) storage system for excess CO2 from the atmosphere – cold sea water sinking in the Polar Regions into the returning leg of the overturning current.
      The problem is the overturning current already rich in saturated CO2 from the Spoorer and Maunder massive GSMs during the LIA 550 year ago, is now releasing its load of excess of CO2 in the Pacific since 1950 and will continue for around 250 years.

  11. Klaus, I received yesterday in my gas bill (California) a notice that included “The Climate Credit is part of CA’s efforts to fight climate change. This credit is from a state program that requires power plants and other large industries that emit greenhouse gases to buy carbon pollution permits. The credit [$40] on your bill is your share of the payments from the state’s program.”

    I spose this is an effort to co-opt the public’s support. I’ve not met a single person who has the least concern about the climate. Something about it reminds me of chain letters as a method to create wealth.

    Your article demonstrates that economics– like science– is trumped by politics.

  12. From Australia’s ABC – climate loony central down under :-

    “Mars One is a private venture to establish a permanent settlement on the red planet.

    The first crew is set to launch in thirteen years, in 2031.

    The only catch is that it’s a one-way trip.

    This hasn’t discouraged over 200,000 Earthlings who’ve applied to be astronauts on the Mars mission.”

    Perhaps there is hope yet – presumably the 200,000 Earthlings who’ve applied are ALL econuts convinced that climate crusaders can actually control the weather and save the planet.

    Too bad this program isn’t being massively expanded – a few billion future martians and problem solved.

Comments are closed.